Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

I think he went back to his apartment and changed from Silenzi's Loose Fit pants into Guede's own Pele Pele pants. Possibly, however, he took a different pair of pants from the downstairs apartment, threw them away, and then mentioned the Pele Pele pants as a way of denying that he took anything from downstairs.

I think, though, that the Chagall ticket came from the downstairs apartment, and belonged to one of the boys, likely Silenzi. It had to have been in a pants pocket.

Has anyone seen testimony of downstairs boys, especially regarding missing pants, and state of apt when they left?

 

[carbonjam72]

Or convenient destruction of a bra clasp. Or convenient overwriting of CCTV footage...

Hi Chris, was this over-weiting done by police directly, or simply allowed to happen because police failed to collect in a timely manner? In other words, screwed up by act or omission?

 

[carbonjam72]

Both of you have good arguments that would apply to a rational court system.

Can either of you cite evidence of the rational behavior of the Italian courts, Hellmann excepted?

I think there may be some slightly increased probability of a 3rd 2nd-level trial in part because that will give more of the police, prosecutors, and judges who committed official misconduct in this case more time to arrange their retirement plans prior to any ECHR judgment.

Hellman convicted on Calunnia, and that was extra-judicial (not correct, and done with outside considerations in mind).

 

[christianahannah]

Or convenient destruction of a bra clasp. Or convenient overwriting of CCTV footage...

There is quite a bit of CCTV footage (depending upon which camera one is interested in). The car park for example - much has been shared for viewing but not all. It encompasses a fair stretch of time before and after Meredith's death. The Bubbles footage would be another example.

Some camera footage may have been overwritten, it could be the camera was not operational, or the position of the camera may not have shown the events occurring outside its view (i.e. focused on a door entrance rather than the view of the street). I doubt any of this was convenient to those wanting possible footage of evidence (or non-evidence).

 

[Dan O.]

Same way any drip forms.

I guess you didn't open the spoiler. A large drip forming a puddle several cm across, deep enough for red blood cells to migrate to the edge is perfectly round even though half of it is on the verticle surface of the wall.

In other images you can see the start and end of the drawn circle where the ends don't perfectly overlap.

Inside the upstairs you can see what the real effect of diluted blood drips look like. Here's a sample I've posted before:

Note the drip on the center right closest to the marker.

 

[Samson]

There is quite a bit of CCTV footage (depending upon which camera one is interested in). The car park for example - much has been shared for viewing but not all. It encompasses a fair stretch of time before and after Meredith's death. The Bubbles footage would be another example.

Some camera footage may have been overwritten, it could be the camera was not operational, or the position of the camera may not have shown the events occurring outside its view (i.e. focused on a door entrance rather than the view of the street). I doubt any of this was convenient to those wanting possible footage of evidence (or non-evidence).

There were alleged to be four people at the house. Two were captured on CCTV, two were not. That in itself is possible, but inconvenient for the prosecution, when the two who weren't have been declared innocent at the conclusion of a de novo trial.

 

[Dan O.]

...
He asked to call his father. He was denied.

This bit needs to be clarified since Raffaele did call his father that evening after the interrogations started.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

quick search for reference on the CCTV footage

Hi Chris, was this over-weiting done by police directly, or simply allowed to happen because police failed to collect in a timely manner? In other words, screwed up by act or omission?

It has never been clear to me. My recollection was that there was a CCTV camera whose footage the defense wanted, but they were told that it had been overwritten. However, Malkmus (a member here and elsewhere) wrote a comment that suggested that a request was denied: "Biggest shocker: That the courts denied the defense access to the CCTV's pointed near Raf's apartment. This essentially would have cleared them. They were given no reason for the denial." I don't have time at the moment to track this down right now, but Raffaele's book and Candace Dempsey's book would be good places to start IMO. I am willing to grant that letting the footage get overwritten was carelessness (but footage that showed no one leaving Raf's apartment would have been to some degree exculpatory). I am not willing to grant that the destruction of the bra clasp was carelessness.

I did find this, however: "However, CCTV footage from cameras overlooking the street in Perugia shows the American entering the house about 8.45pm.

It blows her latest defence out of the water, and lends weight to the claims by the Italian police that Knox is a compulsive liar.

A police source in Perugia said: "It will be interesting to see what she has to say when we show her the footage.""

