Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

My opinion - now that the main case is settled, these ancillary cases will simply fade, or lapse.

The most important thing to come is the motivations report from Marasca. This is a lot like my own entry to this, in the fall of 2011 - where the Hellmann court had taken the action to provisionally exonerate AK and RS, but we were all waiting for the Hellmann report.

While due in Jan 2012, it came in before Christmas 2011. All sides were shocked, really, at the unreserved exoneration of AK and RS - Peggy Ganong said Hellmann's report read like a Friends of Amanda press release. I'm not sure even innocenters appreciated the total exoneration Hellmann had found.

My opinion - we will get that with Marasca's report. The only additional question is how, or even if, Marasca will frame the events since the Hellmann acquittal. Will Marasca see the 2013 OSC reversal of Hellmann as a technical necessity to clear up outstanding issues - 36I, or Avello? Or will Marasca write a scathing indictment of the insider-internecine war within the Italian judiciary?

I think that Numbers is being optimistic about ECHR and the calunnia....

The trials for Raff, Oggi, Knox's parents, as well as the outstanding defamation charge against Knox will be allowed to lapse - taking any of those into a court will allow the defence to be a little less shy....

MOO. YMMV.

I think Numbers is entirely realistic about the ECHR. Their job is made necessary by the acquittals alone, and it may take time, but Italy will be instructed to take action. As I understand it, Amanda need spend no more money, but I could be wrong about that. I am sure she will pursue the matter till the end to have a clean record.

 

[RoseMontague]

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

It doesn't really matter what's in the bottle but it's not like any bleach I have ever seen. Who cares? There are no bleach receipts. You posted completely false information. Again.

 

[RoseMontague]

Of course, if an official source is feeding a reporter information that's salacious, sensational and provocative, the reporter may feel that (s)he has hit the jackpot: the reporter now has legally iron-clad permission to report all of this salacious/sensational information, and what's more, it can be shown to have had some form of official endorsement. And savvy authority figures with an agenda know this full well, of course. Hello Dr Mignini!

It's not ethical or moral however. Reporters that do this are generally sensationalist hacks, with no concern for the truth. Pretty much like this Owen Richard fellow with his reporting on the case.

 

[acbytesla]

My opinion - now that the main case is settled, these ancillary cases will simply fade, or lapse.

The most important thing to come is the motivations report from Marasca. This is a lot like my own entry to this, in the fall of 2011 - where the Hellmann court had taken the action to provisionally exonerate AK and RS, but we were all waiting for the Hellmann report.

While due in Jan 2012, it came in before Christmas 2011. All sides were shocked, really, at the unreserved exoneration of AK and RS - Peggy Ganong said Hellmann's report read like a Friends of Amanda press release. I'm not sure even innocenters appreciated the total exoneration Hellmann had found.

My opinion - we will get that with Marasca's report. The only additional question is how, or even if, Marasca will frame the events since the Hellmann acquittal. Will Marasca see the 2013 OSC reversal of Hellmann as a technical necessity to clear up outstanding issues - 36I, or Avello? Or will Marasca write a scathing indictment of the insider-internecine war within the Italian judiciary?

I think that Numbers is being optimistic about ECHR and the calunnia....

The trials for Raff, Oggi, Knox's parents, as well as the outstanding defamation charge against Knox will be allowed to lapse - taking any of those into a court will allow the defence to be a little less shy....

MOO. YMMV.

I'm not as confident about the callunia either. Not that I dont think they wouldn't rule in Amanda's favor, particularly if the murder conviction was upheld, it's just that now, they could walk around it. And that might be the politically expedient thing to do.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oreste Volturno attempted to discover the origins of this bleach by visiting merchants in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment but he was unable to locate where or when the bleach was purchased.You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

---

This is a direct quote from Voltirno's court testimony (translated). As I provided the link, you have no excuse for claiming it is a misquote from a newspaper.

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

Maybe it's water, milk, OJ, Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Gatorade or 7up. In other words, no one knows.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

Is it conceivable that it's not actually a dangerous chemical of any kind? I don't know about you, but I probably wouldn't include bleach or methyl alcohol as part of a costume. That seems like asking for trouble. I'd go with red cordial or water with food dye myself.

Anyway, do you think you were wrong about those bleach receipts?

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe it's water, milk, OJ, Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Gatorade or 7up. In other words, no one knows.

Actually, Raffaele knows and he already told us. I believe it was on one of his "ask me anything" sessions. It's not important what it is so it is one of those facts that I didn't archive.

What would be important if we we're to flesh out a page for this piece of case trivia is the list of references to the photo in both the media and the trial record.

 

[Planigale]

To summarise.
Vixen thinks that the 'evidence' quoted by Richard Owen justifies a finding of guilt For Knox / Sollecito. Vixen believes that Owen's reports are accurate and factual. Owen reported two receipts for bleach bought after the murder were found by the Perugia police. If true this would be circumstantial evidence supporting a clean up and participation in murder. This has been argued to be an inaccuracy. Reference to subsequent testimony by investigating policemen makes no reference to these receipts, leading others to the conclusion they never existed.

