Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

What I said about TOD was that the evidence, which I cited "points very solidly towards" Kercher dying within ten minutes of her arrival home. The evidence, to remind you, comes from her empty duodenum reconciled with the time of her last meal, the evidence of Purton as to Kercher's fatigue and intentions, the fact that she did not place another call to her mother and that she was dressed in her outside clothes immediately before she was attacked - that's the evidence I cited.

I believe it most likely by 9:30, almost certainly by around 10PM. The cell phone evidence confirms this as does Rudy"s testimony about the timing of the murder and when he left. He admitted being there, and that a murder occurred. Why lie about the time?

 

[acbytesla]

Depends on the reason for the annulment. We can be sure it won't be based on sound legal reasoning.

Koo koo

Are you an Italian lawyer Vixen? If not, what makes you qualified to make such a statement?

 

[Grinder]

Those that claim Raf says AK was out are saying he wasn't involved? They must be saying Curatolo lied. It's so hard trying to show they arre guilty.

 

[RoseMontague]

Depends on the reason for the annulment. We can be sure it won't be based on sound legal reasoning.

I prefer common sense over osmosis any day. Hellmann's ruling showed common sense, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

Those that claim Raf says AK was out are saying he wasn't involved? They must be saying Curatolo lied. It's so hard trying to show they are guilty.

Good point. Most of those on the side of guilt hang on to Nara and Curatolo like their life depended on it, yet contradict them constantly without even realizing it. An attempt by the pro-guilt wiki authors to misrepresent their testimonies did not go unnoticed.

 

[Strozzi]

The main reason given in Massei IIRC was Raf's nothing was stolen, which I believe he repeated to the PP.
There is no proof that anyone entered through the window. I think some here have spotted dirt on the floor that came from outside. I know you think there are scuff marks on the wall.

I always vote for incompetence. I think if they consciously framed them it started after the 6th.

Any police or judge who took Raffaele's statement that "nothing was stolen" as definitive regarding whether or not theft occurred are either morons or suspect-centric biased. (Vixen, are you with them?) Only inhabitants of the rooms would know if valuables were missing from drawers, closets, and tables. Raffaele saw a camera on the kitchen counter. When they looked through Filomena's doorway and saw her window broken and a rock on the floor he saw her laptop computer case on the floor in the center of her room. The TV was still in the house. That is what Raffaele saw.

 

[Numbers]

Warning: ECHR case-law discussion

When was the first mention by the police that the burglary was staged? Didn't the very first officers think it was staged? If so, do you believe the PP decided from the first to frame the kids?

ETA - How do you know it wasn't staged? Could Rudi have staged it because he had asked Mez if he could come over and thought the other british may have been told by her? He then thought he needed to stage it. Not suggesting it happened that way but it could have.

We should attempt to resolve some of the seeming issues about when the police and prosecution "framing" began. First of all, it should be recalled that "framing" is a term that is sometimes better replaced by "official misconduct".

The term "official misconduct" removes the concern that the term "framing" is inappropriate because the police or prosecution in their minds may have considered the subject guilty and then fabricated or withheld elements of evidence or interpretation of evidence.

There is another issue if one delves into the quite difficult problem of "mind reading" if one believes the police or prosecutor did believe the subject was guilty: Was the "belief in guilt" or "suspicion" a "reasonable" or "probable" or "plausible" one, or was it "unreasonable" or "arbitrary". Suppose for example, that Giobbi sincerely believed that Amanda was very likely to be guilty of murder because she wiggled her hips (in his perception) and said "voila" when putting on booties before entering the cottage. Can this be considered a "reasonable" basis for suspicion?

To overcome such issues about "mind reading" in the face of a lack of available trustworthy information on the state of mind of the police and prosecutor, one may attempt to rely on their overt (observable) actions.

For example, in the ECHR case Hajnal v. Serbia 36937/06, Hajnal was arrested for several days in a row each morning by Serbian police at about 4:00 or 5:00 am, brought in for questioning, and then released much later, after about 10 or 12 hours. On one of these days he claims he was beaten by the police. On the next day he confessed to a serious crime. (He had a retained lawyer, but while under police custody, he dismissed that lawyer for not allowing him to confess, and was assigned a defense lawyer who did not attend his interrogation. He claimed the dismissal was done under duress.) The ECHR judged in the Hajnal case that the police actions in arresting Hajnal, questioning him for lengthy periods, releasing him, and then rearresting him was part of a pattern showing violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment, even if the alleged beating by police could not be documented BARD.

