Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

What Mez wrote in her last text to Amanda was, "<snip> What are your plans? xx Love you."

Poor poor Amanda having to roam the street on her own for hours.

Raff wasn't tryin' to protect Amanda. He was protecting poor poor Raff.

This post bears no resemblance at all to how Amanda spent Halloween night.

 

[Vixen]

Problem is, it is widely acknowledged that those possessing an exceptionally high IQ are often bereft of commonsense. Case in point, refer to posts from member quoted.

I have to ask Vixen, just what state do you consider your recall memory would be 3 or 4 days after a new friend was found murdered. Or if in Raffaele's position, denied a calendar to sort out what day was what. Raff gave an exact rendition of what Amanda wrote had occurred on Halloween night. Raffaele had his nights confused ( to Mansey AND Police) and sadly, his statement was entered into evidence early on in this sick and sad saga and had to be maintained. This fact has been blatantly obvious to those with eyes wide open... for years.
Its catch up time.

Imagine by a fluke it happened to me (heaven forfend!). I would plead guilty, feel great remorse, ask for forgiveness, try to make reparations, apologise to the friends and family, do the time, come out on parole next year.

 

[Grinder]

NVL has written a breakthrough piece at TJMK - shocking I know. I'm very impressed with his mind -

Here's a quote: No DNA? Well, of course there is – at least five instances of it, mixed with Meredith’s blood. What’s perhaps more bizarre, for example, is the lack of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own home. A single print? How many of us could say the same about fingerprints in our own homes? Our computers, door handles, kitchen areas ought to be splattered with prints. Coming back to DNA, not only is Amanda’s DNA present, but so is Raffaele’s in Meredith’s bloody bedroom.

The powerful writing - bloody bedroom wow.

One wonders if he has any idea of where the PLE looked for prints or that the fingerprint expert for the police found nothing unusual about the lack of prints where they looked.

What is even more telling is the idiot thinks it is strange to not find prints yet is baffled that Amanda's DNA is present in her bathroom and other common areas yet isn't in the "bloody" bedroom.

Can you imagine he was friends with: I wasn’t always into True Crime, in fact like Ann Rule I sort of fell into it by accident. While Rule worked with Ted Bundy, I was facebook friends with the model Oscar Pistorius shot dead in his bathroom. I didn’t intend to write a novel, I simply started asking questions, and then penned a 12 000 word magazine article [intended as a 4 part series].

They must have been close...I mean FB friends.

 

[Vixen]

Not only
Leek has churned out 27 books since January 2014..... an enormous feat one would consider huh?
Nope!! When they are Ebooks put together online and utilising others work..this book farting exercise is a veritable piece of cake with Leek/Wilson epitomising the rort.
Leek actually called Meredith.. 'Jody' ( Arias) in his first book and was totally unaware until it was pointed out to him. That's what ya git when you churn churn churn. Stories get mixed. Amongst other things.

Then comes the worst part, ...subjecting oneself to reading a few chapters of Leeks's weird obsession with Amanda Knox. An utterly sick fantasy and total bleeech territory.
One thing I will say though...Leek and the pro guilt faction really know how to
portray the mob schadenfreude factor. Beautifully.

Van der Leek did not pick on Amanda. He was a friend of Reeva Steencamp and so researched her murder. From there he did a book on Oscar Pistorius and IIRC from there he collaborated with Lisa Wilson who also was writing about the case, as well as Jodi Arias.

It is not accurate to refer to "guilters" and "haters" as though they are some kind of granfalloon.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes I brought this up and Methos provided the Perugia Shock article but neither of us can find the source doc. You can view the discussion but neither or us can understand why the judge would have said it. Methos pointed out that it in fact makes it clear she was a suspect before the interview.

I cannot find the document either but will keep trying. I think the hearing was in January 2008 and the decision in June 2008.

In the early November (8? or 9?) 2007 hearing, Matteni motivates that Amanda is a flight risk and so too, by extension, is Raffaele because of the two's romantic interest (Amanda and Raffaele could flee to the states). Matteni seems more concerned about Patrick being a flight risk because of being a non-citizen and the violence of the crime/murder against Meredith. I cannot see a mention of Edda's arriving in Italy being a flight risk for Amanda but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed during the hearing (the November one).

 

[Grinder]

Van der Leek did not pick on Amanda. He was a friend of Reeva Steencamp and so researched her murder. From there he did a book on Oscar Pistorius and IIRC from there he collaborated with Lisa Wilson who also was writing about the case, as well as Jodi Arias.

