British student murdered in Perugia, 3 suspects

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why I wanted to specifically focus my attentions (first) on the forensic evidence. Because eyewitnesses can be wrong, and defendants can change their stories, and behavior is subjective as to it's meaning, but blood, hair, fibers, fingerprints, body fluids, etc. are what they are. They can either be matched to someone or they cannot. If (big if) their chain-of-possession is properly documented and maintained, and if the samples were collected and preserved and tested correctly, then forensic evidence is among the strongest (if not THE strongest) evidence in most cases, including this case. Of course there needs to be assurance that all protocols were stringently followed at all times or else an item of evidence's value can be worthless.
 
...And people's behavior is evidence, well established. Generally defense attorneys don't like this and try to deflect attention from it, but it's there and it comes in to court every day.
Click to expand...

True. But the problem with what I'm calling "affect evidence" is that the triers of fact (jurors) usually end up comparing the defendant's behavior to how prosecutor claims and the juror himself imagines s/he would behave under the same circumstances.

Surely we can all see the problem with this sort of reasoning. Few jurors (and few of us) know enough murderers or accused-but-innocent defendants or roommates of murdered young women to make the comparison with any objectivity or certainty.

Imagine science if scientists tested theory not with hard data, but by imagining how they would behave if they were a black hole!

(There are cases, of course, where psychologists are employed to say with some expertise how most people would respect to a certain situation. But even there, I suspect the experts end up speculating and projecting quite a bit.)
 
MomofBoys said:
I thought there was a bloody footprint belonging to AK as well.



Believe me, it works both ways. I can't believe the myopic people on other blogs/articles who are like, and I'm not exaggerating: "She should be freed. She just doesn't look like someone who would do this." "She's so sweet looking." My favorite? "I don't follow the case, but my BFF told me there's no evidence so I think Hilary should get involved."

There is evidence. People can poke holes in it all day long, but it takes an especially kind person to dismiss every piece and every action as some kind of conspiracy against her. People are assuming the cops are both brilliant masterminds AND bumbling idiots. I'm not sure they can have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Good post and I agree with most of it.

But regarding the passage I bolded, I want to point out that you are not the first to assume those who question the conviction are saying the police must have consciously masterminded every piece of evidence and knowingly convicted an innocent person.

IMO, the truth in most cases of wrongful conviction is not so black and white. Rather, police are human beings: they hate to admit they are wrong and in the heat of advocacy will sometimes cherry-pick the evidence that suits their preconceived opinion while ignoring everything else.

Just like we WSers from time to time.

If Italian LE made errors, that doesn't mean they are too stupid to cling to those errors and use the false evidence produced to prove their case. On the contrary, it's rather human to do so.
 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KING: Edda, in the immediate aftermath of the murder, your family in Germany suggested that Amanda come and stay with them. She didn't. Do you think that would've changed things?

MELLAS: Oh, you know, I kick myself every day that I didn't make her leave the country. And so does my cousin in Germany. Because had she left and -- none of this would've happened. She wouldn't be where she's at. But, you know, we can't go back and fix that. We just need to go forward.

KING: You don't think they would have extradited?

MELLAS: No, there was no -- there's no evidence against her. You know, none of that interrogation that they bullied her into that the supreme court found illegal, none of that would've happened. There's no physical evidence of her at the crime scene. They would have had no reason to, you know, extradite her or even attempt to arrest her. And they even admit to the fact that they really have no physical evidence, that it's just sort of some bizarre circumstantial stuff that they have.

 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KING: We're back with Edda Mellas and Curt Knox. You mentioned no evidence. Didn't the prosecution assert that Amanda's DNA was on the handle of the kitchen knife used to kill Meredith? And Meredith's DNA was on the blade? Isn't that true, Edda?

MELLAS: You know, well, no, they found a knife in Raffaele's house. It's kind of yes and no. And there was Amanda's DNA on the handle, and that's because she -- she actually, you know, cooked meals there.

The speck of DNA that was about a human cell that they found on the blade is highly controversial. It's what they call low copy number DNA. And in, you know, the FBI won't even use it in the United States because it is so unreliable, that you can't -- you can't prove anything with it. And that's all they think they have.

KING: Curt, why did she -- why was she found not guilty? Found guilty, rather. Why did she lose this case?

