Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[otto]

The police threatened Amanda with prison time and cuffed her. The "translator" suggested that Amanda was repressing the memory of what actually happened. The blame for why Amanda's statements on that night make no sense lies squarely with the investigators. Amanda recovered her memory of what happened by the time that she wrote the second memoriale of 7 November and the letter to her lawyer, perhaps a day or two later.

The Norfolk Four were navy guys, yet they gave false confessions. One man who gave a false confession was intelligent and motivated enough to get into law school later an become a lawyer. I would not ever underestimate what level of intimidation some interrogators can achieve. In the case of PM Mignini, we have Doug Preston's viewpoint, among others that we can use to base an opinion of his tactics.

We know that even when Knox recovered her funny memory, she still remembered Patrick murdering Meredith. She has been convicted for providing that false testimony because she was guilty of implicating an innocent man for murder. That is a very serious offense, one that is inexcusable ... especially from someone that has wiggled out of a murder conviction.

 

[otto]

Then they should have automatically have been given lawyers. Thanks for acknowledging that the police were playing games with a very sensible law.

Acknowledging what? Where did that come from?

Is there a law in Italy that stipulates that witnesses must automatically be provided with a lawyer if there's a possibility that they are guilty of criminal offenses? I think not. It seems that one of the biggest problems with this case is the earnest desire to project US laws onto foreign countries, and to believe that the justice systems of foreign countries are corrupt if they do not abide by US laws. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

 

[otto]

Wait a minute... didn't you just write that "it speaks volumes" that Amanda did not go to the memorial? And then when it is stated that some the victim's friends didn't go (or left right away) it is not a big deal.

THAT is a double standard.

Just sayin'

-FH

We know that Knox was very, very tired from the investigation into Meredith's murder, so she was too tired to attend the memorial ... so tired that she went to the police station instead of to sleep. She was so tired that when she was asked a couple of questions at about 11:30, she implicated an innocent man for the murder. Then, she was so tired, she demanded to speak to the prosecutor ... who was then hauled out of bed to hear what she had to say. Then, she was so tired, that instead of sleeping, she wanted to eat. Poor, tired Knox ... so much opportunity to sleep, but it seems that it was not a priority at all.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

We know that Knox was very, very tired from the investigation into Meredith's murder, so she was too tired to attend the memorial ... so tired that she went to the police station instead of to sleep. She was so tired that when she was asked a couple of questions at about 11:30, she implicated an innocent man for the murder. Then, she was so tired, she demanded to speak to the prosecutor ... who was then hauled out of bed to hear what she had to say. Then, she was so tired, that instead of sleeping, she wanted to eat. Poor, tired Knox ... so much opportunity to sleep, but it seems that it was not a priority at all.

I'm sorry, this really doesn't address my response regarding the double standard stated by dog.gone.cute.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We know that even when Knox recovered her funny memory, she still remembered Patrick murdering Meredith. She has been convicted for providing that false testimony because she was guilty of implicating an innocent man for murder. That is a very serious offense, one that is inexcusable ... especially from someone that has wiggled out of a murder conviction.

It seems to me that you are confusing the first memoriale (6 November) with the second memoriale (7 November). In the first memoriale Knox said that she stood by her accusation, even though it seemed less real than the alternative (that she was not there). In short, she sounds confused. I respectfully challenge anyone to read the excerpts of the second memoriale and deny that it is a full retraction. Her letter to Luciano Ghirga (which was written on 9 November, IIRC) is similarly a retraction. The police also heard her saying as much in a bugged conversation (10 November?)

The practical result of a failure to recognize these complete retractions is to treat a retracted false accusation the same as one that isn't. I might be tempted to agree with you that a serious penalty is warranted for a false accusation that is never withdrawn, but there should be considerably reduced penalty in the case in which the accusation is withdrawn (for example, see Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's book, "Until Proven Innocent" on this question).

Hellmann's report is refreshingly clear and straightforward. Once one reads it, one realizes that neither Amanda nor Raffaele wiggled out of anything, any more than Amanda wiggled her hips in front of Dr. Giobbi (La Mossa).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I'm sorry, this really doesn't address my response regarding the double standard stated by dog.gone.cute.

