Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[codyjuneau]

.
It was fortunate the defense's request to delay the ISC judgment until after the ECHR ruling on the calunnia charge, was not granted.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

What if they offer to fix the cable car?

.
The issue was the people in the cable car that were killed. They could not be fixed.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

.
The issue was the people in the cable car that were killed. They could not be fixed.

Cody
.

Is there linkage?

 

[codyjuneau]

So let's play 'find the yellow shopping bag'.

In the photos of Dec 18 it shows up 3 times:
019.jpg, 020.jpg it is on the other side of the room being used to cover the main blood spill so the camera stand isn't sitting in Meredith's blood. These were taken at about 2:45pm. The clasp is photographed on the floor next to the lamp cord at 3:52pm. at 4:01pm Meredith's bloody sweatshirt has been dropped on top of the lamp cord seen in 064.jpg. And in the wider view of 065.jpg we see the shopping bag at the back corner under the desk.

In the video of Dec 18, the bag shows up first in the bottom right corner of the frame at 02:49in front of Meredith's desk. And again at 06:26, and 28:29.

At time index 37:29, the camera man pulls the junk out from inside the desk and the camera pans back to see the shopping bag and the first view of the white spot. At 37:40 there is a very clear view and this is definitely not the bra clasp. The frame at time index 38:10 matches the above photo.

At index 40:15 the shopping bag is being placed under the camera stand.

In part 2 of the video at index 00:13:41, the shopping bag is on top of the debris pile in front of the desk. At 00:34:26, most of the debris has been moved away and the clasp is "discovered" on the bare floor.

.
Hi Danno

I was not convinced either way at first, but you are correct.

When the shopping bag was moved, that little white thing fell off and onto the floor about a foot in front of the left side of the radiator. It remained visible there until, and after, they found the bra clasp.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

Is there linkage?

.
I am just going from memory of a discussion of the accident on this forum.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
I think this is the accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_%281998%29

Cody
.

 

[Caper]

I'm just listening to an old Generation Why podcast discussing the case. I'm sure they got a lot wrong.

One thing though. Did Amanda Knox call her mother before she ever knew a murder occurred? While she knew her mother would be asleep?

 

[Samson]

.
I think this is the accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_%281998%29

Cody
.

By linkage I meant did the accident impede Amanda's freedom, although in the first instance I was trying to answer Kauffer's question in a humorous way without giving due consideration to the nature of the tragedy.

 

[Samson]

I'm just listening to an old Generation Why podcast discussing the case. I'm sure they got a lot wrong.

One thing though. Did Amanda Knox call her mother before she ever knew a murder occurred? While she knew her mother would be asleep?

Yes to (a) and no to (b). It is likely she neglected to do the time zone mental gymnastics, since she had not telephoned home since she arrived in Italy. She was "freaked out" . Someone can correct me on detail.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm just listening to an old Generation Why podcast discussing the case. I'm sure they got a lot wrong.

One thing though. Did Amanda Knox call her mother before she ever knew a murder occurred? While she knew her mother would be asleep?

After coming home and finding the front door open, a broken window, her flatmate Meredith missing and not answering the phone, Amanda called her mother for advice.

It is odd that anyone would see that as suspicious even if it was a time when Amanda's mother would certainly be sleeping.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm just listening to an old Generation Why podcast discussing the case. I'm sure they got a lot wrong.

One thing though. Did Amanda Knox call her mother before she ever knew a murder occurred? While she knew her mother would be asleep?

Have you never called your mother when something was wrong short of somebody being murdered?

Yes, Amanda called her mother. But it was not at Noon before anything happened as the prosecutor claimed. It was at 12:47 after Amanda and Raffaele had returned to the cottage, after calls to Meredith's phones and three calls with Filomena, after discovering the broken window, after pounding on Meredith's door and Raffaele trying to break it down and even succeeding to crack it. Do you thin it matters in such a situation if mother is still asleep?

BTW: it was not 3am Seattle time. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclo...1&day=2&year=2007&hour=12&min=47&sec=43&p1=48

In hindsight, one could say that compared to discovering your roommates dead body, nothing had happened by 12:47. With that reasoning then a guilty person would know not to be calling their mother until after the body had been discovered.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think those Generation Why guys think that people will do things logically when under stress

 

[Caper]

You guys have me already. I'm just trying to do a retort to his podcast.

 

[bagels]

The Generation Why guys made a followup podcast that was more balanced, although they still had a wishy washy conclusion at the end I thought.

I can't post links but it's the usual URL + /GenerationWhyPodcast/the-case-for-amanda-knox/

 

[Caper]

I think those Generation Why guys think that people will do things logically when under stress

The Generation Why guys made a followup podcast that was more balanced, although they still had a wishy washy conclusion at the end I thought.

