Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

No, they do not.

Really, show proof. The coroner says she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. The judges agree she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. Except the judges seem to think she finished eating around 8pm rather than between 6pm and 7pm. The literature posted by numerous people confirm the Coroner's 2 to 3 hour range. The prosecution attacked the coroner's credibility and procedures rather than attack the 2 to 3 hour ToD. Why, because if the Prosecution attacks the coroners findings on stomach contents then it raises questions in every case in Italy that has a ToD determined by last meal and stomach contents. Do you really think Meredith is the only person in Italy thats ToD was determined by Last Meal? The prosecution raised questions about whether the coroner performed the autopsy correctly and gave an alternitive finding if the coroner performed it wrong. However, evidence has been shown that Dr. Lalli tied off the digestive track correctly.

 

[katy_did]

No, it wasn't. Your interpretation is that the defence were merely nitpicking (that doesn't help their client). That is not an argument to make to the High Court, indeed it isn't an argument period. Your interpretation is incorrect.

The defence were arguing that Raffaele and Amanda were not together.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of a legal argument, Fulcanelli. The Court isn't allowed to automatically transfer evidence from one person to another without providing a solid basis for doing so. If they do just that on the assumption Knox and Sollecito were together, they need to produce evidence of it. Since they didn't, Bongiorno called them on it, demanding solid proof or asking that her client be released: from memory, she talks about "the unwarranted assumption that the two could not not have been together that night". Even the clunky phrasing shows that she is talking about a purely hypothetical situation here. I'm quite sure she could have put it in more definite terms if she really wanted to argue Raffaele wasn't with Amanda that night.

Her purpose is to get her client released, and she's looking for any holes in the Court's argument to achieve that. This is one of them. But she is deliberately being non-committal on the issue of whether or not they were together (in this particular phrase), asking only that the Court provide proof of it. As I've said elsewhere, these are legal word games, and it's either naive or wishful thinking to read any more into it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You're from England and you tell me about the American system?

My wife occasionally works the "murder hot line" here in Boston, Ma. The phone is attended 24-7 (all the time). If someone in the Boston area is accused of murder, an experienced lawyer is IMMEDIATELY appointed. Amanda would have had a lawyer BEFORE she talked to the police. The same for RS.

AK and RS would not have seen the inside of a jail or had to stand trial. Yet the court system in MA still would have easily prosecuted the "Craig's List" killer. He recently committed suicide in jail because the case against him was stronger than the case against Guede.

I think the system here sucks, but it seems to suck infinitely less than the Italian system!

Aside from a few small differences the UK system is the same as the American system...both are common law/case law/adversarial system.

Amanda was questioned as a witness. I was unaware that American police assign witnesses lawyers...I thought they were only given to those under arrest. We kmow that latter is true

The Italian system does not have the death penalty. The Italian system is focused on rehabilitation, atonement and compensating the victims. The American and UK system is about punishment and revenge.

American sentences are harsher as are their prisons.

Italy has no "Three Strikes" law.

In Italy, the defendant has the right of two appeals, one of which reviews all the actual evidence. Not so in America.

In Italy a prosecutor has to jump over many hurdles via multiple courts to even get a case to trial, unlike in America.

In Italy, in most cases, even for serious crimes like murder, suspects are allowed to remain at home not only up to and during the trial, but up to the end of the final appeal. In America often you're in jail up to the trial and if found guilty you go straight to jail.

In Italy, the defence can admit whatever evidence they wish into the initial trial, even hearsay. Not so in US courts.

In Italian courts, the accused can make spontaneous declarations to the court about whatever they wish whenever they wish as often as they wish, without the court being able to field questions or cross examination of any kind. Not so in US courts.

I could go on.

 

[katy_did]

No, the defence were not arguing this. I can't believe that you can't understand the legal distinction.

The defence were arguing that the court cannot automatically ASSUME that Knox and Sollecito were together all that evening and night. The defence argued that Sollecito's position was that he was in his apartment all night and that Knox was with him, but that if the police/prosecutors had evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, then the court should not automatically assume that Sollecito was with her and therefore at least an accessory to the crime. Is that too difficult to understand?

I think you said it more straightforwardly than I.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Anyone can do the math here. Obviously, it just doesn't serve your interests if Rudy has even a brief history of b&e or was desperate for money. But lets do the arithmetic here:

1. Computer is stolen from law office in Perugia - the town where Rudy resides.
2. Rudy is caught in Milan with computer as well as other items like a women's gold watch and a hammer used to break windows.
3. Rudy didn't have money for a hotel, so he squats in a nursery where he is caught by police.
4. Rudy is sent back to Perugia to return the stolen items to the lawyers. This is just two days before he breaks in to the cottage, rifles through Meredith's purse and takes the rent money which gets him to Germany, but isn't enough to last so he asks his friend over Skype to send him more.