Application to the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case: Amanda was requested to appear at the police station for questioning for many hours duration on each of Nov. 2, 3, and 4, 2007. She was not formally under arrest during these questionings, but persons requested to answer questions as a witness by police may be under some obligation to do so. Were these repeated questionings for long durations comparable to the repeated ones in Hajnal (without the element of coercion including allegations of threats and hitting before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation)? Were they simply repetitive and designed to wear down the resistance or to fatigue Amanda Knox? If so, then the official misconduct may have begun as early as Nov. 3, 2007.

In any case, IMO, the official misconduct must certainly have begun with the planning of the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007. Testimony of Giobbi documents for ECHR purposes that this interrogation was planned for both Knox and Sollecito, and this type of interrogation is that used for suspects. There were clear undisputed violations of Italian law (procedural) and Constitution in the Nov. 5/6 interrogations, and allegations of criminal violations (including threats and hitting). And with the conviction of Knox for calunnia, there was clearly a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 (right to a fair trial) with 6.3c (right to a lawyer for defense, which generally must be provided during interrogation).

 

[Dan O.]

There's only one standard definition for bleach in the context of household cleaning chemicals, and it's the one that is meant here. It's not ammonia or peroxide, or standard soap. It's sodium hypochlorite in solution.

And once again it is necessary to show Vixen the evidence that he can't find for himself.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inconsistent narrative

Good point. Most of those on the side of guilt hang on to Nara and Curatolo like their life depended on it, yet contradict them constantly without even realizing it. An attempt by the pro-guilt wiki authors to misrepresent their testimonies did not go unnoticed.

Yes, this sort of thing is why I often asked PG commenters for a self-consistent timeline. Usually the answer I received amount to, "Timeline? We don't need no stinking timeline."

 

[Kauffer]

Very early reports said that is what the police suspected. Interesting that the broken window didn't preclude that at that early time. As I've reported here early reports also referred to Mez as a party girl, which could be connected to the sex game, whatever that is, theory (not in the scientific sense). While others completely dismiss the idea that Rudi either had a meetup planned or thought he did, to me the girls including Mez were most likely so drunk they wouldn't have remembered.

Mez was not an angel and might have invited Rudi or someone else to come over not necessarily for more than a drink. Another Lalli conclusion was that she had a full drink or two in her system. It's possible that just like Laura wanted Amanda to lie about pot the british girls decided there was no need to mention Mez's (for LJ) having a drink or two at pizza dinner.

British student made date with killer

Initial reports, IIRC, suggested that Kercher was as drunk as a sailor, but perhaps this was from a mistaken interpretation of Lalli's report.

I do find these two statements from your link to be rather interesting contextually. This is a 4th November article, so the content was probably obtained on the 3rd. By this time, the bugging of the phones had started or was just about to start, the break in was positively adjudged to be fake and Amanda and possibly Lumumba, if not Raffaele were already suspects.

So in this context, Chiacchiera's statement is rather puzzling, particularly since it was known that Kercher left the house party with Purton.

"Commissioner Marco Chiacchiera, who is leading the investigation, said: "The most plausible hypothesis we have is that she met someone at the Hallowe'en party. She expressed a desire to meet him again. She had been to a friend's house on the night she was murdered but decided to make her own way home to meet him.""

Campolongo's statement, however could be explained by the workings of the rumour mill and general gossip and speculation. I am not aware of any other individual claims of a planned or "spontaneous" date besides his and Chiacchiera's.

"Pietro Campolongo, a fellow student at the university, said he had warned Meredith never to be at home alone.
"I knew Meredith and her friends. I know Meredith met someone on Hallowe'en and this guy persuaded her to stay in Perugia rather than go back to one of her friend's houses. We think it was he who persuaded her to open the door on Thursday. I warned her about this. I warned her a thousand times. Girls should never stay at home alone.""

