Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Dan O, LG is Luciano Ghirga, AK's own lawyer. Is he in on it too? Because he asks AK directly if she turned off her phone, in court, and she answers in the affirmative. Did the Knox family inadvertently hire yet another of these Italian svengalis who inject false memories? Or, on the other hand, is it even remotely possible that you're wrong?

I try not to be wrong. And there is nothing wrong with turning off a cell phone; especially when you have two good reasons as Amanda did that night. Amanda may believe that she turned her phone off. Alternatively, she may believe that she left her phone on but has chosen the path of least resistance and accepted the prosecutions contention that her phone was turned off. My position is only that there is no tangible evidence that the phones were in fact turned off.

But, even if the phones were turned off as the prosecutor contends in his conspiracy theory, the 10 minute difference between the time Amanda sent the text to Patrick and stopped using her phone and when Raffaele hung up his phone that night is hardly simultaneous.

So far, Dan O, you've not only managed to alienate Fiona, who's provided you ample reading material, but you haven't convinced a single one of the casual passersby to this thread that you're right about any of your claims.

Fiona is understandably frustrated. She has hung out at the wrong sites and been fed a pack of lies. If you count yourself among her friends, you could help by working to get the misinformation cleaned up from those sites.

I don't believe there are "casual" passersby in a thread of this length (except some of the forum regulars expecting to see a flame feast). But your comment reminds me that I need to clean out my private messages again

Worse yet, you've invented an "injected false memories" meme into the discussion without any support whatsoever. AK's own defence team never used this unusual claim. They produced no expert to testify that it happened. I am not sure of Ghirga's credentials but Carlo dalla Vedova was educated at Harvard and yet somehow a guy on the internet knows more about the validity of "injected memories" than they do.

It might surprise you to know that we are not in a court room in Peurgia.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona is understandably frustrated. She has hung out at the wrong sites and been fed a pack of lies. If you count yourself among her friends, you could help by working to get the misinformation cleaned up from those sites.

I wonder where I should have been hangng out? Perugiashock? Been there and linked at times. FOA? Likewise. Dr Waterbury's remarkable work? That too.

So Dan_O, what are the credible sources that I have missed? Those ones which don't seem to provide you with any facts at all, but which are superior to the ones that do?

If I am going to be patronised I would prefer it to come from someone a little higher up the food chain of critical thought: so far you are disguising that status very well indeed, if you have it

 

[Kestrel]

Sorry to interrupt - having been aware of this case through the UK media, but not looked in to it in any detail, I was surprised when I heard that a US senator had asked Clinton to investigate. When I found a JREF thread I figured it would be a gold mine of information, and I'm glad to say this was the case. Having read through all of it, I'd like to thank those involved (esp. Fiona and Fulcanelli, but all the others as well - you know who you are!) for remarkable perserverence in providing considerable detail despite it being quite hard to come by, and often in a foreign language.

This thread has also been quite an eye-opener in terms of the views of some who term themselves sceptics. Some who seem to have no knowledge of the case at all beyond that reported in tabloids (e.g. the thread title!) and others whose argument require a conspiracy not only between the prosecutors, the judges, the scientists and witnesses, but also between the defence and perhaps even Amanda Knox herself (unintentionally, of course). When your hypotheses requires the whole world to be evil except for Amanda before it makes any sense, it's probably time to find a different tack.

For the prosecution to misbehave doesn't require a conspiracy. It only requires doing business as usual.

Amanda wasn't the only suspect to be abused while being interrogated in Perugia. Here is a report of how Patrick Lumumba was treated after his arrest:

I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

Journalists Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi got similar treatment. Their crime was apparently criticizing how Giuliano Mignini investigated a crime.

Spezi’s arrest came just days before he and American writer Douglas Preston published a book in Italy criticizing the “monster of Florence” investigation conducted by Perugia public prosecutor Giuliano Mignini.

Like Amanda Knox, the journalists were charged with defamation.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't understand all this stuff about the phones. Surely logs exist of the mobile phone access to the network cell towers.

