Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

REPUBBLICA news article from 17 November 2007

Raffaele in the above is still claiming Amanda left him that evening and came home late in the night.

Let's also look at Raffaele via his lawyers to the High Court in April 2008. This from Frank Sfarzo back in a time when he was still neutral:

Quote: "Raffaele:
The clues against Amanda have been arbitrarily transferred to me on the erroneous assumption that we must have been together that evening.
Supreme Court:
For the same reasons given above, we can exclude that clues against Knox have been arbitrarily transferred to you."

Thanks Fulcanelli, you beat me to the morning browse of this discussion.

This whole discussion started about where Raffaele's "official" alibi stands.

It's clear that probably even the court doesn't know if Raffaele's current position is that Amanda left his flat for 4 hours, or a half an hour (independently of whether she left alone or with him, or if he joined her later, or whatever)(also independently of whether what he says is true or not).

Given such a confusing evolution of alibis, just a couple of observations:

1) Taking into consideration Raffaele's legal team's assertion to the Supreme Court in April 2008 that the assumption that they were together that night is erroneous, I'm not aware of any more recent comments by Raffaele on the subject. A statement to the Supreme Court sounds pretty official to me, it's not a confiscated letter to an old girlfriend or a "prison diary" that's just asking for publication in a tabloid.

2) I'm surprised that one of the most expensive legal teams in Italy didn't spend less time trying to point in the direction of Rudy, and didn't spend more time trying to shore up, explain, and clarify his alibi. For me that's the basics. .... unless if his team felt that trying to shape a truthful-sounding alibi would only hamper his cause.

I guess that part of the problem is that in order to clarify and shore up his alibi, Raffaele would have had to open his mouth in court, and for that to be credible, he would have had to submit himself to cross-examination.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

These Italian judges resort to double-talk and outright gibberish to conceal facts they don't like, but one of PMF's resident translators, Catnip, provided this excerpt from Matteini's report:

"This aspect being clarified, it is [now] possible to take cognizance that Sollecito Raffaele, at the review hearing, affirmed having spent the entire night of the 1st and 2nd November with Knox Amanda having made a return to his house around the time 20.00 – 20.30, of having dined with the ragazza, of having become aware of the arrival of messages on the ragazza’s cell phone, of having known from the same [=Amanda] that that night she was not required to go to work at the Le Chic pub, as had been communicated by means of an SMS sent to her cell phone, and of having therefore gone to sleep together to wake the morning after around 10.00 when Amanda was going out to go back to via della Pergola to take a shower; during the course of the same declarations, he added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not but re-asserted, however, not having left the house, having remained in front of the computer, as well as having received a phone call from his father at the time of 23.00, a telephone call that shortly afterwards he specified he could not remember whether he had in actuality received or whether he had referred to having received it, to corroborate the circumstances surrounding his permanence in the house."

When Raffaele was questioned by Matteini, he retracted his statement that Amanda left him for a period of time during the evening of Nov. 5, but through skillful questioning, she got him to admit that Amanda could have slipped out without his knowing about it after he fell asleep. Hence, he "affirmed having spent the entire night" with Amanda, but "added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not."

She wants to obscure the fact that he retracted his statement incriminating Amanda. But, he did retract it, and that is how matters stand.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

She wants to obscure the fact that he retracted his statement incriminating Amanda. But, he did retract it, and that is how matters stand.

Isn't it funny how if we say "changed his story" (again?) instead of "retracted his statement" it sounds so different.

Does "retracted his statement" suggest some element of magically modifying history so that the previous lies stories statements no longer ever happened?

Here. Let me say the same thing you did, with only a few words slightly adjusted.

"She wants to point out the fact that he changed his story incriminating Amanda. But, he did change it, and that is how matters stand."

How's that sound to you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

backflips

Again: If I tell you my name is Bob, then tell you what I'd said before is bollocks, then tell you that I was lying the second time and my name really is Bob...am I still credible?

BobTheDonkey,

In message #5165 you wrote, “I give credence to Raffaele's admission that it was a lot of rubbish because, well, it came after and negates what they both said before. I know this is a trick question, but I don't see the real trick to it. It's not myopia.

If I come to you and say "Hey, My name is Bob" and then shortly after say "Well, that was a load of rubbish" are you still going to believe my name is Bob? Why would/should I expect you to still believe my name is Bob after I told you it was a load of rubbish? Why should we expect to believe the alibis presented after one of the people involved called them rubbish?

