Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

Rudy claims the ladies gold watch was given to him by a friend but refused to identify the friend, if I am reading this correctly.

Thanks for the info RoseMontague,
glad that you are back!
RW

 

[Dan O.]

It seems strange that after all these years nobody caught the error that Lana's bomb threat call happened 24 hours earlier than she (and her kids) testified to.

I think we can rule out that the phones were not also found 24 hours earlier than reported seeing how there are a number of witnesses that saw Meridith alive in that period and she was using her cell phones. That leaves basically two possibilities for the discrepancy: 1) Lana was confused and there was an extra day that went by between the bomb threat call and finding the phones. Or, 2) the deposition of Alessando Capasso is a fake.

 

[RWVBWL]

It seems strange that after all these years nobody caught the error that Lana's bomb threat call happened 24 hours earlier than she (and her kids) testified to.

I think we can rule out that the phones were not also found 24 hours earlier than reported seeing how there are a number of witnesses that saw Meridith alive in that period and she was using her cell phones. That leaves basically two possibilities for the discrepancy: 1) Lana was confused and there was an extra day that went by between the bomb threat call and finding the phones. Or, 2) the deposition of Alessando Capasso is a fake.

Here's Alessandro's depo,
in Italian, dated Nov. 3rd, 2007:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-03-Witness-deposition-Capasso.pdf

It appears,
from comparing the different depositions,
that Alessandro Capasso's was taken at 03:40.
That's 3:40 am, right?

The cops were quick to get him into the Questura Di Terni,
in my humble opinion.

Yet why don't the dates match?
Strange...

 

[RWVBWL]

It appears,
from looking at and trying to understand Alessandro's deposition,
written up in Italian, that he was barely 17 years old at the time.

The phone number he prank called Elisabetta Lana was at 075451595
at 21:48 on Oct 31, 2007.

But when I looked at Elisabetta's deposition to the Postal Police,
dated 10:58 on Nov. 2, 2007,
her tel. # is written as 075/45159

Same # that the kid called?
Compare the 2 depositions:
Alessandro's:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-03-Witness-deposition-Capasso.pdf

Elisabetta's:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-02-Witness-deposition-Lana.pdf

 

[RWVBWL]

Hey Codyjuneau,
Here is Elisabetta Lana's testimony to the Massei Court,
in case you are interested in readin it.

It's in English:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Testimony-of-Elisabetta-Lana.pdf

It's early in the mornin' L.A. time,
I gotta get to sleep before I hit the beach in a coupla hours.
Last post, have a read if you will...

I find it odd that Elisabetta Lana calls the cops late at night
and tells them that a male caller tells her not to go pee because of a bomb,
yet when the Postal Police arrive,
they do not,
according to this woman's testimony in the Massei Court,
even enter her house.

What, they did not check her toilet?
Surely Elisabetta did not use an outside outhouse type of toilet,
right?

Odd how the cops never went inside Elisabetta's house,
don't you think?...

Have a read:
Examination by Public Prosecutor Mignini
Public Prosecutor. - Ma'am, can you tell us what you remember of the event of discovery of the telephones as well as what occurred on the previous evening?
Witness. - Yes, the evening before that. I responded to a phone call...
Public Prosecutor. - At what time?
Witness. - Between nine and a half and ten in the evening. It was from a man, a stranger, who warned me not to go pee to the WC because there was a bomb and it could go off. At which moment I called the police, just in case, because... and the police arrived, in ten minutes, with one, with two agents, and we searched the place, around the house, the garden and all the places around the house.

