Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Thanks for posting this. There is obviously some contradiction. But I think that there are more contradictions than you are noting.

The highlighted sentence, if correctly written on Nov. 7, would mean that Raffaele had his preliminary hearing and saw Tedeschi on that day, rather than on Nov. 8. Perhaps the date in the diary is incorrectly given as Nov. 7, when Nov. 8 would have been correct. On the other hand, one could argue that the text of Honor Bound is not correct, and the lawyer and preliminary hearing were indeed on Nov. 7.

I would think that court or prison records would be required to clear this up for a skeptic.

If one examines the report of judge Claudia Matteini, who was the magistrate of the preliminary hearing, one see that she signed and dated it on Nov. 9, 2007. It is likely that the hearing began on Nov. 8, not Nov. 7. Thus, I believe that the text of Honor Bound is correct, and that there is an error in the date of the diary entry.

I suggest that one seeking information on, for example, what Raffaele Sollecito said before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation read the Matteini report. It states that he supported every detail of Amanda Knox's statements of Nov. 2, except that he saw no feces in the toilet. That appears to have been his only statement prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation.

The Matteini report of her conclusions from the preliminary hearing, which included authorizing detention of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for one year, may be found in English translation at:

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

An image of the original Italian report may be found at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

When did Raf first see his dad after being incarcerated? Was it at the first hearing? If it was at the first hearing, then Raf had to have talked to his lawyer the day before as he says "I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge" in the odd diary note to his dad.

Could it be that Raf saw the judge with only his lawyer present?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is absolutely nothing that places Amanda in the murder room. The closest thing they have is the knife and since she used it at Raf's house her DNA being on it means nothing. The fact, none of Raf's DNA was found on the knife would indicate it had been washed thoroughly at some point. (Always wondered why his missing DNA on the knife never became an issue.)

So if the DNA work were to be accepted not even the Meredith DNA on the knife would put Amanda in the room but it would make a small case against Raf. His DNA would have been found on an article of clothing that Meredith was wearing when killed.

The 46 days isn't important but the movement more so. You have helped make the case, it could have been another person with Rudi, as at least two people weren't identified from the DNA on the clasp. There were also fingerprints never identified.

Very thin gruel, not much of a meal.

 

[Methos]

Nov. 7, 2007 Prison Diary

............
I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note: Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At least I am happy for that. My total restrictions were removed today so I can watch TV... At least time goes by since I can do practically nothing. But, apart from the usual cartoons, it bores me

When did he see his father for the first time? If he wrote this on the 7th it was before the court hearing and not mere minutes because he says tomorrow. Writing his father in a diary seems very odd.

I think the highlighted part is the problem here. Sollecito starts writing the diary on Nov 7th, 2007. The first part is his recollection of the events that lead to the discovery of the murder. The part from which you quoted starts with:

The judge questioned me today and she told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore they should stop bothering me and start investigating her [non mi rompessero e facessero le indagini su di lei]. I tried to help them in the investigation by trying to remember and now I am the one taking it in that place [where the sun never shines...]. It would have been better if I had done nothing and had limited myself to saying that she had remained at my house. I would have spared myself a lot of anxiety. Let’s talk about something else that it is better...

I may see you tomorrow,...

The Matteini hearing for Sollecito started on Nov 8th, 2007 at 13:14. So this entry was written after the hearing on Nov 8th, 2007. To me it looks like Sollecito simply didn't put a date to that entry, or - since we don't have the handwritten original - the paper that printed it forgot it...

When did Raf first see his dad after being incarcerated? Was it at the first hearing? If it was at the first hearing, then Raf had to have talked to his lawyer the day before as he says "I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge" in the odd diary note to his dad.

Could it be that Raf saw the judge with only his lawyer present?

Yes, this one from the document linked to above tells us who was present:

L'anno 2007 il mese di novembre il giorno 8 alle ore 13.14, in Perugia presso la locale Casa Circondariale, dinanzi al GIP. Dott.ssa Claudia Matteini, assistito per la redazione del presente verbale dal Cancelliere B3 Catia Uffreduzzi, con l'intervento del difensore di fiducia Avv. Tedeschi Tlziano del foro di Bari; e' presente il PM Dr. Mignini
E' presente il Sostituto Commissario Monica Napoleoni e l'Ispettore Capo Facchini Antonio

 

[Numbers]

I think the highlighted part is the problem here. Sollecito starts writing the diary on Nov 7th, 2007. The first part is his recollection of the events that lead to the discovery of the murder. The part from which you quoted starts with:

The Matteini hearing for Sollecito started on Nov 8th, 2007 at 13:14. So this entry was written after the hearing on Nov 8th, 2007. To me it looks like Sollecito simply didn't put a date to that entry, or - since we don't have the handwritten original - the paper that printed it forgot it...


