Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Didn't either of them have to work or go to school in the time period October 25th - November 1? I doubt they spent every minute together. I believe there was no evidence of any phone calls between these two and RG, so was their encounter with him planned in advance or did they just run into him by coincidence?

No, sure, they did other things like going to school and such. But, they did spend every available moment together outside of their duties elsewhere.

There were no calls to Rudy because he didn't have a phone. As for whether they met him by plan or design in anyone's guess. We can speculate on either scenario. But we can't actually prove/evidence anything other then that on the night of the murder they 'met'. Unless someone starts talking, I don't think we'll ever know for sure exactly how that meeting came about.

 

[Fulcanelli]

More importantly though, what facts do you feel it important to establish by translating this document? This is the required prima facie case which has to be presented to a judge to allow suspects to be held in custody beyond the initial 48 hours.

It is that. But, it's actually rather more then that. In the Italian system the judge is actually regarded as part of the dynamic of the investigation. It is not simply their job to decide if there is a case against the suspect and what sanction should be taken against them. It is also their role to assess the evidence at that point and provide a ruling whether there is a case and to highlight elements they feel to be off track and give recommendations on how it should proceed. A judge will do this less at the earliest stage of a case as the evidence is still coming in, but as the case evolves they will have more input in guiding the investigation. For example. After the pre-trial hearing Judge Micheli told the the prosecution that the idea of the ritualistic' element should be dropped as that was the wrong course to take. He also then informed the prosecution that their case was weak in the area of placing contact between Guede, Amanda and Sollecito before the murder. Therefore, after the pre-trial the investigation was reopened specifically to hunt down evidence to fill that area of the case. It was during this period the shopkeeper and the witness who saw Meredith, Raffaele, Rudy and Amanda leaving the cottage together two days before the murder was found. This provided the link to show they knew each other. Therefore, the judge's role is not simply to judge the investigation, but to guide/steer it.

 

[stilicho]

Here is the key evidence that the judge listed in justifying the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick: http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=57

1. Raffaele was known to have been in Meredith's room because the investigation uncovered a set of 3 footprints under the duvet covering Meredith's body that matched shoes found at Raffaele's flat.

2. Police confiscated a folding knife from Raffaele that the medical examiner identified as being compatible with the fatal wounds.

3. Amanda sent a text message to Patrick saying "See you later" which obviously implied a planned rendezvous.

4. Only Amanda has a key to the front door of the cottage so there is no way for an intruder to have entered without Amanda's help.

5. Raffaele lied when he told the postal police he had just phoned the police, knowing that the postal police would not be able to verify his statement.

In a statement to the press after the arrests the police declared "case closed".

Dan O: Why did you deliberately omit the parts on page 7 and page 8 detailing the facts of RS's changing story? It looks like there's more stuff on page 10 about AK accusing Patrick, too.

Did you just post this in Italian in order to make false claims about its contents?

 

[Dan O.]

More importantly though, what facts do you feel it important to establish by translating this document?

This document is important because it provides a picture of what the police thought they knew before the evidence started to change to support a conviction.

We see now that the evidence they used to make the arrest was all wrong yet they persisted with the prosecution.

1. The shoes didn't fit so they went back and found more prints that they supposedly overlooked the first time.

2. The knife wasn't used to cut Meredith because they broke it apart and still couldn't find a single trace of Meridith's blood on it so they went back to Raffaele's apartment and found another knife using "police intuition" that somehow still had a trace of Meredith's DNA on a flat metal surface after vigorous cleaning.

3. The prosecution created a tail of a nefarious rendezvous based on an innocuous text message and persisted with that tail even after they found Patrick had a solid alibi.

4. The prosecution seems to overlook the fact that at least 1 other person known to be at the cottage that night had a key to the door.

5. The judge made a big deal about Raffaele lying to the postal police about making the 112 call before they arrived. The postal police needed only to look at their watch and write down the time or call their dispatcher to say they've arrived at the scene to prove the lie. But they didn't do that. Or, they could have looked at the phone records and compared the times when known phone calls were made correlated to the police reports of the activities at the scene and determined when the postal police arrived. But they didn't do that either. Instead, they used a blurry picture taken by a CCTV camera who's clock was off by 10 minutes to say when the postal police arrived. And did they ever bother to calibrate the time of this CCTV camera they were going to use for evidence of the time of events? No they did not.

The entire case against Amanda and Raffaele fell apart after the police said the case was closed. Did they apologize to these kids for putting them in jail without valid evidence? NO. Mignini whacked the officers on the back of the head and sent them out again each time until they "found" something he could finally use.