KNOX: Well, frankly, what I believe happened in this particular courtroom was a huge character assassination that literally took place for two years. And the extreme exposure that this case got, and the misreporting, leaks of false information, and all of that just snowballed. And during the closing arguments, the defense teams for both Amanda and Raffaele did an extraordinary job of breaking down all of the physical evidence and literally having the prosecution change to a fourth motive of, you know, we don't need a motive.

I believe this court didn't have the courage to say not guilty and just push it off to the appeals level, which is completely unacceptable to me.


KING: Edda, what do you know about that night? What do you know about the stories of drugs and sex games and the like? What do you really know?

MELLAS: Well, you know, we know -- we don't know what happened at Amanda's house, because she wasn't there. You know, what we do know for sure and what has been proven by evidence, for instance, is that Amanda and Raffaele were seen at Raffaele's house. It shows computer activity at his house. They were there. They cooked dinner. They watched a movie. They hung out. All of that is proven through computer records, all the way up until at least, I think, 9:15.

Now, they believe that Meredith was killed about 9:30. And somehow the prosecution claims that in 15 minutes, Amanda and Raffaele got totally wasted, ran off, found a guy that they didn't know, committed this murder, in about 15 minutes. It's ludicrous. Amanda was at Raffaele's house. They stayed there all evening. That's what we know for sure.
 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html
KING: We have a third person, the Ivory Coast immigrant named Rudy Guede, who was convicted of Meredith's murder earlier in the year in a separate trial. Although police say he implicated Amanda, he declined to testify. After he declined to testify, the prosecution tried to have transcripts of his interrogation introduced. The motion was denied. What do you make of his involvement in all of this?

MELLAS: You know, it's interesting. Because we do know what was admitted of his. We know that his DNA is all over the room, in the victim's blood, on the victim's body. His footprints are in her blood all over the room. His DNA is in her purse. After the crime, he all of a sudden had money that he didn't have earlier in the day. He went out partying, and then he fled the country. And we know also -- and what was admitted in Amanda's trial -- the only thing that really was admitted -- was that when he was on the run and the police were secretly wiretapping him and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, you know, they think Amanda was there. And he goes, oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there.
 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KING: One curious aspect about your daughter. She falsely implicated a man named Patrick Lumumba. He was cleared. Why would she do that? In fact, she was sentenced to pay 40,000 euros to Patrick Lumumba for defamation. Do you know, Curt, why -- where he came in?

KNOX: Well, there -- during the time frame in which Meredith lost her life and when Amanda was actually arrested, it was about a 90-hour time frame. During that 90 hours, Amanda was actually questioned and interrogated for over 41 hours, and it culminated in a 14-hour overnight, very aggressive interrogation.

She told us it's -- she has never been more scared in her entire life. She was asked to visualize a number of things. They prompted her towards Patrick Lumumba, and literally she described even in her testimony six to eight people circling her, shouting at her, questioning at her, hitting her in the back of the head.

And at that stage of the game, you're virtually willing to sign anything in order to get out of that situation. And that's a circumstance that if you take a look at it, across the world, you're going to find that a number of people do a number of things. And I believe that's exactly what happened in this case.

And one thing to point out here is that both of the statements that she made during that interrogation were actually thrown out by the Italian supreme court. So in this particular circumstance, yes, he was part of the trial, and yes, he was awarded something. But I believe in the appeal process, we're going to be able to show that she was essentially coerced into it, and therefore the civil settlement will go away.
 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KING: Curt, what has the defense team come up with? What's their theory of the crime?

KNOX: Well, I think it's actually a fairly simple one when you really look at it and look at the evidence that has taken place. Number one, you've got Rudy Guede, who has a prior history of breaking and entering through second-story windows with a knife.

MELLAS: And a rock.

KNOX: Yes, and definitely throwing rocks. But the other thing about that is -- I think in this circumstance, he broke in intending to steal rent money, because it was at the very beginning of the month. He got surprised by Meredith coming home, and I think he took some steps to potentially have an encounter with her. And it got out of hand, and he basically killed her, and then essentially took off for Germany. And it's literally that simple.
 
LinasK said:
His post-murder behaviors were additional factors in his conviction, it's called "consciousness of guilt", i.e. returning to the crime scene. OJ did the same thing with his slow-speed chase- it was really a run for the Mexican border, which Scott was also planning. Amanda has also shown similar behaviors, such as purchasing bleach (even if you discount her post-murder lingerie shopping, cartwheels, cuddling with her boyfriend, and wearing bright colors to her trial)
Click to expand...