 

[Dan O.]

There is quite a bit of CCTV footage (depending upon which camera one is interested in). The car park for example - much has been shared for viewing but not all. It encompasses a fair stretch of time before and after Meredith's death. The Bubbles footage would be another example.

Some camera footage may have been overwritten, it could be the camera was not operational, or the position of the camera may not have shown the events occurring outside its view (i.e. focused on a door entrance rather than the view of the street). I doubt any of this was convenient to those wanting possible footage of evidence (or non-evidence).

There should be a written record of where the police searched for CCTV footage, where they found cameras, what the cameras were set to record, the date and time that recordings were made and the actuall recordings that were collected.

It really appears that they weren't taking this murder seriously.

 

[Numbers]

You probably meant: does not let.

If anyone wonders if my conspiratorializing about John Follain is without basis, consider his own latest, as outlined by Bruce Fischer on Ground Report:

http://groundreport.com/journalistic-integrity-questioned-once-again-in-the-amanda-knox-case/

Like Andrea Vogt, and like at least two Italian judges of our acquaintence (Massei and Nencini), John Follain is even now just making stuff up.

He's forging a secretly recorded discussion between Curt Knox and his daughter, Amanda, when Amanda was in prison.

It's not bad enough to have this kind of invasion of privacy - secret tapings, when the PLE could not tape key interrogations!!!!!.......

But John Follain, forges the transcript to make it sound more sinister. He invents dialogue. Why do you suppose he does that!?

Read Fischer's piece. This thing for the last 7+ years has been like this. If you can't find anything incriminating to say about Knox and/or Sollecito - hell, just make it up. Repeat it enough times and it becomes fact!

I meant that the police denial that they threatened and slapped Amanda Knox creates a situation where she is the only witness stating the truth of what happened, lessening the probability that an Italian court would find the police guilty of violating CP 377-bis. This would be especially true if the appearance is maintained, by charging Amanda Knox with calunnia, that she is responsible for originating her statements, rather than issuing the statement as a result of police coercion.

 

[Numbers]

Hellman convicted on Calunnia, and that was extra-judicial (not correct, and done with outside considerations in mind).

I do not mean that Hellmann's motivation report and verdicts were entirely rational. The acquittals were rational; the calunnia conviction was not.

It is possible that Hellmann convicted Amanda for calunnia to:
1. avoid having to charge the police with criminal acts;
2. give her a conviction, which if finalized by the CSC, would enable her to apply to the ECHR about the violations of her rights by the police, prosecution, and courts;
3. placate the CSC by allowing them to find Amanda guilty of something, which might have satisfied their witch-hunting lust and ended the series of trials.

 

[platonov]

You are nothing if not amazing, and someone committed to maximizing confusion.

I can only repeat. You obviously need to read Raffaele's book - on the way the document he signed was composed. It was not composed by him, and he was not allowed to change anything in it - except for one item which was relatively minor, which the PLE offered to him. He is clear that he signed a document under duress, which did not reflect either the events of the night of Nov 1/2, or even the confusions he was presented with on the late night of Nov 5.

Please read his account: it is filled with lines like, "I told them that one day had blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?"

<snip>

I agree with all of this. I'd only add that in my opinion a highly significant additional factor underpinning Sollecito's statement of 5/6 November - which turned out to be provably false in many respects - was the cognitive dissonance that would have been affecting Sollecito if his memory of Knox spending the whole evening/night of the murder with him in his apartment was being totally contradicted by the police, who were telling him they had incontrovertible proof that Knox had been present at the murder.

And I'd also add that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or, to put it another way, it's pointless trying to continue arguing the presence of the fossil record with a die-hard creationist. I recommend giving up even trying

This is all fantastic stuff.

But there is a problem with these confabulations, whether they arise from Raffys book or not.
[This is book that his father - on Italian TV - disavowed parts of]
You see, not alone do we have RS’s statement from the 6th - we also have his statements to Matteini and his own scribblings from that period. These tell a different story.

I’m not going to bother looking for the link but for anyone interested ; A search on JREFF/ISF for the following terms ‘platonov’ ‘London John’ ‘utterly irrelevant’ should take one to the pages where this was discussed at length some years ago and the various docs referenced.

