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

[Diocletus]

Here's the precise Italian phrase used by Sollecito in front of Judge Matteini:

Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non io ricordo.

That is a withdrawal and it was made in front of a judge.

No it's not. It doesn't exclude that she was there during the part of the night that he remembers (no doubt the case), and that she could have gone out during the part of the night that he doesn't remember, e.g., when he was asleep. Depending on what he does or doesn't remember, and the time of death, this does not necessarily destroy any alibi. For example, he could remember that she was there at 10:00, but not remember whether she was there at midnight.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Grinder]

Here's the precise Italian phrase used by Sollecito in front of Judge Matteini:

Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non io ricordo.

That is a withdrawal and it was made in front of a judge. Your claim is false.

In the meantime, the Sollecito family is vigorously defending itself by leaking further incriminating CCTV footage to the popular Italian magazine OGGI, as reported in this on-line summary:

http://www.articolotre.com/2014/06/caso-mez-un-video-potrebbe-scagionare-amanda-knox/

The images may or may not be Knox: who's to know? But the source is undeniably the Sollecitos, with their access to the complete case file, and the intent is to continue to call into question Amanda's claim that she was at Raffaele's apartment for the duration.

With any luck they'll eventually leak the photographs of Amanda's cell phone that indicate Patrick's name was not on the SMS as confirmed during Ficarra's testimony.

Knox continues to publicly claim that she could not be the murderer because her DNA wasn't found inside Meredith's room. Guess whose DNA was found there on an article of Meredith's undergarments? This is why the Sollecitos are unhappy with Amanda right now.

Would you provide the sources you are using?

Assuming everything you wrote is 100% accurate what does it mean in terms of how the crime occurred?

Obviously you believe they were together from 9:28 until just before midnight as Curatolo testified. How does Raf obviously lying about that night affect Amanda?

He also said he never wanted to see Amanda again in the same session. Is it possible he was totally freaked out and what he said was just meaningless babble?

 

[Bill Williams]

Strangely, I was just reading in one of the True Crime books in relation to the 2009 trial, the bit about the request of the defence to dismiss the charges against Sollecito and Knox.

This was at the Massei trial during Comodi's presentation of the so-called DNA evidence against them. The motion t dismiss, for lack of evidence, apparently caused the Massei judges to adjourn, confer, and then they returned saying that the trial would proceed.

So it seems, DNA experts in the States have this week taken us back to that moment in the Massei trial, when Massei had the opportunity to end this.

see: Experts: Flawed DNA evidence used against Amanda Knox​

Since then, we have had the Hellmann trial which acquitted them, the C&V report of Italian experts which showed why the DNA evidence was flawed, the March 2013 Cassazione reversal of Hellmann, mainly on the grounds that Sample 36i was not examined.....

.... then Nencini's Florence court examines Sample 36i and it goes in the defence's favour, and Nencini convicts anyway. As Neninci's motivation report says, his reason for convicting is because he thinks women have Y-genetic material.

So, who are you going to believe?

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's the precise Italian phrase used by Sollecito in front of Judge Matteini:

Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non io ricordo.

That is a withdrawal and it was made in front of a judge. Your claim is false.

Nice try. Even if on the face of it your source is correct, that phrase only amounts to: "I'm not sure if Amanda came out that night, I do not remember."

That's not what one would really call a "withdrawal of alibi".

Then again, you should, but never do nor does your dishonest fake wiki, put it into the context that Raffaele has never "withdrawn" his alibi for Knox when it is made clear to him which night is being talked about - as per the refusal of cops to let him consult a calendar at his own interrogation.

It is clear that the cops were going for maximum confusion from their suspects - and being suspects they required lawyers which, for one thing, would have avoided these confusions.

Read Raffaele's book. He's crystal clear Knox did not go out that night.

 

[Strozzi]

What do you think is of significant value in a nursery/daycare? The finger paints?

Rudy was looking for white powder!

 

[Samson]

Guede was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released.

It was those fingerprint records that eventually nailed Guede to the scene of Meredith Kercher's murder. His bloody palm print was found on a pillow under Kercher's dead body​

.

Do you believe that it was the fingerprint at the Milan jail led to his arrest?

It was reported at the time that it was his alien card that had his prints.

Was he charged with theft of the knife or the computer according to this?