Yes, this one from the document linked to above tells us who was present:

Thanks for resolving this "red herring" of confusion.

The preliminary hearing was held on Nov. 8, 2007. Raffaele and his lawyer at that time, Tedeschi, were specified as present in Matteini's official memo; his father was not specified as present, and thus was not present*.

The text of Honor Bound is thus shown accurate in this instance.

*Unless a conspiracy theorist wishes to believe absence of evidence is not the same as evidence, on an official memo from the magistrate, Matteini. In that case, of course, there could have been outer-space aliens present as well.

 

[dropzone]

Just because you are not aware of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. DNA and prints were found and never identified.

It was a rental in a college town. There will be unidentified prints and DNA.

You obviously are having a problem understanding. The Italian system produces judicial facts. Were you aware of that?

Yes, they "produce judicial facts," and they did a bang-up job creating some for the first trial. They poisoned their well so thoroughly that the only time I accept any of their conclusions is when they make one I would agree with.

Were you aware the system declared there were multiple attackers?

And they based that on what? That useless footprint on the bathmat, which could be linked to any adult with a right foot? That's Vixen territory. There is laughably little evidence of multiple intruders.

I am not some rube pulling conclusions out of my ass. I was a student of and do research for Dr Kathy Reichs, though in practice I prefer my dead folk much longer dead, like after they stop smelling. I know my way around these things.

In that case, of course, there could have been outer-space aliens present as well.

Wrong thread. Go to Conspiracy
Theories and talk to Lopesito.

 

[Grinder]

If I may make one comment - and only one - on the multiple attacker theory, I am aware of no objectively credible evidence indicating more than one attacker murdered/raped Meredith Kercher.

Persons wishing to believe that there were multiple attackers are, of course, free to do so. But skeptics would ask for objectively credible evidence to support the theory.

Bring forth the DNA or bloody footprint or CCTV evidence, or similar objectively credible evidence, and I would, perhaps, believe; but without it, I do not.

For the last time, I am NOT making the case multiple people killed Meredith. I am making the case the defense needn't have to prove there was only one killer to defend the kids. They could have just said if you insist there were more than one, it doesn't mean our clients. There is as much evidence for someone else as our clients. Then they could have pointed to unidentified prints and DNA.

 

[Numbers]

Delete

 

[acbytesla]

There is absolutely nothing that places Amanda in the murder room. The closest thing they have is the knife and since she used it at Raf's house her DNA being on it means nothing. The fact, none of Raf's DNA was found on the knife would indicate it had been washed thoroughly at some point. (Always wondered why his missing DNA on the knife never became an issue.)

So if the DNA work were to be accepted not even the Meredith DNA on the knife would put Amanda in the room but it would make a small case against Raf. His DNA would have been found on an article of clothing that Meredith was wearing when killed.

The 46 days isn't important but the movement more so. You have helped make the case, it could have been another person with Rudi, as at least two people weren't identified from the DNA on the clasp. There were also fingerprints never identified.

The knife was always the most absurd evidence in this case. I could never imagine that it was transported back and forth from Raff's apt. to the cottage. I don't believe that Meredith's DNA was ever on that knife.

 

[acbytesla]

For the last time, I am NOT making the case multiple people killed Meredith. I am making the case the defense needn't have to prove there was only one killer to defend the kids. They could have just said if you insist there were more than one, it doesn't mean our clients. There is as much evidence for someone else as our clients. Then they could have pointed to unidentified prints and DNA.

I agree with that and Marasca makes that point. So, you are probably right. But I do think that is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence that there actually was multiple attackers is pretty much non-existent so you could hardly blame people for pointing that out.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with that and Marasca makes that point. So, you are probably right. But I do think that is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence that there actually was multiple attackers is pretty much non-existent so you could hardly blame people for pointing that out.