Talk about your mental gymnastics.” (emphasis added)

In message #5535, you wrote, “So, even though he can't make up his mind where he (and by extension, she) was that night...we should just believe the last thing he tells us?” (emphasis added)

Based on the link to the ABC story I provide, it seems that Raffaele’s defense was that they were both at his place the night of the murder. Both his statement to the magistrate and his diary are consistent with this. As far as I can tell, the only time Raffaele may have said that Amanda was not there for a significant period of time was on 5 November, when the police told him things that were not true.

Your criteria have changed; first, we should believe the last thing he tells us, and now we should not. To return to your analogy, if you say your name is Bob, then possibly say that it is not, then say that it is three times, I would be inclined to believe that your name was Bob. I would then ask why you said that it wasn’t on one occasion. Perhaps the analogous question with reference to this case is one that you should be asking.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

She wants to obscure the fact that he retracted his statement incriminating Amanda. But, he did retract it, and that is how matters stand.

Whatever your interpretation, which you're entitled to, it's meaningless because:

a) We have Raffaele in effect over time saying - "She was with me" "She wasn't with me" "She was with me" "She wasn't with me". That is NOT an alibi for Amanda.

b) The last we heard from Raffaele on the matter of her alibi was to the Italian High Court via his lawyers and that was to argue flat out that she was not with him and since that time, he has never claimed she was. So, that is what stands...no alibi for Amanda from Raffaele.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Based on the link to the ABC story I provide, it seems that Raffaele’s defense was that they were both at his place the night of the murder.

Seems??? It shouldn't 'seem' anything, it's either a fact or it isn't and if it's a fact it should be screamed out as a fact by Raffaele and his lawyers so there can be no ambiguity like 'seems'!

 

[Fulcanelli]

And while we're on the subject of 'seems'. What it seems to me is that Raffaele's defence, in the knowledge that the court does not have access to his statement from his questioning, or the full findings of the high court including their arguments on Raffaele's behalf, have been happy to sit back and 'insinuate' and 'imply' that Amanda was with Raffaele at his apartment with him all evening and sit back and allow Amanda's defence to state it as an asserted hard fact, without ever stating it as one themselves in order to keep their options open, that being each week deciding if or when they're going to throw Amanda under the bus! And this they may still do in the appeal.

In fact, as Barbie Nadeau has stated in her book, Bongiourno's not throwing Amanda under the bus was only a decision taken at the very last minute.

 

[Kermit]

... through skillful questioning, she got him to admit that Amanda could have slipped out without his knowing about it after he fell asleep. Hence, he "affirmed having spent the entire night" with Amanda, but "added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not."...

She wants to obscure the fact that he retracted his statement incriminating Amanda. But, he did retract it, and that is how matters stand.

.
For the life of me, Charlie, I have read that segment translated by Catnip up and down (many thanks to Catnip and the other PMF translators!! It's a joy to see that FOA personnel resort to your high quality work!).

I can't find the semantic link between Raffaele not remembering if Amanda had left or not, on one hand, with them sleeping together, on the other.

To the contrary, after saying that Knox could have slipped out, in the same breath he says that he was playing at the computer (in reality, there was no computer activity into the evening, nor did he receive the 11 p.m. phone call from his father). So my impression is that the time context of Knox possibly leaving is before and around 11 p.m.
=========================

Charlie said: "he did retract it, and that is how matters stand."

If you say so, Charlie .... Wait!! As Fulcanelli points out, the High Court positioning of Raffaele (from early 2008) is that it is erroneous to believe that they were together.

So I guess the way that matters stand is that they weren't together.

 

[Jungle Jim]

The author has completely got himself in a muddle...for a start, this line from Raffale "‘I’m sorry I told you that crap" was the line he gave to POLICE on the night of November 5th, not to any court room. Raffaele didn't say any of the stuff Darkness Decending claims he said to the court. He didn't even address Matteini's court. He had fallen on his right to silence.

Why in the world would anyone bullsh*t the police in a murder investigation?

 

[Kermit]

if you say your name is Bob, then possibly say that it is not, then say that it is three times, I would be inclined to believe that your name was Bob.

Then a few days later he says he's Not-Bob. Then a couple of months later he presents a formal legal argument to a high court saying he's Not-Bob. And after that final pronouncement, he hasn't changed his mind again.

What's your opinion now?
=====================

In mid-November Raffaele said she wasn't there, then in the new year 2008 he told (his lawyers told) the High Court that it's erroneous to believe she was there ....

I would agree on one thing, that Raffaele's word isn't to be believed with so much switch-a-rooing of his alibi.