All of the evidence in this case is tainted and we may never know what really happened. But by looking at the earliest reports we can get glimpses of what was said before the public's attitudes were changed.

 

[Dan O.]

Did you just post this in Italian in order to make false claims about its contents?

I posted it the way Fulcanelli posted it earlier in the thread. Why don't you post Michael's response as to why they don't have an english translation of this document on PMF.

 

[Alt+F4]

There were no calls to Rudy because he didn't have a phone. As for whether they met him by plan or design in anyone's guess. We can speculate on either scenario. But we can't actually prove/evidence anything other then that on the night of the murder they 'met'. Unless someone starts talking, I don't think we'll ever know for sure exactly how that meeting came about.

Thanks for that information. In regard to both trials, I'm suprised that more information didn't come about regarding where all three spent October 25 -31, since this might have been the time when motivation and/or premeditation could have occured.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O: Why did you deliberately omit the parts on page 7 and page 8 detailing the facts of RS's changing story? It looks like there's more stuff on page 10 about AK accusing Patrick, too.

We have few details of what transpired during the police "interviews". But we do know that such interrogations without the presence of a lawyer are inadmissible as evidence against the person. Why would the Judge even comment about such aspects? Does the judge not know the law?

 

[WaterBreather]

It seems to me that it was a white girl with a black boy smoking cannabis that nailed her (them).

I've seen this story 100 times here in South Africa.

White girl + black boy + cannabis = guilty of whatever the pigs want

 

[Fulcanelli]

We have few details of what transpired during the police "interviews". But we do know that such interrogations without the presence of a lawyer are inadmissible as evidence against the person. Why would the Judge even comment about such aspects? Does the judge not know the law?

It had nothing to do with 'lawyers'. Clearly, you still don't understand the Italian legal definition between the legal laws governing 'Witnesses' and 'Suspects'. I find this rather strange, considering the rules are rather similar in the US.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It seems to me that it was a white girl with a black boy smoking cannabis that nailed her (them).

I've seen this story 100 times here in South Africa.

White girl + black boy + cannabis = guilty of whatever the pigs want

Actually, I think it was little things like her footprints in the victim's blood, three witnesses seeing her at the scene on the night of the murder, the multiple lies, accusing an innocent man among many other things that did it for her in this case. That and the fact Italy isn't South Africa.

 

[Fiona]

This document is important because it provides a picture of what the police thought they knew before the evidence started to change to support a conviction.

We see now that the evidence they used to make the arrest was all wrong yet they persisted with the prosecution.

1. The shoes didn't fit so they went back and found more prints that they supposedly overlooked the first time.

2. The knife wasn't used to cut Meredith because they broke it apart and still couldn't find a single trace of Meridith's blood on it so they went back to Raffaele's apartment and found another knife using "police intuition" that somehow still had a trace of Meredith's DNA on a flat metal surface after vigorous cleaning.

3. The prosecution created a tail of a nefarious rendezvous based on an innocuous text message and persisted with that tail even after they found Patrick had a solid alibi.

4. The prosecution seems to overlook the fact that at least 1 other person known to be at the cottage that night had a key to the door.

5. The judge made a big deal about Raffaele lying to the postal police about making the 112 call before they arrived. The postal police needed only to look at their watch and write down the time or call their dispatcher to say they've arrived at the scene to prove the lie. But they didn't do that. Or, they could have looked at the phone records and compared the times when known phone calls were made correlated to the police reports of the activities at the scene and determined when the postal police arrived. But they didn't do that either. Instead, they used a blurry picture taken by a CCTV camera who's clock was off by 10 minutes to say when the postal police arrived. And did they ever bother to calibrate the time of this CCTV camera they were going to use for evidence of the time of events? No they did not.

The entire case against Amanda and Raffaele fell apart after the police said the case was closed. Did they apologize to these kids for putting them in jail without valid evidence? NO. Mignini whacked the officers on the back of the head and sent them out again each time until they "found" something he could finally use.

All of the evidence in this case is tainted and we may never know what really happened. But by looking at the earliest reports we can get glimpses of what was said before the public's attitudes were changed.

Are you forgetting that they arrested Lumumba because Knox said she went to the cottage with him and he then entered Meredith's room; and that Knox said she was in the kitchen covering her ears while Meredith sceamed?

Are you forgetting that Sollecito was asked to go to the police station because his original account of his and Knox's whereabouts was a lie; and that his second account was also a lie? A lie he admitted, and which destroyed Knox's alibi?

