[kenberg]

Quite a few years ago I had to get a security clearance. A friend told me that in an interview they asked "Is he loyal?" to which he respoinded "How the hell should I know if he is loyal?". I passed anyway.

I had to look up who Amanda Knox is, but then I recalled seeing something about it shortly after her first trial. Along the way I found the following in the Wikepedia::

Quote

In February 2012, Knox signed a book deal widely reported to be worth $4 million.^[58] She said most of the money went to repay debts incurred by her family in her defense and the residue would be gone by 2014.

A quick rule of thumb: If four million bucks won't get you off, probably you did it. I see now that Blackie is thinking along the same lines.

[jjbrr]

Post 11: Various Small Things

Injuries

Multiple people noticed an injury on Amanda’s neck that was not there the day before at the police station.

Quote

Amanda had a wound to her neck, and I noticed it because it was known that Meredith had been killed by a wound to her neck," said Mezzetti. "She had a scratch to her neck. I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded. I was worried and I looked at it really intensely," *

This was a picture of the scratch the day after the murder



And this is the scratch when she was arrested on five days after the murder.





Amanda’s lowest earing had also been ripped open.



Amanda claimed this was from a piercing attempt gone bad. It seems highly suspect that the night her roommate gets murdered Amanda suddenly has injuries that her other roommates claim were not there when they saw Amanda last.

The Lamp

Amanda’s lamp was found in Meredith’s room. This was Amanda’s only light source. It was on the floor by the bed as if someone had used it as a makeshift flashlight. The defense has never offered any explanation for why the lamp was in Meredith’s room. Meredith had working ceiling lights and a lamp of her own.

One reasonable explanation for the lamp is that it would be used by someone looking for a missing earing that got ripped off in the attack. It then got locked in the room and by the time they realized it the keys had been disposed of.

Amanda’s Freak Outs

Amanda was perfectly fine at the police station until she was called to be fingerprinted. At the point she started freaking out and hitting her head with both her hands. This behaviour would also present itself again two days later when the police asked the girls to come look at the knives from the cottage. Amanda again freaked out and had to lie down. This happened a third time when she was confronted by the news that Raffaele was no longer corroborating her alibi. This is fairly suspicious behaviour.

The Criminal Witnesses

At the appeal the defence requested that some criminals serving time with Rudy be allowed to testify to stuff that they claim Rudy said. Hellmann who stupidly agreed to this – as expected it was a circus and a waste of time.

One of the criminals was Lucuano Aviello – a mobster who testified that his brother and a unknown man killed Meredith because they got the address wrong and went to the wrong house. He was quickly followed by another inmate that testified that Aviello had bragged that the Sollecito family though their lawyer had agreed to pay him €70,000 in exchange for making up this story.

Quote

Cosimo Zaccari, who is in jail for fraud, libel, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen goods, said Aviello had confided in him that "I was contacted to create confusion in the trial".*

Two additional inmates confirm Zaccari’s claims that Aviello had bragged that he was being paid for his testimony.

A month later Aviello himself says he was bribed. He says that he met Raffaele in prison and that the Sollecito family paid him €30,000 to make up the story. He claims that Raffaele’s sister delivered the money to a friend of his in Naples. He now claims that Raffaele told him that it was Amanda who killed Meredith but that he was at the cottage when it happened.*

The problem with this witness is that we have no idea if he is lying or not. The Sollicito family is facing charges for other incidents of tampering unrelated to this alleged bribe. Raffaele’s sister was dismissed from the police for trying to interfere with the investigation. That makes me believe that this is true but putting credibility into what criminals say is always dangerous.

Link

[helene_t]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-22, 09:45, said:

Or maybe it was O.J. Simpson.

[billw55]

 jjbrr, on 2014-July-22, 10:54, said:

The defense has never offered any explanation for why the lamp was in Meredith's room. Meredith had working ceiling lights and a lamp of her own.

One reasonable explanation for the lamp is that it would be used by someone looking for a missing earing that got ripped off in the attack. It then got locked in the room and by the time they realized it the keys had been disposed of.

I think your source is biased, and am pulling out just this excerpt as an example.

Of course I don't know Italian law. But in the USA, the defense would have no obligation to offer an explanation of the location of the lamp. In fact, if Amanda is innocent, she would indeed have no idea why it was there. Burden of proof is criminal law 101, and suggesting that the accused should explain trivial details is not an argument.

The second bit is pure speculation, and has no place in a presentation of facts.

