Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

The prosecution did prove that her alibi regarding her location when she received the text message from Patrick was invalid. This goes directly to her credibility. Keep in mind we only have four pieces of evidence for her whereabouts the night of the murder: (1) Jovana Popvic stops by RS's apartment at approximently 5:45 pm; (2) the text from Patrick at 8:18 pm (away from RS’s apt); (3) her return text to Patrick at 8:36 (at RS’s apt.); and (4) Jovana Popovic stopping by RS’s apartment at approximately 8:40 pm. The next bit of evidence for Amanda’s whereabouts is the following afternoon phone call to Meredith’s cell phone at 12:07 pm from RS’s apartment.

We know she wasn’t where she said she was when she received Patrick’s text. So what was she doing? It seems strange that she would be on her way to work two hours before her scheduled start time.

Patrick texted Amanda at 8:18 pm not to come into work because, according to Amanda, “there wasn't anyone at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.” According to Patrick he didn’t arrive at the pub until 9:00 pm. I don’t know how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but it is odd.

Amanda and her lawyer probably should work on this detail. I know I'm up and around and walking all day. Were I her, I wouldn't even want to admit I took a walk. The point is to increase your probability of being found innocent even if it includes avoiding a detail. She already talked far, far too much and it only got her in trouble. Where I her lawyer, I'd gag her. The best defense is to shut your mouth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What are the odds

I find it interesting that Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have argued most extensively that the stomach contents make a time of death of roughly 11:30 unlikely. Charlie Wilkes finds it difficult to believe that Meredith would idly play with her cell phone (as opposed to contacting her mother, perhaps). I find it remarkable that the cell phone would mysteriously call a different tower at 10:13 if it were still in Meredith’s bedroom (cell phone records providing locations have been used as evidence in a couple of cases with which I am familiar). In other words I think we all agree that these three data are problematic for the prosecution, but we might give a different relative emphasis on each one. But what are the odds of Meredith’s digestion being extraordinarily slow and Meredith playing with her cell phone and her cell phone calling a different tower than it had previously done for several earlier calls all together. It seems that all three have to be true for PM Mignini’s TOD to be correct.

I was searching about for way to understand Massei’s ideas about the stomach contents and the TOD (thanks, Rose, for pointing out the findings of the earlier judges). Then I remembered a quote from Churchill.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Why are you still stuck on the text message from patrick? I find it interesting. It may also be important as far as determining Amanda's credibility. She says she was at RS's apartment all night. Her cell phone records say otherwise.
How many minutes after the text message is Knox seen by a witness other than Sollecito, at Sollecito's place. Ms. Popovic saw Amanda approximately 22 minutes after Amanda recieved the text message from Patrick.
Knox couldn't have had anything to do with Meredith at the time of the message from Patrick because Meredith is with her friends. Quite true.

My comments in blue font.

 

[Jungle Jim]

The following is from Perugia Shock; if you believe him, it shows that the cell records can't be trusted for determining the exact location of a person when a call is received.

...."Patrick's lawyer is very precise, and he recalled on what the accusation to Amanda lies. She lied. She said that she received Patrick's SMS at Raffaele's place. And she instead the cell network says that she was by piazza Grimana. She's been caught lying.........Here we have to recall that this was exactly the proof against Patrick. He said that he was at the pub. But the cell network was placing him by piazza Grimana. the cell network is a machine and, like all machines,is stupid. At the end the understood that the machine was wrong and Patrick was telling the truth.........But they alread forgot. Here we are again. The same machine, the same mistake. The same people who made the mistake of believing that machine are doing it again. The ones who managed to save themselves from that mistake are trying to convict someone else with exactly the same wrong information."

I don't think what you quoted shows anything regarding the location of Amanda's cell phone when she received the SMS from Patrick. Here again is the relevant part of the Massei report:

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.

Make of it what you will.

 

[el buscador]

I don't think what you quoted shows anything regarding the location of Amanda's cell phone when she received the SMS from Patrick. Here again is the relevant part of the Massei report:



Make of it what you will.

There's a big difference between "receiving" a text and actually reading a test. Make of it what you will.

