Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Charlie Wilkes]

Indeed, I entirely agree. The police were anything but angels over this. I think we all knew Jefferies was innocent when they arrested Tabak and left Jefferies free, but I agree they should have formally exonerated him a lot sooner. I note he seems to be claiming that the blue hair photo was touched up by the newspaper.

Ultimately though, the Jefferies affair suggests to me that at least in that force, they're learning. It's a very relevant case to compare to the treatment of Knox and Sollecito and this discussion is relevant. I just think it's a howling scandal that we can have these "compare and contrast" discussions that go on for half a dozen posts or so about any other murder case on the face of the planet, but if I even casually mention the one I am an acknowledged world expert on I get an infraction.

Rolfe.

They can and do learn, at least at a local level.

I followed an interesting case in New Haven CT a few years ago. A medical student got murdered in her Yale campus office and the story made national headlines. The cops were very professional about their investigation. The media was howling, students and Yale personnel were insisting they had a right to be kept informed, blah blah blah. The cops sucked it up, even though they had their suspect from day one. They had the case nailed before they made an arrest or named him.

They had learned a valuable lesson from this debacle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Jovin

ETA: On your last point - digression and comparisons are essential to a meaningful discussion of the Amanda Knox case. We're examining a social phenomenon, and Lockerbie is a perfectly relevant example.

 

[Caper]

Especially if I had inadvertently caused him to be arrested and lose his business, it would be an opportunity to show to the world that I was honest about being sorry for mistakenly accusing him.

She didn't cause anything to Patrick... a corrupt police force did.

 

[Samson]

They can and do learn, at least at a local level.

I followed an interesting case in New Haven CT a few years ago. A medical student got murdered in her Yale campus office and the story made national headlines. The cops were very professional about their investigation. The media was howling, students and Yale personnel were insisting they had a right to be kept informed, blah blah blah. The cops sucked it up, even though they had their suspect from day one. They had the case nailed before they made an arrest or named him.

They had learned a valuable lesson from this debacle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Jovin

ETA: On your last point - digression and comparisons are essential to a meaningful discussion of the Amanda Knox case. We're examining a social phenomenon, and Lockerbie is a perfectly relevant example.

For another case showing substantial similarities to this case, here is the wiki link. He has done 20 years so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, I can say that I 100% believe in their innocence. I am no longer confused or on the fences about it.

Well, I am not 100% sure of their innocence then against there is almost nothing I am 100% sure of.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

patent nonsense

Oh right... her famous memorandum of the 7th "I didn't lie when I said the murderer might be Patrick."

LOL.

Your statement is false, twice over. One, you are only giving half of the sentence, not the other half. "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

Two, you are confusing the handwritten statements of the 6th and the 7th, both of which have been linked here very recently. I suggest that everyone study up on the basic facts of the case, in order to avoid making statements that are patent nonsense.

 

[kcoh]

Your statement is false, twice over. One, you are only giving half of the sentence, not the other half. "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

Two, you are confusing the handwritten statements of the 6th and the 7th, both of which have been linked here very recently. I suggest that everyone study up on the basic facts of the case, in order to avoid making statements that are patent nonsense.

For those that believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty, is their belief rooted in her false witness statement? I have to ask because it seems that, for many of them, it is. I could see the anger if she did it out of malice, but she didn't. I also do not see how this is evidence that they murdered Kercher. If they were involved, why would Knox implicate a man who she knew the police would find was not guilty of any wrongdoing? It wouldn't let her off the hook and would, of course, make things worse.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by kcoh
Well, I can say that I 100% believe in their innocence. I am no longer confused or on the fences about it.

Well, I am not 100% sure of their innocence then against there is almost nothing I am 100% sure of.

I can appreciate both these comments. So how about my compromise Kestrel.

I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999915483%
sure of their innocence.

That way I leave out the absolutes.

 

[Desert Fox]

For those that believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty, is their belief rooted in her false witness statement? I have to ask because it seems that, for many of them, it is. I could see the anger if she did it out of malice, but she didn't. I also do not see how this is evidence that they murdered Kercher. If they were involved, why would Knox implicate a man who she knew the police would find was not guilty of any wrongdoing? It wouldn't let her off the hook and would, of course, make things worse.

