Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

...
In fact, in his police interrogation he testified that she had returned probably at about 1am:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_434745477c2e304323.jpg[/qimg]

This is typical Machiavelli to drop a clipping and not reveal it's source. Does anyone recognize where this is from? I recognize the content but not this specific format.

As for the content:

A.D.R Siamo usciti da casa, siamo andato in centro, ma non ricordo cosa abbiamo fatto.
A.D.R Siamo rimasti in centro dalle ore 18.00 fino alle ore 20.30/21.00. Io alle ore 21.00 sono Andato a casa mia da solo, mentre Amanda mi ha detto che sarebbe andata al bub Le Chic, perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici.
A.D.R A questo punto ci siamo salutati io mi sono diretto verso casa mia mentre lei si è diretta Verso il centro.
A.D.R Sono andato a casa da solo, mi sono messo al computer e mi sono fatto una canna. Senz'altro ho cenato ma non ricordo cosa ha mangiato. Verso le ore 23:00 me ha chimato, sull'utenza fissa di casa mia 075.9660789, mio padre. Nella circostanza ricordo che Amanda ancora non era tornata.
A.D.R Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore cira dopo la telefonata di mio padre ed ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata presumibilmente verso le ore 1.00.
A.D.R Non ricordo bene come fosse vestita e se era vestitaallo stesso modo di quando ci siamo salutati prima di cena.​

ADR We came out from the house, we went into the center, but do not remember what we did.
ADR We were in the center from 18.00 up to 20.30 / 21:00. I have to 21.00 Went to my house alone, while Amanda told me that she was going to bub Le Chic. because he wanted to meet his friends.
ADR At this point we said goodbye I headed to my house while she is direct Towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, I sat at the computer and I got high. Certainly I had dinner but can not remember what he ate. At about 23:00 I have kimono, fixed on the user's 075.9660789 my house, my father. In fact I remember that Amanda had not yet returned.
ADR I sailed to the computer for two hours after the call CIRA my father and I stopped only when Amanda came back presumably at approximately 1:00.
ADR not remember how it was and if he was dressed vestitaallo same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.​

This is clearly a conflagration of events. It has aspects of what Raffaele has always maintained but then incorporates details that are proven false in a time period when nobody needs an alibi because Meredith is still at her dinner party with friends. If this is the summary from Raffaele's interrogation, it is strongly being influenced by what the police want to believe.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is typical Machiavelli to drop a clipping and not reveal it's source. Does anyone recognize where this is from? I recognize the content but not this specific format.

As for the content:

A.D.R Siamo usciti da casa, siamo andato in centro, ma non ricordo cosa abbiamo fatto.
A.D.R Siamo rimasti in centro dalle ore 18.00 fino alle ore 20.30/21.00. Io alle ore 21.00 sono Andato a casa mia da solo, mentre Amanda mi ha detto che sarebbe andata al bub Le Chic, perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici.
A.D.R A questo punto ci siamo salutati io mi sono diretto verso casa mia mentre lei si è diretta Verso il centro.
A.D.R Sono andato a casa da solo, mi sono messo al computer e mi sono fatto una canna. Senz'altro ho cenato ma non ricordo cosa ha mangiato. Verso le ore 23:00 me ha chimato, sull'utenza fissa di casa mia 075.9660789, mio padre. Nella circostanza ricordo che Amanda ancora non era tornata.
A.D.R Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore cira dopo la telefonata di mio padre ed ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata presumibilmente verso le ore 1.00.
A.D.R Non ricordo bene come fosse vestita e se era vestitaallo stesso modo di quando ci siamo salutati prima di cena.​

ADR We came out from the house, we went into the center, but do not remember what we did.
ADR We were in the center from 18.00 up to 20.30 / 21:00. I have to 21.00 Went to my house alone, while Amanda told me that she was going to bub Le Chic. because he wanted to meet his friends.
ADR At this point we said goodbye I headed to my house while she is direct Towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, I sat at the computer and I got high. Certainly I had dinner but can not remember what he ate. At about 23:00 I have kimono, fixed on the user's 075.9660789 my house, my father. In fact I remember that Amanda had not yet returned.
ADR I sailed to the computer for two hours after the call CIRA my father and I stopped only when Amanda came back presumably at approximately 1:00.
ADR not remember how it was and if he was dressed vestitaallo same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.​

This is clearly a conflagration of events. It has aspects of what Raffaele has always maintained but then incorporates details that are proven false in a time period when nobody needs an alibi because Meredith is still at her dinner party with friends. If this is the summary from Raffaele's interrogation, it is strongly being influenced by what the police want to believe.