I can't post links but it's the usual URL + /GenerationWhyPodcast/the-case-for-amanda-knox/

Yeah. I did find the follow up and it was much better. But there were still mistakes.

 

[Planigale]

No it's a no one said what Strozzi claimed in his correction of an article or post, He said the police called Patrick a murderer first and Amanda just repeated it and not even Amanda claims that. Period. I was not I that made an issue of it, it was Strozzi. Of course, they thought he was involved along with her but even her account leaves the impression that they didn't know who had done what but were sure she did know.



Agree totally. There was even poster, a later to be friend of the family, that was convinced Hellmann had just right. The PGP have used it for calling her a racist (ignoring that if they were right a black man was involved and she knew it) and trying somehow to make all of us racists and anti-Semites. It always seemed to me that Hellmann was misdirected in trying to throw the PLE a bone.

Rarely one gets to pick up Grinder on a non-evidence based assumption. We do not know that Hellman believed that Knox was guilty of calunnia. All we know is that a majority of the judges, the lay judges voting first from youngest to eldest voted for this. Hellman then had to write the motivation report. I find it easier to believe that the lay judges felt that Knox had to be guilty of something for being a 'wicked woman'. I seem to remember all but one were women, who tend to be more judgmental of other women (not sure if this has any stronger than anecdotal justification). It may even have been a bit of a trade off, it would take only one swing judge to change from guilty to innocent of murder.

 

[Antony]

I realize the thread has moved on, but I thought acbytesla did a pretty good job of summarizing why libel suits by Knox are unlikely to scare anybody. There might be some weird exceptions where somebody just makes highly defamatory stuff up without any reasonable basis, but for the most part I think this is one of those rare times where London John is wrong at least with regard to US libel law. I thought this before I got to thinking about the possibility that Knox might be classified as a public person with regard to libel laws, but I think her book and her public comments about wrongful convictions have made it likely that with regard to libel laws she would be viewed as a public person. And this seems like it would make the possibility of a successful libel suit in the vast majority of cases impossible.

But not a "public person" at the time relevant to the false allegations being made. It will be a travesty if this becomes an obstacle to falsehoods being put right.

 

[Kauffer]

Ok - the legality I missed.

Still, it will be interesting to see if Bruno makes mention of calunnia (writ large) in his motivations. What would he have said IF if had been before his court? Section 1 of ISC was a defence-unfriendly court, so was predisposed to sign-off on Hellmann's conviction. What would Section 5 have done?

Who knows.

As komponisto properly corrected me, it is the Marasca court, not the Bruno court - that was my mistake not yours, Bill. In short we don't know what he would have said if the matter was before the court - as you say, "Who knows". But I would bet he knows what the ECHR is going to say about it.

He has the option of waving the issue of aggravating circumstances away by saying simply that since Amanda did not commit the murder, she cannot be found guilty of any charge in association with it.

She's also not guilty of - transporting the knife - sexual violence (or whatever the precise charge was) - simulating a burglary and theft of Meredith's phones. Some of these will doubtless be extensively reasoned.

But, presumably he will now say that the simulation never happened. But what will he say about multiple attackers? That's the really interesting aspect of the judgement for me. He has to address it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Rarely one gets to pick up Grinder on a non-evidence based assumption. We do not know that Hellman believed that Knox was guilty of calunnia. All we know is that a majority of the judges, the lay judges voting first from youngest to eldest voted for this. Hellman then had to write the motivation report. I find it easier to believe that the lay judges felt that Knox had to be guilty of something for being a 'wicked woman'. I seem to remember all but one were women, who tend to be more judgmental of other women (not sure if this has any stronger than anecdotal justification). It may even have been a bit of a trade off, it would take only one swing judge to change from guilty to innocent of murder.

We had a recent quote from Hellman in which he said they either had to convict her or accuse the police of lying, implying: (1) he was in on it (2) he behaved unjudicially and (3) if he thought that would be the end of the affair, his judgment was off.

 

[Strozzi]

As komponisto properly corrected me, it is the Marasca court, not the Bruno court - that was my mistake not yours, Bill. In short we don't know what he would have said if the matter was before the court - as you say, "Who knows". But I would bet he knows what the ECHR is going to say about it.

He has the option of waving the issue of aggravating circumstances away by saying simply that since Amanda did not commit the murder, she cannot be found guilty of any charge in association with it.

So, she's also not guilty of - transporting the knife - sexual violence (or whatever the precise charge was) - simulating a burglary and theft of Meredith's phones.

Presumably he will now say that the simulation never happened. But what will he say about multiple attackers? That's the really interesting aspect of the judgement for me. He has to address it.

I think you and Komponisto are referring to the Massei court. Giancarlo Massei was the presiding judge over the first trial (2009) in Perugia. Francesco Maresca is the Kerchers' lawyer, known for opposing any effort to get Guede to testify while his clients, the Kerchers, say they want the whole truth to come out. Maresca is not a judge.