Was Ann in Italy at this time?

ETA - is there a source for the stomach wound?

Guede was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released.

I thought that only the PM could charge him. Perhaps Ann is saying that Prado accused him of theft which makes sense. Do you think he was a suspect and had an attorney provided?

It seems she was more accurate than those who say he was just put on a train back to Perugia, because he was convicted after the nursery, but not of theft. No idea about prints.

I do have a source for the stomach wound saved somewhere. I thought it was common knowledge, but a police photo would help.
What is not disputed is the nursery knife in the backpack, which he took for his own protection, and the little hammer. It would be consistent that he always carries the hammer, and procures a kitchen knife for protection when entering premises.
At the cottage the hammer would ensure efficient quick enlarging of the window near the latch, indeed silly to do the tricky climb without it.
Presumably he killed Meredith with a kitchen knife from the cottage drawer, and chucked it with the phones. Too many assumptions? Maybe, but if the stomach wound is true, Tramontano true, then there are a lot of knives and fights. Sure he is a ticking time bomb.

Whatever reports at the time were, Harryrag has always been insistent that he had a clean police record before witnessing Meredith's murder by Amanda. This is now a proven falsehood, but not even rag's fault, more the conspiracy to diminish his part and exaggerate A and R's by Mignini etc for their ends.

It seems the general belief by everyone on this board was that he was accused but never charged, let alone convicted. Incredible the Italians would let this be concealed.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am watching "West of Memphis"
In 2007, they interviewed Terry Hobbs and they were recording the interview in HD video. . . .I am watching on normal DVD quality so cannot tell if it is 05 or 08 for the Month. Still, obviously they had high quality digital recording.
Still, the argument that they did not record the whole Amanda Knox interview for "budgetary reason" is just idiotic.

 

[Samson]

I am watching "West of Memphis"
In 2007, they interviewed Terry Hobbs and they were recording the interview in HD video. . . .I am watching on normal DVD quality so cannot tell if it is 05 or 08 for the Month. Still, obviously they had high quality digital recording.
Still, the argument that they did not record the whole Amanda Knox interview for "budgetary reason" is just idiotic.

Is it a good movie? You will be interested in this background story.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-film-festival/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500937&objectid=10820250

I hope the same team take this case on. Sir Peter Jackson is an ideal neutral party. Maybe someone could contact Amy Berg.

 

[Samson]

Here's the precise Italian phrase used by Sollecito in front of Judge Matteini:

Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non io ricordo.

That is a withdrawal and it was made in front of a judge. Your claim is false.

In the meantime, the Sollecito family is vigorously defending itself by leaking further incriminating CCTV footage to the popular Italian magazine OGGI, as reported in this on-line summary:

http://www.articolotre.com/2014/06/caso-mez-un-video-potrebbe-scagionare-amanda-knox/

The images may or may not be Knox: who's to know? But the source is undeniably the Sollecitos, with their access to the complete case file, and the intent is to continue to call into question Amanda's claim that she was at Raffaele's apartment for the duration.

With any luck they'll eventually leak the photographs of Amanda's cell phone that indicate Patrick's name was not on the SMS as confirmed during Ficarra's testimony.

Knox continues to publicly claim that she could not be the murderer because her DNA wasn't found inside Meredith's room. Guess whose DNA was found there on an article of Meredith's undergarments? This is why the Sollecitos are unhappy with Amanda right now.

This is nonsense, the photo never was, is not, and never will be Amanda Knox. It is totally disingenuous to say it gives her an alibi, the Italian press is a disgrace at most levels, not least because they have persuaded 95% of their consumers that science in this case is to be ignored.
I have linked to 20 unique bag and clothing combos showing her hang the bag from the opposite shoulder, but even so it is all irrelevant. Why waste time on this photo?

 

[Desert Fox]

Railroad Job From Hell

Is it a good movie? You will be interested in this background story.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-film-festival/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500937&objectid=10820250

I hope the same team take this case on. Sir Peter Jackson is an ideal neutral party. Maybe someone could contact Amy Berg.

I don't know if I consider him a neutral party
Still watching it but will say it makes it look like the railroad job from hell probably to put certain people into higher offices.
I would argue that that it is a worse railroad than AK/RS

 

[Grinder]

It seems she was more accurate than those who say he was just put on a train back to Perugia, because he was convicted after the nursery, but not of theft. No idea about prints.

