Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

In 2009, the average value over the year of the Euro in US Dollars was:

1.3552 Dollars per 1 Euro.

So 182,784 Euros =

Source: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Infi...Annual_Average_Exchange_Rates_Dollar_Per_Euro

So the craziness of this cartoon/database/corruption is clear. Especially since the interrogations could not be recorded due to budget reasons, according to Mignini.

$247,709

 

[Kauffer]

Do you have a list of whom they tapped?

There's this:

Stefano Buratti Testimony State Police – p201-202

PROSECUTOR – DR. COMODI QUESTION – Could you make a list of telephone users that have been subjected to interception based on the Prosecutor’s Decree in the context of Meredith’s murder, do you have a list?
ANSWER – Well, at the moment I don’t have one, of all interceptions made?
PRESIDENT – of the users Yes.
ANSWER – They are pretty much, if I’m not mistaken 83 wiretaps, which are called ‘Rit’, so any wiretap corresponds to a user or to an environment, 83, 5 of them are environmental, of those, three in prison, one in the police station and the other was at Lumumba’s Pub
QUESTION – then were the defendants’ phones intercepted?
ANSWER- the telephones of the defendants, of Knox, and …
QUESTION – of suspects by then?
ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.
QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.
ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?
QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?
ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.
QUESTION – Then even friends?
ANSWER – Yes.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

 

[Kauffer]

Andrew G Hodges Radio interview

For those who are interested....I challenge you not to be utterly astonished at this idiot's nonsense.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truecr...one-unto-you-secret-confession-of-amanda-knox

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not confusing anything. There is no such thing in law as a colloquial suspect. But there's no need for me to lecture you on this subject. You should be able to work it out for yourself. When is the latest possible time that Amanda might legitimately be considered a witness informed of the facts rather than a suspect?

Would you agree, that it cannot be later than when the police declared to her that Raffaele had taken away her alibi? This is BEFORE she made any incriminating statement, before she signed any statement and before any alleged callunia was commited.

The problem with what you've written, Kauffer, is its utter obviousness.

The absolute latest Knox could been seen as only a person informed of the facts, is when the cops claimed Raffaele had withdrawn an alibi.

An alibi for what? Simply leaving Raffaele's place is not in and of itself a crime. Neither is hanging out at the square.

Yet they advised Napoleoni that everything had changed, that Raffaele had done something, allegedly, to call Knox into suspicion.

Of a crime. If not the actual crime, of what?

It's not that Knox was free or not free at that time to request a lawyer. It is procedure for the PLE to get her one whether she wants one or not. Why? It is nothing to do with her - it's because everything from that point on is unusable in court without one.

All of this is utter obvious. It's incredible that anyone would fall back into Machiavelli's nonsense about "suspect" vs. "Strongly suspected."

 

[Numbers]

I agree this is very interesting in terms of the information about cats, blood and Giacomo's view of Kercher. (What a b******). I'd really like to check his alibi!

I do not think the secrecy issue is anything of significance. I think it just means witnesses should not discuss their interviews prior to the court case. Witnesses in England would be advised not to discuss the case.

The secrecy warning seems important because it was only issued in a few cases. Likewise, the top cops (and Mignini) only interviewed a few important witnesses.

 

[carbonjam72]

The secrecy warning seems important because it was only issued in a few cases. Likewise, the top cops (and Mignini) only interviewed a few important witnesses.

How come the prosecution was allowed to leak false information to the media, but only some of the witnesses had to remain quiet, so as to not influence the investigation?

How come witnesses like Curatolo, Quintavale, and Nara were allowed to go on TV and discuss what they claim to have "witnessed"?

I guess there are the rules the police are supposed to follow by law, and then how they actually conduct themselves in an investigation is another matter entirely.

The next step is the Marasca motivation report. But I think the interesting report, will be on the investigation of the Kercher investigation and prosecution itself, after Marasca's report is digested.

The cynicism surrounding the possibility that Mignini and his accomplices will get called out on their criminality is pretty striking. Its like people just give up at the idea that Italy could be anything but corrupt and self-protective in regard to openly admitting error.

 

[Bill Williams]

How come the prosecution was allowed to leak false information to the media, but only some of the witnesses had to remain quiet, so as to not influence the investigation?

How come witnesses like Curatolo, Quintavale, and Nara were allowed to go on TV and discuss what they claim to have "witnessed"?
I guess there are the rules the police are supposed to follow by law, and then how they actually conduct themselves in an investigation is another matter entirely.