Conflation rather than conflagration

But yes I agree entirely with your point. In fact there's a provable contradiction in Sollecito's recollections and the actual events/movements on the night of the murder: Sollecito is recollecting that he went back to his apartment alone at around 8.30-9.00pm while Knox went to Le Chic etc, and that Knox didn't return to his apartment until around 1am - but we know for certain that on the actual night of the murder, Knox was in Sollecito's apartment at 8.45pm when she answered the intercom to Popovic.

It's totally clear to any objective observer that Sollecito is conflating and confusing the evenings/nights of 31st October and 1st November 2007. We know that Knox really did spend the evening of 31st October apart from Sollecito (she went to the Halloween parties while he stayed home in his apartment) and that she phoned him at around 1pm to say she was on her way back to his. As such, the account given by Sollecito here is totally compatible with the known movements of him and Knox on the evening/night of 31st October. We also know that it is provably contradicted in respect to the night of the murder, 1st November.

In my opinion, it's obvious that Sollecito became (or was led to become....) confused between the two nights. Furthermore, he was still obviously confused at the time of the Matteini hearing a couple of days later - which is totally unsurprising since he had been placed in solitary confinement in the intervening period and not allowed access to any lawyers.

 

[Samson]

This is typical Machiavelli to drop a clipping and not reveal it's source. Does anyone recognize where this is from? I recognize the content but not this specific format.

As for the content:

A.D.R Siamo usciti da casa, siamo andato in centro, ma non ricordo cosa abbiamo fatto.
A.D.R Siamo rimasti in centro dalle ore 18.00 fino alle ore 20.30/21.00. Io alle ore 21.00 sono Andato a casa mia da solo, mentre Amanda mi ha detto che sarebbe andata al bub Le Chic, perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici.
A.D.R A questo punto ci siamo salutati io mi sono diretto verso casa mia mentre lei si è diretta Verso il centro.
A.D.R Sono andato a casa da solo, mi sono messo al computer e mi sono fatto una canna. Senz'altro ho cenato ma non ricordo cosa ha mangiato. Verso le ore 23:00 me ha chimato, sull'utenza fissa di casa mia 075.9660789, mio padre. Nella circostanza ricordo che Amanda ancora non era tornata.
A.D.R Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore cira dopo la telefonata di mio padre ed ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata presumibilmente verso le ore 1.00.
A.D.R Non ricordo bene come fosse vestita e se era vestitaallo stesso modo di quando ci siamo salutati prima di cena.​

ADR We came out from the house, we went into the center, but do not remember what we did.
ADR We were in the center from 18.00 up to 20.30 / 21:00. I have to 21.00 Went to my house alone, while Amanda told me that she was going to bub Le Chic. because he wanted to meet his friends.
ADR At this point we said goodbye I headed to my house while she is direct Towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, I sat at the computer and I got high. Certainly I had dinner but can not remember what he ate. At about 23:00 I have kimono, fixed on the user's 075.9660789 my house, my father. In fact I remember that Amanda had not yet returned.
ADR I sailed to the computer for two hours after the call CIRA my father and I stopped only when Amanda came back presumably at approximately 1:00.
ADR not remember how it was and if he was dressed vesis toes utitaallo same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.​

This is clearly a conflagration of events. It has aspects of what Raffaele has always maintained but then incorporates details that are proven false in a time period when nobody needs an alibi because Meredith is still at her dinner party with friends. If this is the summary from Raffaele's interrogation, it is strongly being influenced by what the police want to believe.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, Machiavelli has been confused for a long time, and will probably curl his toes up that way.
I am a new dog who quickly mastered the mental sleight of hand allowing me to believe that at an inopportune time he was inadvertently recounting events of 120 hours rather than 96 hours ago.

Gotcha the bastards said.

 

[Numbers]

The figures for 2013 speak for themselves logic is not required, check I have provided the links. As for an agenda, my only purpose is to set out context and as such in 2013 97% of applications against Italy were rejected.

Like the rest of us, you do not know the basis of the slander application, at best you can guess which of course is your prerogative.

I am sorry to see that you have adopted the bolded position, but that may be inline with your agenda.