She wasn't accurate. The police don't ever charge. Everyone reported he was taken in.

I do have a source for the stomach wound saved somewhere. I thought it was common knowledge, but a police photo would help.

And you wouldn't want to be the only one questioning it.

What is not disputed is the nursery knife in the backpack, which he took for his own protection, and the little hammer. It would be consistent that he always carries the hammer, and procures a kitchen knife for protection when entering premises.
At the cottage the hammer would ensure efficient quick enlarging of the window near the latch, indeed silly to do the tricky climb without it.
Presumably he killed Meredith with a kitchen knife from the cottage drawer, and chucked it with the phones. Too many assumptions? Maybe, but if the stomach wound is true, Tramontano true, then there are a lot of knives and fights. Sure he is a ticking time bomb.

If CT is true he carried a flick knife. So your theory is that he was on the toilet when she came home and he ran to the kitchen and grabbed the knife or he had the knife.

If the stomach wound is true and it came from a knife fight and not a surgery...

It seems the general belief by everyone on this board was that he was accused but never charged, let alone convicted. Incredible the Italians would let this be concealed.

So everybody on this board was wrong. Say it isn't so

 

[LashL]

There is an interesting short article in this week's Lawyers' Weekly (link should take you straight to pp. 14-15 where the article is located) about the use of the Reid Technique of interrogation and how it is fraught with difficulties because it so often results in procuring false confessions (which has long been known in my jurisdiction) and, more interestingly (because this part isn't so well known), in procuring false accusations or recanting of exculpatory evidence, not from the accused but from witnesses.

In this particular case, it appears that the Reid Technique was used on two witnesses to get them to change their evidence to (a) positively identify the accused as the shooter, even though the one witness had previously excluded the accused as the shooter; and (b) recant the evidence that provided an alibi for the accused, initially given by the second witness.

The court held that the psychological coerciveness of the police interviews rendered the "new" statements involuntary, unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible.

"The Morgan case demonstrates that the Reid interrogation method can be used to extract inculpatory statements from eyewitnesses and retractions from alibi witnesses. Because the trustworthiness of such statements is compromised by the pressure tactics and threats used to procure them using the Reid Technique, the criminal justice system is ill-served by such methods."

Oh, and the article mentions that the length of the coercive interviews that resulted in the police procuring their desired (but unreliable) results were 3 hours for one of the witnesses, 8 hours for the other.

 

[Strozzi]

It seems she was more accurate than those who say he was just put on a train back to Perugia, because he was convicted after the nursery, but not of theft. No idea about prints.

I do have a source for the stomach wound saved somewhere. I thought it was common knowledge, but a police photo would help.
What is not disputed is the nursery knife in the backpack, which he took for his own protection, and the little hammer. It would be consistent that he always carries the hammer, and procures a kitchen knife for protection when entering premises.
At the cottage the hammer would ensure efficient quick enlarging of the window near the latch, indeed silly to do the tricky climb without it.
Presumably he killed Meredith with a kitchen knife from the cottage drawer, and chucked it with the phones. Too many assumptions? Maybe, but if the stomach wound is true, Tramontano true, then there are a lot of knives and fights. Sure he is a ticking time bomb.

Whatever reports at the time were, Harryrag has always been insistent that he had a clean police record before witnessing Meredith's murder by Amanda. This is now a proven falsehood, but not even rag's fault, more the conspiracy to diminish his part and exaggerate A and R's by Mignini etc for their ends.

It seems the general belief by everyone on this board was that he was accused but never charged, let alone convicted. Incredible the Italians would let this be concealed.

Two comments: I think it reasonable that Rudy ditched the knife as he wound his way through the hillside, and not at the time or in the immediate vicinity when he ditched the phones. The phones could be in a pocket or carried comfortably in a hand. The large knife (bloody?) was not comfortable to carry and if he had any worry of being seen by anyone in the dark he would not want to be seen with the big knife. I think the knife was ditched before Lana's garden. It would also not throw well - light and hard to get a firm grip around it's slender handle. Probably threw it in what at night looked like thick bushes.