Were the police seriously pursuing the idea of a date gone wrong? Could they have believed that the (in their minds) fake break in was carried out by the "mystery" date? Were there parallel lines of enquiry taking place?

 

[acbytesla]

[/HILITE]


Wrong thread. Darwins Theory is very elegant, but it's still only just that. A theory.

You can't be serious? Are you really this scientifically illiterate? Darwin's theory is about as proven a scientific construct as 2+2=4. Every single scientific experiment ever conducted validates it. BTW, Quantum mechanics is also a theory. One that is validated every day by billions, probably trillions of electronic devices. The modern world would NOT exist without these proven theories.

No wonder you fail to understand the science and logic in this case.

 

[Dan O.]

I think the sign of pulling your index finger horizontally across your throat has something of a universal translation.

Luca says he overheard the conversation with the postals and the medical team:

[from court file RG 08/08 - 06/02/2009 c / AMANDA KNOX MARIE +1 (page 223)]

PROSECUTOR - Look, when you've been there, in short, you came out, after discovering the corpse know as this girl was dead, that is, what, what He had suffered?
HEADS - Then, no, after a while '...
PROSECUTOR - someone said that?
WITNESS - Yes, yes, yes, after a while ', here, after it had supervening a machine of cross red, They are got the scientific, the Police, all of them, after a while 'one of the two doctors, I think, of this steering wheel Red Cross, was not an ambulance, she was released from inspection, say, within of home addressing one of the Carabinieri who was there outside the has a little 'described what had happened, saying ..
making reference both to the fact that it had been cut the throat is the fact that he had also struggled, say, and then from there I learned this thing. Prosecutor - she has learned, you know if they knew the others? In particular ...
WITNESS - Yes, there was Paola next to me who heard it.
PROSECUTOR - and Amanda and Sollecito?
HEADS - I guess not, I guess not.
PROSECUTOR - feel, and then you went to the police station, no?
WITNESS - Yes.
Prosecutor - well, if you remember the urge has talked to the police station, he spoke of this story? That what did she say?
HEADS - look, the only exchange that there was going to Police headquarters was in the car, let's say, where he told me asked if she had died, he asked me. I, a little 'stunned the question, I said yes. And then after me asked, if I am not mistaken, as he was dead, in short, something like that, and I then I explained this What I had heard outside. Then if I'm not mistaken asked even ... I do not remember now, I did also a third question but I've always said in depositions.
​

 

[Dan O.]

And indeed, Matteini refused to allow it for that reason.

As Amanda was at the questura as a voluntary witness, there was no requirement for the presence of a lawyer.

As soon as Amanda announced her presence at the murder scene, the interview was suspended, and Amanda was now a suspect AND informed of her legal rights.

No Vixen, Amanda was in the lobby of the police station talking to Filomena on the phone when someone approached her and started asking questions. This was recorded and played back during the trial. Why is it that you do not know these basic facts?

 

[Dan O.]

The piece of undigested mushroom found in Mez' gullet most likely came from a punnet in the fridge. IOW it was not part of the meal with the English ladies.

You don't know that. You don't even know if it was mushroom or apple from the crumble or something else since it was never tested. Even if it were mushroom, you don't know if it came from the fridge or the leftover pizza that Filomena and her boy friend cooked the night before and left in the oven.

 

[Strozzi]

Of course judges are fallible. However, in England & Wales, at least, you generally need at least seven year's barristers experience, and each vacancy is highly competitive, so one has a system that it is the creme de la creme who end up at the top courts. These are judges who have shown themselves to be truly objective, follow correct procedure and above all to have superb and outstanding reasoning skills.

So yes, I prefer the opinion of a judge who has sat through the entire trial to someone who's merely studied a few secondhand images on a laptop and harbours weird conspiracy theories about a top Italian prosecutor, the entire Italian police force and the entire forensic department being bent and crooked, fiddling forensic results on some bizarre theory they wanted to victimise the American girl (of which there are literally thousands, in any year, there to study).

Vixen, the entire Italian police force was not involved in investigating the crime, only a handful of senior Perugia investigators, a crack inspector (Gribbi) from Rome, and Stefanoni and a few lab managers ked the investigation and made important decisions whose errors rebound to this day and will cost Italian taxpayers molto Euros.