The next step is the Marasca motivation report. But I think the interesting report, will be on the investigation of the Kercher investigation and prosecution itself, after Marasca's report is digested.

The cynicism surrounding the possibility that Mignini and his accomplices will get called out on their criminality is pretty striking. Its like people just give up at the idea that Italy could be anything but corrupt and self-protective in regard to openly admitting error.

IIRC, Nara was first on the PLE's radar because she'd been interviewed on TV about six months after. They started talking about the "significance" of what she'd claimed, even before interviewing her.

 

[Diocletus]

The witness interview of Marco Marzan, on Nov. 3, has been translated into English. It contains important information about the downstairs crime scene, and shows that the police indeed were suppressing that information in their pursuit of Amanda and Raffaele. Noteworthy features of the interview: 1. Conducted by VQA (Deputy Assistant Chief) Giobbi and VQA Profazio, with Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, as well as Chief Inspectors Facchini and Ficarra. 2) Marzan was sworn to secrecy; this was done with only a few others, such as Bonassi, and reflects the police not wanting their information, which would tend to destroy the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from being made public. Marzan states that the cat's ear was not bleeding, as far as he knew, and that there was no blood on the floor when he had left. There was also no blood on the walls or light switch when he left; there may have been fly remains or blood on the wall. There was a stone in the flat that apparently had not been there previously, IIUC. Also, there apparently was blood in a sink; Marzan said there had been no blood there when he left.

The suppression of this information from downstairs by the police and prosecutor is very important. It confirms that on or about Nov. 3, the police and prosecutor would have been formulating a way to obscure the case against the real murderer and rapist of Meredith (whether or not they knew who he was) and were preparing to go after Amanda as the suspect of convenience. Note that Giobbi knew from Marzan's witness statement that the cat would not be the source of the blood and his testimony that the blood was from a cat was perjury. The same could be said about Stefanoni's testimony, since her tests showed the blood (or possibly the underlying surface below the stain) had human DNA.

What on earth is this all about:

A. Riccardo never spoke to me of the problem of resin leaking from the ceiling. Riccardo is a tidy type, but not excessively.

 

[Numbers]

What on earth is this all about:

Quote:
A. Riccardo never spoke to me of the problem of resin leaking from the ceiling. Riccardo is a tidy type, but not excessively.

Was it really "resin" that leaked? Why would this be an issue the police were interested in? Could blood have leaked down? What room in the upstairs flat would have been above Riccardo's room?

 

[Numbers]

Vixen is not correct. There are not two categories of suspect. You are a witness or you are a suspect in Italian law, but we really don't need to be detained by Italian law because the ECHR trumps it:

If you're a suspect you get a lawyer. It's that simple. However, there is no cause of action if you are not prosecuted or if your prosecution does not rely on the product of your lawyerless interrogation. If you do not incriminate yourself, nobody arrests you and nobody prosecutes you, there is no trial and you are not adversely affected by any theoretical rights violation. Rights are "practical and effective". (See below).

The key case law is Salduz v Turkey: Everything changed in Europe after this.

"52. National laws may attach consequences to the attitude of an accused at the initial stages of police interrogation which are decisive for the prospects of the defence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, Article 6 will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation. However, this right has so far been considered capable of being subject to restrictions for good cause. The question, in each case, has therefore been whether the restriction was justified and, if so, whether, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, it has not deprived the accused of a fair hearing, for even a justified restriction is capable of doing so in certain circumstances.

53. These principles, outlined in paragraph 52 above, are also in line with the generally recognised international human rights standards … which are at the core of the concept of a fair trial and whose rationale relates in particular to the protection of the accused against abusive coercion on the part of the authorities. They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused.

54. In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96). At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-..., and Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 51, 2 August 2005). Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh, cited above, § 101). In this connection, the Court also notes the recommendations of the CPT (paragraphs 39-40 above), in which the committee repeatedly stated that the right of a detainee to have access to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. Any exception to the enjoyment of this right should be clearly circumscribed and its application strictly limited in time. These principles are particularly called for in the case of serious charges, for it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies.
55. Against this background, the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently "practical and effective" (see paragraph 51 above) Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.’"

Note the ECHR statement: This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused...
The last part of the above quote is meant to include even psychological or non-violent methods of coercion. It is a misunderstanding of some to believe that only frank torture is prohibited by the ECHR case-law.