<snip>

Counsel. - Counsel Mauri, Raffaele Sollecito's defender. Ma'am, you have told us before that in the evening of Nov. 1 you received that anonymous phone call around 22 hours.
Witness. - Nine and a half, ten.
Counsel. - You called the police immediately, at 113; do you remember exactly when they arrived, 10-15 minutes later?
Witness. - In about ten minutes, they were pretty quick.
Counsel. - Do you recall what they did, these policemen, when they arrived? First of all, how many of them?
Witness. - Two.
Counsel. - They surveyed the garden, they did?..
Witness. - They stopped, they got out. We talked to them and together with them, with a flashlight, we went around {162} the garden to take a little look – it was dark.
Consultant. - Sure. And what areas of the garden did you survey, did you check, starting from the gate towards the house?
Witness. - The (open) spot, the little spot where the next day the mobile phones were found, and around the house... a little around the house, that.
Consultant. - So the area where the next day the mobile phones were found was also checked?
Witness. - Yes, also with the flashlight in the dark.
Consultant. - After what time did they leave, the policemen?
Witness. - I can't tell, so, give or take one, one, hmm, twenty minutes, half an hour? Because they did not enter the house, actually, we circled around a little, they asked for information, but...

 

[Dan O.]

...

I find it odd that Elisabetta Lana calls the cops late at night
and tells them that a male caller tells her not to go pee because of a bomb,
yet when the Postal Police arrive,
they do not,
according to this woman's testimony in the Massei Court,
even enter her house.

I read somewhere from the responding officers perspective that they searched both inside and outside. Don't remember where I read that though. I should keep better notes but it's difficult when reclining with an iPad.

 

[carbonjam72]

testimony seems shaded to support circumstantial case

It's early in the mornin' L.A. time,
I gotta get to sleep before I hit the beach in a coupla hours.
Last post, have a read if you will...

I find it odd that Elisabetta Lana calls the cops late at night
and tells them that a male caller tells her not to go pee because of a bomb,
yet when the Postal Police arrive,
they do not,
according to this woman's testimony in the Massei Court,
even enter her house.

What, they did not check her toilet?
Surely Elisabetta did not use an outside outhouse type of toilet,
right?

Odd how the cops never went inside Elisabetta's house,
don't you think?...

Have a read:
Examination by Public Prosecutor Mignini
Public Prosecutor. - Ma'am, can you tell us what you remember of the event of discovery of the telephones as well as what occurred on the previous evening?Witness. - Yes, the evening before that. I responded to a phone call...
Public Prosecutor. - At what time?
Witness. - Between nine and a half and ten in the evening. It was from a man, a stranger, who warned me not to go pee to the WC because there was a bomb and it could go off. At which moment I called the police, just in case, because... and the police arrived, in ten minutes, with one, with two agents, and we searched the place, around the house, the garden and all the places around the house.

<snip>

Counsel. - Counsel Mauri, Raffaele Sollecito's defender. Ma'am, you have told us before that in the evening of Nov. 1 you received that anonymous phone call around 22 hours.
Witness. - Nine and a half, ten.
Counsel. - You called the police immediately, at 113; do you remember exactly when they arrived, 10-15 minutes later?
Witness. - In about ten minutes, they were pretty quick.
Counsel. - Do you recall what they did, these policemen, when they arrived? First of all, how many of them?
Witness. - Two.
Counsel. - They surveyed the garden, they did?..
Witness. - They stopped, they got out. We talked to them and together with them, with a flashlight, we went around {162} the garden to take a little look – it was dark.
Consultant. - Sure. And what areas of the garden did you survey, did you check, starting from the gate towards the house?
Witness. - The (open) spot, the little spot where the next day the mobile phones were found, and around the house... a little around the house, that.
Consultant. - So the area where the next day the mobile phones were found was also checked? Witness. - Yes, also with the flashlight in the dark.Consultant. - After what time did they leave, the policemen?
Witness. - I can't tell, so, give or take one, one, hmm, twenty minutes, half an hour? Because they did not enter the house, actually, we circled around a little, they asked for information, but...

Is "Consultant" basically a prosecution or defense agent?

It looks to me like they are using this testimony to establish that the phones were not present the day before, and that therefore are more strongly associated with the time of the murder.

My guess is this is the Mignini prosecution having coached & rehearsed witnesses into mistaken testimony, just like he did with Meredtih's british girl friends to get the testimony that would be most helpful to the case he wanted to present.