So either
1) Owen was factually incorrect, there were no receipts.
2) The police lost the receipts.
3) The prosecution decided not to present this evidence.

1) Seems to me the most likely explanation, but I do not think we are going to be able to conclusively disprove any explanation.
2) Unlikely but possible.
3) Extremely unlikely, since the prosecution argued for a clean up they would have presented any evidence they had to support it.

It would be helpful if Vixen expressed a clear opinion 1, 2 or 3?

 

[Strozzi]

Then that works well for the defense in substantiating a police set up.

Richard Owen was simply recording what he was told by an accepted "reliable source".

Simply recording? Simply recording? That is what a notary does!

Richard Owen is a journalist. He failed to independently verify information provided by police after they conducted a midnight interrogation followed by a PR press conference where the police chief crowed "Case closed", "She told us what we knew to be true", and in the same breath said the police were feeling the weight of public pressure to solve the case? The police chief's three joined comments should have alarmed any distinguished "top drawer" (Vixen's description of Owen) journalist. Owen should have smelled a police department set-up! How could he have been so blind to be used that way??? Is he a tabloid journalist?

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe it's water, milk, OJ, Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Gatorade or 7up. In other words, no one knows.

However, if someone insists on approaching this from a suspect-centric point of view, then it's easier to think of it as bleach.

 

[Kauffer]

I'm not as confident about the callunia either. Not that I dont think they wouldn't rule in Amanda's favor, particularly if the murder conviction was upheld, it's just that now, they could walk around it. And that might be the politically expedient thing to do.

Are you suggesting that the the ECHR could be minded to throw the Italian state a bone as a reward perhaps for the magnanimous gesture of its Supreme Court ruling in favour of Amanda in the main case?

In order for this to happen, the ECHR would have to reverse itself - to over turn a consistent and robust jurisprudence with regard to the procedural rights of suspects and conclude instead that statements made without benefit of counsel can, after all, be used to convict even when such statements are not adopted by a defendant.

Such a ruling would send shockwaves around Europe and indeed the world. The implications of it would substantially affect and place extraordinary limitations upon the ability of future applicants to argue meaningfully for violations of their human rights while under police interrogation.

Imagine the United States reversing Miranda. Imagine, if you will, the United States revoking the 5th, 6th and even 14th amendments.

 

[Vixen]

It's not ethical or moral however. Reporters that do this are generally sensationalist hacks, with no concern for the truth. Pretty much like this Owen Richard fellow with his reporting on the case.

I disagree with you. A responsible newspaper reports all sides of a story, not just the angle you would like to see. That's called, "propaganda".

It's your prerogative. However, you are morally wrong to try to censor others from reading the full story, not just your world view.

 

[Desert Fox]

To summarise.
Vixen thinks that the 'evidence' quoted by Richard Owen justifies a finding of guilt For Knox / Sollecito. Vixen believes that Owen's reports are accurate and factual. Owen reported two receipts for bleach bought after the murder were found by the Perugia police. If true this would be circumstantial evidence supporting a clean up and participation in murder. This has been argued to be an inaccuracy. Reference to subsequent testimony by investigating policemen makes no reference to these receipts, leading others to the conclusion they never existed.

So either
1) Owen was factually incorrect, there were no receipts.
2) The police lost the receipts.3) The prosecution decided not to present this evidence.

1) Seems to me the most likely explanation, but I do not think we are going to be able to conclusively disprove any explanation.
2) Unlikely but possible.
3) Extremely unlikely, since the prosecution argued for a clean up they would have presented any evidence they had to support it.

It would be helpful if Vixen expressed a clear opinion 1, 2 or 3?

Police are pretty famous for this. . . . .Losing important evidence of a crime.
Look at the blood evidence of "Mr Bojangles" with the West Memphis Three for example. Granted, I do not think there ever was any receipts for bleach.

 

[RoseMontague]

A responsible newspaper reports all sides of a story, not just the angle you would like to see.

Gee, I'm only seeing one side to that story, the false one that the cops fed the hack journalist.

 

[Strozzi]

Police are pretty famous for this. . . . .Losing important evidence of a crime.
Look at the blood evidence of "Mr Bojangles" with the West Memphis Three for example. Granted, I do not think there ever was any receipts for bleach.

The police in this case failed to collect exculpatory evidence. They deliberately supress other exculpatory evidence or lie about it under oath in court (many blood drips or smears in the downstairs flat) and carelessly mishandled other exculpatory evidence.

They processed other evidence and claim it is proof of guilt, while suppressing data showing how it was processed and how they reached conclusions of guilt. In the case of the bra clasp, after processing it and claiming it contains Raf's DNA, they supress details on the other male DNA found on the hooks. Stefanoni then (deliberately) destroyed the clasp from repeat testing.

Stefanoni never tested, or at least disclosed her testing of, the putative semen stains, obviously because it likely shows Rudi is the contributor. Rudi likely contributed the semen stain when he sexually assaulted Meredith, unless you believe that Meredith had a consensual sexual act with Rudi.