I agree. It is also very likely to be factually incorrect. The story of Amanda's "demanding" to speak to PM Mignini is unsupported by any facts of which I am aware (and is not credible IMO). My recollection of Follain's account is that PM Mignini was at the station much earlier than some have claimed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Acknowledging what? Where did that come from?

Is there a law in Italy that stipulates that witnesses must automatically be provided with a lawyer if there's a possibility that they are guilty of criminal offenses? I think not. It seems that one of the biggest problems with this case is the earnest desire to project US laws onto foreign countries, and to believe that the justice systems of foreign countries are corrupt if they do not abide by US laws. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Italian law stipulates that a suspect must be provided with a lawyer. In fact, it is not just that a suspect must be asked whether or not he or she wants a lawyer; the suspect cannot refuse a lawyer. You might try reading Stefano Maffei with respect to this case. Knox and Sollecito were suspects at least as of the afternoon of 5 November; therefore, they should have been treated as such.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

We know that even when Knox recovered her funny memory, she still remembered Patrick murdering Meredith. She has been convicted for providing that false testimony because she was guilty of implicating an innocent man for murder. That is a very serious offense, one that is inexcusable ... especially from someone that has wiggled out of a murder conviction.

She could have only known he was innocent if she was guilty. If she was not there at the time of the murder she had no way of knowing Patrick, or anyone else suggested to her, was guilty or innocent.

The police knew Patrick had texted her, telling her not to come into work that night. She responded "okay, see you later" except in her elementary Italian she used a phrase which implied a pre-established meeting. She didn't know the phrase meant that, so who do you suppose interpreted it that way? It had to have been the police who thought she had planned to hook up with Patrick.

She was asked by the police to "imagine" what might have happened. So she complied, as would any 20 year-old in a foreign country being questioned by numerous police officers in a foreign language. She then makes sure everyone understands it was an imagined scenario.

Don't take my word for it -- the Italians record interrogation sessions. Oh, that's right, they didn't record hers. Or they lost the tapes, whatever their excuse is at this point.

 

[otto]

I'm sorry, this really doesn't address my response regarding the double standard stated by dog.gone.cute.

Probably not, but I raised the question of whether Knox could have joined Meredith's friends at the Memorial service and stayed with one of them ... since she was so tired and couldn't stay at her own place.

Clearly Meredith's friends attended the Memorial service ... who else would have arranged the Memorial ... her enemies? I don't understand any remarks about Meredith's friends not attending the Memorial.

 

[otto]

It seems to me that you are confusing the first memoriale (6 November) with the second memoriale (7 November). In the first memoriale Knox said that she stood by her accusation, even though it seemed less real than the alternative (that she was not there). In short, she sounds confused. I respectfully challenge anyone to read the excerpts of the second memoriale and deny that it is a full retraction. Her letter to Luciano Ghirga (which was written on 9 November, IIRC) is similarly a retraction. The police also heard her saying as much in a bugged conversation (10 November?)

The practical result of a failure to recognize these complete retractions is to treat a retracted false accusation the same as one that isn't. I might be tempted to agree with you that a serious penalty is warranted for a false accusation that is never withdrawn, but there should be considerably reduced penalty in the case in which the accusation is withdrawn (for example, see Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's book, "Until Proven Innocent" on this question).

Hellmann's report is refreshingly clear and straightforward. Once one reads it, one realizes that neither Amanda nor Raffaele wiggled out of anything, any more than Amanda wiggled her hips in front of Dr. Giobbi (La Mossa).

I'm not confusing anything. A point was made that Knox was so very tired on the night that she falsely accused Patrick of murder that she should be excused from this criminal activity ... simply because she was tired. It was said that Knox went to the police station voluntarily even though she was soooooooo tired from the investigation into Meredith's murder because she was soooooooooooo afraid to be alone. I don't believe a word of it. If she was tired, she should have gone to bed at a hotel, or stayed with one of Meredith's many friends. Was she not also a friend of Meredith? Clearly, Meredith had so many friends that Memorials were held within days of her murder. Could Knox not get along with any of Meredith's many friends and, if so, why not? I wonder if the "f-ing bled to death" remark circulated widely and made everyone a bit leery about Knox.