I agree that purchasing bleach is different from merely appearing odd (just as I thought a more or less secret trip to Berkeley Marina was different from SP's alleged smiling during a search for his missing wife).

But the supposed time-stamped receipt was not produced at trial, so I think it's clear there is no such receipt from the morning after the murder.

The shopkeeper who says AK bought bleach came forward only a year after the murder, after he told the story to a reporter who urged him to contact police. Maybe his testimony is true and accurate, but maybe he is mistaken or maybe he enjoyed telling a story that connected him to this famous case* and had to stand by it when a reporter made the story public.

------

* Remember the rumor about Richard Gere's supposed encounter with a certain rodent? I lived in L.A. at the time and I can't tell you how many people told me they knew the nurse in the ER (or some equivalent principal) and got the facts straight from her. Fame is weirdly seductive and even otherwise decent people sometimes like to associate themselves with famous incidents. In a criminal case, it's not hard to imagine such a tale getting out of hand and the teller being forced to swear by it.
 
Tizzle said:
Sorry, I disagree because it's wrong to leak inaccurate or misleading information to the media. Whether America does it or Italy. Especially when it could potentially damage a person's right to a fair trial and it could taint the outcome of a trial. It's wrong. PERIOD. I have said nothing racist against Italians nor would I, ever.

For the record, I'm equally as outraged by the Gitmo detainees and other P.O.W.'s of the war in the Middle East because I know that many (or at least some) of them are being held when they have done nothing wrong. Also, I don't appreciate torturing prisoners regardless of their offense and especially when they haven't even been given a fair trial. I'm also saddened by the the thousands of perfectly innocent civilians killed unnecessarily in "our" war. So, yeah, I'm perfectly capable of scrutinizing my own country's legal practices, etc. If I see injustice, I don't like it, in America, Italy or otherwise.
Click to expand...

And what evidence have the Italian police leaked exactly?
 
Tizzle said:
Not to speak for Brwni, but it's been alleged that jurors were seen sleeping during testimony. Whether testimony is important or not, should jurors be sleeping during proceedings? Doubt it.
Click to expand...

A link to that allegation please?
 
LinasK said:
Might I suggest a trip to Italy rather than relying on sources like 48 Hours for example???
The reason for several different confessions is because Amanda kept changing her story. One version she has Raf putting the knife in her hand while she slept!:doh: Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife, with Meredith's on the tip, why do you keep missing that fact? I've posted it more than once on this thread.
Click to expand...

Assuming that DNA was found on some knife (although the amount was so small, IIRC, that nobody can confirm the find) doesn't prove that knife was used in the attack. It wasn't found at the scene. It wasn't found to have blood on it. It may be the murder weapon, but so may any number of other knives which may never be found.

A knife isn't a bullet; it doesn't have unique characteristics from passing through the barrel of a gun.
 
Tizzle said:
BBM Haha, cute disclaimer.

From what I understand, the alleged DNA of Meredith on the knife was tested into non-existance and has never officially been verified as 100% hers. Even if it was MK's DNA, isn't it possible that it was transferred by AK as a result of them being roommates, i.e. skin cells? I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm asking if it's possible?

Not to mention, the knife has never even been identified as the murder weapon, for sure. I've heard it COULD be consistent with the murder weapon but have never seen anywhere where it's said that it is DEFINITELY the knife used. I've never seen evidence where it definitely matches the weapon used but have seen evidence where it is ruled out as the weapon used.

There are just SO MANY inconsistencies, I really don't see how some are so convinced of A&R'S guilt. It's so difficult to distinguish the gossip from the real information. I just can't believe this doesn't bother more people than it does.
Click to expand...


Its not hard for me to be convinced at all. Shes a psychotic liar. It just depends if you want to see the truth or simply believe Amanda is guilty i think.
 
Nova said:
Obviously my explanations of why people make false statements under the pressure of extended interrogation aren't helping. The following are explanations from those more expert than I:


http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession


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


http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/False-Confessions.php


http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=542b8b97db6848b37b80112c4f114f8a
Click to expand...

Thanks but imo..i disagree cos she changed her story only when found out to be the liar that she is every time. Its funny..she lied so much and yet..every time she lied..people make excuses for her. Poor girl so much misfortune and none of it her fault apparently.