 

[act1roson]

I don't think what you quoted shows anything regarding the location of Amanda's cell phone when she received the SMS from Patrick. Here again is the relevant part of the Massei report:



Make of it what you will.

What I quoted was information, verified by Patrick's own attorneys, that cell phone reception towers are not accurate as to where a cell phone specifically is located when in use.

You stated Amanda Knox was lying over this issue; I am stating, based on this information I am supplying from Perugia Shock, that Amanda Knox lying is probably not the case. It's a small issue, but it's this type of fact that gets blown up over and over to something it is not.

You wrote "the prosecution did prove that her alibi regarding her location when she received the text message from Patrick was invalid." That obviously is not now the case in light of what Frank Sfarzo wrote in Perugia Shock.

I find it interesting that you call her assertion that she was at Raffaele's when the call was received an "alibi" when this particular phone call has nothing to do with the crime, except, to you? It appears you're analyzing every move of Amanda Knox with great bias.

 

[Jungle Jim]

There's a big difference between "receiving" a text and actually reading a test. Make of it what you will.

Agreed. i thought that had been clarified. She received the text at 8:18 somewhere in the center of town. She read the text...somewhere, we don't know where.

 

[Katody Matrass]

We know she wasn’t where she said she was when she received Patrick’s text. So what was she doing? It seems strange that she would be on her way to work two hours before her scheduled start time.

I agree that Massei's explanation is poor. We can consider 2 scenarios:
Either she was at home and her phone connected to an unusual cell or she was outside, but not for work.

Patrick texted Amanda at 8:18 pm not to come into work because, according to Amanda, “there wasn't anyone at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.” According to Patrick he didn’t arrive at the pub until 9:00 pm. I don’t know how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but it is odd.

That's interesting. You think Patrick was involved somehow? I wonder what was his explanation of the SMS. Where was he when he sent it, and what was in the message according to him?

 

[LondonJohn]

London John: "I'm suggesting that they are not setting up advocacy groups, or paying for bloggers, or lobbying politicians, or planting media stories."

O.K. If you want to believe this, go ahead!

So can we take it that you believe that Gogerty Marriott is carrying out some or all of these activities on behalf of Knox and her family?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I find it interesting that Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have argued most extensively that the stomach contents make a time of death of roughly 11:30 unlikely. Charlie Wilkes finds it difficult to believe that Meredith would idly play with her cell phone (as opposed to contacting her mother, perhaps). I find it remarkable that the cell phone would mysteriously call a different tower at 10:13 if it were still in Meredith’s bedroom (cell phone records providing locations have been used as evidence in a couple of cases with which I am familiar). In other words I think we all agree that these three data are problematic for the prosecution, but we might give a different relative emphasis on each one. But what are the odds of Meredith’s digestion being extraordinarily slow and Meredith playing with her cell phone and her cell phone calling a different tower than it had previously done for several earlier calls all together. It seems that all three have to be true for PM Mignini’s TOD to be correct.

Excellent post!
But somehow I got a feeling none of the colpevolisti will try to tackle this problem.

 

[el buscador]

Agreed. i thought that had been clarified. She received the text at 8:18 somewhere in the center of town. She read the text...somewhere, we don't know where.

You might not want to believe Amanda and Raffaele when both say Amanda was at Raffaele's when she sent her the text message but I have no problem with it so I'm not included in your "we". I don't care if Amanda was in or out when the text was received, either. As has been pointed out, it wasn't near the time of the murder so it makes little to no difference.

 

[pilot padron]

So can we take it that you believe that Gogerty Marriott is carrying out some or all of these activities on behalf of Knox and her family?

* Very general* description of activities and history of contract.
Sounds like a fairly logical belief to me too based on Marriott's sketchy details

http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/

Hope the above is sufficient citation from a 'newbee' who sincerely desires to meet the high standards of this distinguished community's "evidence oriented/based" objectives.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi there Machiavelli,
With regards to your posting, I believe that you are wrong.

But.... I am wrong on what?

Amanda was not at Raffaele's wehn she got the message and answeres, that is for sure. There is nothing to guess. I can't be wrong on this, and this is the only observation.