It's probably way-stale to say it..... but it's important to be reminded that Judge Massei decided on "multiple attackers" on the basis other than the forensics - chiefly that he'd convicted the pair!

Based solely on the 9 experts he heard at trial in 2009, the best he might have said solely on the forensics is there's no particular reason to rule out multiple attackers.... just as there's perhaps no particular reason to rule out a single perp.

Again, like Massei's view that the climb in through Filomena's window is doable (just not likely acc. to Massei) that Rudy would have gone up *twice*), these are yet more reasons why those who believe otherwise have to argue against even Massei.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nov. 7, 2007 Prison Diary

............

I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At
least I am happy for that. My total restrictions were removed today so I can watch TV... At
least time goes by since I can do practically nothing. But, apart from the usual cartoons, it
bores me

When did he see his father for the first time? If he wrote this on the 7th it was before the court hearing and not mere minutes because he says tomorrow. Writing his father in a diary seems very odd.

Er you don't notice the part where he writes "....and who defended me before the judge"?

This has very clearly been written after he appeared before Matteini. And that was on 9th November.

 

[acbytesla]

It's probably way-stale to say it..... but it's important to be reminded that Judge Massei decided on "multiple attackers" on the basis other than the forensics - chiefly that he'd convicted the pair!

Based solely on the 9 experts he heard at trial in 2009, the best he might have said solely on the forensics is there's no particular reason to rule out multiple attackers.... just as there's perhaps no particular reason to rule out a single perp.

Again, like Massei's view that the climb in through Filomena's window is doable (just not likely acc. to Massei) that Rudy would have gone up *twice*), these are yet more reasons why those who believe otherwise have to argue against even Massei.

Add to that the court that convicted Rudy "determined" that there were multiple attackers basically a contention made by the prosecutors and went uncontested by Rudy's lawyers.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, none at all. I don't know why you brought it up.
Did I miss where either LondonJohn or acbytesla or Numbers came out in support of multiple attackers? Either you are arguing with a strawman or you should be clearer whom you are addressing.

Yep, I'm confused too.

Grinder's original post seemed to suggest that both "sides" were obdurate and stubborn on the number-of-attackers issue. And while this in itself appeared to suggest that pro-guilt commentators were unwilling to consider that this could have been a sole attacker (and that this then supported the case for Knox and Sollecito being the other "mandatory" attackers), it was manifestly unclear in which way Grinder was accusing the pro-acquittal commentators of being obdurate and stubborn.

I assumed it was one of two possibilities. That he was asserting either that a) pro-acquittal commentators were wedded to the conclusion that this MUST have been a sole-assailant crime (and that of course Guede was the sole assailant), or that b) pro-acquittal commentators were wedded to the idea that if there were multiple attackers, then the other attackers MUST have been person(s) other than Knox or Sollecito.

So in my response, I was trying to respond to both assumed possibilities from my point of view. The truth (IMO) is that the available evidence (and lack of evidence) could - theoretically at least - support either a sole-attacker or multi-attacker scenario. BUT.... the fact that no credible, reliable evidence of any attacker other than Guede has ever been found, together with a view that this sort of crime is very often (even usually) committed by a sole assailant, and together with the view that all the evidence (and lack of evidence) is wholly compatible with what I consider a logical and reasonable narrative for the crime*, leads me to the working conclusion that this was a sole-assailant break-in, attack and murder.

But then I pointed out that even if one supposes that this was a multi-person attack, there's still no reasonable reason to suppose that Knox and/or Sollecito comprised these other person(s). There's zero reliable, credible evidence of their participation, and there's minimal reason to suppose that either Knox or Sollecito would have teamed up with Guede to commit this crime. And as I then pointed out, if one were looking for potential accomplices or co-perps for someone like Guede, one would be far, far more likely to look towards his shady connections in the worlds of drug distribution and low-level theft/burglary.

So, either way, IMO it's still illogical and unreasonable to connect Knox and/or Sollecito with this murder in any way whatsoever. But I most certainly and unequivocally do not consider that I am in any way obdurate or stubborn on the matter of "one perp vs multiple perps". As I said, I consider that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the available evidence (and lack of evidence) is that Guede committed this crime alone, but I am not wedded to that conclusion by any means.