However, as I understand it, his last (and equally repeated) alibi is that she wasn't there at his place. ( ... was he at his place?)

 

[stilicho]

The author has completely got himself in a muddle...for a start, this line from Raffale "‘I’m sorry I told you that crap" was the line he gave to POLICE on the night of November 5th, not to any court room. Raffaele didn't say any of the stuff Darkness Decending claims he said to the court. He didn't even address Matteini's court. He had fallen on his right to silence.

Unfortunately, the authour of the book got most of his research for his book from newspapers and books. He didn't attend hearings, nor does he speak Italian.

I was wondering why he would claim rubbish twice. It only goes to show that you have to be very careful about your sources.

@JungleJim: Why in the world would anyone bullsh*t the police in a murder investigation?

Especially in one where you and your girlfriend are invited down after everyone else has been questioned and left alone. And bring your knives along when the victim was murdered with one.

They made excuses for everything and prepared written statements (AK's 04 NOV 2007 email to her friends, for example) with specifics that only the police and the killer(s) should have known.

@Charlie Wilkes: ...outright gibberish...

How do you deduce from the statement you quoted that it is certain that RS and AK were at his apartment together the night of Meredith's murder? The concluding phrase shows that it could not even be established that RS himself was where he said he was, let alone that he was in his apartment with AK.

This has always been the problem with Sollecito's alibis. He wants it both ways at once. One one hand he wants us to believe he was at home, working on his computer, and receiving a communication from his father. On the other hand, he wants us to believe that he was with AK the whole night but that she may not have been at his apartment.

I have to agree with Kermit. If RS had such unwavering faith in both AK and in his alibi, then why not state as such in court? We can only assume that his highly-qualified legal representation knew his ability to stick to one story was very slender. Everything out of his lips (or from his pen) was little more than outright gibberish.

 

[Kestrel]

Why in the world would anyone bullsh*t the police in a murder investigation?

Fear.

Raffaele had been telling the police that Amanda spent the night of Nov. 1 with him.

Then the police lie to him and claim they have evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. They tell Raffaele that if he continues to provide an alibi for Amanda, he will be a co-conspirator and spend the next 30 years in jail for protecting a girl that he has knows for less than two week. Being rather young, naive and isolated from legal advice, Raffaele changed his story out of fear.

Later, after getting some legal advice, he went back to his original story.

For those of you thinking Raffaele should have kept to the truth and trusted the system, did you know that only 16% of Italians fully trust the Italian legal system?

 

[Kermit]

Fear .... the police lie to him and claim they have evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. They tell Raffaele that if he continues to provide an alibi for Amanda, he will be a co-conspirator and spend the next 30 years in jail for protecting a girl that he has knows for less than two week. Being rather young, naive and isolated from legal advice, Raffaele changed his story out of fear.

Let me tell you, this is the first time I have ever heard this. In fact it's the first time anybody has ever heard this.

What's your source? Or just wishful thinking. Neither Raffaele nor his legal team have ever explained his change of alibis in such terms.

Later, after getting some legal advice, he went back to his original story.

.
And shortly after that, this time in front of the high court, he went back to his alibi that Amanda was not in his flat.

That's the last we've heard from Raffaele's team on this subject.

 

[shuttlt]

Fear.

Raffaele had been telling the police that Amanda spent the night of Nov. 1 with him.

Then the police lie to him and claim they have evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. They tell Raffaele that if he continues to provide an alibi for Amanda, he will be a co-conspirator and spend the next 30 years in jail for protecting a girl that he has knows for less than two week. Being rather young, naive and isolated from legal advice, Raffaele changed his story out of fear.

Later, after getting some legal advice, he went back to his original story.

For those of you thinking Raffaele should have kept to the truth and trusted the system, did you know that only 16% of Italians fully trust the Italian legal system?

Not that it's important, but what's your source for the 16% statistic? The first statistics that I was able to find that seem worth a damn indicate 78% trust for the police and 36% for law firms. This compares well with the US.

These statistics come from "The GfK Group is one of the largest market research companies in the world"
http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/significant/press/pd_trust_index_august_08_efin.pdf

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps the difference between the surveys is the phrase "fully trust".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the survey says

Perhaps the difference between the surveys is the phrase "fully trust".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/can_anyone_get_a_fair_trial_in_italy?page=0,0

It was 28%, but now it is 16% who fully trust the system.

 

[Kermit]

It was 28%, but now it is 16% who fully trust the system.

Okay, if you look up one source you get statistics that say that not many Italians trust the system, if you look up another source you find statistics which say the opposite. That's what statistics are for.