It is not accurate to refer to "guilters" and "haters" as though they are some kind of granfalloon.

Hahahahaha - He was a Facebook friend.

Well they certainly are a karass.

"And the mind reels"

 

[Grinder]

Whoa here's some more:

If my initial ‘gut feel’ was that Amanda was simply ‘hiding something’, by the end of DECEIT there was little doubt that there was a lot more going on than that. In fact, I’ve suggested to Lisa that based on forensic evidence alone [if one threw away all the circumstantial evidence], Amanda would still a have a major case to answer to. Conversely, if one took the entirety of circumstantial evidence, including the on-again-off-again alibi, and simultaneously threw out [ie ignored] the totality of forensic evidence, Amanda would still have a major case to answer to. That’s my opinion. Lisa’s too, now that she’s gone beneath the surface of this case herself.

Apparently NVL doesn't understand that forensic evidence is circumstantial. HAHAHAHA.

Quite the True Crime author! What an idiot.

Can't wait for his explanation of LCN DNA and how ICSI followed protocol.

 

[Vixen]

Hahahahaha - He was a Facebook friend.

Well they certainly are a karass.

"And the mind reels"

You can be a friend without rubbing feet together.

 

[Grinder]

You can be a friend without rubbing feet together.

Best not to as that is a banned act.

 

[Dougm]

Van der Leek did not pick on Amanda. He was a friend of Reeva Steencamp and so researched her murder. From there he did a book on Oscar Pistorius and IIRC from there he collaborated with Lisa Wilson who also was writing about the case, as well as Jodi Arias.

It is not accurate to refer to "guilters" and "haters" as though they are some kind of granfalloon.

Hahahahaha - He was a Facebook friend.

Well they certainly are a karass.

"And the mind reels"

Maybe they were "picnicking friends".

 

[Numbers]

I cannot find the document either but will keep trying. I think the hearing was in January 2008 and the decision in June 2008.

In the early November (8? or 9?) 2007 hearing, Matteni motivates that Amanda is a flight risk and so too, by extension, is Raffaele because of the two's romantic interest (Amanda and Raffaele could flee to the states). Matteni seems more concerned about Patrick being a flight risk because of being a non-citizen and the violence of the crime/murder against Meredith. I cannot see a mention of Edda's arriving in Italy being a flight risk for Amanda but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed during the hearing (the November one).

Perhaps such an alarming statement was only mentioned in speech and not put into writing. On the other hand, the translator of the Matteini Report notes in the Introduction that page 6 was missing from the Italian document he or she translated and that a version from the Telegraph was used for that page. However, page 6 would probably be concerned with the description of the events, and not be concerned with the justification for precautionary detention.

The reasons for precautionary detention as written are:

found that the detention was carried out for crimes which permit it;
that all the conditions were met;
that in fact there were specific elements which could make the risk of flight well-founded;
that the elements referred to in article 384 c.p.p. need not be such that they provide direct evidence of plans to flee, this last being in any case a future and uncertain event (Cass. criminal section I, 26 April 1994, no. 1396);
that such danger in this case was real, current and not imaginary, it not on the other hand being necessary that the danger is also particularly strong or that there is a degree of likelihood that flight will occur (Cass. criminal section I, 29th April 1991, Matina);
that this case involves an American woman and a man from Zaire, who would have been able to leave State territory without difficulty in order to absent themselves from the investigation;
that the Italian man would have had the opportunity to leave Italy aided by Knox, with whom he was romantically linked, making establishing the facts more difficult;
that serious indications of guilt exist, as will be subsequently said;
and that the limits of the law have been respected,

{Clauses related to the risk of flight by the accused are highlighted. No mention of Amanda's mother in this text.}

ETA: Source: https://matteinireport.wordpress.com/the-matteini-report/

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not addressing the idea she was targeted because she was an American, which I don't believe, but rather that if as you put forward the Italians "feared" Edda's arrival in part because they "feared" the power of the US they would have picked someone else to frame.

Frame is such a strong word Grinder. I DON'T think they set out to "frame" Amanda. I think for very stupid reasons, they thought or at least some of the cops thought she was guilty and the interrogation methods were SOP. They were doing what in their minds was their job get the bad guys, or in this case the bad girl. They did what they thought was necessary to get that job done. This isn't the first or the last PD to resort to marginally ethical methods to secure an incriminating statement.

