Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Hi Ch......

Your documentation is a work of art that I will earnestly try to emulate

You are aware of course that the Italian system in order to be as absolutely fair as possible (much more so than Amanda's native US) not only permits *defendants* to give false testimony, but expects them to do so.

A personal opinion stated here, certainly not to incite, and admittedly not the majority opinion here by a long shot, but proffered only to express my *personal* view in regard to your well documented thoughts;

Amanda with much cunning, exploited her unique Italian legal privileges to the fullest, and fulfilled those Italian 'expectations' beyond the wildest imaginations of many observers.

 

[christianahannah]

Hi Ch......

Your documentation is a work of art that I will earnestly try to emulate

You are aware of course that the Italian system in order to be as absolutely fair as possible (much more so than Amanda's native US) not only permits *defendants* to give false testimony, but expects them to do so.

A personal opinion stated here, certainly not to incite, and admittedly not the majority opinion here by a long shot, but proffered only to express my *personal* view in regard to your well documented thoughts;

Amanda fulfilled those Italian 'expectations' beyond the wildest imaginations of many observers.

From what I have read I assume an inquiry was started concerning Amanda's declarations, not only by Mignini as to possible slander by Amanda but also as to abuse by the officers towards Amanda, correct?

Amanda's first comment about the hits were not on March 13, 2009. She had made that comment in her November 6 memorandum. Her attorneys were aware of her comments (as I assume were the police and Mignini) so I do not understand why an investigation was not opened then.

I do agree that the Italian system is a fair system especially with respect to the appeal process.

 

[Matthew Best]

Matthew, you are certainly entitled to your well stated opinion that I also seem entitled to respectfully disagree with.

You disagree with my opinion that "guilters" should concentrate on evidence rather than gossip, innuendo and falsehoods? That seems weird.

As mentioned, having followed arguments on several board for a rather long period and as a result of your opinion, I have just scanned again the lat 30 or so pages here.

My opinion is 'fact versus fodder' (for tabloids) content is pretty much consistent and not markedly different 'for the past few pages'.

I did not imply nor should you have inferred that the last few pages were different in any particularly material way from the previous pages. Not sure why you think I did. Perhaps it's because it seems that English is not your first language. Nothing wrong with that and if true it's to your credit that you're discussing things in your second language. Well done!

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi Ch......
Amanda with much cunning, exploited her unique Italian legal privileges to the fullest, and fulfilled those Italian 'expectations' beyond the wildest imaginations of many observers.

I believe I see an indication that you do not believe she was telling the truth about her interrogation.

 

[RoseMontague]

At the point of her interrogation I don't see any cunning on her part. If she had any idea at all of her legal rights within the Italian legal system, she would have gotten a lawyer. If she had displayed any common sense at all she would have had a lawyer as early as November 3rd. It should have been obvious to her that she was considered more than an ordinary witness. The fact that she was treated like a criminal a couple of days prior to this interrogation is telling, in my opinion. katy_did translation:

Quote:
The report on a conversation, an 'environmental' interception, which occurred 4 November 2007 at the Questura of Perugia reads:

<< The moment where we begin listening to the conversation, from the part where it is written that AMANDA SPEAKS ON THE TELEPHONE, and she says: "I was the only one who was with her and so they want me to squeeze my brain [rack my brain?] to say things..."

Then the girl relates to the other speaker that there is a boy with her who is helping her, who is nice and also speaks a bit of German; then she passes the phone to Raffaele for him to speak to the person on the other end. Raffaele (in English): "I can't do anything, we are in the Questura, they're squeezing our minds (literally: taking a kick at the mind) then the boy passes the phone again to Amanda).