We've been over this. There are cell tower logs and the police have acquired them because that is the only way to identify where phones connected to the cells. But we have questioned if the phones actually unregister with the cell when they are turned off. In looking for the facts, I have browsed the GSM technical documentation looking for reference to such a logout message and have yet to find one. I've offered a procedure where we can test if phones that are turned off have logged out but nobody has returned any results yet. My own phone does transmit a final message when I turn it off but I don't know if this is a deregistering with the cell. I'm too close to the cell tower to use a microwave alone as an RF shield to run my own test but will try some other options.

What I do know is that phones will register with the local cell group when they are turned on and will register with the new group when they move from one area to another. These groups are much larger than the single cells and it's a simple engineering tradeoff between having phones reregistering often with small movements or changes in propagation vs sending pages through a larger cluster of cells when a call or message comes in.

What is being claimed about the phones?

I take it we aren't just quibbling about the difference between off and without reception are we?

My claim is that the prosecution is presenting a case that Amanda and Raffaele conspired and turned their phones off to avoid being tracked. Does anybody else have an alternate explanation for why the prosecution wants to establish that the phones were "turned off". (note the significance of the difference)

As for the false memories.

I believe I already answered that in the previous post. But if you still have questions, please ask again.

 

[stilicho]

My claim is that the prosecution is presenting a case that Amanda and Raffaele conspired and turned their phones off to avoid being tracked. Does anybody else have an alternate explanation for why the prosecution wants to establish that the phones were "turned off". (note the significance of the difference)

The primary reason presented was that it was unusual behaviour for them. While we don't have all the precise documentation, AK's lawyers never challenged this in court. The cell phone records also establish a high probability that both of them lied about waking up in mid-morning. The idea that they did so to avoid being tracked seems to have originated with the Dateline program.

There were several other times during their brief courtship that RS and AK were together and had not switched off their cell phones around the same time. We may never know exactly why they did on the evening of 01 NOV 2007 because their explanations are inconsistent with any pattern of behaviour up until that time.

These are not "alternate explanations". They are from the court testimony. Your claim, on the other hand, is from your own imagination, perhaps from an "injected false memory" that persists in the face of every attempt to shake you back into reality.

------------

@Kestrel: That report is not corroborated and I have still been slogging through the original Haloscans (they're over 800 pages) from the date of the arrests to the capture of RG and subsequent release of Mr Lumumba to find out more about what was being reported, what was challenged, and how the media articles shaped our perceptions of what happened. The problem with a lot of the early stories is that they drop Mr Lumumba's challenges in the race to get the next new stuff about RG.

Be patient, though, since I am getting through it slowly.

 

[CoolSceptic]

For the prosecution to misbehave doesn't require a conspiracy.

I can go further than that: for one person to misbehave, it doesn't require a conspiracy. In fact, by definition, it isn't a conspiracy. Which is why I pointed out to follow the line of reasoning of some posting here (not necessarily your comments FWIW) you not only need a misbehaving prosecutor, you also need misbehaving scientists, witnesses, defence team and judges... and that does require something more akin to a conspiracy.

Amanda wasn't the only suspect to be abused while being interrogated in Perugia. Here is a report of how Patrick Lumumba was treated after his arrest

Are you seriously posting that commentary in a defence of Amanda? Really?

Lumumba makes some serious claims in that article (sadly, racism in a police force would not be something new, either in Europe or the US), but it is at present an opinion expressed in a news article. If it is true, I would hope Patrick files an official complaint, to shed some real objective light on it. But evidence of Lumumba's treatment is not evidence of Knox's treatment, for obvious reasons.

 

[shuttlt]

OK, Dan O. So you have two theories.

1. That if Amanda was examined by a psychologist, that psychologist would testify that Amanda has false memories that were induced over the course of and hour and 45 minutes of questioning? Or at least testify that such things are possible. Let the defence produce such a witness. Perhaps they will at the appeal? They can after all trawl psychologists until they find one who buys this.

2. That the mobile phones were not switched off, but fell off the network for some reason. Perhaps there was an error on the network, if so let the defence produce some evidence to the fact. Perhaps there is a blackspot somewhere in Raphael's apartment, and that's where the phones were. If so, let the defence produce evidence to this effect.

I don't see that it is the prosecutions job to refute claims that the defence don't make. We can all theorize ways in which Amanda might be innocent if we aren't required to support it. All you seem to be doing is theorizing that evidence that we don't have, that Amanda and her defence could provide if it existed, refutes the prosecution case. Let the defence produce it, let the defence have her examined by a psychologist, let them produce the logs that show there was a cell phone outage in the local area. Otherwise we are discussing the trial as if it is taking place in fairyland.