If you look at the witch hunts, the "Witches" almost always implicated people they knew under torture. You reach for people you know.

An aside: Does Vibio believe all those "witches" tortured to confess really made pacts with Satan?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

For those that believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty, is their belief rooted in her false witness statement? I have to ask because it seems that, for many of them, it is. I could see the anger if she did it out of malice, but she didn't. I also do not see how this is evidence that they murdered Kercher. If they were involved, why would Knox implicate a man who she knew the police would find was not guilty of any wrongdoing? It wouldn't let her off the hook and would, of course, make things worse.

kcoh,

Yes, and that list of people who think that way would apparently include Alan Dershowitz and Craig Murray. Like you, I don't get it. If I found out tomorrow that there was no coercion to name Patrick, it might well mean that Amanda was a bad person, but a great many questions would remain. If you are guilty, why would you name someone who probably has an alibi? If you are guilty, why not name the guilty men who are with you? The false accusation doesn't work as evidence of guilt IMO.

 

[Grinder]

Raffaele has been offered a deal more than once but refuses to fold. He did not have to return to Italy from the Dominican Republic and was even advised not to by his family and friends. However, he chose to return because he had a smidgen of faith left in the justice system of his country. He was convicted again and vows to continue to fight this injustice. Brave, indeed. If I were him, I do not think I would have the strength to carry on.

He served four years in prison and was in solitary confinement for a part of that despite being offered a deal. I think that if he did it, he would have caved by now for several reasons. It has been six years. Six years.

As I understand it, Italy has no plea bargains. What deals were offered to him?

 

[Desert Fox]

I can appreciate both these comments. So how about my compromise Kestrel.

I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999915483%
sure of their innocence.

That way I leave out the absolutes.

I don't think I am that certain of evolution? We could after all be "brains in a vat" dreaming all this. I will however argue that the argument for their innocence goes far beyond reasonable doubt into innocence.

 

[Grinder]

No publicity !!
Her appeal against a murder conviction was just denied and she got some airtime. No ?

How is she going to top that - do a porno with Obama's dog. You know, the kind of stuff RS apparently liked.

Very nice.

Can you link to anything publicizing the petition such as TV appearances or media publications?

I wonder what sort of person would write what you have written here about Obama's dog. While I have refrained from even using the term guilter or hater because the pejorative nature of the terms ruins any possibility for discussion you write such ugly things.

Yes, we are all aware that at some point Raf had a video of porn on his computer alleged to have animals. Even if true do you believe it has anything to do with being a murderer? While I've refrained from that particular strain of video I'm sure it has been viewed by millions.

Does saying things like that give you some kind of charge?

 

[kcoh]

As I understand it, Italy has no plea bargains. What deals were offered to him?

I thought that if Sollecito had taken away Knox's alibi about being with him, it would've let him off the hook somewhat?

 

[kcoh]

kcoh,

Yes, and that list of people who think that way would apparently include Alan Dershowitz and Craig Murray. Like you, I don't get it. If I found out tomorrow that there was no coercion to name Patrick, it might well mean that Amanda was a bad person, but a great many questions would remain. If you are guilty, why would you name someone who probably has an alibi? If you are guilty, why not name the guilty men who are with you? The false accusation doesn't work as evidence of guilt IMO.

Well, I don't understand why she would accuse Patrick if she were trying to get herself off the hook for murder. The police would eventually find that he had nothing to do with it. What then?

 

[MDDVS]

No publicity !!
Her appeal against a murder conviction was just denied and she got some airtime. No ?

How is she going to top that - do a porno with Obama's dog. You know, the kind of stuff RS apparently liked.

Are you aware that a member of the italian parliament was famous for doing a scene with a horse. That's how mainstream those things are in italy.