They wouldn't be the first or last cops that lied to a suspect in an interview. The Italians didn't invent the Reid interrogation technique. The one person I blame above all else for what happened to Amandatory and Raffaele is Stefanoni. I'm convinced that she fabricated some of the lab results.


I also don't think they feared the US embassy. But I believe they thought they could be troublesome.

 

[Grinder]

The reasons for precautionary detention as written are:

{Clauses related to the risk of flight by the accused are highlighted. No mention of Amanda's mother in this text.}

ETA: Source: https://matteinireport.wordpress.com/the-matteini-report/

Thanks Numbers. If it turns out that statement wasn't made then there is nothing to substantiate the idea they hurried because of Edda. Or is something out there?

Frame is such a strong word Grinder. I DON'T think they set out to "frame" Amanda. I think for very stupid reasons, they thought or at least some of the cops thought she was guilty and the interrogation methods were SOP. They were doing what in their minds was their job get the bad guys, or in this case the bad girl. They did what they thought was necessary to get that job done. This isn't the first or the last PD to resort to marginally ethical methods to secure an incriminating statement.

They wouldn't be the first or last cops that lied to a suspect in an interview. The Italians didn't invent the Reid interrogation technique. The one person I blame above all else for what happened to Amandatory and Raffaele is Stefanoni. I'm convinced that she fabricated some of the lab results.

I also don't think they feared the US embassy. But I believe they thought they could be troublesome.

Tesla I wasn't addressing you and I agree with what you say here. I don't know if Mignini and troops feared the US Embassy.

As I said earlier this is a problem with these discussions because there are people here that do believe they were framed or picked as convenient targets.

 

[Grinder]

Checking for any report about the Matteini ruling I found this which is worth a quick read for what was out there at the time:

http://csafd.proboards.com/thread/1636/meredith-kercher-amanda-foxy-knox

 

[Numbers]

Thanks Numbers. If it turns out that statement wasn't made then there is nothing to substantiate the idea they hurried because of Edda. Or is something out there?

....

As I said earlier this is a problem with these discussions because there are people here that do believe they were framed or picked as convenient targets.

1. I don't know of anything beyond what's been mentioned - apparently the record of the statement is in Frank's blog and Amanda's book. But I presume that there is a transcript of the Matteini hearing. That would presumably include the statement at issue (if it was not redacted).

2. There is no doubt that the police, prosecution, and some of the courts committed official misconduct; that is, Italian procedural law, (allegedly) criminal law, and the Italian Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights were violated. The Italian courts recognized the Nov. 5/6 interrogations had been conducted in violation of Italian procedural law, and nominally excluded Amanda's statements from being used against her for the murder/rape trial, but did apparently allow the 1:45 am statement to be used against her for calunnia.

3. There are at least four hypotheses about the conduct of the police and prosecutor exhibited in this forum. These hold that the police and prosecutor:

3.1 Acted properly and according to Italian law in all respects, and were competent. The persons now finally acquitted, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, were justifiably arrested and tried because their behavior was suspicious; some claim that the two were actually guilty and the acquittal is somehow a miscarriage of justice.

3.2 May have sometimes acted improperly according to Italian law and were generally incompetent, however, they were acting in good faith in the arrests and trials. Knox and Sollecito were innocent but errors of legal and forensic procedure of the police and of legal procedure by the prosecutor created an appearance of guilt that courts finally resolved with the CSC final acquittal.

3.3 Framed Knox and Sollecito, who were finally acquitted by the CSC. (I leave the meaning of the word framed to those who either adopt this hypothesis or seek to defeat it.)

3.4 Conducted a campaign of official misconduct with the intent of bringing Knox and Sollecito to trial and achieving convictions, without concern as to their guilt or innocence, because of the convenience of these persons as suspects and accused (for the police and some prosecutors) or in addition, because of certain unusual obsessions and a need to redeem his reputation (PM Mignini). Some of the official misconduct was disguised as incompetence (a technique believed characteristic of corrupt Italian officials) while some of the incompetence was due to real deficits of skill or training. Knox and Sollecito were rightfully found definitively innocent by the CSC.

One may choose from among the above hypotheses or invent others.

I believe the evidence most closely supports 3.4, but others may have other opinions and they are entitled to their beliefs. But not to their own facts.

 

[moije2]

Why would the PLE have been more worried about an American mother? They could hold Amanda if they wanted. People say Edda would have called the Embassy but what was she going to tell them? Raf's family most likely would have had an easier time getting him out of the country than Edda would have getting Amanda out.