By the way, you mentioned traffic camera film that wasn't collected earlier. I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. Were there traffic cameras/CCTV that would have told us whether/when Amanda and Raphael left their apartment and where they went?

Incidentally, I've asked a few times for clarification that the prosecution is claiming that the turning off of the phones is in and off itself implying of criminal intent. Again, I can see that when one accepts their guilt it implies this and is therefore certainly worth the prosecutions while to mention. Otherwise there's just the coincidence of it all which might very well have an innocent explanation.

 

[Alt+F4]

My claim is that the prosecution is presenting a case that Amanda and Raffaele conspired and turned their phones off to avoid being tracked. Does anybody else have an alternate explanation for why the prosecution wants to establish that the phones were "turned off". (note the significance of the difference)

Amanda has a reasonable explaination for turning off her phone. Raffaele doesn't. But then they are both innocent, right?

 

[shuttlt]

Lumumba makes some serious claims in that article (sadly, racism in a police force would not be something new, either in Europe or the US), but it is at present an opinion expressed in a news article. If it is true, I would hope Patrick files an official complaint, to shed some real objective light on it. But evidence of Lumumba's treatment is not evidence of Knox's treatment, for obvious reasons.

Personally I think that if Lumumba was illegally treated by the police, it makes it more plausible that Amanda was. I still though don't see in an hour and fourty five minutes, a psychologically normal person, of normal intelligence having false memories implanted of events in their very recent past that stay with them for two weeks, or even two years. I can imagine doubting myself, but to believe that she has false memories to the extent that is being suggested, I definately would need some kind of expert testimony. If the defence believed that this was what happened and wished the jury to believe it, then they are fools for trusting to the jury to intuit it.

 

[shuttlt]

Amanda has a reasonable explaination for turning off her phone. Raphael doesn't. But then they are both innocent, right?

If Raphael's dad did indeed send his 'goodnight text' instead of phoning because he didn't want to disturb them, I personally don't find it hard to believe Raphael might have turned his phone off. Anyway, the whole this seems fairly inconsequential to me, unless one believes they were involved.

 

[Kestrel]

Lumumba makes some serious claims in that article (sadly, racism in a police force would not be something new, either in Europe or the US), but it is at present an opinion expressed in a news article. If it is true, I would hope Patrick files an official complaint, to shed some real objective light on it. But evidence of Lumumba's treatment is not evidence of Knox's treatment, for obvious reasons.

Amanda claimed to have been abused. Other prisoners are routinely abused in this same town by these same people. Interrogations take place behind closed doors and are not recorded. Suspects are routinely denied legal counsel during interrogations.

Anyone who complains can count on being charged with the crime of defamation.

Do you really believe they didn't lay a hand on Amanda?

 

[Dan O.]

OK, Dan O. So you have two theories.

I have stated my claim. If you want to invent something else, don't put my name on it.

By the way, you mentioned traffic camera film that wasn't collected earlier. I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. Were there traffic cameras/CCTV that would have told us whether/when Amanda and Raphael left their apartment and where they went?

I haven't driven around the town to spot them all but I have seen where a couple are. Raffaele's lawyers asked for these records about 2 weeks after the event and were told that they had been erased. They were even denied the opportunity to examine the tapes for residual images. If you need the reference I can try to dig it up. My question is: why didn't the police seize all of these records that could establish alibis?

It would be difficult to use camera footage to say someone did not travel from point A to point B when only some of the possible paths are covered by cameras. The defense may have intentionally waited until after they knew the tapes would be erased so they could use their effort of discovery instead of having to prove a case. The prosecution rebuttal that Amanda and Raffaele could have taken an out of the way path to avoid the cameras would only add to their guilt in the minds of a jury that was already prejudiced against them.

The legal proceedings are all a game played out by prosecutors, defenders and judges to decide who gets punished and who goes free. We are not in a court so we are not bound by the rules of their game. We are free to examine and question the evidence in full light. Unfortunately, we are not privy to all the evidence and so must make do with what we have.