What's a memoriale?

 

[otto]

I agree. It is also very likely to be factually incorrect. The story of Amanda's "demanding" to speak to PM Mignini is unsupported by any facts of which I am aware (and is not credible IMO). My recollection of Follain's account is that PM Mignini was at the station much earlier than some have claimed.

How do you determine what is factual? If it makes Knox appear responsible for her own lot in life, perhaps it's not factual?

 

[otto]

Italian law stipulates that a suspect must be provided with a lawyer. In fact, it is not just that a suspect must be asked whether or not he or she wants a lawyer; the suspect cannot refuse a lawyer. You might try reading Stefano Maffei with respect to this case. Knox and Sollecito were suspects at least as of the afternoon of 5 November; therefore, they should have been treated as such.

Knox was a witness when she wandered into the police station at 10 PM ... no need for a lawyer. After she made crazy statements, her status was changed to that of a suspect, and the questioning stopped ... until she demanded that the prosecutor be brought to her in the middle of the night.

Regarding the provided link, what does a Seattle paper have to do with the investigation into Meredith's murder? Are people in Seattle interested in seeing justice for the murder of a British student in Perugia?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How do you determine what is factual? If it makes Knox appear responsible for her own lot in life, perhaps it's not factual?

No, as I said I am basing it on my reading of Follain (p. 133), in which Mignini goes to bed at 10:30 but is woken up a half hour later by a call from Profazio. Mignini tells his wife it is going to be a long night. I seem to recall that there is also an interview in which Mignini implies that he was there most of the evening, but someone else will have to fill in the details tonight. I have an idea once I return: Let's listen to the tape of her interrogation to see whose version is more accurate...

 

[otto]

She could have only known he was innocent if she was guilty. If she was not there at the time of the murder she had no way of knowing Patrick, or anyone else suggested to her, was guilty or innocent.

The police knew Patrick had texted her, telling her not to come into work that night. She responded "okay, see you later" except in her elementary Italian she used a phrase which implied a pre-established meeting. She didn't know the phrase meant that, so who do you suppose interpreted it that way? It had to have been the police who thought she had planned to hook up with Patrick.

She was asked by the police to "imagine" what might have happened. So she complied, as would any 20 year-old in a foreign country being questioned by numerous police officers in a foreign language. She then makes sure everyone understands it was an imagined scenario.

Don't take my word for it -- the Italians record interrogation sessions. Oh, that's right, they didn't record hers. Or they lost the tapes, whatever their excuse is at this point.

That is the problem ... Knox stated that Patrick was guilty, therefore she had to be there at the time of the murder.

Since she was not soooooo tired that she wanted to sleep when she had every opportunity to sleep ... why would she accuse an innocent man of murder shortly after the police asked her about the night of the murder? Why did she and Raffaele lie to the police during a murder investigation? I sure hope the aspiring author explains this in her autobiography ... that's one thing that, without further explanation, speaks to skewed values.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox was a witness when she wandered into the police station at 10 PM ... no need for a lawyer. After she made crazy statements, her status was changed to that of a suspect, and the questioning stopped ... until she demanded that the prosecutor be brought to her in the middle of the night.

Regarding the provided link, what does a Seattle paper have to do with the investigation into Meredith's murder? Are people in Seattle interested in seeing justice for the murder of a British student in Perugia?

You and I both know that you don't have a source for your version of the events. On the other hand, Malkmus and I have provided several lines of evidence that indicate that the pair were suspects no later than the afternoon of the 5th. Even if I ignore Dr. Giobbi's testimony and accept your account (which is contradicted in Follain's book), it still does not explain why Raffaele's status should not have been changed from witness to suspect. As for the article that I cited, Andrea Vogt is a pro-guilt journalist who occasionally unearths something useful. She lives in Italy IIUC. Stefano Maffei is an expert in Italian law with no connection to the case. If you don't accept him as a source, please provide one of your own to answer the question of when a suspect should be provided with a lawyer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That is the problem ... Knox stated that Patrick was guilty, therefore she had to be there at the time of the murder.