(Sadly, Curatolo was apparently less coachable).

By the way, Mignini seems to be remaining uncharacteristically quiet since the acquittals. Barely a peep.

Looking forward to the motivation report later this month.

 

[Numbers]

It's early in the mornin' L.A. time,
I gotta get to sleep before I hit the beach in a coupla hours.
Last post, have a read if you will...

I find it odd that Elisabetta Lana calls the cops late at night
and tells them that a male caller tells her not to go pee because of a bomb,
yet when the Postal Police arrive,
they do not,
according to this woman's testimony in the Massei Court,
even enter her house.

What, they did not check her toilet?
Surely Elisabetta did not use an outside outhouse type of toilet,
right?

Odd how the cops never went inside Elisabetta's house,
don't you think?...

Have a read:
Examination by Public Prosecutor Mignini
Public Prosecutor. - Ma'am, can you tell us what you remember of the event of discovery of the telephones as well as what occurred on the previous evening?
Witness. - Yes, the evening before that. I responded to a phone call...
Public Prosecutor. - At what time?
Witness. - Between nine and a half and ten in the evening. It was from a man, a stranger, who warned me not to go pee to the WC because there was a bomb and it could go off. At which moment I called the police, just in case, because... and the police arrived, in ten minutes, with one, with two agents, and we searched the place, around the house, the garden and all the places around the house.

<snip>

Counsel. - Counsel Mauri, Raffaele Sollecito's defender. Ma'am, you have told us before that in the evening of Nov. 1 you received that anonymous phone call around 22 hours.
Witness. - Nine and a half, ten.
Counsel. - You called the police immediately, at 113; do you remember exactly when they arrived, 10-15 minutes later?
Witness. - In about ten minutes, they were pretty quick.
Counsel. - Do you recall what they did, these policemen, when they arrived? First of all, how many of them?
Witness. - Two.
Counsel. - They surveyed the garden, they did?..
Witness. - They stopped, they got out. We talked to them and together with them, with a flashlight, we went around {162} the garden to take a little look – it was dark.
Consultant. - Sure. And what areas of the garden did you survey, did you check, starting from the gate towards the house?
Witness. - The (open) spot, the little spot where the next day the mobile phones were found, and around the house... a little around the house, that.
Consultant. - So the area where the next day the mobile phones were found was also checked?
Witness. - Yes, also with the flashlight in the dark.
Consultant. - After what time did they leave, the policemen?
Witness. - I can't tell, so, give or take one, one, hmm, twenty minutes, half an hour? Because they did not enter the house, actually, we circled around a little, they asked for information, but...

Is "Consultant" basically a prosecution or defense agent?
It looks to me like they are using this testimony to establish that the phones were not present the day before, and that therefore are more strongly associated with the time of the murder.

My guess is this is the Mignini prosecution having coached & rehearsed witnesses into mistaken testimony, just like he did with Meredtih's british girl friends to get the testimony that would be most helpful to the case he wanted to present.

(Sadly, Curatolo was apparently less coachable).

By the way, Mignini seems to be remaining uncharacteristically quiet since the acquittals. Barely a peep.

Looking forward to the motivation report later this month.

1. "Consultant" is most likely a transcription or translation error for "counsel" - the attorney, Mauri, is continuing to ask questions.

2. Here is an hypothesis: Lana and/or a member of her family on the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at about 9:30 to 10:00 pm, heard or saw an object (or two) being thrown into their property. Perhaps they had received a (prank) bomb threat the night before; that may be irrelevant. At any rate, Ms. Lana called the police to investigate. The police arrived within about 10 minutes of the call, and spent about 1/2 hour checking the yard for objects using their flashlights for illumination. No objects were detected that night. The following day, Ms. Lana's family members went out in the yard; both phones were found, one after the other.