Incidentally, I've asked a few times for clarification that the prosecution is claiming that the turning off of the phones is in and off itself implying of criminal intent. Again, I can see that when one accepts their guilt it implies this and is therefore certainly worth the prosecutions while to mention. Otherwise there's just the coincidence of it all which might very well have an innocent explanation.

I've already asked: what other explanation is there for the prosecutor to even bring it up. It's part of the game of the court that allows the prosecutor to promote a conspiracy theory without having to explicitly state that theory and defend it. We are not in court so if anyone here is presenting the phones being turned off as a factor in Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt I am going to challenge them to make and defend their case.

 

[shuttlt]

Dan O,

I'm heartened that you explicitly consider the possibility that the defence may not have asked for the footage until after it had been erased as a ploy. I struggle to see however what could be on the footage to help the defence.

Apologies if you felt I was putting words into your mouth. I have found it difficult to tell sometimes what you have been driving at except in broad strokes and may perhaps have erred. I do think though that there is little point in us speculating that she may have false memories. So could anybody who says things that aren't true to the police. Let her seek to show it, let her defence employ a psychologist and provide some evidence. There are too many theories going round in defence of Amanda, where I find myself asking, if this is true, why didn't the defence mention it.

Sometimes there are conspiracies, perhaps there is one here. It may take something like this being proved to get her off.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Amanda claimed to have been abused.

Uh-huh. Fiona indicated her defence lawyer stated otherwise.

In my limited experience of litigation, judges are careful to evaluate the credibility of witnesses in court. From my experience, had the trial taken place in the UK, the judge would have considered Amanda to not be a credible witness, due to the inconsistencies in her statements and testimony.

This doesn't make her claim false. But it doesn't make very good evidence on its own.

Other prisoners are routinely abused in this same town by these same people.

I ignored this the first time, but you are using emotional language to elevate your claims beyond the evidence you provide. We have four people who have alleged abuse. I have not been presented with both sides of the story, nor have I been presented with objective evidence beyond these allegations. If such abuse had taken place I would expect these people to make complaints and for those complaints to be investigated. What was the outcome of these complaints? And are four alleged instances truly "routine"? How many people are interviewed/interrogated in this place? And (for example) would a black male murder suspect be treated the same as a white female witness?

Interrogations take place behind closed doors and are not recorded. Suspects are routinely denied legal counsel during interrogations.

Again, if something was done wrong and against procedure, where are the complaints? Again, we have the "routinely" claim for which you provide no substantive evidence.

Anyone who complains can count on being charged with the crime of defamation.

Have you ever considered the possibility that, if it didn't happen, the allegations might amount to defamation? Do you not think the people being complained about have some say or rights in these instances?

Do you really believe they didn't lay a hand on Amanda?

I never said that, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't know what happened. However I have not yet been presented with evidence supporting what you claim beyond a handful of allegations which has been blown up into "routine" behaviour. You are the one making the claim. Evidence, please.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way Dan O, I've been Googling trying to find information on the deleted traffic footage. I suspect it's being lost in the mass if information on the few frames of CCTV where the postal police may, or may not, be arriving. Could you, or indeed anyone, give me a hint as to where I can find more information on this?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

By the way Dan O, I've been Googling trying to find information on the deleted traffic footage. I suspect it's being lost in the mass if information on the few frames of CCTV where the postal police may, or may not, be arriving. Could you, or indeed anyone, give me a hint as to where I can find more information on this?

What I'd be curious to know is what the SOP is for the recorded film. Is it usually erased within 2 weeks (honestly, not hard to believe)? Where, exactly, in relation to the cottage and Sollecito's apartment are the cameras located? Would it be plausible that the Police had no reason to immediately go after the camera footage (i.e. cameras aren't on the same street as the cottage, not close to the cottage, etc)?

I'm not, in any way, offering excuses for the investigation. I'm offering plausible scenarios to counter the, apparently rabid, conspiracy theorists out there.

 

[Dan O.]

The first camera I found is at the south end of Via Giuseppe Ganbaldi about 150m from the cottage and NW of the basket ball court. A second camera is on the wall under a street lamp about 1/3 the way up the street to Raffaele's apartment. These would be on the shortest and most direct route from the apartment to the cottage.

