Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

The one that is false is the false premise you provide. As explained by me and others, this is not what Sollecito says.

Of course, all you would need to do is provide actual evidence - but then again, the ISC has stated that for this case you don't have to. Simply asserting guilt-like things seems to count here.

I am beginning to wonder if Italy has a functioning legal system at all?

 

[Numbers]

Sadly, this beautiful judgment and partly concordant opinion was a little too long as a post. I do recommend those interested read it; it is highly relevant and informative.

Also, the nasty thing the ECtHR said about the Italian Constitutional Court's judgment is a judicial classic: "...not pertinent".

For those interested, here is another class in the Remedial ECHR Case Law Course.

How about what rock'n'roll radio DJs would call a Golden Oldie.....

And it's a relevant case in several ways:
1) It relates to a person convicted on the basis of statements from someone who legally refuses to be cross-examined2) It deals with apparent conflicts between several of a nation's laws
3) It deals with conflict between a nation's laws and the ECHR
4) It mentions unfavorably how a nation's courts defy the ECHR

CASE OF LUCÀ v. ITALY 33354/96 27/02/2001 {excerpts; emphasis added}

I suppose you are well aware that this example is a case with nothing to do with Knox's submission to the ECHR about the calunnia conviction.

The Luca v Italy case has everything to do with Guede and whatever judicial information is derived from his testimony, statements, documents, evidence, trials, etc. and is brought over to the Knox-Sollecito trials.

In this ECHR judgment there is a summary of the changes that the Italian parliament made in the Italian Constitution, Article 111, and the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the use of testimony, statements, evidence, and so on from a person who legally refuses to be cross-examined into another defendant's trial, because such use, lacking cross-examination, violates the adversarial principle and is thus unfair. It is a violation of ECHR Article 6.3.

In this judgment, the ECtHR criticizes the Italian Constitutional Court for a certain decision allowing such uncross-examined testimony from one person into another defendant's trial, as being "...not pertinent."

There would not be a relationship with Knox's application relating to the calunnia conviction, as long as there is no use of Guede's uncross-examined information contributing to that conviction. As far as I am aware, there is no such contribution in Hellmann's verdict.

 

[Machiavelli]

So?

So he never talks to Matteini about his purported uncertainty about dates. He tells to Matteini something very similar to what he told the police: he says he had lied in his first account, and explains this is because Knox had asked him to tell these things (he says "Knox convinced me about her versions of events").

He doesn't blame the police and the calendars and neither his not remembering well dates, instead he says he remembers well and blames Knox; and when he is before Matteini, he still doesn't claim that he doesn't remember dates well: he says he is sure about what he remembers, and that he was just as sure when he talked to the police on Nov. 5. He is sure that what he remembers is the only correct version, while the first testimony.

In his first report, he had provided an alibi to Knox and said they were together. But then, on Nov. 5 and on Nov. 8 before Matteini, he states with no uncertainy that his first version was false.

And with some minor variations he's said the same thing for 7 years.

Whether he remembers or not if Knox was at his place before midnight (or before 1am) is a "minor variation", so. If that's a minor variation, then indeed his version has minor variations.
His account also was that he was working on his computer up to 1am and that he was asleep until 10am and woke up together with Amanda. All this conflicts with the findings, in fact he was not working at his computer during the first part of the night while instead he was awake from 50:30 to 6:10am Amanda was not at his apartment with him at 9am, their account conflict between each on what they did together and they conflict with objective findings.

This is not what either Bongionro or Sollecito is saying. Read the appeals' document to Cassazione.

Bongiorno suggests Knox told lies to Sollecito, and calls those lies "anomalies"

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/07/01/news/meredith_amanda_knox_sollecito-90423293/

(...) Noi chiediamo di non estendere le anomalie di Amanda a Sollecito. Come già detto non sono gemelli siamesi, un corpo e due teste

Curiosly, Sollecito and Bongiorno claim that it is Amanda who exculpates, almost "provides an alibi" for Sollecito.
But also, they point out Amanda admitted to lying:

(...) Amanda ammette di aver detto una bugia, quando mi dice di essersi allontanata da casa per andare al lavoro da Lumumba

Sollecito and Bongiorno also point out what "night" means, and they point out that Sollecito is dibious about the "first part of the night (serata)"
He means they were together in the night starting from 10 or 11 pm, but he is not sure if they were together before that time.