The police and prosecutor worked to confuse Ms. Lana about times of the alleged (prank) bomb threat to disguise the fact that Ms. Lana and/or a family member was actually supporting the alibi of AK and RS: Phones thrown into the garden at 9:30 or 10:00 pm, suggesting a TOD before 9:30 pm.

 

[carbonjam72]

1. "Consultant" is most likely a transcription or translation error for "counsel" - the attorney, Mauri, is continuing to ask questions.

2. Here is an hypothesis: Lana and/or a member of her family on the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at about 9:30 to 10:00 pm, heard or saw an object (or two) being thrown into their property. Perhaps they had received a (prank) bomb threat the night before; that may be irrelevant. At any rate, Ms. Lana called the police to investigate. The police arrived within about 10 minutes of the call, and spent about 1/2 hour checking the yard for objects using their flashlights for illumination. No objects were detected that night. The following day, Ms. Lana's family members went out in the yard; both phones were found, one after the other.

The police and prosecutor worked to confuse Ms. Lana about times of the alleged (prank) bomb threat to disguise the fact that Ms. Lana and/or a family member was actually supporting the alibi of AK and RS: Phones thrown into the garden at 9:30 or 10:00 pm, suggesting a TOD before 9:30 pm.

I agree a confirmation of the phones being tossed into the yard around 10pm (after attempt to call kercher's bank), would support earlier time if death. But wouldn't we expect to hear testimony to that effect?

 

[Numbers]

I agree a confirmation of the phones being tossed into the yard around 10pm (after attempt to call kercher's bank), would support earlier time if death. But wouldn't we expect to hear testimony to that effect?

But from whom? And there was no testimony establishing the phones were indeed tossed at or about 10:00 pm, IIUC. Instead, there is the police-prosecution coverup with the prank call alleged to have happened at about 10:00 pm, which a deposition indicates, if it happened, occurred on the night of Oct. 31, not Nov. 1, and perhaps was directed to a phone number different from Ms. Lana's (assuming this difference is not a typo).

 

[Dan O.]

But from whom? And there was no testimony establishing the phones were indeed tossed at or about 10:00 pm, IIUC. Instead, there is the police-prosecution coverup with the prank call alleged to have happened at about 10:00 pm, which a deposition indicates, if it happened, occurred on the night of Oct. 31, not Nov. 1, and perhaps was directed to a phone number different from Ms. Lana's (assuming this difference is not a typo).

This is all being handled by the postal police. When have they gotten anything right?

 

[carbonjam72]

But from whom? And there was no testimony establishing the phones were indeed tossed at or about 10:00 pm, IIUC. Instead, there is the police-prosecution coverup with the prank call alleged to have happened at about 10:00 pm, which a deposition indicates, if it happened, occurred on the night of Oct. 31, not Nov. 1, and perhaps was directed to a phone number different from Ms. Lana's (assuming this difference is not a typo).

IIRC, there was a phone record from Kercher's phone of a call made to her bank in the UK at 10:10pm? And the cell tower was most likely from around Lana's house?

So the phones seem most likely to have been tossed into the garden shortly thereafter. (btw, if Rudy had decided to toss the phones at that point, isnt it sort of consistent he might make one last effort to get money out of them before relinquishing them?)

Also, I don't see nefarious fabrication here, other than Mignini trying to falsely twist the record to support his fraudulent case.

I believe the prank call was made Oct 31 and not November 1, and I do believe the calls were tossed on Nov 1 after the murder, by Rudy.

But there would presumably be records of when the police came out to investigate, on Oct 31 or Nov 1, so I don't understand why there is discrepancy and confusion - unless there is a conflict in documentation?

(Testimony would come from Lara or whomever it is you have hypothesized saw the phones, but this was your hypothesis. I'm just saying its not bad because it explains some stuff, like why the police were called Nov 1, but I'd expect to see supporting testimony if it were true. Its so crucial in explaining why the police would be called out that it would surely be prominent in Lara's narrative if it had happened, I would think anyway).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unlimited hangout

Injustice Anywhere has excellent material on this case (as well as others), and there is an associated forum to discuss them.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC, there was a phone record from Kercher's phone of a call made to her bank in the UK at 10:10pm? And the cell tower was most likely from around Lana's house?