I also noticed a primary cell tower at the high point on the edge of town east of Raffaele's place. This would be the cell used from Meredith's cottage if there isn't a micro cell in the parking garage and would also be used by anyone on that side of town if they happened to be in a shadow of their local micro cells.

 

[Kestrel]

Uh-huh. Fiona indicated her defence lawyer stated otherwise.

In my limited experience of litigation, judges are careful to evaluate the credibility of witnesses in court. From my experience, had the trial taken place in the UK, the judge would have considered Amanda to not be a credible witness, due to the inconsistencies in her statements and testimony.

This doesn't make her claim false. But it doesn't make very good evidence on its own.


I ignored this the first time, but you are using emotional language to elevate your claims beyond the evidence you provide. We have four people who have alleged abuse. I have not been presented with both sides of the story, nor have I been presented with objective evidence beyond these allegations. If such abuse had taken place I would expect these people to make complaints and for those complaints to be investigated. What was the outcome of these complaints? And are four alleged instances truly "routine"? How many people are interviewed/interrogated in this place? And (for example) would a black male murder suspect be treated the same as a white female witness?


Again, if something was done wrong and against procedure, where are the complaints? Again, we have the "routinely" claim for which you provide no substantive evidence.

Have you ever considered the possibility that, if it didn't happen, the allegations might amount to defamation? Do you not think the people being complained about have some say or rights in these instances?

Even if you assume that Amanda is guilty, the other three people that complained about abuse had committed no crimes.

Police and prosecutors have a simple solution for protecting their reputation. Start recording all interrogations and save the tapes. The only reason it would not work is if they are in fact abusing suspects.

No such solution is available to suspects. They can't bring along witnesses or run recording devices.

 

[Fiona]

For the prosecution to misbehave doesn't require a conspiracy. It only requires doing business as usual.

Amanda wasn't the only suspect to be abused while being interrogated in Perugia. Here is a report of how Patrick Lumumba was treated after his arrest:

Well that is not true. I cannot link to Italian TV appearances so you can take this at face value or not, but Nicki is Italian and she is heavily involved at TJMK. I have found the things she has had to say, which I could verify, to be reliable

t Lumumba has immediately denied the punching and racial insults.I saw him on several TV appearances and he always said the same thing: "the police weren't surely inviting me to a party, but I was never punched nor racially insulted". He blamed the wrong reports on misstranslation and missinterpretation of his true words.

and again without a link (tiny url now defunct) this translation from an Italian Newspaper

From IL Messaggero:
Lumumba: "How affects me to go back"

PERUGIA – There is at the Court of Assizes, sitting in the space provided for the "insiders working on the case", positioned on the side of lawyer Pacelli who assists as a civil party, a character who, from the beginning of the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is very attentive, not even misses a beat of what is being said in the courtroom.
Ethnic hair-cut, air apparently lost to those who find themselves in an environment that brings awe, Patrick Lumumba yesterday had to relive some moments that have seen him as a protagonist in the first days of November 2007 after the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Yesterday in fact were sitting on the bench of the witnesses, Dr. Giacinto Profazio, at the time of the mobile manager, and the head of the homicide Monica Napoleoni, who submitted to the line of questions from pm Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, defense lawyers defendants Ghirga Luciano, Carlo Dalla Vedova, Marco Brusco, Giulia Bongiorno, they have repeatedly mentioned the name of Patrick.
'They have taken me back in time - says Lumumba - and again to those days, I revisited the ugly moments of the past. Then I wondered how it could be possible that an innocent person should spend those moments of terror. It seem I have seen a bad film, a horror film - says Lumumba - I seen me with the handcuffs to my wrists in front of my wife holding my son in her arms, and you can imagine my discomfort that arose questions in my wife, which, despite the certainty of my innocence did not know what would happen to us. "
"I knew Amanda - explain again - worked for me and I just noticed that she seemed very egocentric, one who always wanted to be in the spotlight."
"I could not explain, however – if would finish - if this knowledge would be enough for investigators of my incrimination.
And Patrick Lumumba closes: "I have again seen myself in jail terrified by the fact that I could not get out, then fortunately the truth and reason have prevailed and today I can say with all the serenity of having regained full confidence in the Italian justice, a trust that I, as a foreign national guest in Italy, in those moments I was strongly into challenged. "

(my bolding)

No mention of any police brutality there.