Since she was not soooooo tired that she wanted to sleep when she had every opportunity to sleep ... why would she accuse an innocent man of murder shortly after the police asked her about the night of the murder? Why did she and Raffaele lie to the police during a murder investigation? I sure hope the aspiring author explains this in her autobiography ... that's one thing that, without further explanation, speaks to skewed values.

One problem is that you are ignoring the three (count 'em, three) complete retractions that she made. Please explain why you have implicitly ruled out that her statements were the the result of coercion. IMHO that is exactly how they read. They were written in Italian police parlance, for one thing.

 

[otto]

No, as I said I am basing it on my reading of Follain (p. 133), in which Mignini goes to bed at 10:30 but is woken up a half hour later by a call from Profazio. Mignini tells his wife it is going to be a long night. I seem to recall that there is also an interview in which Mignini implies that he was there most of the evening, but someone else will have to fill in the details tonight. I have an idea once I return: Let's listen to the tape of her interrogation to see whose version is more accurate...

Even if he was woken up at the time that Knox and Raffaele first made shockingly unusual statements (like everything that was said prior to that day was rubbish), it took a couple of hours before he was asked to meet with the liars.

I don't think I could bear another moment of listening to "I don't remember" from Knox.

 

[otto]

You and I both know that you don't have a source for your version of the events. On the other hand, Malkmus and I have provided several lines of evidence that indicate that the pair were suspects no later than the afternoon of the 5th. Even if I ignore Dr. Giobbi's testimony and accept your account (which is contradicted in Follain's book), it still does not explain why Raffaele's status should not have been changed from witness to suspect. As for the article that I cited, Andrea Vogt is a pro-guilt journalist who occasionally unearths something useful. She lives in Italy IIUC. Stefano Maffei is an expert in Italian law with no connection to the case. If you don't accept him as a source, please provide one of your own to answer the question of when a suspect should be provided with a lawyer.

Do we need a source for the fact that Knox voluntarily went to the police station at 10 PM? Are we re-writing history? Have the facts been changed so now we are to believe that Knox was contacted by police and asked to go to the police station at 10 PM?

Sollecito's status was changed from witness to suspect because he admitted to telling a load of rubbish and then began to tell more rubbish.

Are we trying to pinpoint the moment that police suspected that the liars may have had some involvement in the murder so we can accuse the Italians of not providing Knox with a lawyer soon enough?

 

[otto]

One problem is that you are ignoring the three (count 'em, three) complete retractions that she made. Please explain why you have implicitly ruled out that her statements were the the result of coercion. IMHO that is exactly how they read. They were written in Italian police parlance, for one thing.

I don't really understand. Knox falsely accused an innocent man of murder. Should we assume that if she had second thoughts about that whopper lie at some later date, that everything is fine and well? I don't think so. Her actions resulted in the destruction of a man's life and livelihood.

Knox told her mother about the whopper lie during a jail visit, and only then did police realize what had happened (they were recording that conversation). That was the beginning of the truth about what Knox truly did to Patrick.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Do we need a source for the fact that Knox voluntarily went to the police station at 10 PM? Are we re-writing history? Have the facts been changed so now we are to believe that Knox was contacted by police and asked to go to the police station at 10 PM?

Sollecito's status was changed from witness to suspect because he admitted to telling a load of rubbish and then began to tell more rubbish.

Are we trying to pinpoint the moment that police suspected that the liars may have had some involvement in the murder so we can accuse the Italians of not providing Knox with a lawyer soon enough?

Your version of events may well be what the police claimed, but it is radically at odds with Raffaele's book. In addition, you are ignoring Dr. Giobbi's testimony that he said he was mathematically sure he said words to the effect, "Bring them both in." Therefore, if Amanda had not come in, she would have been summoned. Based on the information that Malkmus and I provided, I conclude that his status should have changed no later than the afternoon of 5 November, perhaps sooner. Your mileage may vary.