 

[Numbers]

What on earth is this all about:

From Marzan's witness statement:

A. I kept the keys from my house inside the apartment; I kept them on a metal ring.
A. I don't quite remember if I have ever handed the house keys to my friend Giorgio in the past, but definitely not recently.

Why would this come up? What are the keys to his house - the one in his home province? Or is this a reference to a set of apartment keys? Wouldn't he have taken his house keys with him? Could a set of his apartment keys have been missing?

 

[Numbers]

What on earth is this all about:

A. Sometimes Giacomo would recount his sexual experiences with Meredith to me; in particular, he told me that he also performed oral and anal sexual acts with her.

I have a chain of hypotheses related to this statement from Marzan:

1. That Giacomo spoke to his other friends and acquaintances about his experiences with Meredith.

2. That in particular, Rudy Guede was aware of such information, and this generated an interest by Guede in Meredith and/or the other young women in the upstairs flat. (On the other hand, Guede had met both Meredith and Amanda in a visit to the downstairs flat and this could have triggered his interest.)

3. That Guede broke in to the flat with the intention of surprising Meredith or any of the women who entered, as well as seeking cash or valuables. Meredith entered the flat earlier than he had anticipated.

I am aware that these hypotheses are speculative. But such attacks by home invaders who lie in wait for their victims do happen.

 

[zotz]

The witness interview of Marco Marzan, on Nov. 3, has been translated into English. It contains important information about the downstairs crime scene, and shows that the police indeed were suppressing that information in their pursuit of Amanda and Raffaele. Noteworthy features of the interview: 1. Conducted by VQA (Deputy Assistant Chief) Giobbi and VQA Profazio, with Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, as well as Chief Inspectors Facchini and Ficarra. 2) Marzan was sworn to secrecy; this was done with only a few others, such as Bonassi, and reflects the police not wanting their information, which would tend to destroy the case against Amanda and Raffaele, from being made public. Marzan states that the cat's ear was not bleeding, as far as he knew, and that there was no blood on the floor when he had left. There was also no blood on the walls or light switch when he left; there may have been fly remains or blood on the wall. There was a stone in the flat that apparently had not been there previously, IIUC. Also, there apparently was blood in a sink; Marzan said there had been no blood there when he left.

The suppression of this information from downstairs by the police and prosecutor is very important. It confirms that on or about Nov. 3, the police and prosecutor would have been formulating a way to obscure the case against the real murderer and rapist of Meredith (whether or not they knew who he was) and were preparing to go after Amanda as the suspect of convenience. Note that Giobbi knew from Marzan's witness statement that the cat would not be the source of the blood and his testimony that the blood was from a cat was perjury. The same could be said about Stefanoni's testimony, since her tests showed the blood (or possibly the underlying surface below the stain) had human DNA.

Are there any lab tests that show the presence of cat blood downstairs?

 

[carbonjam72]

From Marzan's witness statement:

A. I kept the keys from my house inside the apartment; I kept them on a metal ring.
A. I don't quite remember if I have ever handed the house keys to my friend Giorgio in the past, but definitely not recently.

Why would this come up? What are the keys to his house - the one in his home province? Or is this a reference to a set of apartment keys? Wouldn't he have taken his house keys with him? Could a set of his apartment keys have been missing?

It reads like these keys are to his house somewhere else, but it makes more sense if it refers to a spare set of keys to the downstairs apartment where he lived.

I think it shows the police were interested in who had keys to the downstairs apartment, because they recognized a break-in, but no sign of a forced break-in - like a broken window or broken door lock.

Stefanoni's testimony, IIRC, said that the cat drove them crazy at first, and that thus presumably, the police did at first believe a break-in occurred downstairs as well, until that line of inquiry was abandoned and the blood and disruption attributed to the heavily bleeding cat.

 

[christianahannah]

From Marzan's witness statement:

A. I kept the keys from my house inside the apartment; I kept them on a metal ring.
A. I don't quite remember if I have ever handed the house keys to my friend Giorgio in the past, but definitely not recently.

Why would this come up? What are the keys to his house - the one in his home province? Or is this a reference to a set of apartment keys? Wouldn't he have taken his house keys with him? Could a set of his apartment keys have been missing?

I haven't read the statement of Marzan but I think Giorgio (Cocciaretto) was a friend of the boys downstairs and also knew/was familiar with Rudy.

 

[Numbers]

Are there any lab tests that show the presence of cat blood downstairs?