(...) "Sollecito ha sempre detto di aver passato la notte con Amanda e per notte si intende dalle 22-23", sottolinea Bongiorno precisando che invece dubbi sono stati sempre espressi dal ragazzo (...) "rispetto alla parte iniziale della serata"

.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Luca v Italy case has everything to do with Guede and whatever judicial information is derived from his testimony, statements, documents, evidence, trials, etc. and is brought over to the Knox-Sollecito trials.

Well if this has to do with "everything" that comes from Guede, including any documents and even judicial findings and trial, this is your interpretation.
For some reason I doubt the ECHR would share such an extreme interpretation.

In this ECHR judgment there is a summary of the changes that the Italian parliament made in the Italian Constitution, Article 111, and the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the use of testimony, statements, evidence, and so on from a person who legally refuses to be cross-examined into another defendant's trial, because such use, lacking cross-examination, violates the adversarial principle and is thus unfair. It is a violation of ECHR Article 6.3.

This ECHR judgement is about a case from 1992. The Constitution art. 111 has been changed in 1999, and as a consequence, the procedure code has been changed in 2000 and 2001. So it would have been impossible for this case violation of art. 6.3 to take place after 2001.

In this judgment, the ECtHR criticizes the Italian Constitutional Court for a certain decision allowing such uncross-examined testimony from one person into another defendant's trial, as being "...not pertinent."

The Constitutional Court might have been deciding based on a different version of art. 111, but this is irrelevant. Guede is not in the Knox trial being used as a witness presenting an uncross-examined testimony. It is instead the judicial findings about Guede that is used as a piece of circumstantial evidence.

There would not be a relationship with Knox's application relating to the calunnia conviction, as long as there is no use of Guede's uncross-examined information contributing to that conviction. As far as I am aware, there is no such contribution in Hellmann's verdict.

In fact, it's what I've said. It has nothing to do with the actual ECHR submission.

 

[Bill Williams]

So he never talks to Matteini about his purported uncertainty about dates. He tells to Matteini something very similar to what he told the police: he says he had lied in his first account, and explains this is because Knox had asked him to tell these things (he says "Knox convinced me about her versions of events").

He doesn't blame the police and the calendars and neither his not remembering well dates, instead he says he remembers well and blames Knox; and when he is before Matteini, he still doesn't claim that he doesn't remember dates well: he says he is sure about what he remembers, and that he was just as sure when he talked to the police on Nov. 5. He is sure that what he remembers is the only correct version, while the first testimony.

In his first report, he had provided an alibi to Knox and said they were together. But then, on Nov. 5 and on Nov. 8 before Matteini, he states with no uncertainy that his first version was false.



Whether he remembers or not if Knox was at his place before midnight (or before 1am) is a "minor variation", so. If that's a minor variation, then indeed his version has minor variations.
His account also was that he was working on his computer up to 1am and that he was asleep until 10am and woke up together with Amanda. All this conflicts with the findings, in fact he was not working at his computer during the first part of the night while instead he was awake from 50:30 to 6:10am Amanda was not at his apartment with him at 9am, their account conflict between each on what they did together and they conflict with objective findings.



Bongiorno suggests Knox told lies to Sollecito, and calls those lies "anomalies"

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/07/01/news/meredith_amanda_knox_sollecito-90423293/



Curiosly, Sollecito and Bongiorno claim that it is Amanda who exculpates, almost "provides an alibi" for Sollecito.
But also, they point out Amanda admitted to lying:



Sollecito and Bongiorno also point out what "night" means, and they point out that Sollecito is dibious about the "first part of the night (serata)"
He means they were together in the night starting from 10 or 11 pm, but he is not sure if they were together before that time.

.

Wait a minute - didn't you just call someone out for posting a report in a book, when the original was available? I guess your own rules do not apply to you. So you appeal to Repubblica.

The "So?" in the original still stands. You are reading-in to his silence all sorts of guilt-like things. Raffaele's appearance in front of Mattieni means nothing like what you say.

But what you are doing is exactly the point.... if you are distancing Sollecito from Knox, or claiming Sollecito is distancing himself from Knox, then you have a huge problem on your hands.

It begins with.... if all you say about this distance is true, then what does this case have to do with Sollecito?

Indeed, that is exactly what both Bongiorno and Sollecito are saying in the in their appeals document.... which you cannot see.