You need to do a little more digging into the statistics involved, because of an apples v. oranges situation: the cases judged in a year are not (generally) selected from the ones that entered the system in that year. There is a large backlog of applications/cases going through the ECtHR system, for almost every country in the Council of Europe (the smaller ones may be exceptions in terms of size of backlog). A case entering the ECtHR is somewhat like a mouse that's been swallowed by a small snake; there is a lump rather slowly moving through the system.

It is also useful, for purposes of statistical validity, to examine several years of data. For example, see the table "Throughput of applications 1959-2013" in:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592013_ENG.pdf

Italy had 35,103 applications that were sent for judging; a judgment (violation or not) or decision (inadmissible or strike out) was reached in only 18,646 applications. The remainder (about 16,000) appear to be the backlog.
Judgment cases totaled 2,845 and decisions/strike outs 15,801.

In contrast, consider the UK, a country of about the same population size:
22,065 applications sent for judging; judgment or decision in 19,310; the backlog is about 2,700 applications.
Judgment cases totaled 576 and decisions/strike outs 18,734.

 

[LondonJohn]

For some reason I can't get in - could you kindly post the information? Thanks

Here it is:




(The measurements shown are in mm)

As can be clearly seen, there's really only a floor area of around 8ft by 6ft where the attack could have taken place. And the court's "reasoning" puts three assailants (plus Kercher of course) in that space, with two of these assailants at Kercher's head end - i.e. furthest from the door.

It's extremely hard to see how - with the sheer amount of blood and the small amount of floor space - two people up at the head end could have managed to get past the bleeding body and out of the door without tracking blood, and without seemingly getting any blood on themselves. On the other hand, it's far, far easier to see how a lone attacker, positioned behind Kercher (and thus closest to the door) could still have managed to leave several shoe prints and - by his own admission - got Kercher's blood on his arms and trouser legs.

 

[Numbers]

Here it is:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402375478f264b3d82.jpg[/qimg]


(The measurements shown are in mm)

As can be clearly seen, there's really only a floor area of around 8ft by 6ft where the attack could have taken place. And the court's "reasoning" puts three assailants (plus Kercher of course) in that space, with two of these assailants at Kercher's head end - i.e. furthest from the door.

It's extremely hard to see how - with the sheer amount of blood and the small amount of floor space - two people up at the head end could have managed to get past the bleeding body and out of the door without tracking blood, and without seemingly getting any blood on themselves. On the other hand, it's far, far easier to see how a lone attacker, positioned behind Kercher (and thus closest to the door) could still have managed to leave several shoe prints and - by his own admission - got Kercher's blood on his arms and trouser legs.

What about the vertical space? Weren't that witch Amanda and her consort Raffaele floating through the air? I'm confident the Inquisition can account for this seeming issue.

{ETA: This is a sarcastic comment, I point out for the sake of those unable to tell.}

 

[Kauffer]

Here it is:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402375478f264b3d82.jpg[/qimg]


(The measurements shown are in mm)

As can be clearly seen, there's really only a floor area of around 8ft by 6ft where the attack could have taken place. And the court's "reasoning" puts three assailants (plus Kercher of course) in that space, with two of these assailants at Kercher's head end - i.e. furthest from the door.

It's extremely hard to see how - with the sheer amount of blood and the small amount of floor space - two people up at the head end could have managed to get past the bleeding body and out of the door without tracking blood, and without seemingly getting any blood on themselves. On the other hand, it's far, far easier to see how a lone attacker, positioned behind Kercher (and thus closest to the door) could still have managed to leave several shoe prints and - by his own admission - got Kercher's blood on his arms and trouser legs.

The essence of exoneration lies in this room. This is where the murder took place; this is where the PGs and the court must place everyone. It's the most absurd notion. Machiavelli account and it's disengenuous acolytes don't want to go here. Every implausible theory they have utterly utterly evaporates. Find one, just one bona fide crime scene investigator outside this case, or an uncorrupted police officer with experience of crime scenes who will back a theory with more than one assailant - simply show them the floor plan and the photographs of the room and detail the evidence recovered there. Show the blood pattern. Game over.

As LJ points out, it is so extraordinarily unlikely that the necessary positioning of multiple assailants with Ms Kercher could not result in the tracking and collection of blood. That produces evidence - in the form of shoe prints and transfer. The are no shoe prints belonging to Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito in the room. There is no transfer of blood to their clothing.