I'm sure according to you Rudy was just on holiday in Milan, with no money for proper room and board, but happens to spend his last penny on a stolen laptop and gold watch, items that just so happen to originate from his hometown which is 4 hours away. How lucky that he just happened to be going back home and could return those items to their rightful owner. And how coincidental that whoever stole those items used the same method of b&e that Amanda and Raf would later use to frame him just a couple days later.

First comment...you wouldn't allow your list to be used as arguments or evidence to convict Amanda or Raffaele of any crime, but then we know how low you've set the bar in the case of Rudy.

1) Yes...along with 100,000 other people.

2) If possession of stolen goods is enough to convict someone of burglary, then there would be no such thing as a charge of procession of stolen goods. Rudy could have bought it from anybody. You don't need a little hammer to break windows. Little hammers can have many uses. There's no evidence the watch was stolen. He could have bought it, been given it a gift or keepsake.

3) Who said he didn't have money for a hotel? He said he couldn't stay in one because he arrived late at night. 'Money' wasn't the reason.

4) Rudy was sent back to Perugia on the train for which he bought a ticket. Not bad for supposedly having no money. The items were confiscated...he wasn't sent back to return them. It was proven in his trial that he didn't take the money from Meredith's purse...he was acquitted of the theft...remember? The break-in at the office was not the same as that at the cottage in any way...read Massei. That's aside from it being completely staged as shown by the evidence and proven in court TWICE...in two separate trials.

Rudy wasn't on "holiday" in Milan, he'd gone to see his aunt who lives in Milan.

He could have grabbed the shutter with his right arm and stepped onto the sill with his left leg.

Rubbish. Rudy isn't the Jolly Green Giant.

You know it's possible to cut yourself and not drip blood everywhere, especially if it's a small cut.

I'm not talking about him not dripping blood "everywhere", I'm talking about his not dripping blood ANYWHERE. And according to you he cut himself so badly they still hadn't healed over two weeks later....some "small" cut!

One just needs to look at the cuts on his hands to see that when he made them he'd have bled.

 

[Fulcanelli]

1. Rudy broke in and stole from the law office. Not only was he caught with the items in a city 4 hours away, the method used to break in was the same as at the cottage.

2. Cristian Tramontano testified that Rudy wass the one who broke into his home and threatened him with a knife.

3. Rudy stole money from Meredith's purse which he used to flee to Germany with. This is evidenced by his DNA on her purse, and the fact that two days earlier he had no money for a hotel while in Milan. Method of entry was the same as at the law office.

There is no innocent explanation for any of these actions, and it seals his description as a small-time thief and a drifter.

4. Rudy was squatting in the nursery in Milan. He may not have had to break any windows to get in, but that doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

1. See my previous post.

2. No he didn't. He admitted that he didn't even know Rudy and wasn't sure if it was him or not. Judge Micheli threw out Christian's testimony judging (for good reasons) that he'd made it up. A completely discredited witness. Again, as you already know.

3. No he didn't. See my previous post.

4. So?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why was there a ToD circulating in the media at that time? Who told the media what the estimated ToD was, prior to the trial starting in 2009?

As a result of Lalli's autopsy. Some of the facts of it were announced.

 

[katy_did]

You don't need a little hammer to break windows. Little hammers can have many uses.

Yes. Like I said before, maybe he wanted to build some very tiny chairs.

 

[katy_did]

2. No he didn't. He admitted that he didn't even know Rudy and wasn't sure if it was him or not. Judge Micheli threw out Christian's testimony judging (for good reasons) that he'd made it up. A completely discredited witness. Again, as you already know.

ETA: Whoops, got wrong witness. Cite then? I wasn't aware Micheli judged Tramontano had made the whole thing up, nor that he was 'completely discredited'. Plus, Quintavalle also admitted he couldn't be completely sure the person he saw was Amanda...

 

[Chris C]

Aside from a few small differences the UK system is the same as the American system...both are common law/case law/adversarial system.

Amanda was questioned as a witness. I was unaware that American police assign witnesses lawyers...I thought they were only given to those under arrest. We kmow that latter is true

The Italian system does not have the death penalty. The Italian system is focused on rehabilitation, atonement and compensating the victims. The American and UK system is about punishment and revenge.

American sentences are harsher as are their prisons.

Italy has no "Three Strikes" law.

In Italy, the defendant has the right of two appeals, one of which reviews all the actual evidence. Not so in America.

In Italy a prosecutor has to jump over many hurdles via multiple courts to even get a case to trial, unlike in America.

In Italy, in most cases, even for serious crimes like murder, suspects are allowed to remain at home not only up to and during the trial, but up to the end of the final appeal. In America often you're in jail up to the trial and if found guilty you go straight to jail.