I'm not making an indirect point. Raf's dad was wealthy and his sister a cop so I'd "fear" them more than Edda in being able to stifle the investigation with lawyers etc.

"Fear"? You've lost me. What does "fear" have to do with this? Edda would look at her daughter and say let's get out of here. They would leave. Right? It is an indirect point because you have asked it as a question (hi-lited above) as if the answer would be no, they (the ILE) would <not> be worried about Edda's arrival. There is at least one obvious reason they would worry. They could lose jurisdiction over their suspect unless they acted and held her. As they did. Again I don't know where this fits into your argumentation or observations even.

 

[Ken Dine]

I'm not addressing the idea she was targeted because she was an American, which I don't believe, but rather that if as you put forward the Italians "feared" Edda's arrival in part because they "feared" the power of the US they would have picked someone else to frame.

Frame is such a strong word Grinder. I DON'T think they set out to "frame" Amanda. I think for very stupid reasons, they thought or at least some of the cops thought she was guilty and the interrogation methods were SOP. They were doing what in their minds was their job get the bad guys, or in this case the bad girl. They did what they thought was necessary to get that job done. This isn't the first or the last PD to resort to marginally ethical methods to secure an incriminating statement.

They wouldn't be the first or last cops that lied to a suspect in an interview. The Italians didn't invent the Reid interrogation technique. The one person I blame above all else for what happened to Amandatory and Raffaele is Stefanoni. I'm convinced that she fabricated some of the lab results.

I also don't think they feared the US embassy. But I believe they thought they could be troublesome.

I agree, Stefanoni belongs in jail!

As an American, I also agree that they didn’t directly frame Amanda just because she was an American; HOWEVER, the fact that KILLER-Amanda was an American would (perhaps subconsciously) take the pressure off of that Italian college town since the Italian authorities could blame Kercher’s murder as an aberration committed by non-Italians (Amanda + Lumumba), and perhaps they subconsciously ran with that?

If Amanda was just Meredith’s hapless roommate with a weak alibi, then why didn’t they take Filomena’s DNA to test, and check out Filomena’s alibi?

Filomena and Amanda had the exact same alibis (they both spent the night with their respective boyfriends 10 minutes from their cottage), but Filomena got a big investigative pass, while Amanda was put thru the reamer.

Of course, while Amanda and Filomena both emotionally cried, Amanda cried at the wrong times, and Filomena cried at appropriate times (according to Italian standards, of course).

While Raffaele was Italian, his part was to play the duped boyfriend of a fiendish American witch. Even Guede’s involvement would be downplayed.

As an American, I see rampant anti-Americanism in play here, not only by the Italians, but also (amazingly) by many Brits.

The Italians may be pissed after CIA agents hustled a suspect out of Italy, and also there’s the gondola incident where an American jet clipped its wires causing skiers to die. I can understand anger over that.

America also defeated Italy in WWII, but we also defeated Germany and Japan in WWII, but I don’t sense the same anti-American hostility from those other former Axis powers today?

As for the UK, amazingly many Brits today seemingly harbor more hostility towards Americans than Germans or Japanese do, which is amazing since America saved England from certain defeat in WWII. My own dad served in the US Army Air Force back then, thank you very much.

I realize that America has abused its super-powers over the years – e.g., I grudgingly served in Vietnam in the 1960s. At the time I thought Vietnam was a stupid war, but I was too young to even vote when I was sent over there, so over I went.

Ironically, today I feel the Vietnamese people hold Americans in higher esteem than do the British. After what we did over there in the 1960s, I personally feel that the Vietnamese people are amazing in their forgiveness. Today, as an American, I would feel safer visiting Vietnam than I would Italy, that’s for sure!

 

[Methos]

I cannot find the document either but will keep trying. I think the hearing was in January 2008 and the decision in June 2008.

In the early November (8? or 9?) 2007 hearing, Matteni motivates that Amanda is a flight risk and so too, by extension, is Raffaele because of the two's romantic interest (Amanda and Raffaele could flee to the states). Matteni seems more concerned about Patrick being a flight risk because of being a non-citizen and the violence of the crime/murder against Meredith. I cannot see a mention of Edda's arriving in Italy being a flight risk for Amanda but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed during the hearing (the November one).