Some brave PG want to make a case? I'm guessing that will be a No!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am sorry to see that you have adopted the bolded position, but that may be inline with your agenda.

You need to do a little more digging into the statistics involved, because of an apples v. oranges situation: the cases judged in a year are not (generally) selected from the ones that entered the system in that year. There is a large backlog of applications/cases going through the ECtHR system, for almost every country in the Council of Europe (the smaller ones may be exceptions in terms of size of backlog). A case entering the ECtHR is somewhat like a mouse that's been swallowed by a small snake; there is a lump rather slowly moving through the system.

It is also useful, for purposes of statistical validity, to examine several years of data. For example, see the table "Throughput of applications 1959-2013" in:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592013_ENG.pdf

Italy had 35,103 applications that were sent for judging; a judgment (violation or not) or decision (inadmissible or strike out) was reached in only 18,646 applications. The remainder (about 16,000) appear to be the backlog.
Judgment cases totaled 2,845 and decisions/strike outs 15,801.

In contrast, consider the UK, a country of about the same population size:
22,065 applications sent for judging; judgment or decision in 19,310; the backlog is about 2,700 applications.
Judgment cases totaled 576 and decisions/strike outs 18,734.

Post #2902 refers, interestingly without bold text, I wonder where that came from? Agenda?

 

[Bill Williams]

The essence of exoneration lies in this room. This is where the murder took place; this is where the PGs and the court must place everyone. It's the most absurd notion. Machiavelli account and it's disengenuous acolytes don't want to go here. Every implausible theory they have utterly utterly evaporates. Find one, just one bona fide crime scene investigator outside this case, or an uncorrupted police officer with experience of crime scenes who will back a theory with more than one assailant - simply show them the floor plan and the photographs of the room and detail the evidence recovered there. Show the blood pattern. Game over.

As LJ points out, it is so extraordinarily unlikely that the necessary positioning of multiple assailants with Ms Kercher could not result in the tracking and collection of blood. That produces evidence - in the form of shoe prints and transfer. The are no shoe prints belonging to Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito in the room. There is no transfer of blood to their clothing.

Some brave PG want to make a case? I'm guessing that will be a No!

"The whole cottage is the crimescene, not just Meredith's room."

That's the response, that's the PG making a case.

And then what happens? From that point onwards there's no mention, really, of Meredith's room. "The whole cottage is the crimescene, not just Meredith's room," is code for, "I don't want to talk about Meredith's room."

The clothes that Amanda wore on Nov 1, lay on her own bed for weeks - uncollected by the PLE. Those clothes were, theoretically, in Meredith's room during the murder.... the small room. And not one iota of forensic evidence was collected from those clothes.

So much for the whole cottage being the crime-scene.

And, by the way, are we done about alibi? So far in relation to Raffaele's appeal document statement ("If you are convicting Amanda partly on her going out, then what's this case got to do with me?") there have been crickets.

Well, all except for statements Raffaele made when isolated from all information, except for what the PLE was telling him. And what Machiavelli has to offer is statements Raffaele may or may not have made in front of Mattieni, just minutes after Raffaele had been introduced to his lawyer.

Machiavelli makes it seem like Mignini was Raffaele's friend, where if only Raffaele had cooperated with Mignini (apart from any other information) then this whole thing could have been resolved.

As John Follain recounts in his book - a Mignini-friendly book. Follain has Mignini musing when seeing Amanda with her lawyers, now we'll never know the truth because she has lawyers.

After all, Mignini at interrogation only wanted to help relieve Amanda of her burden of confession, help her with her fear of Lumumba, and let her make more spontaneous statements. He'd even volunteer to be, "only a notary." Yes, that's it, all Mignini wanted was to help Amanda.

And Raffaele wouldn't let him do that..... so Raffaele had to be punished.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the ISC, or Nencini, has used the murder conviction as a basis for adjusting Amanda's jail sentence for calumnia? Wouldn't that bring all the evidence used in the murder case into the ECHR review for the Calumnia charge?

I believe though that ECHR will address the ISC opinion that confirms calumnia, and rejects acquittal, since its all one opinion. I think the rules aren't carved in stone and ECHR can and will step in to stop an imminent imprisonment of Raf which is lurking in the background.

