Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

There are numerous questions raised by the interrogation :-
1) If Amanda was well treated during the interrogation and not subject to question, how are the following explained :-
Amanda and Raffaele were clearly being interrogated as suspects. Italian law says that the interrogation of suspects must be taped and suspects be allowed access to lawyers. If Amanda and Raffaele were well treated, why were the interrogations not taped and the police were unwilling to have lawyers present to witness the interrogation. If the police were willing to break the law, the police clearly had something to hide.
Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated during the night which indicates sleep deprivation was used.
Amanda was interrogated by 12 officers. Being interrogated by large numbers of officers can be oppressive.
Why would mistreating suspects during interrogations be out of character for corrupt officers with a history of misconduct?
2) The two statements prepared during the interrogation were in Italian which Amanda barely spoke and used language someone form the United States would not use. If Amanda had named Lumumba, why is it clear the two statements were not Amanda’s words and had been prepared by the police?

3) If Amanda had killed Meredith she would have known Lumumba was not there. Lumumba ran a bar which meant he may have plenty of witnesses from customers and staff. There would be no forensic traces of Lumumba and he would not be on CCTV. Naming Lumumba would not work if the police could quickly establish Lumumba was not at the cottage.

4) If Amanda had named Lumumba, why did the police make no effort to find further information about the crime? Why was Amanda not asked the following questions :-

What happened before the murder? What did discussion did Lumumba have about
How exactly did Lumumba kill Meredith? Did he use a weapon and if so what type of weapon?
What was Lumumba wearing at the time of the murder?
What happened after the murder?
What time did the murder happen?

5) How was naming Lumumba supposed to have helped Amanda? Amanda was not released from custody, was held in detention for a year and found guilty of murder by two courts. It seems that the naming of Lumumba did not help in the slightest.

6) Did the police carry out any investigations to establish if Lumumba had killed Meredith? Did they check CCTV, ask customers and staff if Lumumba was at the bar, check if his home and clothing for blood etc? If the police did not take these steps, how is this explained?

7) When Lumumba was being interrogated, was Lumumba told Amanda had accused him of killing Meredith? If not why not?

8) The knife was taken from Raffaele’s flat and Amanda and Raffaele were said to have stabbed Meredith. Why were Amanda and Raffaele never accused of stabbing Meredith during their interrogations?

9) Why were Amanda and Raffaele not accused of staging the break in during their interrogations?

Amanda knew Patrick was innocent and thereby confirms her own involvement as she wouldn't know that unless she had special knowledge of the crime.

We know she knew he was innocent, for in a police intercept dated 10th Nov 2007, she tells Mom, Edda:

 

[Grinder]

Amanda knew Patrick was innocent and thereby confirms her own involvement as she wouldn't know that unless she had special knowledge of the crime.

We know she knew he was innocent, for in a police intercept dated 10th Nov 2007, she tells Mom, Edda:

Geez do read your quotes first? She doesn't say he is innocent but rather she is responsible for his being in jail.

You have also criticized her for not telling the police he was innocent which of course she couldn't know for sure.

And btw, she wasn't the first to bring up sexual elements of the crime as it was in the paper by the 4th.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, for the umpteenth time on the umpteen issue, a guilter demonstrates that she does not believe the Massei report - except for its conclusion.

Judge Massei in 2010 wrote that the crime wa unpremeditated. His version of the crime was that Meredith was in her room, AK/RS were in Amanda's room and Rudy was on the toilet. Rudy decided to go molest Meredith.

AK/RS heard the commotion and went into Meredith's room to see what was the matter. As Massei continued, he said they then made an uncharacteristic "choice for evil" siding with Guede in the assualt.

Note - Massei also found that the kitchen knife from Raffaele's was used. He said it was transported for innocent reasons, namely a reason wholey unconnected to the murder. Why? Because the murder was unpremeditated, and initiated by Rudy's lust.