[mike777]

Bill, this note that Amanda Knox wrote to the authorities after her interrogation is a very odd piece of work. What do you make of it? It doesn't give you a bad feeling that she knows more than she's telling? http://www.telegraph...Knoxs-note.html

Asked by: Bruce


Answered: 5/20/2011



The statement is clear, lucid, straightforward, and nothing about it is impossible or improbable.

Ms. Knox, at the time she gave this statement, had been subject to quite extraordinary stresses. She had been through a horrific ordeal, after which she had been kept awake for a very long period of time, and aggressively interrogated in a foreign language. She had been told a large number of lies designed to get her to make incriminating admissions--which is common police practice in the US as well as Italy--and had, according to her testimony, been slapped in the face when she gave unsatisfactory responses. She had been threatened, intimidated, and abused. She was fighting through the fog of exhaustion, trying to figure out what was real and what was a nightmare. Under the circumstances, she made an extraordinary effort to make a clear and lucid statement

From Bill James
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Interrogations and self-incriminating statements[edit]

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.[12]

The police or the prosecutor summon the indagato, during the preliminary investigations, and inform him precisely of the actions he is alleged to have committed (not yet technically a charge); they also inform him of the evidence so far gathered against him, if this is not detrimental to the investigations; the indagato is also invited to defend himself, if he so wishes; the police or the prosecutor can also ask him questions, that he may refuse to answer.[13]

The indagato, when interrogated, must be free of all undue influence, both psychological and physical. He must be willing to provide information (animus confitendi). The police or the prosecutor cannot use on the indagato any methods or techniques that may influence his right to self-determination or alter his memory or his capability to evaluate facts. This prohibition applies even if it was the indagato who asked that these methods or techniques be used. Before the interrogation begins, the indagato must be informed that his statements can be used against him in court; that he can choose not to answer the question, but that the investigations will proceed nonetheless; that, if he provides information concerning someone else's criminal responsibility, he will assume, as far as this responsibility is concerned, the office of witness.[14]

If evidence should be gathered in violation of these principles, it would be inadmissible in court.
http://en.wikipedia....minal_Procedure

[mike777]

I would add that the forensic science in this case was a complete muck up.

To be fair as lousy as the Italian court system is, the USA has more than its fair share of muck ups.

[jjbrr]

 billw55, on 2014-July-22, 11:41, said:

I think your source is biased, and am pulling out just this excerpt as an example.

Of course I don't know Italian law. But in the USA, the defense would have no obligation to offer an explanation of the location of the lamp. In fact, if Amanda is innocent, she would indeed have no idea why it was there. Burden of proof is criminal law 101, and suggesting that the accused should explain trivial details is not an argument.

The second bit is pure speculation, and has no place in a presentation of facts.

of course the source is biased. he's spent hundreds of hours on an internet forum arguing with shills that AK is guilty. i can't really think of a more biased source.

I also agree that some of his speculations/conclusions/assumptions are bad. In this case I think he was bringing up AK's lamp because it had been wiped clean of fingerprints after the murder.

[mike777]

I read this book years ago and recommend anyone interest in AK and the Italian Justice system read The Monster of Florence.

-----------------
----------------
"Hey Bill, I was wondering what you think of the book The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. I noticed you quoted it in a chapter introduction in Popular Crime. The book certainly paints a picture of the way criminal investigations in Italy can be politicized in bizarre ways, perhaps placing the Amanda Knox case in some kind of perspective. On a related note, I'd be very interested in seeing the list of 100 best crime books you alluded to in your book and maybe some insight into what makes a crime book a great one in your opinion.

Asked by: Nate


Answered: 5/20/2011



I did read the book, yes. The Prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case was actually the same Prosecutor as in the Monster of Florence case. . .the same man, some of the same investigators.

That is a good book, and I thought about mentioning it in my book, but there's a curious problem with it. Preston and Spezi--having themselves been the victims of irresponsible allegations in the case, and having seen numerous other people prosecuted based on insubstantial allegations, then propose a "solution" to the mystery which is as irresponsible as any such allegation I have ever seen. I was just astonished by that, that, in a book which is essentially about irresponsible allegations on the part of prosecutors, they then put forward a totally baseless, far-fetched and improbable "solution" to the mystery by accusing a man--a living citizen--of committing the murders"


From Bill James

[Fluffy]

So this is why we don't get any more cats at WC? you were at some other silly forum following this nonsense?

The case is pretty clear, she is pretty, she is amercan, she cannot be guilty, period.

[gwnn]

Actually she was convicted twice and counting.

[el mister]

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.
It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

[Aberlour10]

Is there a single tv talk show in North America that not presented her as a victim of the barbarian italian justice?

[billw55]

 gwnn, on 2014-July-22, 13:52, said:

Actually she was convicted twice and counting.