Amanda: "There is nothing you can do. Yesterday with the girls who lived in the house, we tried to understand what happened. >>

And also: << Resuming discussion of the interrogation she underwent[??]: "I'm feeling bad... They shouted at me... I slept only two hours last night... I'm very stressed..." >>

And also: << One of the two girls begins immediately to say: "I don't feel well at the moment, jumping at anything", and then: "How are you, Amanda?"
Amanda: "Not good, I am treated like a criminal". >>

 

[christianahannah]

The only question referenced several times refers to this quote:



However the implied question in this quote is that Filomena asked Amanda if she had tried to call Meredith and she either did not answer or answered no. If he meant that question rather than the question in the following quote, it would be clear that it was referring to a different question.



If you read that previous post and the three linked to that one it will give a better context for my question.

Okay, I better understand what you mean. I will have to think on it for a while.

I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the phones.

I know Amanda's name popped up on Meredith's British phone (which Amanda called first). Did Meredith's friends use mostly the Italian phone to reach her or the British phone? I would imagine the friends had both numbers but would call her on the one that would be the most economical.

 

[RoseMontague]

Okay, I better understand what you mean. I will have to think on it for a while.

I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the phones.

I know Amanda's name popped up on Meredith's British phone (which Amanda called first). Did Meredith's friends use mostly the Italian phone to reach her or the British phone? I would imagine the friends had both numbers but would call her on the one that would be the most economical.

The British phone was said to be with her at all times because her Mom was ill and they used that one to communicate. Amanda called the British phone then Filomena, then both of Merediths phones.

 

[capealadin]

Very interesting, Mary, that you can't remember Walter verini's name, when it was posted just above yours. One COULD think , from this, that you are not happy with what he had to report......It's as good a cite as others have posted..certainly as good as those so often used from the FOOD blogger. As you disagree with Signor Verini's interpretation, I shall cede the point, and agree that a different interpretation is " That Amanda found the trial fair, and that she was given every opportunity t speak openly in court, without having to be cross examined , as to her statements.

 

[pilot padron]

I believe I see an indication that you do not believe she was telling the truth about her interrogation.

Rose, you are characteristically soooo smooth and sooooo subtle.

Yes, may I just ask that my previously admitted *opinion* (minority here) be allowed to stand the test of time, and allow the Courtroom itself to verify the veracity or voidness of same.

My again *opinion* about cunning referred only to Courtroom testimony days.
At which time Amanda had been fully professionally 'lawyered up', as well as having lots of exposure to what some opine are the most effective and knowledgeable case helpers; the 'Jailhouse mates' with intimate and often amazingly accurate ways to use cunning during legal procedures

 

[Jungle Jim]

While reviewing some of the documentation is this case I am struck by a number of inconsistencies regarding the evening of November 1, 2007. Specifically concerning Patrick Lumumba’s text message to Amanda Knox.

Amanda’s Email Home - November 4, 2007
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39

after a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to his
house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the
evening and night indoors. we didnt go out.

AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009.
AUDIO #1
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0

CP=Carlo Pacelli=Lumumba defense lawyer
AK=Amanda Knox=accused undergoing examination

CP: Did you work at the pub "Le Chic" run by Mr. Patrick?
AK: Yes.
CP: Since when had you been working at the pub?
AK: Around the middle of October is when I started.
CP: What days of the week did you work? Every day or some days?
AK: In the beginning, I worked every day, and then we organized to work
twice a week.
CP: Which days? Do you remember?
AK: Tuesday and Thursday.

Snip/

CP: You, in your work, Miss, what did you do?
AK: I had to give out tickets during the day, and then when I...in the evening, I arrived at ten, and I would give drinks to the people that worked there...
er, the people that came there.

Snip/

CP: Listen, on the evening of November 1 2007 you were supposed to go to work
at the pub "Le Chic"?
AK: Yes.
CP: Did you go?
AK: No.
CP: Why didn't you go to the pub?
AK: Because Patrick sent me a message saying I didn't have to go to work.
CP: Do you remember this message precisely?
AK: I don't remember word for word.
CP: What time was it when you received this message?
AK: Around 8:15 or 8:30. CP: Where were you at that moment? AK: At the apartment of Raffaele.
Snip/

CP: How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message?
AK: I had a limited amount of space in my phone, and whenever I received a
message that I didn't need to remember something for, I deleted them.