So here's the question - why did AK and RS need to turn off their phones? Was it to, "forestall the question, how come you didn't answer the phone during the time period of the murder"? If you believe Massei about the knife, why do you hold a suspicious view about the phones?

Out of all the silliness of this scattergun approach to commenting on this - ie. just chuck in guilt sounding things - the silliness of never having a coherent narrative is what sinks it.

You have been told several times that my opinion differs from Massei in this respect (but then I am not a judge who has to make sure the report is appeal-proof) as I have always believed the crime to be carefully premeditated. Amanda and Raff are revelling in their successful strategy of being notorious murderers who got away with the 'perfect crime' IMV.

Bruno-Marasca have given them the cachet of being the main murder suspects, but yet walking free.

 

[Vixen]

The most important thing is always the verdict. The advantage of the Italian system is the mandatory motivations reports. Here, juries are forbidden from discussing why they came to the conclusion they did. Not so judge-alone trials. The average person gets to read for themselves if the "reasons" justify the conclusion.

It's why I used to go on and on about the Massei report - and used to post (ad nauseam) the 11 things guilters believe about the 2009 conviction that Massei himself (in his 2010 motivations) did not sustain. For the PGP the only thing they seemed to agree with was the convictions, and felt a great liberty and freedom in literally inventing reasons why Massei (or Nencini for that matter) convicted, when the motivation report(s) sometimes actually refuted those reasons.

The best way to have believed Massei's conviction was not to read his motivations.

PGP love to tout Nencini - on one issue they tout that Nencini found it as factual that Amanda had left the apartment on the evening of Nov 1st; Nencini uses cell-tower data.

What the PGP leave out is that Nencini is demonstrating that Amanda had left the apartment BEFORE Jovanic (sp?) saw Amanda there, meaning that Nencini believes that Amanda left, then returned to be seen at circa 8:40 pm. Nencini says nothing about "proof" Amanda had left after that, the reason for Nencini mentioning it is to suggest that Amanda had lied about the earlier call, therefore could not be trusted for her word on stuff after 8:40 pm.
Of course, the whole thing is bogus to begin with.

It is true - the only thing really important about M&B is that the kids were definitively acquitted. I have no idea why M&B would write 9.2/9.3 the way they did so as to set up a synoptic hypothetical "even if" in the pages following..... but it seems even the TJMK-English translation is in essential agreement about the meaning of 9.2/9.3.

Why did M&B need to write that "even-if"? I have no clue. The important thing about that, other than the definitive acquittals (that Vixen assures us are not definitive), is that no Italian language outlet since September have covered the story the way the English-language guilters have.

For pete's sake, even Andrea Vogt has moved on, and now blames the guilters for simply extending, needlessly, the Kerchers' pain.

Richard Owens of The TIMES reported in early Nov 2007 - one of the first reports in The TIMES - Amanda was 'on her way out' when Popovic called. Indeed, although Raff says Amanda was standing next to him when Patrick texted - she answered the text circa 18:42 - but the ping from her reply was near the cottage (Nencini got this factually the wrong way round).

Amanda was/is very evasive about what happened between 18:45 and 01:00.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have been told several times that my opinion differs from Massei in this respect (but then I am not a judge who has to make sure the report is appeal-proof) as I have always believed the crime to be carefully premeditated.

Your candidness is appreciated. One of the reasons it became apparent that guilters were wanting to unduly vilify innocents, was the manner in which they departed from Massei's judgement. You're the second to admit doing such.

Then again, as all the courts ruled, the issue of premeditation simply made a guilt narrative absurd. In fact, there is no such narrative - which is why Massei had to opt for a last second "choice for evil", and Nencini had to go with Guede's self-serving version of a last minute fight over rent-money which got out of control.

You conveniently leave out M/B's view that there has never been a motive presented which either made sense or matched the evidence which was claimed.