Your attempt to shame Raffaelle is just ridiculous, he's just a regular italian man.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not likely that Patrick would close the bar

Well, I don't understand why she would accuse Patrick if she were trying to get herself off the hook for murder. The police would eventually find that he had nothing to do with it. What then?

I suppose what we are saying is also true about an innocent Knox. It still makes no sense to name Patrick. She would naturally think that he had an alibi, unless she thought he closed the bar. It was apparently a slow night, but that doesn't mean Patrick would close up shop.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think I am that certain of evolution? We could after all be "brains in a vat" dreaming all this. I will however argue that the argument for their innocence goes far beyond reasonable doubt into innocence.

ROFL.... We're in the MATRIX. I like it. I'm as sure of this as I am sure that I didn't do it.

 

[Desert Fox]

ROFL.... We're in the MATRIX. I like it. I'm as sure of this as I am sure that I didn't do it.

There is no proof against hard solipsism. Just find that it is not gainful to consider it without any evidence supporting it.

Just simply say though that I am as sure as I can be that they did not do it.
Maybe there is some conceivable way but I certain have seen no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele did it.

 

[kwill]

Well, I don't understand why she would accuse Patrick if she were trying to get herself off the hook for murder. The police would eventually find that he had nothing to do with it. What then?

Well, since the Pro-guilt Italian who calls himself Macchiavelli is not here, I'll tell you what s/he said recently about that question.

As I understand it, the guilter position is that when the police kept harping on that text message from Patrick, Amanda saw "an open window" and chose to jump through it. The idea is that Guilty Amanda was realizing that they were closing in on her, and so when the police seemed to be interested in her boss, she thought it might be a way out of her problem. Window, open, leap.

They would say that she didn't really know if he had an alibi, and that if he hadn't, she might have succeeded in pinning the murder on him.

Of course, what actually happened is that Amanda (the real one) was desperately trying to say what they wanted to hear so they would stop punishing her. She had spent a week being terrified because someone had just killed her friend a few yards from her own bedroom, and she was only in the police station that night because she hadn't wanted to stay alone at Raffaele's flat. She had no way of knowing what had happened at the villa because she wasn't there, but over the course of that long night, she was convinced (at least for a little while) that the police must know something she did not. And so, as she'd been doing all that week, she tried to help them.

She signed a pair of statements -- one at 1:45 am and the other at 5:45 am. Both of them were written for her, and since there is no recording or transcript to show what was said, it's impossible to know what generated them. Neither of those statements was admissible in court, but under Italian rules, it didn't matter. She was known to have "confessed" and/or named an innocent man.

Anglolawyer recently linked to an interesting analysis he did two years ago of the differences between the two statements. It's instructive about what the police were actually trying to do.

It was definitely NOT getting at the truth.

 

[Mary_H]

We can consider that as soon as she was taken into the interrogation room on November 5th, she was detained, because she did not know she could leave.

Dear god, the irony of that! She was sitting there yelling for help, and all she had to do was stand up and walk out the door.

No wonder she's so hard on herself now.

I'm not sure they would have really allowed her to leave. They could have found some pretext for immediately detaining her. Lying about drug use by everone in the cottage, whatever?

At some point Raffaele was searched and his pocket knife was discovered. That was apparently before he was made a suspect. The knife became the basis of a charge of bringing a weapon into a police station. The police could have found anyting to charge Amanda as well to prevent her from getting up and leaving the interrogation.

According to Raffaele, they stopped him from leaving. Would you have tried to leave in that circumstance?

I did not mean to suggest that Amanda could have left the Questura or the interrogation once the police started talking to her. She may have been legally entitled to leave, but I seriously doubt they would have allowed her to get up and walk out the door.

The fact, though, according to the cable, is that Perugia detained Amanda before they arrested her. If the US Consulate had been reactive enough to object to the Perugians detaining a US citizen before arresting her, no doubt the Perugians would have argued, "She could have left at any time."

The problem was they knew the law, Amanda didn't, and they didn't inform her of it. On the other hand, maybe Amanda did not have the legal right to leave the Questura (but I doubt it).

At any rate, when it comes to protecting American citizens, the consulate sucked in this case.