When Machiavelli says all those guilt-sounding things that Sollecito is supposed to be saying about Knox....

What then does any of the remaining case have to do with Sollecito?

He's either as guilty as Knox or he isn't. Nencini appreciates this, which is why Nencini has to keep them together and NOT argue the way you are arguing, even in discussing the separate issues Sollecito's defence team bring into his courtroom.

You are making things up, where even Nencini isn't.

 

[RWVBWL]

Can you double up on that pepperoni?

<snip>

"In alcune lingue, fra cui quella italiana e quella francese, si è soliti definire la prima parte della notte, quella antecedente la mezzanotte, con un termine specifico, e cioè sera.

Per tale motivo, in codeste culture le ore notturne sono convenzionalmente comprese nell'arco tra le 0:00 e le 5:00"

<snip>

Huh?
Dinner at 5:00?
Cool, I could die for a pizza!
Oh ya, I like Pepperoni on my pizza, thanks!
See if you can get some chili pepper packets too, ok?
I like it hot + spicy, yea!

* * *
Hmmm,
With English as my native tongue, well I kinda get what you are askin'
me Vibio. I think. Make that double pepperoni!!


Just kiddin', Vibio, just kiddin'!
I, RW am havin' fun, so to say....

What with our language difficulties,
man I just wish Giancarlo had taped that Notary session with Amanda Knox that night. Don't you Vibio?

Wasn't Amanda a suspect by then?
Where was her lawyer when Mig's acted as her Notary?

Oh, by the way,
was Raff ever asked 1 question about Patrick Lumumba?

 

[Numbers]

Well if this has to do with "everything" that comes from Guede, including any documents and even judicial findings and trial, this is your interpretation.
For some reason I doubt the ECHR would share such an extreme interpretation.

1. Everything from Guede that has not been subjected to cross-examination.

This ECHR judgement is about a case from 1992. The Constitution art. 111 has been changed in 1999, and as a consequence, the procedure code has been changed in 2000 and 2001. So it would have been impossible for this case violation of art. 6.3 to take place after 2001.

2. It would be against the Italian Constitution and CPP, and ECHR Art. 6.3. That is different than being "impossible" - which means being against a law of nature.

The Constitutional Court might have been deciding based on a different version of art. 111, but this is irrelevant. Guede is not in the Knox trial being used as a witness presenting an uncross-examined testimony. It is instead the judicial findings about Guede that is used as a piece of circumstantial evidence.
3. This is a "difference without a distinction." The ECtHR states in its judgments that rights are practical, not theoretical. The judicial findings about Guede are entirely based on non-cross-examined evidence.

In fact, it's what I've said. It has nothing to do with the actual ECHR submission.

4. To my knowledge, it is not related to the calunnia-conviction application. It would be relevant to any ECHR application following a conviction of Knox and Sollecito for the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - for your convenience, here's the link to the appeals document that Sollecito is sending to Cassazione. It addresses the issues we've been discussing. No need to rely on gossip.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RICORSO_SOLLECITO_9.6.2014.pdf

 

[RWVBWL]

That Sony looks nothing like the cell phone Giancarlo is holding in his hand. Even the side embelishment is completely different. But don't let that stop the Amandites (even those with sun-kissed cheeks, beach blonde hair, board shorts and sagging pectorals).

That Sony looks as much like Mignini's cellphone as this does:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/199409/size/big

If the LG isn't good enough, here's a 2006 Nokia... the snazziest cell phone of the era... with the side embellishment:

http://www.brighthand.com/phonereview/nokia-6682-review/

Hey Vibio,
In my family, I was the only 1 of 4 kids who never had to wear glasses or contacts.

I'm gettin' old nowadays
and I nowadays have to wear reading glasses.
Man, those really help out a lot when reading!

You Italians should put on your readin'+seein' glasses,
maybe you might find out somethin' or other that is right in front of you too!.

Mach might realize that black lace panties are indeed black, not brown, you might better see that the Sony Digital Audio Recorder looks much more like what Giuliano is holding as he interviews Coroner Luca Lali, and PM Mignini himself might note that the bloody hand smear is on the far wall from Miss Kercher's door, not near the doorway entrance.


Whatcha talkin' about RW?
Well it seems that Mig's can't recall where that un-identified bloody wall hand print was.
We all know that it was above the top of Meredith's bed.

"What stuck in my head, was this bloody handprint on the wall.
In front of the entrance door."