The post from Frank is dated June 8th, 2008. It is related to the decision to deny Amanda Knox house arrest. The following is from "Waiting to Be Heard" (Chapter 21):

Judge Matteini sent me her decision about house arrest on May 16: “Denied.” By then the prosecution had stacked so much against me that Guede’s testimony hadn’t even figured in her decision. Even though I hadn’t left the country before my arrest, the judge was certain that Mom would have helped me leave when she was to have arrived in Perugia on November 6. That, she said, is why the police planned to arrest me before Mom could get to me. It turned out that they’d gotten her itinerary the same time I did—by bugging my phone.

 

[Strozzi]

We have similar habits in Essex. When confronted about pot-smoking, though, unlike Amanda they do not immediately grass on their friends. They would keep the condom discreet, unlike Amanda who couldn't wait to tell everyone. By "borrowed", are you saying it's an American habit to expect it back?

Vixen, you wrote above: "unlike Amanda they (people in Essex) do not immediately grass on their friends". You may not be sufficiently familiar with the details in this important case. Filomena, who is a lawyer, told Amanda to lie to the police about the drug use in the house. Amanda did what Filomena told her to do and initially denied drug use. She later told the truth. That is the one lie (saying something you know to be false) I am aware of that Amanda told to police. Filomena was wrong to instruct Amanda to lie, and Amanda was wrong to do that.

I am more concerned why Filomena, who is a lawyer, older, and from Perugia, thought it necessary and desireable to lie to the Perugua police given that it was a murder investigation. Had Filomena, a "head" of the household, older, more mature, and a lawyer no less, told Amanda to tell the police the truth about the drug use, Amanda would have done so. Amanda was very open with people.

Amanda has been pilloried for fast becoming involved and intimate with Raffaele. ("Good" Italian girls don't do that. Only sluts do. Right, Mignini?) In reality, Amanda had a healthier, more caring, and more-equal relationship with her Italian boyfriend than Meredith had with her Italian "boyfriend", if one can call him that. He is the guy who when walking with his buddies pretended not to recognize Meredith when they passed in the lane. He was too insensitive to contribute condoms for Meredith's well being. Which is why Meredith asked to "borrow" condoms from Amanda's toilet bag (and gladly gossiped to her British girlfriends about the joke pink bunny in the bag).

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you wrote above: "unlike Amanda they (people in Essex) do not immediately grass on their friends". You may not be sufficiently familiar with the details in this important case. Filomena, who is a lawyer, told Amanda to lie to the police about the drug use in the house. Amanda did what Filomena told her to do and initially denied drug use. She later told the truth. That is the one lie (saying something you know to be false) I am aware of that Amanda told to police. Filomena was wrong to instruct Amanda to lie, and Amanda was wrong to do that.

I am more concerned why Filomena, who is a lawyer, older, and from Perugia, thought it necessary and desireable to lie to the Perugua police given that it was a murder investigation. Had Filomena, a "head" of the household, older, more mature, and a lawyer no less, told Amanda to tell the police the truth about the drug use, Amanda would have done so. Amanda was very open with people.

Amanda has been pilloried for fast becoming involved and intimate with Raffaele. ("Good" Italian girls don't do that. Only sluts do. Right, Mignini?) In reality, Amanda had a healthier, more caring, and more-equal relationship with her Italian boyfriend than Meredith had with her Italian "boyfriend", if one can call him that. He is the guy who when walking with his buddies pretended not to recognize Meredith when they passed in the lane. He was too insensitive to contribute condoms for Meredith's well being. Which is why Meredith asked to "borrow" condoms from Amanda's toilet bag (and gladly gossiped to her British girlfriends about the joke pink bunny in the bag).

Amanda was always quick to "drop people in it" IMV. She told police unprompted Laura and Filomena smoked pot, claimed Patrick murdered and raped Mez and volunteered Raff had a past history of "extensive drug use: cocaine and acid", and that "he suffered mental illness via depression".

Amanda to Mignini Mez' body was "covered in vaseline". In her email home, she informs +25 people police asked her whether Mez mentioned "anal sex". In the same email to +25 people Amanda confirms police had asked her to maintain confidentiality.

Maybe Mez did once ask for one of Amanda's condoms. Amanda telling all who will listen about this (one?) incident seems to me a self-serving attempt to depict Mez as some kind of a hypocrite for daring to object to Amanda bringing a string of strange men to the cottage. Rudy claimed Mez called Amanda, "a drugged up tart".

Of course, Amanda is free to be as promiscuous as she likes. However, it can be fairly argued she put her roommates - especially home-alone Mez - in a vulnerable position.