 

[Vixen]

You really should only speak for yourself. Really.
I'm interested in many aspects of this case. I don't believe that it is as well known and defined as some do. I am interested in new documents and translations only now becoming available. Recently I became aware or re-aware (Dan O) that only Amanda's computer was never recovered. Besides the direct interest in the fact I also was interested in how novelists and commenters continued this meme years after the defense expert had produced the report. Why didn't people in the know and with standing correct this meme or factoid?

The ongoing PG sites are also a study and when one comes over and spews it also raises interest for me.

I asked the mostly PIP and FOA members here what the story on Raf saying he had seen an attorney on the 7th was all about. Did he? I have been under the impression that he was held incommunicado until the court hearing.

Much of the stuff may just have missed by me or I didn't read it because of the source. The PGP always made accusation about what the kids told the police and now as more become available the more I see how confused Raf was or at least how poorly he recalled most everything.

In my opinion reading the early docs makes clear why the police were drawn to the kids as suspects.

I even find it interesting when Dropzone posts about how bizarre it is to be posting now

Ah, ninja-ed.

 

[Desert Fox]

The David Camm case didn't happen because police and prosecutors never make mistakes and when they do they admit to them right away. We must have dreamed it up.

Actually it would have been a riot to hear Rudy attempt to testify against the students. I think Mignini knew the less he said the better.

Actually I would argue is that many of the Pro Guilt posters somehow see the US legal system as a piece of crap (which sometimes I agree with) while the legal system of other countries as polished pieces of gold.

 

[Vixen]

No Grinder, I just don't see the evidence of multiple attackers. I see no other shoe prints or fingerprints in Meredith's blood. Rudy is alone in the CCTV images. It's possible for others to have been involved, I just don't see it as very likely.

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

Matthew Henry

 

[bagels]

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

Matthew Henry

It's Amanda in the bedroom with the knife.

 

[Vixen]

Tesla you just don't get it. The point is that the PGP are perfectly willing to accept Amanda committing the crime without one piece of credible evidence putting her in the room. If they are willing to assume she could have murdered and left nothing, it is equally possible that someone else was with Rudi.

All the "compatible Luminol" not blood positive prints mean nothing. Why limit the bath mat print to only Raf or Rudi?

Can you name one piece of evidence pointing to Amanda's presence during the murder or Raf for that matter?

Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[acbytesla]

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

Matthew Henry

Good quote. Now say it looking in the mirror.

 

[Vixen]

Mach could you please refer us to anything confirming the participation of the defense for A&R in the Guede trial?

Try this: https://youtu.be/GSHrTbD0xis

 

[acbytesla]

[qimg]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/i/Cumulus_2.jpg[/qimg]

It's Amanda in the bedroom with the knife.

How dare you post such an evil horrific and shocking picture! I think I'm going to report you for posting such objectionable material.

 

[Grinder]

Richard Owens of The TIMES reported in early Nov 2007 - one of the first reports in The TIMES - Amanda was 'on her way out' when Popovic called. Indeed, although Raff says Amanda was standing next to him when Patrick texted - she answered the text circa 18:42 - but the ping from her reply was near the cottage (Nencini got this factually the wrong way round).

Amanda was/is very evasive about what happened between 18:45 and 01:00.

That Amanda and Raffaele were together on the evening of November 1 is also indicated by Jovana Popovic in her testimony (see statements made at the hearing of March 21, 2009). She reported that on the evening of November 1 she went to the house of Raffaele Sollecito on Corso Garibaldi twice; on both of these occasions, she met Amanda. Jovana Popovic also testified that on October 31, 2007 her mother, who was in Milan, told her that she was sending her a suitcase on the coach departing from Milan and arriving in Perugia at midnight. So on November 1, 2007 she therefore stopped by Raffaele’s (page 6, Popovic statement, hearing of March 21, 2009) and asked if he would accompany her to the coach station. She came by around 5:45 pm and in any case a little before 6 pm. At home there was Amanda, who opened the door to her, and there was Raffaele.
A short while later, her mother had called her back saying that she was not able to send the suitcase because the coach driver refused to take it.
64
[53] So Jovana Popovic, after finishing her lesson at the Tre Archi, which ended at 8:20 pm, returned on foot to the home of Raffaele, to tell him that she no longer needed to be accompanied to the station. It took her about twenty minutes to walk the distance, so she arrived at around 8:40 pm, again finding Amanda, who opened the door and let her know that Raffaele was in the bathroom.