Yep, watch this crime scen vid from England's Channel 5, I think it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Rzfml3HDc
There's some good stuff in there from Giuliano.
strange that the PM can't remember where that bloody handprint was,
as noted at 5:48 into the vid.

And if ya got a chance,
see if you can spot any mistakes that Barbie Nadeau makes...
RW


PS - Vib's,
if ya ever come out to L.A. bring your bikini, if your body is in shape,
well I'll take ya for a swim in our beautiful waters off Malibu, you'll dig it, it refreshes the soul. + then you can see 1st hand if my pecs are sagging, for my size 32" waistline belies your statement. The rest is true though, I'm still very tanned and my mop-top is beach blonde, hahaha. Heck, it be fun to meet another pro-guilter in person!

 

[acbytesla]

Is it just me or does anyone else see the absurdity of the idea of Raffaele withdrawing himself as an alibi for Amanda? Think people, think. It is totally absurd considering the only physical evidence presented against either Amanda or Raffaele was against Raffaele!!! He would have to be an idiot to say that he wasn't with Amanda at his apartment as she says he was, which he is not.

So what does that tell you about the morons that are now suggesting that is what he is doing??

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is it just me or does anyone else see the absurdity of the idea of Raffaele withdrawing himself as an alibi for Amanda? Think people, think. It is totally absurd considering the only physical evidence presented against either Amanda or Raffaele was against Raffaele!!! He would have to be an idiot to say that he wasn't with Amanda at his apartment as she says he was, which he is not.

So what does that tell you about the morons that are now suggesting that is what he is doing??

What it tells me is that they have completely abandoned their original project, which was to make a reasonable argument that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

The current project is simply to find any random and inconsequential issue about which they think they can disagree with pro-innocence posters and get away with it, at least for a post or two. This creates the impression to very casual observers of a meaningfully ongoing controversy. They just want to make the thread look like there is some kind of live controversy over whether or not the case against Knox and Sollecito stands up.

The fact is even the Machiavelli entity have completely abandoned their efforts to defend the really important issues, the time of Meredith Kercher's death and the alibi that Knox and Sollecito have for that time. They've even given up on defending the discredited DNA evidence. Now they're just trying to kick up some dust about whether or not Sollecito provides Knox with an alibi based on wilfully misinterpreting Italian. It's all they have left.

 

[Dan O.]

..
Well it seems that Mig's can't recall where that un-identified bloody wall hand print was.
We all know that it was above the top of Meredith's bed.

The truth is that the room isn't very big. If you were standing in the entrance to Meredith's room, the print would be on the wall almost directly in front of you.

 

[acbytesla]

What it tells me is that they have completely abandoned their original project, which was to make a reasonable argument that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. The current project is simply to find any random and inconsequential issue about which they think they can disagree with pro-innocence posters and get away with it, at least for a post or two. This creates the impression to very casual observers of a meaningfully ongoing controversy. They just want to make the thread look like there is some kind of live controversy over whether or not the case against Knox and Sollecito stands up.

The fact is even the Machiavelli entity have completely abandoned their efforts to defend the really important issues, the time of Meredith Kercher's death and the alibi that Knox and Sollecito have for that time. They've even given up on defending the discredited DNA evidence. Now they're just trying to kick up some dust about whether or not Sollecito provides Knox with an alibi based on wilfully misinterpreting Italian. It's all they have left.

Frankly Kevin, I think they gave up on presenting a reasonable argument a long long time ago. I have had a 30 year career in sales as well as have been involved in some controversial issues and sometimes the facts aren't on your side. That is just plain tough situation to make an argument. There really is nothing left but to try and obfuscate and muddy the waters. It is classic. This is what Machiavelli for example, has been doing on this forum since day one.

I'm reminded of the movie "The Best Little Whore house in Texas". Charles Durning playing the governor sings a song called "sidestep" where reporters ask him important questions and he always obfuscates and never really answers.

"oh, I love to dance the little sidestep / Now they see me, now they don't / I've come and gone / And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step / Cut a little swath / And lead the people on!"