Now, back to the case Halides and Kestrel: there has never been any indication from Raffaele or his legal team that he was threatened, mistreated, tricked, abused or otherwise made to give statements to police or to the high court judges that were untruthful.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

In message #5165 you wrote, “I give credence to Raffaele's admission that it was a lot of rubbish because, well, it came after and negates what they both said before. I know this is a trick question, but I don't see the real trick to it. It's not myopia.

If I come to you and say "Hey, My name is Bob" and then shortly after say "Well, that was a load of rubbish" are you still going to believe my name is Bob? Why would/should I expect you to still believe my name is Bob after I told you it was a load of rubbish? Why should we expect to believe the alibis presented after one of the people involved called them rubbish?

Talk about your mental gymnastics.” (emphasis added)

In message #5535, you wrote, “So, even though he can't make up his mind where he (and by extension, she) was that night...we should just believe the last thing he tells us?” (emphasis added)

Based on the link to the ABC story I provide, it seems that Raffaele’s defense was that they were both at his place the night of the murder. Both his statement to the magistrate and his diary are consistent with this. As far as I can tell, the only time Raffaele may have said that Amanda was not there for a significant period of time was on 5 November, when the police told him things that were not true.

Your criteria have changed; first, we should believe the last thing he tells us, and now we should not. To return to your analogy, if you say your name is Bob, then possibly say that it is not, then say that it is three times, I would be inclined to believe that your name was Bob. I would then ask why you said that it wasn’t on one occasion. Perhaps the analogous question with reference to this case is one that you should be asking.

Chris

Hahahahaha.

Way to misquote me in a blatant attempt to mischaracterize my comment. Let's see what I gave as the reason I believe it's rubbish:

it came after and negates what they both said before

I don't believe the last thing Raffaele said because it was the last thing he said. It just so happens that the last thing he said also is the thing I believe to be true - that it's rubbish.

If my name was important to a murder investigation, then I would hope the fact that I was so obscure about what my name is, and that what I claim my name to be is not the same as what my gf claims my name to be, would raise huge warning flags (as it rightfully did/does here).

 

[shuttlt]

Okay, if you look up one source you get statistics that say that not many Italians trust the system, if you look up another source you find statistics which say the opposite. That's what statistics are for.

Now, back to the case Halides and Kestrel: there has never been any indication from Raffaele or his legal team that he was threatened, mistreated, tricked, abused or otherwise made to give statements to police or to the high court judges that were untruthful.

Most of the hits on Google relating to that poll are from blogs and articles about Amanda Knox. I haven't yet found the actual poll to get any more information.

 

[quadraginta]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/can_anyone_get_a_fair_trial_in_italy?page=0,0

It was 28%, but now it is 16% who fully trust the system.

I liked this part in the article.

"In the United States, federal judges must study a 637-page manual in order to be able to evaluate [forensic] evidence," he told the newspaper. "Here, they accept everything without questioning, as long as it comes from the institutional laboratory."

Too bad that in the U.S. the juries don't have to study anything. Oh, wait. That would be comparing apples to apples.

This was kind of cute, too.

Further, some Italians believe the media is complicit in "creating a general sense of social alarm," says Malini, pressuring authorities to arrest, indict, and sometimes even convict suspects without solid evidence. Newspapers routinely blame blood crimes on suspects belonging to "dangerous minorities" -- that is, immigrants from Romania or Italian Roma -- not just perverting the course of justice, but stoking racism to boot.

Good thing that can't happen in the good ol' U. S. of A. (Cue Frank Zappa ... "It can't happen here!")

or this ...

"Here in Italy trials take place in TV, rather than in court," Judge Francesco Cananzi, a representative of the national council of magistrates, publicly stated this year. And as the Knox case demonstrated, the court of public opinion is often defamatory. For instance, the Italian press routinely demonizes defendants by revealing embarrassing details about their personal lives, even if unrelated to the trial -- such as the pornography kept on their home computers. Knox's alleged sexual promiscuity, even her preferred underwear, made headlines across the globe.

Let's not look at, say, Casey Anthony and the coverage about her case in the U.S. press, or the ongoing Haleigh Cummings case and the coverage about Misty Croslin, or ...

I have to wonder if, when confronted with an appropriately crafted survey, the response in this country as to how many people fully trusted our justice system would be much different.

Judging from the examples of judicial error offered in this thread which were culled from U.S. cases to try and demonstrate the likelihood of error in Knox's case in Italy I have to think that the answer is "Not much different."