.. the conviction was also voided once, by an Italian judge, with pretty scathing language for the case and its prosecution. So which actions of the Italian court system shall we accept as correct? Perhaps the conviction of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.

Oh well, only three people really know. Two of them surely aren't telling, and the third is of dubious reliability. I get the feeling she knows more than she is telling, but that doesn't make her a murderer. OK she could be. Or maybe not. To me either is plausible, and we have this thingy about reasonable doubt, well here in USA we do.

Quote

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.
It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

If the hypothesis is drug rage, then motive isn't really necessary IMO.

[gwnn]

 el mister, on 2014-July-22, 14:00, said:

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.
It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

Amanda and Rafaelle stole some money from her (Meredith) and they were trying to threaten her and things got out of hand. One account had Rudy pricking her on one side with the knife and she reflexively pulling her neck away from it, into the other knife held by Amanda. Then they "had to" kill her if they were going to get away with it. Yes, several points of this account are based on speculation but a proper narrative and motive is not needed for a conviction (H17's point but I guess it is correct) -- this is not an Agatha Christie novel, people kill other people for stupider reasons than a life insurance or silencing a witness, and a clear narrative may not be available like Hercule Poirot's nice roundups.

[gwnn]

doubleton

[gwnn]

 billw55, on 2014-July-22, 14:54, said:

.. the conviction was also voided once, by an Italian judge, with pretty scathing language for the case and its prosecution. So which actions of the Italian court system shall we accept as correct? Perhaps the conviction of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.

Oh well, only three people really know. Two of them surely aren't telling, and the third is of dubious reliability. I get the feeling she knows more than she is telling, but that doesn't make her a murderer. OK she could be. Or maybe not. To me either is plausible, and we have this thingy about reasonable doubt, well here in USA we do.


If the hypothesis is drug rage, then motive isn't really necessary IMO.

Bill, the point is that Fluffy was demonstrably wrong. This particular cute American girl has been convicted twice and acquitted once. According to his theory it should have been three acquittals out of three. She would have spent 0 years in prison, not 4.

[jjbrr]

 el mister, on 2014-July-22, 14:00, said:

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.
It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

Of course he has. (I fixed some obvious typos)

Quote

First, motive does not matter. If the evidence clearly establishes that someone did something then they did it. There is no need to establish why. In this case the evidence establishes that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Merdith Kercher. There is absolutely no doubt of that fact.

With respect to motive it also is not hard to come up with one. Sollecito has mental issues. Meredith is not the first girl he attacked. He previously attacked a girl with scissors years earlier. He collects magazines depicting women in graphic murder rape scenes that no normal mind would find enjoyable. He also has a knife and weapons fetish and was insanely possessive of Knox in the way that was way more intense than the typical insecure inexperienced boy possessiveness.

Knox also shows signs of being disturbed although much less. She is more like a social misfit with a tiny dash of sociopath. She has a history of showing bad judgement and escalating situations. We also know that Meredith and her started off as friends but Meredith and everyone else found her obnoxious. We know that Knox was interested in a boy who instead started to date Meredith. We also know that two days prior to the murder Knox lost her job and that her boss wanted to hire Meredith. Knox asked Meredith to do something both the night before and the night of the murder and Meredith blew her off.

So we have a narcissistic social misfit dating a psychopath with violent tendencies and a ****load of butthurt for the narcissist. Now lets add in the rent money. Knox was the only person that knew it was there. She was found with a similar amount of money on her person and no way to explain it. Knox tried to lie about finances during her testimony. Sollecito despite being from a very wealthy family was on a very restrictive cash allowance because of his drug issues. Knox was burning through money like someone with a coke habit. There is some evidence that they went to purchase drugs that afternoon after Meredith left the house giving Knox and Sollecito access to her rent money.

If you can't come up with multiple possible motives out of that then you just lack creativity. In the end it doesn't matter since the evidence is indisputable and there is just so much of it. The evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder is so strong that you can take it and then remove 80% of it at random and the remaining 20% is still more than enough to meet the burden of proof in any court.

I personally would categorize this as one of the posts that makes that thread a dumpster fire, but ymmv.

[nige1]

Thanks jjbrr for all that work! Mostly news to me -- but a bit one-sided. If you can be bothered, please would you briefly summarise the main arguments for the defence -- omitting prosecution refutations -- or keeping them short, factual and unemotional.

Google offers various meanings of "dumster fire". Do you mean "an issue that's hard to deal with"?