 

[Bill Williams]

What it tells me is that they have completely abandoned their original project, which was to make a reasonable argument that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

The current project is simply to find any random and inconsequential issue about which they think they can disagree with pro-innocence posters and get away with it, at least for a post or two. This creates the impression to very casual observers of a meaningfully ongoing controversy. They just want to make the thread look like there is some kind of live controversy over whether or not the case against Knox and Sollecito stands up.
The fact is even the Machiavelli entity have completely abandoned their efforts to defend the really important issues, the time of Meredith Kercher's death and the alibi that Knox and Sollecito have for that time. They've even given up on defending the discredited DNA evidence. Now they're just trying to kick up some dust about whether or not Sollecito provides Knox with an alibi based on wilfully misinterpreting Italian. It's all they have left.

Machiavelli holds Raffaele to account for not mentioning what happened to him at interrogation in front of Mattieni. I'm not sure Raffaele even knew what had happened, went into the Mattieni hearing thinking this was an obvious mistake that would be cleared up. And, oh sure, Raffaele is going to be accusing the cops of misconduct right off the bat - as if Mattieni would be sympathetic to that!

But it's not the posters here that is important. I've just read pages 117 into the 140s of the Nencini report, where Nencini thinks he's demolishing Amanda's alibi, an alibi which even Nencini admits covers both of them - meaning, that both Sollecito and Knox in essence have the same alibi - they were at Raffaele's all night.

Nencini takes three things, which he thinks destroys Knox's alibi, that she was at Raffaele's all night. And note, regardless of how one translates "night" from the Italian, the first one relates to just after 8 pm.... when they don't even need an alibi!

- Nencini says that the SMS message from Lumumba at around 8:15 pm is retrieved by Amanda while she is on her way to work, and she simply reverses direction and goes back to Raffaeles. Please note this has no bearing on the murder at all, really, it's just that Nencini uses it to "prove" that Knox "lied" when she said she had not gone out. It makes no difference to Nencini that Amanda means, "I did not go out to murder Meredith," and it makes no difference that Amanda (even if she'd gone out heading for work) that that had nothing to do with anything - Nencini uses it to "prove" that Amanda had "lied" about going out.

- Nencini rehabilitates Curatolo, saying that there is no anthropological reason to discount his testimony. It's no matter that the man is drug addicted.

- Nencini rehabilitates Quintavalle, it's no matter that it takes months for Quintavalle to be reminded that Knox had, presumably, been in his store (where she didn't buy anything) and an employee of Q.'s store says Knox wasn't there.​

That's it. The sum total of Nencini "destroying" the alibi, which is Knox's to claim and covers Raffaele as well.

And through all this Sollecito's appeals strategy is brilliant, IMO. If Knox HAD gone out, as Nencini claims, then what does this series of events have to do with him?

So, to get to Raffaele, what does Nencini say about him? Nencini attacks Amanda's alibi by referencing Raffele checking an SMS at 6:09:59 am. Checking it in bed, at his own apartment. Remember, this is to destroy Amanda's alibi, but Nencini says that Raffaele checking his SMS from his dad at the apartment "proves" that both of them were up and about. But not "up and about" outside, "up and about" at Raffaele's. Say what you want, but this is not proof that Amanda was out.

Raffale's version of this is as in his book - he was dog-tired, awoke a few times during the night, probably checked his SMS while bleary-eyed, and even when Knox went out about 3 1/2 hours later to change her clothes and shower back at the cottage, Raffaele went back to bed.

That's it for the "proof", acc. to Nencini, that Raffaele had been wide awake and active all night, presumably participating in..... what? A clean-up? What is it exactly that both Raffaele and Amanda were supposed to have been doing, based on the lone checking of an SMS message at 6:09:50 am? It only proves they were at Raffaele's exactly where they said they were.

How does that even "prove" Amanda was up and active, much less away from Raffaele's?

Nencini is a moron.

To quote Kevin Lowe: What it tells me is that they have completely abandoned their original project, which was to make a reasonable argument that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. They are just making things up on the go - guilt-sounding things with no evidence, really, unless you think checking an SMS message with a bleary eye proves something.....

It's no wonder Machiavelli tries to help Nencini along by over-proving.....

 

[Numbers]

Is it just me or does anyone else see the absurdity of the idea of Raffaele withdrawing himself as an alibi for Amanda? Think people, think. It is totally absurd considering the only physical evidence presented against either Amanda or Raffaele was against Raffaele!!! He would have to be an idiot to say that he wasn't with Amanda at his apartment as she says he was, which he is not.

So what does that tell you about the morons that are now suggesting that is what he is doing??

