Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

AK:So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

The police have never released anything to contradict her testimony.

 

[Mr Fied]

AK:So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

The police have never released anything to contradict her testimony.

Thanks bagels, that was the version I thought I remembered.

At least I'm not going nuts

 

[Mike1711]

Oh pur-leese. The police ask someone whether their spouse was with them all night. Of course, they are going to unequivocally say, he/she was with me that night. Unless of course there's no trust. For example, they are married to a philanderer or a slimeball.

Vixen, once again you have the wrong end of the stick. The courts are not interested in how much one spouse trusts or distrusts the other. They are interested in FACTS. It matters not one iota whether Mr and Mrs Smith trust one another implicitly. What matters to the court is whether a person can be an alibi whilst asleep. The only and obvious answer is NO.

 

[Numbers]

It is not so that if someone walks into a police station and makes a voluntary confession, as Amanda did, you are safe from prosecution because you haven't brought a lawyer with you.

Amanda did not volunteer to enter an interrogation room and provide information to the police on Nov. 5. She was requested to do so by the police. Therefore, she was de facto in police custody as soon as she entered that interrogation room. She did not have a lawyer - and Italian law, including the Convention - insists she must have one under these de facto circumstances, has claimed that her statements were the result of coercion, and soon after the interrogation wrote that her statements were coerced and not to be believed.

The Italian authorities have no credible evidence to dispute the allegations of violations of human rights in this case. The ECHR will consider any statements by the police contrary to Amanda's claims as not credible, because Italian law requires that a witness who begins to incriminate herself must be provided with a lawyer, and questioning stopped until the lawyer is present. The Italian authorities did not take those steps, nor have they provided any document which indicates that Amanda knowingly (or even unknowingly) gave up her right to be represented by a lawyer after making an incriminating statement.

Furthermore, VQA Giobbi testified at the first trial that both Amanda and Raffaele were brought in for special questioning on the night of Nov. 5, 2007, under his orders. There is no credible contradiction to his testimony; any statement by other police to the contrary would by considered self-serving by ECHR. The lack of police documentation of the interrogation would support Giobbi's statements. The testimony of Giobbi, a high-ranking Italian police officer, will not be ignored by the ECHR when that court addresses Amanda's case against Italy for violating her human rights in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

 

[Mike1711]

The big advantage of being innocent, is that you tend to have an alibi that is verifiable.

You're making stuff up again. Every moment of every day day millions of innocent people are without an alibi.

 

[Grinder]

AK:So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

The police have never released anything to contradict her testimony.

This was not from her statement, right? Fied stated something like she never said it.

 

[Mike1711]

Bruno and Maresca did not find the pair innocent, nor were they exonerated.

They gave their reasons as insufficiency of evidence.

Nonsense. The clause finding the verdict of not guilty in Italian law includes the phrase "...where evidence is lacking..." - something like the lack of oxygen on the moon.....there is none.

 

[bagels]

This was not from her statement, right? Fied stated something like she never said it.

It's from her trial testimony in 2009:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

 

[Desert Fox]

The big advantage of being innocent, is that you tend to have an alibi that is verifiable.

You're making stuff up again. Every moment of every day day millions of innocent people are without an alibi.

There was a defense attorney interviewed on Serial and one of her statements was that she hates innocent defendants in that they cannot do anything to help themselves. They are the hardest to defend.

I have heard similar sentiments from other defense lawyers as well.

 

[Mr Fied]

This was not from her statement, right? Fied stated something like she never said it.

I didn't mean to imply that she never said it.

I thought I recalled Amanda stating that she was asked why she never heard the scream.

When I looked at the 05:45 "spontaneous statement", (which is where I thought I remembered it from) it wasn't there, so I thought I was mistaken, however bagels has since pointed out where the quote came from.

 

[Planigale]

No, that doesn't logically follow at all. In the US, only 10 alleles are needed for DNA matching (there were 15 of Mez on the blade and a full profile of Raff on the bra clasp). Amanda and Raff would almost certainly now be doing life without parole or even be awaiting the death penalty if they had stood trial in the USA. You cannot appeal the death penalty there, without first accepting your guilt and showing signs of remorse, as part of the 15-step process.