Lumumba has sued the Italian state for psychological and financial damage arising from wrongful detention: but not for brutality, so far as I can discover. He has also brought charges against Knox, of course. This is again a translation from PMF of a newpaper article which is no longer available

Patrick Lumumba Diya, 40 years old in May, is standing up for his rights. While attending assise court, the one where Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are being tried for complicity in wilful murder and complicity in sexual assault on poor Meredith Kercher, he has started civil proceedings against Amanda for the crime of calumny, [and] from the judges of the appeal court he is [also] seeking the granting of an equitable indemnity for unjust imprisonment suffered (15 days, from 6 to 20 November 2007) and for the moral, social, economic and health damages flowing therefrom. From the State (US: the People), Patrick is asking for the maximum indemnity: 516,000 euro.

“Patrick,” explains his lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, “is currently out of work. Economic difficulties have forced him to close the pub that he used to manage in the old town centre (the Le Chic in via Alessi, ndr [=editor’s note]).” The local, where Lumumba was working on the night when Kercher was killed, was placed [off limits] under sequestration during the initial phase of the inquest. After being released, the musician re-opened it but he then had to finally suspend activities due to lack of clientele. Furthermore in his petition – in which he has included a consultation with Doctor Davide Albrigo – Lumumba claims to have suffered psychological damages stemming from the stress of the arrest (the exact diagnosis is of “chronic post-traumatic stress disorder”).

“We ask for compensation from the State because the arrest was carried out,” emphasises Pacelli, “on the basis of the sole declaration of Knox, without there having been any corroboration”. As is known, during the interrogatory hearing before investigating magistrate Claudia Mattei, Lumumba strongly denied the accusation, maintaining he had always been, on the night of the murder, in his pub in via Alessi and he was able to show how his affirmations were true and sincere with the testimony of a great number of witnesses, amongst which there was even a Swiss teacher/lecturer on a school trip to the Umbrian capital [=Perugia].

A month and a half ago, Patrick’s family increased by one. His wife, Alexandra, gave him a gift of a beautiful baby girl, joining the company of a toddler who at the time of his father’s arrest was 1 [year] and 8 months old.
Yesterday, Patrick was in town. “My life was destroyed by that arrest,” he explained. It is sufficient to place yourself in the shoes of an ordinary person who, at dawn one morning, sees the police descend on their house and to hear themselves being accused of terrible, horrendous crimes.

Yesterday, someone remarked that, for 516,00 euros, they’d be willing to be held in jail for fifteen days. But here’s a sobering thought: Patrick would not have known that they would have freed him after fifteen days. And in any case, a married man with offspring, arrested within sight of his wife and child, who sees his economic endeavours founder [franare], who suffers psychologically from the stress of the situation in which he finds himself, more so for being widely known at the international level [and] treated as the face of the case he found himself involved in, disseminated worldwide by newspaper, television and the Internet: it’s enough to drive you round the bend [US: make you go crazy].
And so Patrick, accompanied by his lawyers (Pacelli and Sabrina Scaroni) comes to, and listens attentively to, all the hearings in the criminal case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“We’ve reached the seventh hearing”, he stresses, “and I continue to have faith in justice. I’m hearing criticism coming from other places against Italian justice but, instead, for me, it is quite positive and garantista [=”a defender of rights"].
In his case, Patrick is proceeding against Amanda for the crime of calumny [=”a type of criminal slander”, in Common Law parlance]. “When she came to my pub, I don’t remember if it was the end of September or the beginning of October in 2007,” says Lumumba, “I had a good impression of her. And it could not have been otherwise, because I took her on for a job ...[ellipsis in original]”

His nightmare stems from the morning of 6 November, with the swarming [irruzione] of police into his house, in via Eugubina. “It’s a bad memory that I haven’t been able to forget, I think it might never be removed. I was thinking that with time it might have faded, maybe even disappeared. Instead, it continues to rack my brain, to torture me and to torment me, and to weigh on and influence my existence and that of my family”.

It is unfortunate that these links are dead because it is of course possible that these articles have been made up. But I personally have no reason to believe that they were

 

[Fiona]

What is this about the CCTV footage? Is that the footage which shows a woman arriving at the cottage but which is of poor quality and so cannot be used to identify who it is?