For the curious ”utterly irrelevant“ was LJ’s response when he belatedly accepted the reality of RS statement on the 5/6th. Prior to that he (and others) had argued at great length that all Raffy had said was – I kid you not – ‘he couldn’t be sure if AK had gone out when he was asleep’.

‘utterly irrelevant’ scores over the current arguments in one very important point – it’s shorter. And that, speaking as a fan of brevity, is no small matter. Otherwise the arguments are identical in that they are both nonsensical in the extreme.

 

[carbonjam72]

It has never been clear to me. My recollection was that there was a CCTV camera whose footage the defense wanted, but they were told that it had been overwritten. However, Malkmus (a member here and elsewhere) wrote a comment that suggested that a request was denied: "Biggest shocker: That the courts denied the defense access to the CCTV's pointed near Raf's apartment. This essentially would have cleared them. They were given no reason for the denial." I don't have time at the moment to track this down right now, but Raffaele's book and Candace Dempsey's book would be good places to start IMO. I am willing to grant that letting the footage get overwritten was carelessness (but footage that showed no one leaving Raf's apartment would have been to some degree exculpatory). I am not willing to grant that the destruction of the bra clasp was carelessness.

I did find this, however: "However, CCTV footage from cameras overlooking the street in Perugia shows the American entering the house about 8.45pm.

It blows her latest defence out of the water, and lends weight to the claims by the Italian police that Knox is a compulsive liar.

A police source in Perugia said: "It will be interesting to see what she has to say when we show her the footage.""

I do recall reading this in Raf's book. IIRC, Raf had requested the CCTV video from two cameras 'on the way' from his apartment to the cottage. So it was not aimed at his door, but rather a most likely direct route.

The request was made before judge Riccardi (I know that's not his correct name, but the judge between Matteini and Micheli), Raf wrote that when this request was denied, he gave up any hope that the process was anything but crooked.

I thought Raf's defamation case had required a translation of his book's offending passages be delivered to the court today in his defamation case that Mignini brought against him and Gumbel. I was expecting to see something in the news, but maybe its just a delivery of materials. Not sure when their next go-round will be.

Beautiful country. Ugly system.

 

[Dan O.]

There is quite a bit of CCTV footage (depending upon which camera one is interested in). The car park for example - much has been shared for viewing but not all. It encompasses a fair stretch of time before and after Meredith's death. The Bubbles footage would be another example.

Some camera footage may have been overwritten, it could be the camera was not operational, or the position of the camera may not have shown the events occurring outside its view (i.e. focused on a door entrance rather than the view of the street). I doubt any of this was convenient to those wanting possible footage of evidence (or non-evidence).

This is one camera reference that I haven't fully tracked down:

*We deem this to be a useful fact to the defense because the iron staircase, in addition to being very illuminated, is covered by a fixed surveillance camera. [http://www.repubblica.it/2007/12/se...uccisa6/perugia-uccisa6/perugia-uccisa6.html] (Archived at: [http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...mana"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari])
​

I initially thought the steps in question were the ones that have since been torn down adjacent to the basketball court. But another possibility is that this camera was on the metal steps at the back of the car park where Nara claimed to hear footsteps.

 

[carbonjam72]

I do not mean that Hellmann's motivation report and verdicts were entirely rational. The acquittals were rational; the calunnia conviction was not.

It is possible that Hellmann convicted Amanda for calunnia to:
1. avoid having to charge the police with criminal acts;
2. give her a conviction, which if finalized by the CSC, would enable her to apply to the ECHR about the violations of her rights by the police, prosecution, and courts;
3. placate the CSC by allowing them to find Amanda guilty of something, which might have satisfied their witch-hunting lust and ended the series of trials.

I would have thought door number 3. But the wording lends itself to door number 2 as a secondary objective. And Door Number 1 does seem to be the motivation as well.

Just saying, the Italian courts are clearly not independent and free of political influence, even when functioning under honest people.

 

[Dan O.]

I do recall reading this in Raf's book. IIRC, Raf had requested the CCTV video from two cameras 'on the way' from his apartment to the cottage. So it was not aimed at his door, but rather a most likely direct route.

The request was made before judge Riccardi (I know that's not his correct name, but the judge between Matteini and Micheli), Raf wrote that when this request was denied, he gave up any hope that the process was anything but crooked.