Speaking of senior Perugia investigators, I recall that Napoleoni's squad had some run in with the law themselves. Can you summarize that and let us know if it indicates anything about their methods and honesty? If you evade again, teacher will make you sit under the piano for the rest of the afternoon.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you mean like the way you just believe in whatever opinions Massei and Nencini had, on the basis that they are judges and it's hard to become a judge?

A skeptic would call that: "Appeal to authority".

 

[Dan O.]

As patholigist Lalli did not perform an autopsy until almost 24 hrs or more, after rigor mortis had set in, Massei having heard all expert witnesses had no choice but to set a median time, with a four hour corridor either side.

It is understandable the defense will push for a time which would exclude their clients. However, they did both turn off their phones 8:45pm and Raf keeps claiming Amanda was out till 1:00am - and he has never retracted this - then it doesn't really exempt them. Although Mez is known to have arrlved home circa 9:00pm, you can't be sure she didn't put on her coat again later, or that the fact she had it on meant she had just arrived.

Now you are either lying or you are not the Vixen that was participating in this thread during the earlier discussion about the phones.

As for Raffaele's story, here is what he said before the judge on November 8:

At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda.
I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.
About that night I remember that the pipe under the sink had unlatched and, while I was washing things in the kitchen, the floor flooded, I tried to dry the floor and then, on Amanda’s suggestion, I let it go. I worked with my computer and then I went to bed. I received a call from my father, who calls me every night before I go to sleep, I do not remember if he called me on the landline phone or on the cell phone.
The next morning Amanda woke up before me, she woke me up telling me that she wanted to go take a shower at her house because she did not like my shower. So she went out and I remained to sleep. She went out at around 9:30 to 10:00. Later she came back, she rung at my door and I woke up. I remember that she had changed her clothes and she was now wearing a white skirt while the day before she was wearing jeans. She carried a mop with her to clean the floor.​

Why is it that you don't know about this retraction of the statement Raffaele made on November 5/6? Do you maintain your ignorance intentionally?

 

[Dan O.]

Vecchiotti and Conti were a couple of charlatans paid by the defense to write what the defense wanted them to write. In court, they sat with the Sollecitos.

Assignment

On January 22, 2011, the undersigned Prof. Stefano Conti and Prof. Carla Vecchiotti, Specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome – La Sapienza, were appointed by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann of the Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia, Criminal Section, to conduct laboratory investigations relative to criminal case no. 10/2010 R.G. in order to provide answers to the following inquiries:

“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

“whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification“
“if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.”
​

You really need to question your sources. Drinking the cool-aid at the guilter sites is not healthy for your credibility.

 

[acbytesla]

Vecchiotti and Conti were a couple of charlatans paid by the defense to write what the defense wanted them to write. In court, they sat with the Sollecitos.

Wrong again. ContI and Vecchiotti were court appointed and paid by the state. I have no idea where they sat when they were in court and neither do you.

The biggest scandal IMV was Hellmann egregiously releasing the two convicted killers for misguided reasons or personal sympathy and lack of Criminal Law experience. After that fiasco, that embarrassed the whole of Italy, and set in motion ppl cashing in on the pair's notoreity, the whole thing has been tainted ever since.

Hellman's report will go down in history as one of the greatest legal scandals, and the consequent money-making machine as one of the greatest hoaxes of this century, on a par with Watergate.

I thought you said you were neutral? That clearly wasn't true. Now was it? There isn't a shred of any evidence,.not any at all that this wild absurd claim is true. But feel free to provide your citation. Don't have any? Don't worry about it. We knew you didn't.

 

[Dan O.]

Can you just imagine if they treated him like they did Raffaele? That they just rolled him into their bizarre theories? That they would have had 5 people accused of Meredith'so murder? Not enough that they have a single burgkar, they have 5 people accused of Meredith's murder.

Think this is even too crazy for even Italy? Think again. Remember the Monster of Florence. Double body swap and more than a dozen people arrested.

They can't keep Patrick unless they also take his alibis. They already started fitting Usi with a video appearance near the cottage and if the swiss professor says he was with Patrick all evening then he must have been in on it too. And then there are all the students that say they were at his bar... How did they all fit in that tiny bedroom?