So the phones seem most likely to have been tossed into the garden shortly thereafter. (btw, if Rudy had decided to toss the phones at that point, isnt it sort of consistent he might make one last effort to get money out of them before relinquishing them?)

Also, I don't see nefarious fabrication here, other than Mignini trying to falsely twist the record to support his fraudulent case. I believe the prank call was made Oct 31 and not November 1, and I do believe the calls were tossed on Nov 1 after the murder, by Rudy.
But there would presumably be records of when the police came out to investigate, on Oct 31 or Nov 1, so I don't understand why there is discrepancy and confusion - unless there is a conflict in documentation?

(Testimony would come from Lara or whomever it is you have hypothesized saw the phones, but this was your hypothesis. I'm just saying its not bad because it explains some stuff, like why the police were called Nov 1, but I'd expect to see supporting testimony if it were true. Its so crucial in explaining why the police would be called out that it would surely be prominent in Lara's narrative if it had happened, I would think anyway).

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/merediths-cell-phone-helps-pinpoint-time-of-death/

10:00pm a number is dialed which corresponds to a bank (Abbey, the first number on the phone book) but no one is called, also because the mandatory prefix for foreign countries has not been entered;
10:13pm a GPRS internet connection is recorded, lasting 9 seconds and to the Ip address 10.205.46.41, that could be related to an incoming multimedia message [MMS], which does not require human interaction, or to an access to the internet, but with a duration, 9 seconds, too short to allow the use of any service, this could be explained by an involuntary connection or by a sudden interruption

So phones were tossed after 10 pm, possibly as late as after 10:13 pm.

The police should have documented when Ms. Lana called, what the complaint was, and when they went to her residence and searched her garden. I don't know if such evidence (police records) were presented at the trial.

I think that the (slight) fabrication was that the police were called about a prank bomb scare; I believe (hypothesize) they were called because someone in the Lana family saw or heard something being thrown in the garden after 10 pm Nov. 1. Perhaps the Lana family member thought there was a connection to the prank bomb call (if that indeed happened, either on Oct. 31 or Nov. 1).

 

[Numbers]

Injustice Anywhere has excellent material on this case (as well as others), and there is an associated forum to discuss them.

An excellent point to those who may be interested in details of this case or of other cases of wrongful conviction or alleged wrongful conviction.

 

[davefoc]

...

I think that the (slight) fabrication was that the police were called about a prank bomb scare; I believe (hypothesize) they were called because someone in the Lana family saw or heard something being thrown in the garden after 10 pm Nov. 1. Perhaps the Lana family member thought there was a connection to the prank bomb call (if that indeed happened, either on Oct. 31 or Nov. 1).

This sounds plausible, but also a bit problematic. Apparently they're looking out their windows and see somebody toss something in to their yard and they're suspicious enough to call the police?

OK, I guess your theory is that they were nervous about the bomb threat of the day before and when they saw somebody toss something into their yard they thought it might be an explosive device? Maybe, I guess.

What they actually saw might be relevant. One or two people? Could they make out that he was a man?

Were the phones tested for finger prints? It seems like the answer to that must be yes and the further answer must be they couldn't find anybody's except Kercher's if they found anybody's. ETA: or we're going down the conspiracy theory path where the police were attempting to protect Guede from early on. That seems unlikely to me.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The published photo was taken at a slightly different angle and lower height. Look at the pipes under the sink for a comparison. There is also a difference in the shadow showing that the flash was closer to the camera. This is easily seen in the edge of the toilet bowls (or is it the bidet).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5162[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5161[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/qimg]

Your organization of case information has been outstanding over the years here. Have you taken an interest in other cases or has this been your only project on the topic of wrongful convictions?

 

[codyjuneau]

Hey Codyjuneau,
Here is Elisabetta Lana's testimony to the Massei Court,
in case you are interested in readin it.