I've done some spot translating of Raffaele's appeal to CSC using Google Translate, searching for the word alibi, and I have found that there is no withdrawal of his support for her alibi. In fact, she is, as others have pointed out, his alibi. His appeal, for example, attacks the logic of the Nencini motivation report on such issues as the reliance on Curatolo and Quintavalle, as well as attacking Nencini's logic on the computer alibi.

The guilters merely try to spread confusion and the appearance of controversy.

From their definition of "notto" I assume that in Italy if someone goes to bed at 9:45 pm, that time is the night, but on that person waking at say, 11:30 pm, that time must be evening - since it's not yet midnight.

 

[Planigale]

It is baffling the times which Machiavelli has to argue against even the convicting courts to make his points.

Nencini has not made the case against the two in his motivations report. The section beginning on p. 117 and ending in the 140s is meant to "prove" that Knox went out that night. Nencini cites three things, all three at best tenuous - the Lumumba SMS message, Curatolo, and Quintavalle, as proof that Knox had gone out.

There is no discussion of Raffaele going out. What Nencini does is cite Raffaele's checking of his SMS from his father at 6:09:59 as proof that the both of them were up and active. It doesn't occur to Nencini that Raffaele could have done this barely awake.... this is what Raffaele writes in Honor Bound:

​

Sollecito's account is consistent with their consistent alibi. Nencini's account is pure speculation, from which fabrication ensues.

I must remember that the next time I sleepily check my phone in the middle of the night, that in Italy this means (judicially speaking) that I am awake and am actively involved in some activity.

Yet aside from this, Machiavelli needs to even help Nencini through this. Why doesn't Machiavelli just argue Nencini's narrative and be done with it. So far Nencini is winning. Machiavelli for some reason thinks Nencini needs help.

I wonder if this is a generational issue. I use my phone as my alarm clock. If i woke at night and wanted to check the time I look on my phone. If there was a message there I would check it then roll over and go back to sleep. I think Nencini imagines some sort of answer phone sitting in another room where you would have to get up and listen to recorded messages,

 

[Numbers]

For people that like quantitative data, here are some results from the ECtHR document database HUDOC:
http://http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng

I was curious which states had the most judged cases todate. There are 17,703 judged cases in the database, covering a wide range of human rights violations; some judgments actually find no violation. Here's the first six states at the top of the list:

Turkey................ 3090
Italy................... 2309
Russia................ 1597
Romania............. 1110
Poland................ 1069
Ukraine............... 999

Compare to the first six states by applications pending 01 Nov 2014 (total: 78,000)

Italy.................... 14900
Ukraine............... 14650
Russia................. 10250
Turkey................. 10100
Romania................ 3500
Serbia................... 2950

 

[Numbers]

I wonder if this is a generational issue. I use my phone as my alarm clock. If i woke at night and wanted to check the time I look on my phone. If there was a message there I would check it then roll over and go back to sleep. I think Nencini imagines some sort of answer phone sitting in another room where you would have to get up and listen to recorded messages,

Your point is interesting. But do you have a rationale for each of the other occasions in the Nencini motivation report where Nencini adopts the prosecution's unfair view, or some other speculative view, contrary to the defense's position that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

 

[Planigale]

The word "night" in Italian means something that starts ad midnight.
What Sollecito said, is that he doesn't remember if Knox was with him before around midnight.
He only remembers that they had slept together all night and woken up at about 10, which we know is false (he turns on his phone at 6).

I am a little unclear about this. So does the 'night' of the first begin at 00.01 on the first or 00.01 on the second? My assumption is the latter, so the night of the first does not begin until the second. I can understand how Sollecito could get confused about which day he was asked about particularly if he was up until after midnight. On the other hand if they were in bed when they watched the movie on the laptop at 21.26 would that be night?

 

[Planigale]

To be trite I wonder if this is a North Europe / South Europe split? I got up to go to the loo at one in the morning. Times after midnight tend to be called the morning. Times are defined by tea.

The morning is from midnight to midday. Early morning would be before breakfast, morning is from breakfast until elevenses, late morning from elevenses until lunch. Early afternoon would be from lunch until afternoon tea (usually at Betties), late afternoon is from afternoon tea until teatime (or high tea if there are guests and you get cake). When it becomes evening which is associated with twilight, then after supper (Ovaltine not tea this time) you get in to pyjamas and it is night. Night also means it is dark. Night lasts until light or in winter until breakfast.Is that clear?