What she was doing and where she was exactly, I don't know. Whoever has precise references and information to infer something more, can indicate here their sources.

P.S. Please, don't cite Candace Dempsey

 

[Jungle Jim]

Didn't Sollecito himself recall that he and Knox had gone shopping for ingredients for their dinner between around 8.00-8.30pm? Would that not tally with Lumumba's incoming text message, which Knox might not have actually noticed and read until she was back in Sollecito's apartment at around 8.40pm?

It might. Let’s take a look at what Raffaele’s dairy which mentions that.

Raffaele Sollecito’s diary.
November 7, 2007
An amusing thing I remember is that Meredith was wearing a pair of men’s jeans which belonged to her ex‐boyfriend in England. She left quickly around 4 pm, not saying where she was going. Meanwhile, Amanda and I stayed there until around 6 pm and we began to smoke cannabis.

My problems start from this moment because I have confused memories. Firstly, Amanda and I went to the centre going from Piazza Grimana to Corso Vannucci passing behind the University for Foreigners and ending up in Piazza Morlacchi (we always take that road). Then I do not remember but presumably we went shopping for groceries. We returned to my house at around 8 ‐ 8:30 pm and there I made another joint and, since it was a holiday, I took everything with extreme tranquillity, without the slightest intention of going out since it was cold outside. I donʹt remember what time I ate, but I certainly ate and Amanda ate with me.

So far so good, but maybe we should check the timeline for events that can be verified.

5:45 – Jovana Popovic stops by RS apartment to ask for a ride to the bus station.
6:27 – The film Amelie was launced to play on RS’s computer.
8:35 – Expected end of Amelie movie if played without interruption.
8:42 – RS receives phone call from father and tells him about leak under sink.

Well, RS is clearly wrong about both the time he and Amanda left the cottage and the time they returned to his house. It is possible that Raffaele has no real memory of the whole day and evening of November 1, 2007. It is also possible that sometime during the viewing of the film they decided to stop the film and shop for dinner. (note to self, or any one else interested, is it possible to document on a computer when a film was stopped ?). The shopping, preparation, cooking, doing the dishes and subsequent pipe leak would all have to be accomplished by 8:42 pm.

 

[Machiavelli]

Didn't Sollecito himself recall that he and Knox had gone shopping for ingredients for their dinner between around 8.00-8.30pm? Would that not tally with Lumumba's incoming text message, which Knox might not have actually noticed and read until she was back in Sollecito's apartment at around 8.40pm?

Actually I don't think Amanda sent her message to Patrick at 8:40.
But the source for the above mentioned statement should be indicated, because I don't recall such an indication was by Raffaele Sollecito. Maybe this is written in his diary, but I don't recall it now, I have to check. Above all, there is a problem with Raffaele Sollecito's "statements": we only have only his, not his police statements. He didn't give such an indication on "buying ingredients" to the judge or to the prosecutor, so I don't know exatcly what source you are considering.

 

[RWVBWL]

RW. Daily news is reporting. Ghirga did not recant. Patrick did. See the difference?

Greetings from rainy Los Angeles, capealadin.
Thanks for the reply. Of course I can see the difference, and I am quite aware of Mr. Lumumba recanting that particular article, as you so wrote.

However, let's talk about this for a moment, if you have the time.
Just a moment ago, I read an interesting forum posting on the oldest website devoted to the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher and so with the spirit of our discussion in mind,
I am cross-posting the answers to a few question that a gal named Elizabeth had queried Frank Sfarzo from Perugia Shock with.

I do feel these are relevant to our discussion, for unlike myself, and probably you too,
Frank Sfarzo is there in Perugia, and he seems to come into contact with PM Mignini and and other members of the prosecution team more often than you or I do, wouldn't you agree?

This from the forum at Perugia Shock:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=7205746633452708484
(Mr. Sfarzo's answers are highlighted by me.)

Is it common for defendants to be sued for slander in Italy?

-Yes.

Is fear of slander charges the reason that Lumumba denied what he was quoted as saying about the police beating him up?

-What do you think?