The Milan police and prosecutor have a different interest in prosecuting Rudy than the prosecutor in Perugia. No charges were apparently filed in Milan at the time of his detention at the nursery school, for if charges were formally filed (per Machiavelli) a defendant is brought before a judge for a pre-trial detention hearing - and none of that is known to have happened in late 2007. The Milan police called the Perugia police and then let him go.

Had Rudy not been involved in the murder, he would not have been prosecuted in Milan. It would have been a non-case. Sent out of Milan and possibly told not to return.

However, that is not what happened because Rudy was arrested for murder in Perugia. The Milan authorities belatedly prosecuted him to clean up the loose end. That is opposite of what the Perugia police and prosecutor would have wanted. Perugia wanted Rudy to be clean -with no criminal record - until the evening of the murder. They want that night to be seen as his first crime.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is an interesting short article in this week's Lawyers' Weekly

Oh, and the article mentions that the length of the coercive interviews that resulted in the police procuring their desired (but unreliable) results were 3 hours for one of the witnesses, 8 hours for the other.

This stuff really needs to see the light of day

 

[Bill Williams]

There is an interesting short article in this week's Lawyers' Weekly (link should take you straight to pp. 14-15 where the article is located) about the use of the Reid Technique of interrogation and how it is fraught with difficulties because it so often results in procuring false confessions (which has long been known in my jurisdiction) and, more interestingly (because this part isn't so well known), in procuring false accusations or recanting of exculpatory evidence, not from the accused but from witnesses.

Oh, and the article mentions that the length of the coercive interviews that resulted in the police procuring their desired (but unreliable) results were 3 hours for one of the witnesses, 8 hours for the other.

As a believer that the conviction for calunnia against Knox is a wrongful conviction, I still believe that interrogations, per se, should stick to the task at hand.

The task at hand for them is solely to procure confessions and incriminating statements from the suspect in the room.

see: Interrogation Wikipedia​

These days other interrogation techniques also seem to incorporate exit strategies for detecting signs of a false confession, but make no mistake about it - interrogations are NOT about a friendly exchange of opinions or the eliciting of further information.....

..... they are about confessions. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Samson]

Two comments: I think it reasonable that Rudy ditched the knife as he wound his way through the hillside, and not at the time or in the immediate vicinity when he ditched the phones. The phones could be in a pocket or carried comfortably in a hand. The large knife (bloody?) was not comfortable to carry and if he had any worry of being seen by anyone in the dark he would not want to be seen with the big knife. I think the knife was ditched before Lana's garden. It would also not throw well - light and hard to get a firm grip around it's slender handle. Probably threw it in what at night looked like thick bushes.

The Milan police and prosecutor have a different interest in prosecuting Rudy than the prosecutor in Perugia. No charges were apparently filed in Milan at the time of his detention at the nursery school, for if charges were formally filed (per Machiavelli) a defendant is brought before a judge for a pre-trial detention hearing - and none of that is known to have happened in late 2007. The Milan police called the Perugia police and then let him go.

Had Rudy not been involved in the murder, he would not have been prosecuted in Milan. It would have been a non-case. Sent out of Milan and possibly told not to return.

However, that is not what happened because Rudy was arrested for murder in Perugia. The Milan authorities belatedly prosecuted him to clean up the loose end. That is opposite of what the Perugia police and prosecutor would have wanted. Perugia wanted Rudy to be clean -with no criminal record - until the evening of the murder. They want that night to be seen as his first crime.

Thank you Strozzi, that makes more sense of it. I was not thinking of throwing the knife exactly with the phones, but I have never heard whether it is assumed he got it from the kitchen drawer like he did at the nursery, and whether there was a suggestion none were missing?
I'm not sure what you imply, when are you saying Perugia wanted him with a clean record, before the murder, just after, or when they found their murderer had form?

 

[platonov]

++

snip

Doesn't ANYONE on the side of guilt have ANYTHING which can be said with a double-positive, rather than a double negative?

I'll give it a shot.

That is how I remember it as well but I leave this to the DNA experts. Maybe Chris or Dio will chime in.

DNA experts ?

Yeah, Right.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'll give it a shot.




DNA experts ?

Yeah, Right.

Huh!?

 

[Desert Fox]

I'll give it a shot.

Curious, why do you reject the solution which is more in like with Occam's Razor and instead prefer some strange and bizarre situation?