The violations of both Italian and ECHR laws are fairly obvious in this case. Interrogating a suspect, coercing a confession, without a lawyer, without an independent interpreter, then using the coerced statements as the basis for a criminal charge, and the foundation of other charges.

The reason this case will be accepted by ECHR, is because everyone knows about it. If the ECHR won't stop so plain a miscarriage of justice in a case everyone has heard of, they lose whatever credibility they might ever hoped to maintain. ECHR action can't happen soon enough.

 

[Dan O.]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, Machiavelli has been confused for a long time, and will probably curl his toes up that way.
I am a new dog who quickly mastered the mental sleight of hand allowing me to believe that at an inopportune time he was inadvertently recounting events of 120 hours rather than 96 hours ago.

Gotcha the bastards said.

That would be the Kate Mansey interview where she confused the night before when Raffaele stays out with his friends until he and Amanda meet up and return to his place.

This one violates the facts by splitting them up so the police can have Amanda free to meetup with Patrick as they deduced from the telephone records (BTW, i just read the testimony from the preliminary hearing where one of the inspectors admits to having investigated the telephone records of Patrick Lumumba prior to the interrogations on the 5th).

 

[Kauffer]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the ISC, or Nencini, has used the murder conviction as a basis for adjusting the jail sentence for calumnia. Wouldn't that bring all the evidence used in the murder case into the ECHR revue for the Calumnia charge?

I believe thought that ECHR will address the opinion that confirms calumnia, and rejects acquittal, since its all one opinion. I think the rules aren't carved in stone and ECHR can and will step in to stop an imminent imprisonment of Raf which is lurking in the background.

The violations of both Italian and ECHR laws are fairly obvious in this case. Interrogating a suspect, coercing a confession, without a lawyer, without an independent interpreter, then using the coerced statements as the basis for a criminal charge, and the foundation of other charges.

The reason this case will be accepted by ECHR, is because everyone knows about it. If the ECHR won't stop so plain a miscarriage of justice in a case everyone has heard of, they lose whatever credibility they might ever hoped to maintain. Can't happen soon enough.

The ECHR will doubtless be aware of the March 15th ISC ruling deadline. I would be very surprised if it does not admit the calunia case and admit it before the ISC rules. That would be the most important contribution to justice. It is inconceivable that the murder convictions could be sustained within that context.

If the case is admitted, ISC will be able to predict, as the judgements revealed here by Numbers and others so clearly demonstrate, that the court will destroy the already sustained conviction of Ms Knox. And the aspect of the case that will be the biggest bombshell is the one you refer to - the use of coerced statements as the basis for further charges.

One of the great keys to understanding human affairs is an appreciation of the powerful instinct for self preservation everybody has. A beating by the ECHR takes power away from the judiciary and puts it into the hands of the executive. My limited understanding of Italian judicial matters tells me that they will most assuredly not welcome that! The implications for the fate of subsequently confirmed murder convictions would be very clear indeed.

 

[Kauffer]

That would be the Kate Mansey interview where she confused the night before when Raffaele stays out with his friends until he and Amanda meet up and return to his place.

This one violates the facts by splitting them up so the police can have Amanda free to meetup with Patrick as they deduced from the telephone records (BTW, i just read the testimony from the preliminary hearing where one of the inspectors admits to having investigated the telephone records of Patrick Lumumba prior to the interrogations on the 5th).

...and the prior Lumumba investigation is yet more damning evidence that the police entered the interrogation of Ms Knox on 5th November convinced that they had worked out the crime and merely required from Ms Knox that she tell them what they "already knew".

 

[Numbers]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the ISC, or Nencini, has used the murder conviction as a basis for adjusting Amanda's jail sentence for calumnia? Wouldn't that bring all the evidence used in the murder case into the ECHR review for the Calumnia charge?

I believe though that ECHR will address the ISC opinion that confirms calumnia, and rejects acquittal, since its all one opinion. I think the rules aren't carved in stone and ECHR can and will step in to stop an imminent imprisonment of Raf which is lurking in the background.

The violations of both Italian and ECHR laws are fairly obvious in this case. Interrogating a suspect, coercing a confession, without a lawyer, without an independent interpreter, then using the coerced statements as the basis for a criminal charge, and the foundation of other charges.

The reason this case will be accepted by ECHR, is because everyone knows about it. If the ECHR won't stop so plain a miscarriage of justice in a case everyone has heard of, they lose whatever credibility they might ever hoped to maintain. ECHR action can't happen soon enough.