Massei Report (English Translation) – Page 322
http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=1902

− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The young woman was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell. This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub

Darkness Descending – Page 117

During the questioning of Patrick Lumumba after his arrest, November 6, 2007.
GM=Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini
PL=Patrick Lumumba

GM: “Where were you on the night of the first of November, Mr. Lumumba?”
PL: “In the bar. I opened at nine as usual.”

I have several questions regarding the above referenced material:

1. Why does Amanda maintain she was at Raffaele’s apartment when her cell phone records indicate she was not?
2. The Massei Report implies Amanda may have been on her way to work when she received the text message from Patrick. Why would she be on her way to work at 8:18 pm when her shift doesn’t start until 10:00 pm?
3. Why would Patrick text Amanda at 8:18 pm to tell her not to come in for work if he didn’t even open the bar until 9:00 pm?

 

[RoseMontague]

Very interesting, Mary, that you can't remember Walter verini's name, when it was posted just above yours. One COULD think , from this, that you are not happy with what he had to report......It's as good a cite as others have posted..certainly as good as those so often used from the FOOD blogger. As you disagree with Signor Verini's interpretation, I shall cede the point, and agree that a different interpretation is " That Amanda found the trial fair, and that she was given every opportunity t speak openly in court, without having to be cross examined , as to her statements.

You may be aware that the Knox family disputes Verni's interpretation.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

 

[capealadin]

OF COURSE they do, Rose.

 

[capealadin]

Reading your link, posted by Bruce Fisher, who is a confirmed beleiver in the innocence of Amanda, He reports that the conversation was between Walter and Amanda. Walter is on TV, reporting the statements by Amanda, so that is factual. How does Bruce know Amanda didn't say that? Please cite where Amanda denied making those statements to Walter. Thanks..........

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, you are characteristically soooo smooth and sooooo subtle.

Yes, may I just ask that my previously admitted *opinion* (minority here) be allowed to stand the test of time, and allow the Courtroom itself to verify the veracity or voidness of same.

My again *opinion* about cunning referred only to Courtroom testimony days.
At which time Amanda had been fully professionally 'lawyered up', as well as having lots of exposure to what some opine are the most effective and knowledgeable case helpers; the 'Jailhouse mates' with intimate and often amazingly accurate ways to use cunning during legal procedures

I love your use of vocabulary and the selection of adjectives. Well done. I can admire the words without entirely agreeing with the content, in any case. My opinion is that she went against the advice of her lawyers on several occasions and displayed a real lack of "cunning" in both her dress and demeanor in court. If I were her parent I might have been tempted to slap her (ever so lightly) on the back of her head. Then again, her family came into some criticism for their actions and demeanor as well.

 

[Justinian2]

While reviewing some of the documentation is this case I am struck by a number of inconsistencies regarding the evening of November 1, 2007. Specifically concerning Patrick Lumumba’s text message to Amanda Knox.

I have several questions regarding the above referenced material:

1. Why does Amanda maintain she was at Raffaele’s apartment when her cell phone records indicate she was not?
2. The Massei Report implies Amanda may have been on her way to work when she received the text message from Patrick. Why would she be on her way to work at 8:18 pm when her shift doesn’t start until 10:00 pm?
3. Why would Patrick text Amanda at 8:18 pm to tell her not to come in for work if he didn’t even open the bar until 9:00 pm?

Just remember that we are working on the alibi, not the validity of the evidence. The prosecution needs to prove the evidence is valid and the alibi is invalid or insufficient. The defendant only needs to prove the evidence is invalid or irrelevant or that the alibi is valid.

1.) It shouldn't make any difference where Amanda was at the time of the text message as long as she was at RS's later when the witnesses and cell phone data placed her there. I think the alibi would be more secure if you get a fact that explains this, so go for it!