[jjbrr]

dumpster fire: a complete disaster

see also train wreck, hot mess, cluster fk, etc

I'm going to copy/paste the main points from what i suppose is the appeal. the url is injusticeinperugia.org so obviously this is at least equally biased in the other direction. I should note that I tried to pull a summary from the 2p2 thread and none of the shills was willing to post one that i could find.

- The statement that was signed by Amanda on November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided.

- The defense states in the appeal that Amanda's hand written note should not be allowed into evidence. Allowing this hand written note into evidence is a violation of Italian law, 11 Article 237 c.p.p. and Article 188 c.p.p. Amanda was not allowed/provided and attorney.

- In accordance with Italian law, evidence presented by the prosecution must be certain and unique, and not be contradictory and illogical. There are facts that can be inferred from clues leading to reasonable doubt, especially when logically reconstructing circumstantial evidence.
1. No logical explanation was given by the court as to why there is absolutely no proof of Amanda being in Meredith's room.
2. The court does not mention in the motivation that Amanda is the material author of the murder. This goes against the prosecution’s theory and leaves many unanswered questions.
3. The court neglects to discuss the doubt of two knives being used in the murder. Evidence clearly shows that there is doubt that more than one knife was used.
4. The court provides no logical explanation for Raffaele’s kitchen knife being transported from Raffaele's apartment to the cottage.
5. The court provides no logical explanation as to why complete strangers would get together to commit a murder. Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito had never met.
6. The court provides no logical explanation as to why Amanda would participate in the rape of her friend.

- The defense argues that Amanda’s character, personality and attitude do not coincide with the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime. There are many examples of conflicting evidence.

- The defense argues that it was already well established at trial that Raffaele’s kitchen knife is not the weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.
(There are apparently many questions about the knife/knives including how Raf's knife made it from his apartment to AK's cottage and some of the forensics/DNA testing)

-No evidence of Amanda was found in Meredith’s room
Several items of Rudy Guede were in the cottage and in Meredith's room including biological traces, fingerprints, footprints and feces. Some items of Amanda and Raffaele were found in her own residence, but nothing to link them to the murder because she lived there and Raffaele had visited several times. (jjbrr note: I believe this is wrong because a footprint was found beneath Meredith's body and estimated by a forensics team to be a size 37-38 women's footprint. AK wears a size 37.5. Forensics guessed the shoes were Asics, tho AK didn't have a pair of Asics, if I understood correctly)

-The defense argues that Nara, (the witness that claimed she heard a scream) was not a reliable witness.

-Experts cannot rule out that Meredith was murdered by one person

-Traces detected with luminol
The court makes two contradictory observations regarding the bare footprints detected with luminol. In one statement the court says Amanda walked to Filomena’s room then her own room from the murder room, then to the bathroom. In another scenario, Amanda goes to the bathroom first, washes off her feet, then walks to Filomena’s room with blood residue on the bottoms of her feet. The court cannot seem to decide exactly how those prints were made. More importantly, testing confirmed that the material detected with luminol was never determined to in fact be blood.

The defense argues that the observations made by Dr. Stefanoni should not be allowed because there is no proof that these prints were made in blood and there is nothing to link these prints to the murder.

It is easy to get false positives, etc

-Cleaning activity
The defense argues that there are many factors showing that no clean up effort took place after the murder. Many items were left untouched like the footprint on the blue bathroom floor mat. None of the shoe prints from Rudy were touched. In Meredith’s room many items were not cleaned, such as fingerprints, shoe prints and blood stains. There was DNA all over Meredith’s room. There was also visible blood in the bathroom. The fact that there are no footprints leading up to the blue mat proves nothing. Why would they leave the mat untouched after cleaning all the footprints leading up to it? There was no removal of dirt from any of the areas inspected. Yet the court thinks Amanda and Raffaele were barefoot, so they cleaned up only those items related to themselves. The court feels the cleanup occurred the next morning around 8:00 am to 12 noon. The defense argues that there is no logical reasoning to suggest that Amanda and Raffaele had 4 hours to cleanup and missed all these items.

-Many paragraphs under the heading 'Seventh Violation: The tale of Amanda Knox' that i can't believe the court would actually listen to. they sort of gloss over the fact that Raf called the police while the police were already there and AK's short phone calls to Meredith's phone. I'm not sure if that stuff was dropped by the prosecution or if the defense is just stuffing its fingers in its ears and pretending those things didn't happen.

-They question the validity of some witness testimonies

-Some questions about why AK came home to shower (?)

-Questions about motive (which obviously don't matter, so lol)

-Multiple violations concerning test results and observations made by the court.

[blackshoe]

Why are we wasting our time trying Amanda Knox in here?