In Italy, the defence can admit whatever evidence they wish into the initial trial, even hearsay. Not so in US courts.

In Italian courts, the accused can make spontaneous declarations to the court about whatever they wish whenever they wish as often as they wish, without the court being able to field questions or cross examination of any kind. Not so in US courts.

I could go on.

America has the Bill of Rights. Police can question an individual or take their statement without reading them their miranda rights. However, America is really strict on questioning of individuals without reading them their rights. Asking any question that self incriminates a person, is inadmissable in court, if the person has not been read their rights. Asking any question that would self incriminate a person, gives them the right to remain silent. If someone mentions lawyer and a police officer says, "that would only make it worse". He has just violated someones right to seek an attorney. They throw cops in jail for that in America. Witnesses have the right to have an attorney present even while giving statements only as a witness.

Also I believe its the 8th amendment that covers the right to bail.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ah, yes, they got Raf to say that he couldn't be completely sure she was with him all night since conceivably she could have been gone while he was sleeping. That combined with their misinterpretation of the text and they were convinced Amanda had met up with Patrick that night. They were wrong. But they convinced themselves this was the correct scenario to the point where, when Amanda denied going out that night, they could only justify it by telling Amanda that she must have been traumatized and didn't remember being there. So they asked her to imagine herself there and what she would have heard and how she would have reacted.

He didn't say he 'Couldn't be sure she was with him". He told them she left him to go see friends at Le Chic before he went home to eat dunner at about 9 pm. He told them she returned to his apartment after 1 am. They didn't misinterpret the text, Amanda mis-wrote the text because of her crappy Italian. They were convinced Amanda met up with Patrick because she told them she met up with Patrick. In addition, Raffaele had told them she left to go to Le Chic, which also happens to be where Patrick was.

That's not how it went down at all. Amanda admitted to going out and claimed to meet Patrick when they showed her the text. They didn't ask Amanda ti "imagine" she was there. Amanda admits this herself in her trial testimony...read it!

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm gonna give you my opinion on these matters. First, there is alot of untested evidence in this case. Any attempt to have this untested evidence has been met with resistance. There is evidence that the prosecution has refused to give the defense. There is evidence that the prosecution has put witnesses on the stand that have given conflicting evidence to Prosecution theories, and other prosecution witnesses. Frankly the prosecution only thinks the evidence that points to guilt should be turned over to the defense. They dont think evidence that points to innocence is evidence. Just some fluke.

The "testing of evidence" takes place in court, in a trial. There was a trial, in court. The evidence was tested.

There is a ton of articles on this. Ranging from he wasn't talking about pricking Meredith he was pricking Knox to he was just trying to explain to himself something he couldn't explain. If i remember correctly he was writing this in a diary.

Yes, it was in his diary. He didn't say he pricked Knox, he said he pricked Meredith. Download and read his diary here: TRANSLATION OF RAFFAELE'S PRISON DIARY: DEFINITIVE VERSION

Never heard this before. However, do you clean up after everyone? If someone leaves their shoes on the floor of THEIR bathroom, do you pick them up? I'm not, its their bathroom.

Pathetic. You flush the toilet.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is nonsense. Rudy wasn't trying to sell the computer or anything else, where's your evidence for that?

_________________________________________________________________
Hi Fulcanelli,
Do you know how Rudy Guede was paying his rent for the apartment he was living at at the time of Miss Kercher's death?

I saw a photograph of it on another website called Perugiamurderfile.org, not Perugiamurderfile.com though,
that a poster named "thoughtful" had shot and I wondered how he paid his rent, for it doesn't seem that Rudy Guede had a job then.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
RWVBWL

The unemployed get housing benefit with which to pay their rent in Italy. It's the same in the UK. He also had a rich foster family.

He'd only been unemployed for a month though. He'd always worked before that (he had worked as gardener, as a barman and had been a carer to a 100 year old lady for a year) and before that, he went to technical college.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Anyone can do the math here. Obviously, it just doesn't serve your interests if Rudy has even a brief history of b&e or was desperate for money. But lets do the arithmetic here:

1. Computer is stolen from law office in Perugia - the town where Rudy resides.
2. Rudy is caught in Milan with computer as well as other items like a women's gold watch and a hammer used to break windows.
3. Rudy didn't have money for a hotel, so he squats in a nursery where he is caught by police.
4. Rudy is sent back to Perugia to return the stolen items to the lawyers. This is just two days before he breaks in to the cottage, rifles through Meredith's purse and takes the rent money which gets him to Germany, but isn't enough to last so he asks his friend over Skype to send him more.

_________________________________________________________________

Hi Malkmus,
Didn't the computer that Rudy Guede was caught with have a photograph of Giorgio Armani and himself on its screen saver?

