Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[emyr]

I am also thinking about times at work where I have been told I did something incorrectly, and I have come out with all sorts of reasoning before realising that it was my colleague who completed the task! Sometimes the need to exonerate ones self overrides an honest policy.

Yes, I have to admit that I fall into the category of "telling a false story but believing it is the truth" under the same scenarios. as an example.

"I cannot believe I didn't turn in that draft. I meant to bring it in with me. Oh no, I remember leaving it in my car. Oh no! I dropped it off with the mail! Let me go to the post office and see if they can recover it! I remember now, handing them over the draft! What? You have it there? It was hidden under other papers? Huh."

That being said, I am leery of twisting myself into knots to explain Knox's and Sollecito's behaviours. It appears though that either scenario requires some knot twisting to make the theory work.

 

[OldSteve]

The "bathmat boogie" sounds like many of the statements by the defendants: a response to a demand that they explain "irrefutable" facts known by their interrogators.

In this case I'd be willing to bet AK was challenged to explain smears in the hallway and so she came up with the "boogie." Elsewhere, didn't she say she used the mat to cover herself because the front door was open? No sliding in that version.

Of course, somebody will be here soon to claim that any erroneous statement is proof of guilt of murder, but I think the defendants were under pressure and trying to answer claims from ILE without realizing the latter's incompetence and corruption.

Remember way back many posts ago we talked about AK using the bathmat as a towel because there was no towel to use, and how we thought that was gross...

 

[Sonata]

That being said, I am leery of twisting myself into knots to explain Knox's and Sollecito's behaviours. It appears though that either scenario requires some knot twisting to make the theory work.

Agreed. This is such a complicated case that it's impossible not to make unwanted allowances whether for the defence or for the prosecution. I tend to err on the side of empathy as I find that often it can become obvious when this empathy is misplaced, but only if you allow yourself to suppose something in the first place. Saying no to everything tends to get you no insight.

 

[Nova]

Remember way back many posts ago we talked about AK using the bathmat as a towel because there was no towel to use, and how we thought that was gross...

Yes (though I thought it was a reasonable action since she had left the front door open and one of her roommates might have returned).

That's why I think there may have been more than one account of how the bathmat was used.

If ever there was a case that shows why we should all ask for an attorney before talking with police, this is it.

 

[Nova]

Agreed. This is such a complicated case that it's impossible not to make unwanted allowances whether for the defence or for the prosecution. I tend to err on the side of empathy as I find that often it can become obvious when this empathy is misplaced, but only if you allow yourself to suppose something in the first place. Saying no to everything tends to get you no insight.

That and the defense gets the presumption of innocence. (Thanks for your candor above, BTW. I think what you say applies to all of us in one way or another.)

 

[emyr]

Yes (though I thought it was a reasonable action since she had left the front door open and one of her roommates might have returned).

That's why I think there may have been more than one account of how the bathmat was used.

If ever there was a case that shows why we should all ask for an attorney before talking with police, this is it.

I think it would be great to have a semester on law in high school where you do nothing but go over cases like this. Most people I know fall prey to exagerrating, filling in the blanks, etc. When you look at cases like this it brings it home how important it is to be as truthful as possible. Once it is proven that you have told someone something incorrectly, everything you say is then tainted. The more severe the error, the less likely anything you say can be believed.

I always try to be upfront here when I am referencing vague sources, when I am making things up, when my understanding might be limited. My excitement in "solving the puzzle" sometimes gets me into murky territory (posting a video before I am certain it is real and not faked). If my excitement makes me put forth something that is highly inaccurate, then my comments cannot be trusted, and everyone must fact check me to make sure they are getting accurate information.

As a parent, it brings home to me that you can't say to your kids "Oh, that's okay, everybody makes mistakes." Instead you have to underscore the problem "Everyone makes mistakes, but once you make them it opens you up for further trouble. Try to make as few as you can, and correct the ones you can as soon as possible."

And yes, always have a lawyer present when speaking to the police. :innocent:

 

[SkewedView]

I think it would be great to have a semester on law in high school where you do nothing but go over cases like this. Most people I know fall prey to exagerrating, filling in the blanks, etc. When you look at cases like this it brings it home how important it is to be as truthful as possible. Once it is proven that you have told someone something incorrectly, everything you say is then tainted. The more severe the error, the less likely anything you say can be believed.