What do you think the police should have done in those cirumcstances?

 

[stilicho]

We have few details of what transpired during the police "interviews". But we do know that such interrogations without the presence of a lawyer are inadmissible as evidence against the person. Why would the Judge even comment about such aspects? Does the judge not know the law?

This is a complete red herring and you almost certainly know that.

By this exciting new definition you've concocted, nobody would ever be questioned or charged with anything, anywhere.

You're practically saying that, if AK had never asked for a lawyer or a translator, she would be innocent.

Are you even aware that certain of her statements were declared inadmissible?

 

[stilicho]

It seems to me that it was a white girl with a black boy smoking cannabis that nailed her (them).

I've seen this story 100 times here in South Africa.

White girl + black boy + cannabis = guilty of whatever the pigs want

How does a guilty Italian boy fit into your exciting new equation? If you want to compare the Perugia case to one in South Africa you might want to include one that's similar.

 

[stilicho]

The entire case against Amanda and Raffaele fell apart after the police said the case was closed.

You watch far too much television, Dan O.

The case was tight to begin with and got tighter after the Perugia authorities collected sufficient evidence and supplied a sufficient narrative to convict the three perpetrators.

This isn't CSI and it took them a lot longer than a one hour episode to figure out what happened. It sure didn't help that AK accused the wrong man and that she and RS faked a burglary to throw off the detectives.

 

[quadraginta]

You are welcome to realize what it would take to produce an english translation of this document, especially by someone such as yourself that does not know Italian. Let me know when you are ready to share the effort in finding the facts rather than posting snarky comments on an internet forum to impress friends.

It would seem that even without knowing Italian she was able to "share the effort in finding the facts" well enough to point out just a small sample of the obvious omissions in your interpretation( ) of the document you cited. One can only wonder how many more she could have "shared" had she been fluent.

It is not "snarky" to bring up observations directly related to assertions you make in this thread, even if those observations are inconvenient to you and make your sad attempts at distortion apparent to all.

Sorry about that.

 

[Dan O.]

Has anybody bothered to look at how the police got that statement from Amanda that Lumumba was involved? Does it really make any sense that she would finger somebody for the murder placing herself at the scene at the same time? Especially when that person is very well known and so would probably be with others that can establish his alibi. Amanda had nothing to gain by fingering Patrick. If Amanda was that murderous fox that you are trying so hard to portray, she would have just kept quiet and let the police do their job and find the crap left at the cottage to convict Rudy.

Let's see the tapes and transcripts of those interrogation sessions and find out what really transpired. What have the italian police got to hide by not releasing all of the evidence?

 

[Alt+F4]

From this layperson's point of view, the evidence against RS and RG is overwhelming, for AK perhaps a bit less. I can't understand why AKs family and other supporters continue to insist that RS was AK's "boyfriend" at the time of the murder and that RG acted alone.

I have no idea what AK's family and supporters hope to do at this point, convince the Italians to let her serve her sentence in the U.S. or just hope lots of P.R. will help her appeal, but if she continues to tie her fate to that of RS she will spend many, many years in an Italian prison.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has anybody bothered to look at how the police got that statement from Amanda that Lumumba was involved? Does it really make any sense that she would finger somebody for the murder placing herself at the scene at the same time? Especially when that person is very well known and so would probably be with others that can establish his alibi. Amanda had nothing to gain by fingering Patrick. If Amanda was that murderous fox that you are trying so hard to portray, she would have just kept quiet and let the police do their job and find the crap left at the cottage to convict Rudy.

Let's see the tapes and transcripts of those interrogation sessions and find out what really transpired. What have the italian police got to hide by not releasing all of the evidence?