No such lab tests were recorded by Stefanoni as having been performed. The appropriate test would be an antigen-antibody test specific for cat blood.

The blood was called cat blood the same way the break-in was called staged:
an arbitrary assessment by the police and prosecutor to advance their case against Amanda.

 

[carbonjam72]

A. Sometimes Giacomo would recount his sexual experiences with Meredith to me; in particular, he told me that he also performed oral and anal sexual acts with her.

I have a chain of hypotheses related to this statement from Marzan:

1. That Giacomo spoke to his other friends and acquaintances about his experiences with Meredith.

2. That in particular, Rudy Guede was aware of such information, and this generated an interest by Guede in Meredith and/or the other young women in the upstairs flat. (On the other hand, Guede had met both Meredith and Amanda in a visit to the downstairs flat and this could have triggered his interest.)

3. That Guede broke in to the flat with the intention of surprising Meredith or any of the women who entered, as well as seeking cash or valuables. Meredith entered the flat earlier than he had anticipated.
I am aware that these hypotheses are speculative. But such attacks by home invaders who lie in wait for their victims do happen.

I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief with this one.

Guede used a rock through a window to test if anyone was home, no? Its a weird claim that he broke in with the intent to rape.

Rudy had no history of rape that we know of. But he has a large history of burglaries and carrying & brandishing a knife during his robberies, as well as a history of getting loaded and harassing women and stealing their purses, as well as a history of mental illness and blackout fugue states.

We know of Rudy's criminal past from stories by witnesses found through investigative reporting, rather than through formal court cases. But also from some testimony in court.

If Rudy had actually been a rapist, even once, wouldn't at least a rumor of such a story have surfaced by now, in the same way that all these other stories have surfaced?
Its possible of course that Rudy never got caught for one or more rapes. But it must be said, Rudy is not a very good criminal. He seems to get pegged for all kinds of crimes. He doesn't seem to be that well thought out, and capable of covering his tracks very well. That murder scene was a mess. Rudy's ever changing story was a mess. Rudy was/is kind of a mess.

 

[christianahannah]

No such lab tests were recorded by Stefanoni as having been performed. The appropriate test would be an antigen-antibody test specific for cat blood.

The blood was called cat blood the same way the break-in was called staged:
an arbitrary assessment by the police and prosecutor to advance their case against Amanda.

I think tests were performed but there was controversy as to the results. It has been a long time since I have looked at the SAL cards but if I can locate a reference I will share.

 

[carbonjam72]

Too early for police to connect downstairs to Guede, unless they already knew.

I haven't read the statement of Marzan but I think Giorgio (Cocciaretto) was a friend of the boys downstairs and also knew/was familiar with Rudy.

Well that really is pretty interesting. Bonassi's statement from Nov 3/4 (?) described Rudy's visit and his leaving a turd in the toilet.

This would provide an obvious parallel to the unflushed turd left in the bowl upstairs.

Supposedly, the police would identify Rudy by interviewing the social circle until they identified who Rudy was, and from there could pull his identity card to match his palm print to the crime scene.

But how could the police have been exploring a connection to a friend of Rudy Guede, and to whether he had access to a key to the downstairs apt on Nov 3, unless they believed that Rudy Guede had committed the crime, and entered the downstairs afterwards, and the police wanted to know how he was able to enter without a forced break-in?

 

[christianahannah]

Well that really is pretty interesting. Bonassi's statement from Nov 3/4 (?) described Rudy's visit and his leaving a turd in the toilet.

This would provide an obvious parallel to the unflushed turd left in the bowl upstairs.

Supposedly, the police would identify Rudy by interviewing the social circle until they identified who Rudy was, and from there could pull his identity card to match his palm print to the crime scene.

But how could the police have been exploring a connection to a friend of Rudy Guede, and to whether he had access to a key to the downstairs apt on Nov 3, unless they believed that Rudy Guede had committed the crime, and entered the downstairs afterwards, and the police wanted to know how he was able to enter without a forced break-in?

I don't know that the connection had been made yet to Rudy through Giorgio and I say that because I cannot locate a deposition from Giorgio early November (I got the friend of Rudy part from Giorgio's testimony.) If there is a deposition from Giorgio during early November that might shed more light.

I think the police were questioning all the residents and questioning who their friends were and what access they might have had to the upstairs/downstairs flats especially after Sophie's deposition where she speaks of strange men having visited the upstairs flat prior to Meredith's murder.