Heading out huh?

 

[Vixen]

It was a preliminary hearing for all three. It was not " a trial whose sole aim was to determine whether or not Guede was judicially guilty of the crimes"

Should one of three have the right to a separate trial? Just for argument's sake, if Rudi was innocent and the other kids did it, should the kids' defense be allowed to bring experts to Rudi's fast track?

The Italian system is so different from ours, at times it seems very difficult for us to see the value in theirs. By have the fast track as part of the joint preliminary hearing they do achieve representation for those choosing a full trial. If the fast track was a separate trial as I and I think others were led to believe, it would be significantly more unfair.

Rudy was allowed a fast track separate trial because his advocate successfully submitted that Raff and Amanda had formed a pact against him.

It's allowed in Italy:
i) to speed up the slow-moving legal machine, with reduced sentence as an incentive.
ii) the mafia historical element involving witness tampering and intimidation.

 

[Grinder]

Res ipsa loquitur.

Try this: https://youtu.be/GSHrTbD0xis

You seem disorientated. The YT link is to a trial 3 years after Rudi's trial was over.

 

[acbytesla]

That Amanda and Raffaele were together on the evening of November 1 is also indicated by Jovana Popovic in her testimony (see statements made at the hearing of March 21, 2009). She reported that on the evening of November 1 she went to the house of Raffaele Sollecito on Corso Garibaldi twice; on both of these occasions, she met Amanda. Jovana Popovic also testified that on October 31, 2007 her mother, who was in Milan, told her that she was sending her a suitcase on the coach departing from Milan and arriving in Perugia at midnight. So on November 1, 2007 she therefore stopped by Raffaele’s (page 6, Popovic statement, hearing of March 21, 2009) and asked if he would accompany her to the coach station. She came by around 5:45 pm and in any case a little before 6 pm. At home there was Amanda, who opened the door to her, and there was Raffaele.
A short while later, her mother had called her back saying that she was not able to send the suitcase because the coach driver refused to take it.
64
[53] So Jovana Popovic, after finishing her lesson at the Tre Archi, which ended at 8:20 pm, returned on foot to the home of Raffaele, to tell him that she no longer needed to be accompanied to the station. It took her about twenty minutes to walk the distance, so she arrived at around 8:40 pm, again finding Amanda, who opened the door and let her know that Raffaele was in the bathroom.

Heading out huh?

Of course Richard Owens is certainly a more reputable source for what Popovich was doing than Popovich herself. What are we doing relying on actual court testimony when we can get all the info from the tabloids? Silly rabbit!

 

[Grinder]

Rudy was allowed a fast track separate trial because his advocate successfully submitted that Raff and Amanda had formed a pact against him.

It's allowed in Italy:
i) to speed up the slow-moving legal machine, with reduced sentence as an incentive.
ii) the mafia historical element involving witness tampering and intimidation.

He was granted a fast track trial after the judge agree to conditions he be able to call a limited number of witnesses.

It was part of the preliminary hearing for all three and not separate.

Do you have a cite for the "pact" part?

 

[Welshman]

Amanda knew Patrick was innocent and thereby confirms her own involvement as she wouldn't know that unless she had special knowledge of the crime.

We know she knew he was innocent, for in a police intercept dated 10th Nov 2007, she tells Mom, Edda:

Vixen has not addressed any of the issues I raised in my post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Was that really too difficult to follow?

This question should be for you. You are the one who presents a point saying you're interested in that topic, then few posts after you state the topic is irrelevant.