Let us be clear here in neither the UK nor the US would the knife ever have been presented as evidence. The break in the chain of evidence when it was repackaged in a 'dirty' environment at the police station would have led it to being thrown out. Almost certainly the lack of documentation over the processes carried out to extract the Kercher DNA from the blade would have led to the eve
idence being dismissed in the US and UK. In the UK neither the bra DNA of Sollecito nor the Kercher DNA attributed to the knife would have been accepted as it was LCN carried out in a lab not appropriately set up to to do this testing. Let alone the poor collection technique.

Stefanoni would have been in trouble with an English or American judge for presenting false testimony, and failing to provide the documents requested. Either contempt of court or perjury actions may have followed. Certainly a report to the Forensic science regulator in the UK (no equivalent in the US).

I also think English forensic scientists would not have cocked up the shoe print analysis, lied over the footprint attributions, or concealed results.

This case would never have got to court in the UK against Knox or Sollecito.

 

[Grinder]

It's from her trial testimony in 2009:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Yes, but it was in her statement which was the specific issue. Anyway doesn't really matter what she said on the sixth but she did sign the statement and that's all I was pointing out. She brought Patrick to the cottage and he went off with Meredith and she screamed.

So in that case you have just proved that Amanda was not at the cottage at the time of the murder, at last.

When did Amanda confess to hearing a scream, let alone taking Patrick there for sex?

 

[Vixen]

Well though the point may be a stretch to you and I don't think Raf actually has made it himself, I woke the other day and my SO wasn't in bed. I looked around the place and couldn't find her. She had gone out in the middle of the night because she couldn't sleep to another residence of ours. Had she come back before I awoke I wouldn't have known she had been out.

Yeah, but as Amanda didn't have a key, Raff would've had to get up and let her in, to tell police she was there next morning.

What is an SO?

 

[Vixen]

Could you provide the proof that he knew what she wore and that it wasn't publicly know a year after the murder?

The photo of the clothes strewn on Amanda's bed was not released until the trial, by which time Quintavalle had made his witness statement. He could easily have simply described what she was wearing outside the cottage, if he didn't really know.

 

[Vixen]

How do we know there was a scream? It would be a normal reaction to being attacked but no credible witness said they heard a scream.

Claim you. The court found differently.

 

[Vixen]

According to the New York Times, they spent 100 k on PR and had to take out second mortgages to pay for it. That is pennies compared to what a celebrity will end up paying on PR.

With regard to child support, who knows. The two parents likely had issues on what percentage the other should pay. This can be the case with couples that don't hate each other.

You haven't seen the court warrants ordering Curt to pay? That is unusual I understand, for a parent to let it go that far.

 

[Bill Williams]

Claim you. The court found differently.

**THE** Court? Which court?

 

[Bill Williams]

There was a defense attorney interviewed on Serial and one of her statements was that she hates innocent defendants in that they cannot do anything to help themselves. They are the hardest to defend.

I have heard similar sentiments from other defense lawyers as well.

All defence lawyers urge/plead with their clients to remain silent.

They urge this with their guilty clients because there's nothing they can say to help themselves - when there are people around who will vilify them for the slightest misstep.

They urge this with their innocent clients because there's nothing they can say to help themselves - when there are people around who will vilify them for the slightest misstep.

The one who made this quip also said what you observe, that the most difficult people to defend are the innocent. Esp. the ones who speak, thinking that their innocence will be obvious. True, their innocence is obvious to them.... but there are those who will vilify them simply because they've been charged.

 

[Bill Williams]

AK:So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

The police have never released anything to contradict her testimony.

Well, all this could be cleared up one way or another by releasing the transcript of the interrogation. Until then Vixen is entitled to her view of things, and PIP are entitled to theirs.

There it sits. One of the reasons why this is mandatory is precisely so that people are not arguing about such things 8 years later.

 

[Desert Fox]

All defence lawyers urge/plead with their clients to remain silent.

They urge this with their guilty clients because there's nothing they can say to help themselves - when there are people around who will vilify them for the slightest misstep.

They urge this with their innocent clients because there's nothing they can say to help themselves - when there are people around who will vilify them for the slightest misstep.

The one who made this quip also said what you observe, that the most difficult people to defend are the innocent. Esp. the ones who speak, thinking that their innocence will be obvious. True, their innocence is obvious to them.... but there are those who will vilify them simply because they've been charged.

Like a certain poster on this forum