* Guede breaking in alone, then being surprised by the return of Kercher, then confronting Kercher when he couldn't leave the cottage unobtrusively, then confronting Kercher, then getting agitated and aroused, then corralling Kercher into submission using his knife and threats along the lines of "if you struggle or call out, I'll kill you", then initiating a sexual assault on Kercher, then stabbing Kercher when she (likely) struggled and/or screamed out in reaction to the sexual assault, then continuing his assault as Kercher lay dying.

 

[LondonJohn]

Add to that the court that convicted Rudy "determined" that there were multiple attackers basically a contention made by the prosecutors and went uncontested by Rudy's lawyers.

It's very important to note that this was not only "uncontested" by Guede's lawyers - it was a key, and fundamentally necessary, part of their defence.

Remember, the prosecution wanted the court to conclude that there were multiple people present at the time of the murder, since they had Knox and Sollecito in prison awaiting trial as co-perps. And Guede's defence team wanted the court to conclude that there were multiple people present at the time of the murder, since they were trying to argue that it was these other people who had actually done the deed.

And in this environment - with nobody having the incentive or wish to put the case for a sole attacker, and with expert opinion stating that the evidence was basically consistent with either a sole-assailant or multiple-assailant crime - it was a virtual certainty that the court would deliver the finding of fact that there were multiple attackers.

And this was yet another illustration of the fundamental failures of the Italian criminal justice system. Either Guede should not have been allowed to be tried alone (had he pled guilty to the charges up front, that would have been different, and there never would have been a trial of the facts), or his trial should have been conducted entirely in camera and its outcome should have had zero bearing on the trial process of Knox and Sollecito.

Had Knox's and Sollecito's murder convictions been ultimately upheld by the Italian SC, I feel certain that a key plank of their appeal to the ECHR would have been on this very matter (under the denial of the right to a fair trial). Every court in their trial process was fully aware that Guede had previously been convicted in a trial in which the courts - all the way up to the SC - had made a finding of fact that there were multiple perpetrators. This cannot possibly have failed to have had some level of (wholly improper and grossly unjust) influence on every one of the courts in Knox's/Sollecito's trials.

 

[Grinder]

Er you don't notice the part where he writes "....and who defended me before the judge"?

This has very clearly been written after he appeared before Matteini. And that was on 9th November.

Ah errr and that's why I asked when he saw the judge and his dad.

If one only reads the diary, it appears he saw T on the 7th and that's what the PGP here was saying.

 

[Grinder]

I agree with that and Marasca makes that point. So, you are probably right. But I do think that is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence that there actually was multiple attackers is pretty much non-existent so you could hardly blame people for pointing that out.

By the time of the trial the ISC had confirmed Rudi's verdict which included accomplices. For me it wasn't Monday morning it was during the game. It was always clear to me, the incompetence of the police could be turned against them by saying even if there were accomplices it wasn't the kids and they never bothered to identify all the DNA and prints found.

Maybe the PLE would have used the rental house explanation for not following through. Apparently DNA and fingerprints are useless because people not involved in the crime could have left it before the crime. Who knew?

Bill how many of the experts said it could have been done by multiple attackers or most likely by multiple?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah errr and that's why I asked when he saw the judge and his dad.

If one only reads the diary, it appears he saw T on the 7th and that's what the PGP here was saying.

In fact the Matteini hearing was on the 8th (at around 1pm), and her report outlining her findings etc was issued on the 9th.

So the date with which that diary entry of Sollecito's is (apparently) linked has to be wrong, since it mentions him already having seen the judge and being defended by Tedeschi. That entry, in other words, was undoubtedly written on 8th November 2007. And it doesn't change the assertion that he was kept in solitary confinement and without any access to a lawyer until literally just before the Matteini hearing. The only thing it will change is that Sollecito (and Knox) was kept from being able to see a lawyer for two full days (morning of 6th Nov to morning of 8th Nov) rather than three full days.

 

[acbytesla]

By the time of the trial the ISC had confirmed Rudi's verdict which included accomplices. For me it wasn't Monday morning it was during the game. It was always clear to me, the incompetence of the police could be turned against them by saying even if there were accomplices it wasn't the kids and they never bothered to identify all the DNA and prints found.

Maybe the PLE would have used the rental house explanation for not following through. Apparently DNA and fingerprints are useless because people not involved in the crime could have left it before the crime. Who knew?

Bill how many of the experts said it could have been done by multiple attackers or most likely by multiple?