Are you being ironic when you say that the 4 policemen testifying are highly recommended to do so?

-Of course...

Can you give any insight into why (the police or Mignini) are pursuing this slander charge, and how they are going to prove it without a tape?

-Mignini said 'for defending police reputation'. If you want my opinion, it would be too long.
They don't need to prove their version. Amanda would need the tapes to prove her version. But they say there were no tapes.

Will anyone believe the police without a tape?

-Between police and defendant the judge believes the police...

Do Italians believe Amanda lied?

-I don't think so.

With this in mind, what do you think, capealladin?
Did Mr. Lumumba really mean it when he said that the cops hit him, or is he just covering his rear, so to speak, denying this so that he has no further problems in the future with the police,such as Amanda Knox now has? Or did it never even happen?

Right after the murder, I believe the community pressure to solve this brutal murder quickly must have been immense and the probable overzealous quest to find that person who left a "black hair that was consistant with someone of African descent" that was found at the murder scene, (that Barbie Nadeau writes of in "Angel Face" on page 105) probably caused the cops to focus attention on Amanda Knox's boss in the first place.

Heck, the guy has already lost his dream business Le Chic, so I bet he can't stand dealing with the police...
I bet Mr. Lumumba now "remembers" that contrary to this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

there were not any police officers that hit him over the head and yelled 'dirty black' when they first arrested him at 6:30 am
nor that when he was questioned by five men and women for 10 hours, some officers did not punch and kick him, as is written in that Daily News article.

Instead Mr. Lumumba was probably brought chamomile tea and pastries after being arrested too.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

Right after the murder, I believe the community pressure to solve this brutal murder quickly must have been immense and the probable overzealous quest to find that person who left a "black hair that was consistant with someone of African descent" that was found at the murder scene, (that Barbie Nadeau writes of in "Angel Face" on page 105) probably caused the cops to focus attention on Amanda Knox's boss in the first place.

Did Barbie Nadeau footnote that reference on page 105 of her book and, if so, can you supply where the reference was from?

 

[katy_did]

Wasn't that particular cell phone tower also accessible from the front door of Raffaele's flat (albeit not the strongest signal there)? I can't recall where I read that so need to check it...

One way or another, I see no way to state with certainty that Amanda was outside Raffaele's flat when the message was received, unless we also conclude with certainty that Patrick lied about being in the vicinity of the cottage that evening. Perhaps this is why (again IIRC) Massei doesn't really use the receipt of the text message as evidence against Amanda or see it as anything negative, but just speculates that maybe she was on the way to work. He doesn't use it as evidence of an inconsistency in her story, as far as I remember.

Given that there's always some uncertainty about the particular cell phone tower a phone connects with, it doesn't seem at all possible to me that we can state where Amanda was at the time with absolute certainty - Patrick's experience is proof enough of that. And after all, Amanda's reply, sent around 15 minutes later, is consistent with her being in the flat, as she says she was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dempsey as a source

But.... I am wrong on what?

Amanda was not at Raffaele's wehn she got the message and answeres, that is for sure. There is nothing to guess. I can't be wrong on this, and this is the only observation.

What she was doing and where she was exactly, I don't know. Whoever has precise references and information to infer something more, can indicate here their sources.

P.S. Please, don't cite Candace Dempsey

Machiavelli,

Why should we not cite Candace Dempsey? She used the court transcripts. She was the only American reporter to cover the Supreme Court hearing, IIRC. I was told at another board that I would learn that she is not a reliable source, but every time I have looked into a fact, it has checked out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

* Very general* description of activities and history of contract.
Sounds like a fairly logical belief to me too based on Marriott's sketchy details

http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/

Hope the above is sufficient citation from a 'newbee' who sincerely desires to meet the high standards of this distinguished community's "evidence oriented/based" objectives.

Pilot Padron,

Among the activities that LondonJohn and Colonelhall discussed concerning the actions of a PR firm, one will find paying for bloggers. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Charlie and Bruce have explicitly disavowed being paid for their blogging. You may add me to this group. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, let's hear it now, or let's agree that this mole is not worth the bother of laughing at, let along whacking.