For reference: (I don't know if any of these links still work)

*The most important CCTV is, instead, in piazza Grimana, just where corso Garibaldi starts, just on the path Raffaele/Rudy house-Meredith/Amanda house. It's a new camera, one of those that can pan 360° but nothing came out from that camera yet. Maybe was too new and still not working. [http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/01/imperfect-cleanup.html]
*:aka Piazza Fortebraccio
*deed on JREF was able to find it in google street view: [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...=DTYTrXLAL2JglkX6vrZ9Qg&cbp=12,183.93,,1,-12], why can't the others?

*A second camera is on the wall under a street lamp about 1/3 the way up the street to Raffaele's apartment. [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=MXWnDz3eRNKXuYxrrckP9w&cbp=12,20.14,,3,-8.21 (google street view link)]

*Private camera on Tokyo resturant behind uni. [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...id=JCmd8MeW8-b2qFzqFp-2WQ&cbp=12,259,,2,-5.2]​

 

[LondonJohn]

Just out of interest, it's instructive to explore how platonov has taken two words of a post of mine (from mid-2011 no less! Obsessed much....?) entirely out of context.

Here's the whole content of the post. The two words at issue are the final two words of the post:

"Are you sure that this claim of Sollecito's that Knox was not in his apartment between 9pm and 1am wasn't an erroneous reference to the night before, when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito?

Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7255928#post7255928


It shouldn't really come as a huge surprise that the two words have been entirely shorn of their critical context - including a rather important conditional proposition - in a specious piece of sophistry. But there you go.

With any luck, the words "utterly irrelevant" will be.... erm... utterly irrelevant to this debate now that everyone can clearly see the context in which those words were originally employed by me. At least, that's what should happen in a critical thinking forum. But there's no accounting for taste (or agenda) though, I suppose.........

 

[Bill Williams]

Just out of interest, it's instructive to explore how platonov has taken two words of a post of mine (from mid-2011 no less! Obsessed much....?) entirely out of context.

Here's the whole content of the post. The two words at issue are the final two words of the post:

"Are you sure that this claim of Sollecito's that Knox was not in his apartment between 9pm and 1am wasn't an erroneous reference to the night before, when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito?

Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7255928#post7255928


It shouldn't really come as a huge surprise that the two words have been entirely shorn of their critical context - including a rather important conditional proposition - in a specious piece of sophistry. But there you go.

With any luck, the words "utterly irrelevant" will be.... erm... utterly irrelevant to this debate now that everyone can clearly see the context in which those words were originally employed by me. At least, that's what should happen in a critical thinking forum. But there's no accounting for taste (or agenda) though, I suppose.........

Thanks for this. Having just read Raffaele's account in his book just adds to this. He protested to the cops at interrogation that the statement they prepared for him to sign was a "mash up" of his own confusion over the two night.

What is key is that when finally relented and signed he was unaware tthat this would have the effect of taking it into Amanda's room, saying that "Raffaele has stopped being an alibi for you."

There's Raffaele sitting there shoeless from 3 am onwards wondering two things. Why does Amanda even nneed an alibi, she was with me..... and, what's any of this got to do with me to begin with?

 

[Dougm]

Just out of interest, it's instructive to explore how platonov has taken two words of a post of mine (from mid-2011 no less! Obsessed much....?) entirely out of context.

Here's the whole content of the post. The two words at issue are the final two words of the post:

"Are you sure that this claim of Sollecito's that Knox was not in his apartment between 9pm and 1am wasn't an erroneous reference to the night before, when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito?

Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7255928#post7255928


It shouldn't really come as a huge surprise that the two words have been entirely shorn of their critical context - including a rather important conditional proposition - in a specious piece of sophistry. But there you go.

With any luck, the words "utterly irrelevant" will be.... erm... utterly irrelevant to this debate now that everyone can clearly see the context in which those words were originally employed by me. At least, that's what should happen in a critical thinking forum. But there's no accounting for taste (or agenda) though, I suppose.........

My take is that I see a similarity in way of thinking to the people who cherry pick the phrase, I was there from Amanda's prison conversation with her mom, completely ignoring any context or common sense.

 

[Diocletus]

Both of you have good arguments that would apply to a rational court system.

Can either of you cite evidence of the rational behavior of the Italian courts, Hellmann excepted? .

Well, no. But I do know that there are many intelligent Italian people, and I'm assuming that a couple might even be judges.