I always try to be upfront here when I am referencing vague sources, when I am making things up, when my understanding might be limited. My excitement in "solving the puzzle" sometimes gets me into murky territory (posting a video before I am certain it is real and not faked). If my excitement makes me put forth something that is highly inaccurate, then my comments cannot be trusted, and everyone must fact check me to make sure they are getting accurate information.

As a parent, it brings home to me that you can't say to your kids "Oh, that's okay, everybody makes mistakes." Instead you have to underscore the problem "Everyone makes mistakes, but once you make them it opens you up for further trouble. Try to make as few as you can, and correct the ones you can as soon as possible."

And yes, always have a lawyer present when speaking to the police. :innocent:

Even when you tell the absolute truth in a police interview, and have done nothing wrong that you are aware of, you can still find yourself in hot water if you are not speaking through an attorney.

Below is a seminar given by a law professor in part one, and a LEO with decades of experience in getting incriminating statements out of suspects in part two. Both convey the same general message: shut up, get a lawyer or take a real risk of winding up in jail, even if you believe yourself to be totally without fault.

‪Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1‬‏ - YouTube

‪Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2‬‏ - YouTube

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but I felt that it fit the thread because of certain people's insistence that innocent people don't get in trouble when they talk to the police. Mind you, this seminar does not deal with the more questionable approaches to interrogation (which tend to be the ones that mysteriously aren't recorded, hmmm...), but that works well because they demonstrate how bad it can get just from totally normal, legitimate questioning.

And to make this more of a response to the quoted post, I think that this type of presentation would be great in a required high school civics class.



ETA: I should note that if you believe yourself to be innocent of wrongdoing, you are doing LE a favor by speaking through a lawyer as well as yourself - the reason being that investigating mistaken or innocent but seemingly suspicious statements can use up a lot of a LEO's valuable time and resources.

 

[miley]

I think dgfred only meant that your post wasn't sourced.

Your claim makes sense to me, but fred has a point that we often demand sources for these sorts of things.

If you don't have one, I'm still glad you mentioned your hunch. Thank you.

but always for you Nova

no, it's not a hunch, at least not mine anyway. Frank brought it up in an entry not long ago .. remember Patrick's infamous dailymail interview? I had forgotten about it too. Frank rehashing it all sort of put things back in perspective.

as it stands or the way I see it, the prosecutions eye witnesses: Gioffreda, Kokomani,Toto (and some others) haven't exactly panned out.. as far as I can tell, the only one left is Rudy Guede. ..and isn't it still curious (Rudy) as he's going through his trial, suddenly remembers the killer being Raffaele - his sentence is cut and he's found hardly guilty of anything? ETA: at least that's how it seems

and don't forget Nova, while I do periodically throw the whole "deal" senario out there, the idea wasn't mine... it came from Barbie Nadeau - lunch w/ Biscotti, he told her a deal was made.



from Frank's site:

In last hearing the Vice-Questura Chiacchiera has been yelling at Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, because he was pressing him with too many and too uncomfortable questions. A few questions and they get unmasked: they are able to yell at a lawyer in court, in front of everyone! What do they do to a suspect, in the police station, when nobody sees them?

We know it, Amanda told us:‘They hit me over the head and yelled stupid liar….I didn’t know what to do… I was terrified… They told me that if I didn’t confess I’d go to jail for 30 years’.

Patrick Lumumba told us: ‘They hit me over the head and yelled ‘dirty black’… I didn’t know what I had done… I was terrified… I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me … They forced me on my knees against the wall… I was scared and humiliated… After a ten-hour interrogation still handcuffed and unfed, I was shown the evidence against me, a statement from Amanda… They told me that if I confessed I’d only get half the 30-year sentence…’. http://perugiashock.com/​

 

[wasnt_me]

Remember way back many posts ago we talked about AK using the bathmat as a towel because there was no towel to use, and how we thought that was gross...

Yes, of course. and that's in the Mot Report (as believable as it can be.) So I still don't understand where this sliding on the bathmat statement comes from. I never read if before and it makes no sense that she did both things. So which is it? Used it as a towel or slid around on it when she had more important things to do? Why would she be compelled to tell this story? Because they told her that her foot prints were on it?

I need a cite on this story. I'd asked for it time and time again, but no one gives it to me.

 

[miley]

RG got his sentence due to taking the FAST TRACK trial instead of a full trial.

I disagree and have cited several sources (to your none) explaining why. If you're truly worried about facts being misrepresented then it seems like you'd at least try to settle this debate. Currently you've added nothing.

Spinning it into a so-called 'plea bargain' is not representing the facts.