If I was to sell a stolen computer, I would want to try and show potential buyers that the object was in fact mine, as it seems Rudy Guede might have done.
Flip side of that though, is that if RG planned to keep the computer, he might have done the same.
However, with apartment rent coming soon and no apparent source of income, 1 can surmise that Rudy Guede was planning to sell that laptop computer, though Fulcanelli and others might disagree.

I just found a little more about Rudy Guede, it seems the English newspapers liked to cover the story of him better than the Amarican newspapers did:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5034243.ece
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-When I read what "katy did" posted awhile back here on JREF where someone drank some juice from the refrig at the lawyers office the night it was burglarized, which also then happened at Miss Kercher's house the night she died, I recalled that Rudy Guede said he did drink from the orange juice carton/container while at MK's house. I now believe that Rudy Guede was involved and inside that law office when it was broken in to.
But was Guede alone? Did he know how to disconnect a burglar alarm?
Or did he have a partner, more skilled in B+E than he?

Of course not. The break-in at the office was a professional job. Rudt was no pro.

Even Frank doesn't believe Rudy was involved in the office burglary.

For certain, it was carried out by more then one person, or at least a person with a vehicle (a laptop and printer was stolen, quite large items). It's possible one person could carry both, but not likely.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think someone mentioned on here somewhere that Stefanoni's boss was either a paid consultant or sat at the prosecutions table during the trial. That might be where they are getting that paid subordinate part from.

He was the boss of the lab in Rome. He reviewed all Dr Stefanoni's work. He sat at the prosecution table because he was a witness for the prosecution. That's how it works.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When she made the transition to the "accused" she wasn't permitted a lawyer for a day or two and was subjected to the same methods used by "brainwashers" like sleep deprivation. Let's face it, AK and RS were brainwashed and tortured.

Complete and utter tosh. They were done with her at 1:45 am. She could have gone to sleep. Her own choice.

She didn't need a lawyer because she wasn't being questioned.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The supreme court and Raffaele's lawyers

No, it wasn't. Your interpretation is that the defence were merely nitpicking (that doesn't help their client). That is not an argument to make to the High Court, indeed it isn't an argument period. Your interpretation is incorrect.

The defence were arguing that Raffaele and Amanda were not together.

No, the lawyers' argument was that you cannot transfer clues from one person to another automatically. One problem in interpretation may stem from Frank Sfarzo's use of the word "erroneous" when "unjustifiable" might have been better.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The missing four hours

Complete and utter tosh. They were done with her at 1:45 am. She could have gone to sleep. Her own choice.

She didn't need a lawyer because she wasn't being questioned.

What were they doing between 1:45 and 5:45, playing Chutes and Ladders? "Murder in Italy" makes it clear it was more of the same abusive interrogation tactics.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Raffaele's alleged "lie" about pricking Meredith's finger with the knife was written in a private diary, when he was trying to make sense of reports that her DNA had been found on it. The passage was ambiguous, and doesn't make sense unless it refers to Amanda's finger (so secondary DNA transfer), not Meredith's - but it has been misrepresented as an "testimony" by him that the knife came into contact with Meredith, even though she had never been in his flat. As for the DNA, the test was improperly conducted and the positive reading almost certainly false, but the pro-guilt side will not acknowledge that.

It wasn't private at all, his family sold it to the media! Neither was it ambiguous. He stated Meredith came to his apartment for dinner (a lie) and that while cooking he pricked her with the knife (another lie). I suggest that you actually read it. I've linked it above in a previous post.

Amanda's supposed "accusation" against Patrick arises from an all-night interrogation (5-6 November) in which there were no safeguards for her rights. Her statements on that night show the characteristics of a forced false confession. What happened to her during that interrogation is a matter of dispute between the 2 sides - but she is now facing a trial for slander merely because she said that she was slapped on the back of the head during the ordeal.

No it didn't. Herr questioning began informally in the waiting room at midnight and ended at 1:45 am. That's an hour and 45 minutes. Some all nighter!

She's facing charges of calunnia, not slander.No charges as of yet have been made. That depends on the upcoming hearing.

She had spent 2 years in prison for something she didn't do and now there was a chance of the truth coming out; why should she not be cheerful and relaxed? Why should she not smile and wave to her family and supporters? Do you want her to sit quivering, biting her nails and staring at the floor throughout the year-long trial?

Yeah, the Manson girls were just as "cheerful" in their trial. They must be innocent

 

[Fulcanelli]

Would your table happen to have dust on the surface as the floor did at the cottage? When you clean off the one ring as you suggest, you would also remove the dust from that area. This would leave evidence that you cleaned one area of the table.

There was absolutely no evidence showing any cleanup at the cottage. None at all.

Show me the dust.

And while you're about it, read Massei...he describes the evidence of a clean-up.