It's in English:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Testimony-of-Elisabetta-Lana.pdf

It's early in the mornin' L.A. time,
I gotta get to sleep before I hit the beach in a coupla hours.
Last post, have a read if you will...

I find it odd that Elisabetta Lana calls the cops late at night
and tells them that a male caller tells her not to go pee because of a bomb,
yet when the Postal Police arrive,
they do not,
according to this woman's testimony in the Massei Court,
even enter her house.

What, they did not check her toilet?
Surely Elisabetta did not use an outside outhouse type of toilet,
right?

Odd how the cops never went inside Elisabetta's house,
don't you think?...

Have a read:
Examination by Public Prosecutor Mignini
Public Prosecutor. - Ma'am, can you tell us what you remember of the event of discovery of the telephones as well as what occurred on the previous evening?
Witness. - Yes, the evening before that. I responded to a phone call...
Public Prosecutor. - At what time?
Witness. - Between nine and a half and ten in the evening. It was from a man, a stranger, who warned me not to go pee to the WC because there was a bomb and it could go off. At which moment I called the police, just in case, because... and the police arrived, in ten minutes, with one, with two agents, and we searched the place, around the house, the garden and all the places around the house.

<snip>

Counsel. - Counsel Mauri, Raffaele Sollecito's defender. Ma'am, you have told us before that in the evening of Nov. 1 you received that anonymous phone call around 22 hours.
Witness. - Nine and a half, ten.
Counsel. - You called the police immediately, at 113; do you remember exactly when they arrived, 10-15 minutes later?
Witness. - In about ten minutes, they were pretty quick.
Counsel. - Do you recall what they did, these policemen, when they arrived? First of all, how many of them?
Witness. - Two.
Counsel. - They surveyed the garden, they did?..
Witness. - They stopped, they got out. We talked to them and together with them, with a flashlight, we went around {162} the garden to take a little look – it was dark.
Consultant. - Sure. And what areas of the garden did you survey, did you check, starting from the gate towards the house?
Witness. - The (open) spot, the little spot where the next day the mobile phones were found, and around the house... a little around the house, that.
Consultant. - So the area where the next day the mobile phones were found was also checked?
Witness. - Yes, also with the flashlight in the dark.
Consultant. - After what time did they leave, the policemen?
Witness. - I can't tell, so, give or take one, one, hmm, twenty minutes, half an hour? Because they did not enter the house, actually, we circled around a little, they asked for information, but...

.
Thanks for the link RW.

From the testimony:

Witness.
The police? Ten minutes after I called. That makes it around 10; I cannot recall exactly but between ten and ten past ten. Before leaving, the police told us to go to the postal police the next day to report this strange call we had received. Next morning, while we were getting ready, while I was getting ready, my son found a mobile phone

So they were specifically instructed by the police to go to the station the next day to report the bomb threat phone, and while getting ready, they found one of Meredith's cell phones. That simply could not happen if the call was made on Oct 31.

And they had the police report that was made when they took the phone to the police station :

Counsel.
If you could read the first line.

Witness.
Yes, yes, “the year 2007, done on the second of the month of November, at the time 12:46, in Perugia, in the office of the {165} Postal and communications police department of Umbria, with an official signature of.

What I find curious is the fact that the excuse/explanation for the bomb threat phone call limits what dates it could be used with. I presume using up bonus minutes means using them up before the end of the month, which precludes Nov 1. Is it possible the excuse was fabricated and set in stone before anyone realized it was incompatible with the Nov 1 date that the phone call actually occurred?

Like RW, I also find it curious the police only searched outside the home if the call actually mentioned a bomb in the toilet. The call is either being taken seriously or not. By the fast response I would assume it is being taken seriously. If seriously then the toilet/bathroom should be checked, if not taken seriously why check anything?