The police don't lose evidence that they can use to support their case, they "lose" (or destroy or fail to collect or fail to disclose test results of) evidence that the defense can use to show innocence. The state does not like to lose.

 

[Kauffer]

I disagree with you. A responsible newspaper reports all sides of a story, not just the angle you would like to see. That's called, "propaganda".

It's your prerogative. However, you are morally wrong to try to censor others from reading the full story, not just your world view.

But that's the point, vixen. Owen's reports contained utter falsehoods, which were not part of the "story". They were fictions superimposed on the story - an attempt by the authorities to create a media climate of guilt with willing journalists like Owen unwittingly co-opted as their conduits of misinformation.

There is a substantial list of so called facts reported in the press, particularly the Italian and British press, which had they been true, would have made it virtually impossible for anyone to have supported the case for innocence. Yet, most of them never even made it into the investigation dossier, nor were they found in the court record. The bleach receipts and Raffaele's alleged cleaning of his shoes are examples.

At trial, the remainder of these false claims were presented without supporting evidence, for example, the notion of a crime scene clean up, or were contradicted, for example, the allegation that Amanda's bloody shoe print was found in Kercher's room.

 

[Vixen]

To summarise.
Vixen thinks that the 'evidence' quoted by Richard Owen justifies a finding of guilt For Knox / Sollecito. Vixen believes that Owen's reports are accurate and factual. Owen reported two receipts for bleach bought after the murder were found by the Perugia police. If true this would be circumstantial evidence supporting a clean up and participation in murder. This has been argued to be an inaccuracy. Reference to subsequent testimony by investigating policemen makes no reference to these receipts, leading others to the conclusion they never existed.

So either
1) Owen was factually incorrect, there were no receipts.
2) The police lost the receipts.
3) The prosecution decided not to present this evidence.

1) Seems to me the most likely explanation, but I do not think we are going to be able to conclusively disprove any explanation.
2) Unlikely but possible.
3) Extremely unlikely, since the prosecution argued for a clean up they would have presented any evidence they had to support it.

It would be helpful if Vixen expressed a clear opinion 1, 2 or 3?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Only a court of law can ascertain guilt or not thereof.
IMHO Richard Owen reported entirely in good faith. The police, too, IMV, had genuine foundation for their belief, for example, a witness report or receipt/s, which they relayed to Owen, again in good faith, but subsequently turned out to be mistaken, a receipt for something else or a mistaken shopkeeper. I remain sceptical the information was imaginary or imparted in bad faith.

Think about it. You are a policeman. How stupid would you look if you deliberately "framed" someone, and then the real culprit turns up later.

In a court trial, it is quite common for a defendant to be charged with just a few specimen charges, rather than all of them (eg., Harold Shipman).

Likewise, with evidence, in this case, there were over 468 physical samples alone. It would be impractical and unwieldy to focus on every single one of them at the hearing.

The policeman in court testified he could not trace where the bleach was bought. But the two bottles do exist.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course, if an official source is feeding a reporter information that's salacious, sensational and provocative, the reporter may feel that (s)he has hit the jackpot: the reporter now has legally iron-clad permission to report all of this salacious/sensational information, and what's more, it can be shown to have had some form of official endorsement. And savvy authority figures with an agenda know this full well, of course. Hello Dr Mignini!

It's not ethical or moral however. Reporters that do this are generally sensationalist hacks, with no concern for the truth. Pretty much like this Owen Richard fellow with his reporting on the case.

I disagree with you. A responsible newspaper reports all sides of a story, not just the angle you would like to see. That's called, "propaganda".

It's your prerogative. However, you are morally wrong to try to censor others from reading the full story, not just your world view.

In fact, that's what LondonJohn said was happening with this Owen character - who was taking only one side of the story - Mignini's - as it was being spoon-fed to him. Owen made no effort at all to get both sides of the story....

In fact what Owen was-not-doing, was reporting all sides of the story. Owen was not printing the full story.

This case was a hallmark of how irresponsible the early journalists were - Nick Pisa, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Andrea Vogt - Winterbottom's film, "The Face of an Angel" has this irresponsible journalism as its main them as to what went wrong in understanding this story.

 

[acbytesla]

However, if someone insists on approaching this from a suspect-centric point of view, then it's easier to think of it as bleach.

I always laugh about the bleach. Consider the testimony of the police saying there was the smell of bleach at Raffaele's apartment. One, I use bleach all the time to clean countertops, rags and of course white clothes. Second, the smell of bleach doesn't last that long and Meredith was killed on the first and this was the fifth. Third, Raffaele hadn't been in his flat for about 12 hours. None of this is incriminating unless keeping clean is against the law.

Lastly, how can a jury consider as evidence what someone thought they smelled?

Personally, I think the cops just made up the smell story because it sounds incriminating. How does any defense attorney respond to that?

 

[Anode]

Police are pretty famous for this. . . . .Losing important evidence of a crime.
Look at the blood evidence of "Mr Bojangles" with the West Memphis Three for example. Granted, I do not think there ever was any receipts for bleach.

In this case they took pictures as they searched. They would have had to lose both the receipts and the pictures. I rule out (2).