Referring to my added highlighted sections:
1. Yes. The Nencini verdict convicts Amanda of aggravated calunnia, and adds more prison time for the aggravating part. IIUC, "aggravated" means you use the false accusation to hide your own crime (or something like that). The Hellmann conviction was for "mere" calunnia (since there was no crime to hide).

2. I hope this is true.

 

[carbonjam72]

The ECHR will doubtless be aware of the March 15th ISC ruling deadline. I would be very surprised if it does not admit the calunia case and admit it before the ISC rules. That would be the most important contribution to justice. It is inconceivable that the murder convictions could be sustained within that context.

If the case is admitted, ISC will be able to predict, as the judgements revealed here by Numbers and others so clearly demonstrate, that the court will destroy the already sustained conviction of Ms Knox. And the aspect of the case that will be the biggest bombshell is the one you refer to - the use of coerced statements as the basis for further charges.

One of the great keys to understanding human affairs is an appreciation of the powerful instinct for self preservation everybody has. A beating by the ECHR takes power away from the judiciary and puts it into the hands of the executive. My limited understanding of Italian judicial matters tells me that they will most assuredly not welcome that! The implications for the fate of subsequently confirmed murder convictions would be very clear indeed.

I thought the March 2015 is a hearing date, not a deadline for a decision? Also, the 5th section cassation panel still has to decide whether the case is sufficiently complex to warrant a 'united sections' hearing, no? My guess is that if ECHR has accepted the case, then Italy (and the judiciary) would surely know about it, and passing the case off to a 'united sections' panel would be an easy out for them, and far more likely than a simple ISC panel decision.

I also agree with your logic about the judiciary preference to ditching the case themselves, rather than having someone else take away their pet case to prevent them from inflicting further torture. The Italians have behaved like malicious children in this case, unlikely to improve later in life.

I find the guilter mentality to be nothing short of monstrous. Ignorance, malice, and career ambition. ECHR provides for addressing the behavior of bad actors such as Mignini, Stef, and others in this case. Once Amanda and Raf have ben exonerated, the Counsel of Ministers can chase all Mignini's scoundrels around the Umbrian Hills until they've all been accounted for.

 

[anglolawyer]

In Barbie's book (I think it's in hers) she recounts a visit made to the house by the Massei judges. I think the request for a visit was made by the defence. This may have been the occasion when the young lawyer climbed on the grill beneath the window. Anyway, she says the whole thing backfired because the climb looked vertiginous and the (empty) room looked spacious. The channel 5 programme also featured a visit to the room, or a replica, in which there was only a bed, making it seem quite spacious. The clips I have seen of the cartoon also seem to suggest a large space.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

"The whole cottage is the crimescene, not just Meredith's room."

They are right about that, of course, but not every biological trace found at a crime scene is connected to the crime. That's where they veer into the weeds.

 

[Bill Williams]

In Barbie's book (I think it's in hers) she recounts a visit made to the house by the Massei judges. I think the request for a visit was made by the defence. This may have been the occasion when the young lawyer climbed on the grill beneath the window. Anyway, she says the whole thing backfired because the climb looked vertiginous and the (empty) room looked spacious. The channel 5 programme also featured a visit to the room, or a replica, in which there was only a bed, making it seem quite spacious. The clips I have seen of the cartoon also seem to suggest a large space.

There was a brief glimpse of the Mignini cartoon in "The Face of an Angel." What I remember is that the cartoon Amanda was standing at a bit of a distance from Meredith; the room obviously being portrayed as spacious.

I have no idea if Winterbottom got a copy of the cartoon, or if the producers paid for a brief mock-up. The whole thing occupied maybe a second or two of screen time, and unless you knew what it was it was easy to overlook.

But it's amazing how mock-ups usually have a lot of moving-around space.....

 

[Desert Fox]

They are right about that, of course, but not every biological trace found at a crime scene is connected to the crime. That's where they veer into the weeds.

If there was actually more than Meredeth and Guede in the small bedroom, I would expect evidence of them that even a clown posse could find.

 

[anglolawyer]

If there was actually more than Meredeth and Guede in the small bedroom, I would expect evidence of them that even a clown posse could find.

There are the bra clasp, a female shoe print (or foot print, not sure which) a knife print matching the kitchen knife, her lamp and a highly suspicious absence of her fingerprints. That's plenty.