I've never presented this as fact, if you think it's spinning, then take it up with Barbie Nadeau

 

[wasnt_me]

I disagree and have cited several sources (to your none) explaining why. If you're truly worried about facts being misrepresented then it seems like you'd at least try to settle this debate. Currently you've added nothing.

worth repeating in my opinion.

 

[wasnt_me]

So no one had any thoughts about MK's empty purse or the fact that the mop could be the same mop used to mop up RS's floor and it was carried straight into the murder room possibly before the bra clasp was "rediscovered."

That scene reeked of contimination, especially before the luminol testing, and I'll bet they were itching under their suits as they walked out.

 

[miley]

So no one had any thoughts about MK's empty purse or the fact that the mop could be the same mop used to mop up RS's floor and it was carried straight into the murder room possibly before the bra clasp was "rediscovered."

That scene reeked of contimination, especially before the luminol testing, and I'll bet they were itching under their suits as they walked out.

I looked at the photos closely - are those her socks on the bed?

 

[Nova]

I think it would be great to have a semester on law in high school where you do nothing but go over cases like this. Most people I know fall prey to exagerrating, filling in the blanks, etc. When you look at cases like this it brings it home how important it is to be as truthful as possible. Once it is proven that you have told someone something incorrectly, everything you say is then tainted. The more severe the error, the less likely anything you say can be believed.

I always try to be upfront here when I am referencing vague sources, when I am making things up, when my understanding might be limited. My excitement in "solving the puzzle" sometimes gets me into murky territory (posting a video before I am certain it is real and not faked). If my excitement makes me put forth something that is highly inaccurate, then my comments cannot be trusted, and everyone must fact check me to make sure they are getting accurate information.

As a parent, it brings home to me that you can't say to your kids "Oh, that's okay, everybody makes mistakes." Instead you have to underscore the problem "Everyone makes mistakes, but once you make them it opens you up for further trouble. Try to make as few as you can, and correct the ones you can as soon as possible."

And yes, always have a lawyer present when speaking to the police. :innocent:

Great post. "Thanks" wasn't enough.

My husband always complains that I "tell the truth when a lie would do better." Example: we were crossing the border from Mexico into California and the customs official asked if we had any illegal drugs on us. I said, "No, but can you believe somebody offered to sell us cocaine right outside your door?" The ensuing searches and interrogation lasted nearly an hour; husband and two children were hot, tired and not pleased.

But I'm a playwright by vocation and I used to teach narrative structures. When it comes to telling an anecdote, I quite naturally alter minor details to give a story the right shape and momentum, especially if there's a punchline. I would never falsify a detail for personal gain and I hope I wouldn't do so when talking to police, but who knows what details I've actually forgotten in oft-told stories?

Same moral: call a lawyer and let her do your talking.

 

[Nova]

but always for you Nova

no, it's not a hunch, at least not mine anyway. Frank brought it up in an entry not long ago .. remember Patrick's infamous dailymail interview? I had forgotten about it too. Frank rehashing it all sort of put things back in perspective.

as it stands or the way I see it, the prosecutions eye witnesses: Gioffreda, Kokomani,Toto (and some others) haven't exactly panned out.. as far as I can tell, the only one left is Rudy Guede. ..and isn't it still curious (Rudy) as he's going through his trial, suddenly remembers the killer being Raffaele - his sentence is cut and he's found hardly guilty of anything? ETA: at least that's how it seems

and don't forget Nova, while I do periodically throw the whole "deal" senario out there, the idea wasn't mine... it came from Barbie Nadeau - lunch w/ Biscotti, he told her a deal was made.



from Frank's site:

In last hearing the Vice-Questura Chiacchiera has been yelling at Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, because he was pressing him with too many and too uncomfortable questions. A few questions and they get unmasked: they are able to yell at a lawyer in court, in front of everyone! What do they do to a suspect, in the police station, when nobody sees them?

We know it, Amanda told us:‘They hit me over the head and yelled stupid liar….I didn’t know what to do… I was terrified… They told me that if I didn’t confess I’d go to jail for 30 years’.

Patrick Lumumba told us: ‘They hit me over the head and yelled ‘dirty black’… I didn’t know what I had done… I was terrified… I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me … They forced me on my knees against the wall… I was scared and humiliated… After a ten-hour interrogation still handcuffed and unfed, I was shown the evidence against me, a statement from Amanda… They told me that if I confessed I’d only get half the 30-year sentence…’. http://perugiashock.com/​

Thanks so much, miley. (Sorry for the dance about sourcing. I never doubted you, but fred had a point. I was trying to ask without sounding accusatory.) I didn't follow the case until about a year ago, so I've seen the events you reference mentioned in passing, but I can't claim I really knew what happened until you spelled it out.