I personally can't imagine NOT making both arguments Grinder and I don't know that A&R's lawyers didn't do exactly that. But maybe the simple argument that whether there was a single or multiple assailants is irrelevant if you can't prove who those attackers were gets lost.

OTA....I can't get over the fact that the only bloody footprints found belonged to Rudy. Doesn't that kind of prove there almost certainly was only one assailant and if one determines there was only one it means that A&R couldn't have been involved?

The real problem in my mind is the Italian courts do not seem bound by actual logic but this fictional judicial logic. But maybe this should have been known and addressed in the way you are suggesting. It just seems absurd to me.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's very important to note that this was not only "uncontested" by Guede's lawyers - it was a key, and fundamentally necessary, part of their defence.

Remember, the prosecution wanted the court to conclude that there were multiple people present at the time of the murder, since they had Knox and Sollecito in prison awaiting trial as co-perps. And Guede's defence team wanted the court to conclude that there were multiple people present at the time of the murder, since they were trying to argue that it was these other people who had actually done the deed.

And in this environment - with nobody having the incentive or wish to put the case for a sole attacker, and with expert opinion stating that the evidence was basically consistent with either a sole-assailant or multiple-assailant crime - it was a virtual certainty that the court would deliver the finding of fact that there were multiple attackers.

And this was yet another illustration of the fundamental failures of the Italian criminal justice system.

Following the March 27, 2015, acquittals, there was a piece in an Italian-language outlet that breathed a sigh of relief.

Why? Because acc. to this piece - which although written in Italian could have been written by you - the problem with the whole 7 1/2 years was.....

That the evidence against Sollecito and Knox was solely judicially generated.

I took it to mean that instead of collecting fibres, DNA samples (properly), and sending those samples to accredited labs to give a neutral, third-party (perhaps even a double-blind!) opinion, all there was was assertions given by the prosecution and judges devoid of evidence or proper peer review.....

...... which created those dreaded "judicial truths", which in turn became building blocks for other judicial findings which became further "truths" devoid of evidence.

As this whole thing winds down - with the satellite persecutions prosecutions being perhaps the only reason to even check in here (or elsewhere) - that way of putting it is perhaps the concluding scientific postscript to it all.... (and it would be the height of injustice if someone effected by those satellite prosecutions ended up convicted when the main case had no substance to it...)

The evidence against Sollecito and Knox was solely judicially generated. Every country's system has blind spots, but that one was particularly bad with this case in Italy. Grinder posted a link upthread to a newspiece about the Stasi-conviction, which said that the Marasca/Bruno decision was a rare departure from the roulette-wheel of justice, to which the Stasi decision returned.

 

[Grinder]

In fact the Matteini hearing was on the 8th (at around 1pm), and her report outlining her findings etc was issued on the 9th.

So the date with which that diary entry of Sollecito's is (apparently) linked has to be wrong, since it mentions him already having seen the judge and being defended by Tedeschi. That entry, in other words, was undoubtedly written on 8th November 2007. And it doesn't change the assertion that he was kept in solitary confinement and without any access to a lawyer until literally just before the Matteini hearing. The only thing it will change is that Sollecito (and Knox) was kept from being able to see a lawyer for two full days (morning of 6th Nov to morning of 8th Nov) rather than three full days.

You most likely are right but the fuzziness of this whole case continues. Given that it is a translation from amandaknoxcase.com I doubt it has been "photo-shopped" but what he writes is confusing. It could mean he spoke with his lawyer before the court date - I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At
least I am happy for that.

The language used could mean either or he was or was not himself before the judge. Couldn't he just say I had Tedeschi with me when I saw the judge?

The date of writing would have needed to be the ninth as Saturday was visiting day for family.

Luciano Ghirga, the lawyer for Knox, said: "I have only just been appointed her lawyer and have not yet had a chance to read through the papers.
"I have met Ms Knox's mother and she has told me that she is convinced of her daughter's innocence. I will see her for the first time at Thursday's hearing.
"The mother will not be able to see her until Saturday, that is the day for family visits."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-brought-strange-men-house.html#ixzz3uuq69uwz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Basically it makes no sense unless Italians had a Friday visit day. I don't really care about it but I could see reading it, it gave fodder to the PGP/Mignini assertion he was able to see a lawyer in time.