Thinking is not your strong suit Dan o. Neither is paying attention to things...oh, like the trial. If you had you would have seen the prosecution explaining in the trial exactly what Amanda was trying to gain by fingering Lumumba. She was trying to derail the investigation and deflect it from herself. By sending the police after Patrick they weren't being sent after Rudy Guede. She was protecting Guede in order to protect herself. And sure, they may or may not find Patrick innocent (she didn't know for sure Patrick had witnesses by the way, after all he'd told her not to come in because the bar was empty...what if he'd just spent the evening out the back sorting out stock?). Of course, the police would eventually work out that Patrick had nothing to do with it, probably. But then in Amanda's mind, she'd simply bat her eyelids, say she was just confused due to the stress of the murder of her friend and all the questioning and apologise. At which time, the police would just shake their heads and move on elsewhere in their investigations and write her off as an unreliable time waster. Hopefully, by that time Rudy would either have gotten away, covered his tracks or at least have his detection and arrest delayed allowing other trails to go cold in the meantime (hers and Raffaele's). Of course, the flaws in the plan were, she didn't realise they'd immediately arrest Lumumba on the basis of her statement, perhaps thinking they may just call on him and ask him a few questions at the door and after being satisfied apologise and move on. She could apologise to him later and give him an excuse. Except, they arrested him, putting her in trouble, facing a future charge of criminal slander. And of course what else she didn't realise, was that in placing herself at the murder, albeit in the kitchen as Meredith was being attacked, she made herself also criminally culpable. She thought she'd made herself appear innocent in her story. Not so. It must have been rather a shock for her when they kept her in jail, rather then letting her go.

Why are you demanding the interview tapes be released Dan o? Obviously, you understand neither this case nor the Italian system.

1) There are no tapes to release. The interviews were not taped. That's because Amanda was a Witness (as was Raffaele), at the end of which she became a Suspect. Later, as a Suspect, she made a spontaneous voluntary statement which again, Italian law doesn't require be recorded. Only a Suspect under interrogation must be recorded. Then in her cell the next day she wrote a statement and handed it to police as a a 'gift'. That wasn't recorded either as it was written, but the written version has been fully published.

2) The defence teams of Raffaele and Amanda went to the High Court to prevent the use of Amanda and Raffaele's statements (transcripts) and to prevent their public release. Then in the trial, almost on the first day, they made the same motion to Judge Massei and the motion was upheld.

You are demanding the Italians defy the courts and release them just to please a random poster in a foreign country typing on a message board? The defence teams have the statement transcripts. Why don't you demand 'they' release them?

In any case, you already have from the early days of the case 1) their statements published in the media and 2) Judge Matteini's report which refers to the statements. Why do you need more?

 

[stilicho]

Has anybody bothered to look at how the police got that statement from Amanda that Lumumba was involved? Does it really make any sense that she would finger somebody for the murder placing herself at the scene at the same time? Especially when that person is very well known and so would probably be with others that can establish his alibi. Amanda had nothing to gain by fingering Patrick. If Amanda was that murderous fox that you are trying so hard to portray, she would have just kept quiet and let the police do their job and find the crap left at the cottage to convict Rudy.

Let's see the tapes and transcripts of those interrogation sessions and find out what really transpired. What have the italian police got to hide by not releasing all of the evidence?

You're assuming that everyone is as stealthy and Machiavellian as you are, Dan O. Remember the Susan Smith case? Why did she tell police that she stopped at a red light on a road when it was so easy to discover that she had lied?

AK had plenty of opportunity to change her story about Patrick but she stuck with it to the very end. She managed to change her story about several other details but not about that one.

It's a common mistake for critics of the authorities to blame them for the acts and the statements of suspects, Dan O. In this case, the police had rather an easier job of getting AK to change her story in the wee hours of 06 NOV because RS had already confessed that she had told him to say "rubbish". When confronted by Sollecito's admissions, it took her less than two hours to implicate herself in Meredith's murder.

Maybe the police should release the transcripts of their providing breakfast to AK because, after that, she had the presence of mind to write another incriminating note. And you should review her court testimony, Dan O. This woman just doesn't know when to stop talking.

I know that if I were her lawyer I would be simply cringing every time she was provided an opportunity to talk or write.

--------

@Alt+F4: None of the three convicted of murder in Perugia have anything to gain by telling the truth right now. To do so, they'd have to explain exactly what happened, in all its gory detail, thereby implicating themselves. They won't necessarily get out of prison any earlier by doing that.

One feature of the Italian system is that defendants are not required to swear an oath. This is because it is presumed that they will lie (or at least bend the truth).

 

[Alt+F4]

@Alt+F4: None of the three convicted of murder in Perugia have anything to gain by telling the truth right now. To do so, they'd have to explain exactly what happened, in all its gory detail, thereby implicating themselves. They won't necessarily get out of prison any earlier by doing that.

Is there any provision in Italian law that would allow a reduction in sentence if they confessed? If so, might AK and RS serve 10-15 year sentences, MK's family and friends would finally know the entire truth (which might help them heal) and the Italian justice system would save quite a bit of money.

Their will almost certainly lose their appeal and attempts to get U.S. officials to intercede with the Italian government is a big mistake, in my opinion.