Since we have corroboration of police brutality from Mr. Lumumba, why is anyone doubting Amanda's account of a simple slap to the back of the head in her interrogation?

 

[Nova]

So no one had any thoughts about MK's empty purse or the fact that the mop could be the same mop used to mop up RS's floor and it was carried straight into the murder room possibly before the bra clasp was "rediscovered."

That scene reeked of contimination, especially before the luminol testing, and I'll bet they were itching under their suits as they walked out.

Sorry, w_m! You often have a more detailed grasp of events than I, so I hit the "thank you" button to indicate I've read your post and it makes sense to me. It isn't a reflection on your post if I don't have anything intelligent to add.

In this instance, I don't have a list (and I'm not saying you should make one) of all the items found in MK's room. If you're right that nothing was found that would be expected to come from a purse, then it makes perfect sense to me that RG may have upended the purse and dumped the contents into his backpack. Which probably would have required laying down the knife.

I certainly don't think anybody took MK's purse along while disposing of cell phones, wallet and credit cards, and then brought it back empty.

As for "sealing" the mop in wrapping paper found on the premises, I certainly agree it's a likely source of contamination. One of many.

 

[emyr]

So no one had any thoughts about MK's empty purse or the fact that the mop could be the same mop used to mop up RS's floor and it was carried straight into the murder room possibly before the bra clasp was "rediscovered."

That scene reeked of contimination, especially before the luminol testing, and I'll bet they were itching under their suits as they walked out.

I think the common question of "If the clasp was contaminated, why wasn't everything else contaminated" is the essential question. The answer is pretty straightforward: because there were only two pieces of evidence procured 46 days later. A pair of socks, and the bra clasp. (As far as I know).

Also, there could be contamination in the other samples. If you look at the cigarette butt, for instance, you can see lots of tiny bumps far below the rest. Contamination? Noise?

 

[Nova]

I think the common question of "If the clasp was contaminated, why wasn't everything else contaminated" is the essential question. The answer is pretty straightforward: because there were only two pieces of evidence procured 46 days later. A pair of socks, and the bra clasp. (As far as I know).

Also, there could be contamination in the other samples. If you look at the cigarette butt, for instance, you can see lots of tiny bumps far below the rest. Contamination? Noise?

Exactly. To me, it makes more sense to ask, "How did RS get his DNA on the clasp without touching the rest of the bra?" Being a middle-aged gay man, my experiences with bras are few and far in the past; but as I recall, removing one took more than touching one side of the clasp. Maybe they have push-button bras nowadays, but I doubt it.

 

[miley]

Let's also not forget the 20 lives of upstanding citizens he nearly ruined by charging doctors, officers and government officials with his pet theory of body snatching, organ harvesting, and a cult conspiracy right out of a bad horror movie. Thank god for them the case was thrown out.

Ah-yep. I was just recalling that, too. :blushing: That adorable, hilarious, always-entertaining Giuliano Mignini!:laugh:

and then there's Mario Spezi who did sit in jail for months

 

[wasnt_me]

I looked at the photos closely - are those her socks on the bed?

I believe so. I'm trying to figure out how stuff was on the bed, but the sheets weren't on the bed. I guess he could have ripped them off with a lot of force to make the books stay in place, but what about the fitted sheet, cause it's not on there, either. unless they don't use them over there. I'm trying to figure out why he ripped the sheets off the bed.

I was thinking that she'd done it before leaving for the party. I was thinking maybe she'd planned to put new sheets on before going to bed and washing the old sheets, since she'd started doing laundry. I don't know....

anyway, I found the bathmat crap. I really can't believe she said it. at first I thought they were just misunderstanding her, but mig really did specifically ask her if she'd had two feet on the thing while going to her room. Her answer indicated that she understood the question.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

You have to do "find on this page" and put in bathmat.

I don't know about that story. I put that in my skeptic column and concede that I might have been wrong interpreting that she'd used the mat like a towel. That whole thing confuses me, but the interpretor added that she'd done it so she wouldn't slip with her wet feet. That makes no damn sense. You use the bathmat to wipe your feet and then you proceed out of the room. You don't surf on the thing.

I'm puzzled by that story and RS's knife-pricking story.