I cant help thinking..people have probably made excuses for her her whole life.
 
Isabella said:
And what evidence have the Italian police leaked exactly?
Click to expand...
It's funny how you request links but never provide any....

I don't have a link, it was said on to CNN via telephone from Washington State by AK's Aunt shortly after the verdict was read. This is why I said and stressed that it was alleged. Obviously, I'm not the only one who heard it, since Brwni alluded to it, as well.

Isabella said:
And what evidence have the Italian police leaked exactly?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm.....I'm guessing just about most of the outlandish crap that the media reported on besides the 2 shopkeeps whose allegations you hold in such high regard. After all, who had access to her prison diary? Crime Scene photos, witness/suspect testimony?...The list of what was leaked to the press goes on and on and on. They said they have her on CCTV at 8:43 that night but that has never been confirmed, to my knowledge. The crazy text sent to the wrong person predicting Meredith's death, turns out to be a Meredith from a medical drama on tv. From the beginning, information was leaked but rarely backed up, IMHO. It's quite obvious.
 
arielilane said:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KING: One curious aspect about your daughter. She falsely implicated a man named Patrick Lumumba. He was cleared. Why would she do that? In fact, she was sentenced to pay 40,000 euros to Patrick Lumumba for defamation. Do you know, Curt, why -- where he came in?

KNOX: Well, there -- during the time frame in which Meredith lost her life and when Amanda was actually arrested, it was about a 90-hour time frame. During that 90 hours, Amanda was actually questioned and interrogated for over 41 hours, and it culminated in a 14-hour overnight, very aggressive interrogation.

She told us it's -- she has never been more scared in her entire life. She was asked to visualize a number of things. They prompted her towards Patrick Lumumba, and literally she described even in her testimony six to eight people circling her, shouting at her, questioning at her, hitting her in the back of the head.

And at that stage of the game, you're virtually willing to sign anything in order to get out of that situation. And that's a circumstance that if you take a look at it, across the world, you're going to find that a number of people do a number of things. And I believe that's exactly what happened in this case.

And one thing to point out here is that both of the statements that she made during that interrogation were actually thrown out by the Italian supreme court. So in this particular circumstance, yes, he was part of the trial, and yes, he was awarded something. But I believe in the appeal process, we're going to be able to show that she was essentially coerced into it, and therefore the civil settlement will go away.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting these, arie. I had just finished watching LKL again on U-verse when I saw that you had posted these transcripts. All I could think when I heard this interview, both times, was everything they were saying could be easily verified by court documents. Because of this, I find it very hard to believe that they would make these wild claims if they weren't true. They aren't stupid people by any stretch of the word's meaning, my gosh!
 
Isabella said:
Thanks but imo..i disagree cos she changed her story only when found out to be the liar that she is every time. Its funny..she lied so much and yet..every time she lied..people make excuses for her. Poor girl so much misfortune and none of it her fault apparently....
Click to expand...

Nobody here has said that AK bears no responsibility for anything.

What I've said--and what the links demonstrate with greater authority--is that under the pressure of intense and extended interrogation (head slap aside, it isn't really disputed that the interrogation was both) it is not unusual for the suspect to lie and change his or her story.

How it often works is this: after the interrogator insists for some time that the suspect is lying, the suspect gives up and provides the story s/he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. The story is made up, so of course it doesn't fit all the facts. When this is pointed out, the suspect invents yet another story, etc. The process of challenge and re-invention continues until the interrogator has all the desired admissions in some form or another. That every story told includes untrue elements is dismissed as beside the point.
 
Tizzle said:
Also, when a man was killed in the house I used to live in, my then boyfriend cuddled me and comforted me and even peppered me with kisses out in our driveway, with police tape and police and swat and observers everywhere, because he knew I was frightened and wanted to comfort me. Does that mean I'm guilty even though I wasn't in that particular apartment? I was taken to police headquarters, questioned and gave my statement for over two hours and was never arrested, so I guess not. I wonder what makes us different from AK and RS? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

During your two-hour questioning, did you stick to just one story - or did you keep changing it? I think that's kinda what makes some of us different from others...the truth really isn't that hard to tell; it's deviating from it that tends to do one in...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 4,112 (members: 170, guests: 3,942)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
3,942
Total visitors
4,112
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,407
Messages
17,968,506
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top