2.) ditto

3.) PL should have texted Amanda earlier. But that's just my opinion. Sorry. You are looking for facts. However, I just wonder why that fact is necessary in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RoseMontague]

Reading your link, posted by Bruce Fisher, who is a confirmed beleiver in the innocence of Amanda, He reports that the conversation was between Walter and Amanda. Walter is on TV, reporting the statements by Amanda, so that is factual. How does Bruce know Amanda didn't say that? Please cite where Amanda denied making those statements to Walter. Thanks..........

Was the conversation taped? Amanda's family's source would be Amanda as they have recounted the entire conversation in that link. If you will notice, I said Amanda's family disputes his version. The link I provided shows that. Since it refers to a press release, I suggest you look for it if yourself if you think Bruce is making it up.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Understood, and accepted as 'probably' unfair.

When and if the 'guilters' terminology becomes history, I will make every effort to similarly dispose of my 'FOAKers', and will sincerely try to limit it in the interim since it offends you.

Maybe because I lurked for so long, my 'dam' has just burst',
seriously, this point is also is understood and accepted.

Volume will dramatically decrease, balanced only by customary courtesy to reply as much as possible to direct questions.

PS: For my personal edification; how does one 'happily' use particular terminology

Thanks for your reply and er, explanation. Not sure if 'probably' unfair should actually be 'definitely' unfair!

I am not sure why you would need to wait until the 'Guilters' term becomes history for you to dispose of the 'Foakers' term. Having reviewed what I wrote, I believe that my point seems reasonable and relatively simple to comprehend. 'Foakers' is quite clearly a derogatory term based on an expletive. There is a film title, which also plays on the same word/expletive. 'Meet the Fockers' (De Niro et al). IMHO, the Colpevosti (I like that word too, I must admit) intentionally use the term 'Foakers' to 'get away' with swearing - I fail to see where the same conclusion can be drawn with the term 'Guilters', although you are free to enlighten me...

Finally, when I said that you seemed happy to use the term 'Foakers', I merely meant that you had no apparent issues with using that term, YET you complained at the use of the term 'Guilters'?

Let's just leave it as me finding that a tad strange.

 

[capealadin]

The link says Amanda' parents issued a statement SHORTLY after READING the report.It would seem they did not have time to check with Amanda herself. Bruce wasn't there, only Walter and Amanda. Walter has made the statement. Amanda has not denied it. Bruce wasn't there. The Knox's issued a statement re : reading the report. Did Walter recant? Did Amanda? If not, the statement should be accepted as correct. Edda mentioned on TV that Amanda didn't do drugs. Oops. Amanda says she did. Should we believe Edda, or Amanda?

 

[RoseMontague]

The link says Amanda' parents issued a statement SHORTLY after READING the report.It would seem they did not have time to check with Amanda herself. Bruce wasn't there, only Walter and Amanda. Walter has made the statement. Amanda has not denied it. Bruce wasn't there. The Knox's issued a statement re : reading the report. Did Walter recant? Did Amanda? If not, the statement should be accepted as correct. Edda mentioned on TV that Amanda didn't do drugs. Oops. Amanda says she did. Should we believe Edda, or Amanda?

I believe this was covered in Halkides post at VFW about the Machine's post at TJMK on the claims that Edda made. I can see it both ways. I don't believe the statement Walter made that Amanda was satisfied with the results of her trial. That is obviously a false statement. Should I treat the rest of his claims as truth?

 

[katy_did]

Katy.

Thanks for the quotes, I assume they are all from Raffaele's appeal.

Can you provide a link to the appeals texts, both Raffaele's and Amanda's, please? In English if possible but in Italian if that is all that's available.

More later.

Apologies, I should have linked to them originally. Raffaele's appeal is here and Amanda's is here (both in Italian). You can also download the appeals and a bunch of other documents (Rudy's appeal motivation, Mignini's motivation document for his trial, etc) at Rose's docstoc page (I think the google translate versions of the appeals are there as well).