I still would like to know exactly what time the bomb threat phone call was. According to Lana's testimony:

Counsel Mauri, Raffaele Sollecito's defender. Ma'am, you have told us before that in the evening of Nov. 1 you received that anonymous phone call around 22 hours.
Witness.
Nine and a half, ten

'Nine and a half, ten' (although later she uses 'ten' when estimating the police arrival time). Why, if the record of the actual bomb threat call was known, did they not use that to establish the time of the call?

Also, if the call was between 9:30 and 10, and Lana phoned the police immediately, and the police arrived within 10 to 15 minutes (an admirable response time), and they left about 20 to 30 minutes later, then the police left Lana's place some time between 10 pm and 10:45. Why no reports nailing this time down? It makes me curious because the car that broke down directly in front of the cottage that night did so more or less in the middle of that time range. Was it a real break down? I would love to know what work the mechanic had to do to get it running again after he got it back to his garage.

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

.
Thanks for the link RW.

From the testimony:


So they were specifically instructed by the police to go to the station the next day to report the bomb threat phone, and while getting ready, they found one of Meredith's cell phones. That simply could not happen if the call was made on Oct 31.

And they had the police report that was made when they took the phone to the police station :



What I find curious is the fact that the excuse/explanation for the bomb threat phone call limits what dates it could be used with. I presume using up bonus minutes means using them up before the end of the month, which precludes Nov 1. Is it possible the excuse was fabricated and set in stone before anyone realized it was incompatible with the Nov 1 date that the phone call actually occurred?

Like RW, I also find it curious the police only searched outside the home if the call actually mentioned a bomb in the toilet. The call is either being taken seriously or not. By the fast response I would assume it is being taken seriously. If seriously then the toilet/bathroom should be checked, if not taken seriously why check anything?

I still would like to know exactly what time the bomb threat phone call was. According to Lana's testimony:


'Nine and a half, ten' (although later she uses 'ten' when estimating the police arrival time). Why, if the record of the actual bomb threat call was known, did they not use that to establish the time of the call?

Also, if the call was between 9:30 and 10, and Lana phoned the police immediately, and the police arrived within 10 to 15 minutes (an admirable response time), and they left about 20 to 30 minutes later, then the police left Lana's place some time between 10 pm and 10:45. Why no reports nailing this time down? It makes me curious because the car that broke down directly in front of the cottage that night did so more or less in the middle of that time range. Was it a real break down? I would love to know what work the mechanic had to do to get it running again after he got it back to his garage.

Cody
.

Also why not get the police officers who attended the incident to give evidence or include their statement one would expect that they would have documented their time of attendance, what they did and when they left. That would have been a contemporaneous record as opposed to someone recalling it later.

There are some odd things around all this. The conflicting report of the date between the admission of the individual who made the call (presumably identified through phone records that should have documented the time and date of the call both from the senders and the recipients records (why not entered in evidence?), and that given in the Knox case.

The extent of the blood downstairs still seems a bit out of keeping with the story of the cat.

I also fail to understand why the prosecution presented Kokomani as a witness. He is so obviously unbelievable, except that in this case it never seemed like the prosecution needed to present a coherent case just to throw enough dirt and hope enough would stick to make the judges think the defendants must be guilty of something.

 

[Dan O.]

Your organization of case information has been outstanding over the years here. Have you taken an interest in other cases or has this been your only project on the topic of wrongful convictions?

I see no point in moving on to other cases until people understand that discussion forums and blogs are poor mechanisms for gathering and organizing the facts of the case. What I can do in responding to questions is due mostly to the fact that I started a private wiki to organize the available facts.

Unlike the two fake wikis on this case that are viewable to the public, my intent was to create a neutral repository of all the facts. To that end, the first two posters from here invited to use that wiki were chosen for their ability to research the facts. One was leaning pro guilt and the other was leaning pro innocence. Only one actually signed on and that one didn't make any contributions.

The true wiki concept works. You can see how it has helped me organize the facts mostly on my own. I can envision how it can be so much more as a group project. I just don't know how to convince the skeptics and non-believers.