Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Meredith's credit card useage...

Hi all,
Forgive me if this has been answered before.
I am wondering if any of you know more about the testimony of a banker named Paolo Fazi?

From what little that I have read, he testified in the 1st trial about an ATM withdrawl made from Meredith Kercher's bank account on Nov. 2, '07 after she was brutally murdered.

This is all I have read:
It’s likely Guede forced Meredith’s ATM pin number from her prior to killing her and was trying to call her bank to transfer funds so he could withdraw more of her money from an ATM.
The director of a local bank, Paolo Fazi, testified that 20 euros ($28) had been withdrawn from Meredith Kercher's account Nov. 2 -- the day her body was found. But he also said that the bank accounting date does not necessarily reflect the actual date of the ATM withdrawal, and that only Kercher's British bank would have that date. Someone from the British bank is expected to testify in upcoming hearings. Fazi also said that the person making the withdrawal had used Kercher's pin code to get into her account.
<snip>

Link here:
http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=394

Does anyone know if this information is correct?
Did someone use Meredith Kercher's credit card after she was murdered or was it simply a late-posting ATM transaction or even a banking error?

Thank you,
RWVBWL

 

[truethat]

I find it odd that anyone would argue that Guede didn't get leniency. I could be wrong but isn't it the prosecution that asks for the terms of sentencing? Surely someone suggested that if he "cooperated" he'd be treated better.

What sense does it make to have two young people with no criminal record suddenly went off the rails and savagely attacked their room mate. The only evidence that puts them at the scene is Guede's testimony? He states he heard the woman scream while he was on the toilet and did what? You hear a horrible scream and get back to the IPOD?

What motive would these two students have to do this? And if they did do it why would they call the cops to the scene and report it?

Meanwhile the other guy ran away? Shady.

 

[Malkmus]

Apparently you missed the posts which alleged that the glass distribution proved the rock must have come from outside the building. I cannot account for your inattention.

Interesting. So I ask where this proof is that the rock couldn't have come from outside and I just get another snarky post from you backwardly assuming that I should look at the posts alleging the opposite.

Obviously I've seen them. To counter them I've seen a lot of "it could have come from the inside or outside, but since they're obviously guilty, that means they staged the break-in". Or "The reason it looks like the rock was thrown from the outside is because AK and RS staged it to look that way". And lastly, "The rock was probably too heavy to throw."

So, again, how does Filomena's room scream "staged break-in"?

 

[platonov]

Oh, goody.

Let's do this one again. It's been ages since the last time.

Ages, not really

The cartwheel [of confusion & talking points] seems to be spinning faster these days.

 

[quadraginta]

Interesting. So I ask where this proof is that the rock couldn't have come from outside and I just get another snarky post from you backwardly assuming that I should look at the posts alleging the opposite.

Obviously I've seen them. To counter them I've seen a lot of "it could have come from the inside or outside, but since they're obviously guilty, that means they staged the break-in". Or "The reason it looks like the rock was thrown from the outside is because AK and RS staged it to look that way". And lastly, "The rock was probably too heavy to throw."

<snip>

I think I see the problem here. I seem to have been too inattentive to have seen these posts.

Odd, since you say there were "a lot" of them.

I have seen posts which state that the glass distribution does not prove what some Knox advocates claim that it does. This is not the same thing as saying that it proves they are guilty. Perhaps this is where you are misinterpreting things.

If you have "obviously" seen posts claiming that the glass distribution proved the rock was thrown from the outside, why did you say that you hadn't seen any?

You appear to be confused.

Or you are intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue.

 

[platonov]

The statements were "voluntary", but I don't think that's the same thing as saying she "requested to make an additional statement" (or "demanded" to make one, thus causing poor Mignini to be dragged from his warm bed, a version I've heard on occasion). I believe the statements being "voluntary" is a legal issue: the police and the prosecutor knew they weren't allowed to question Amanda further without her obtaining a lawyer, which would have been inconvenient from their perspective; so they tried to get around it by asking her to make further declarations but informing her that, legally, these would be "voluntary" statements.

In her testimony, Amanda states that she was asked to make further statements:

Quote:
LG: All right, I've finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

And after all, it makes far more sense that the police would ask Amanda to make further statements than it does that Amanda herself would demand to go back into what is unlikely to have been a pleasant tea-and-biscuits interrogation: they had a statement from her as a witness, but not as a suspect, and the witness statement couldn't be used against her; Mignini hadn't been present at the first interrogation, and was no doubt keen to question Amanda first-hand; and why wouldn't they want to question her again, bearing in mind that the first statement has little detail beyond "I remember in a confused way that he killed her"?

That someone in Amanda's position would demand to be heard again makes far less sense than that the police wanted to question her again, knew they couldn't legally do so without a lawyer, and so looked for a way to get around it.

We are back to the night of the 5th / 6th yet again.

OK, Leaving aside all your unsupported, and at this stage probably irrelevant, supposition -

Did AK in her testimony actually even claim that the later 5.45 'spontaneous declarations - SD' was at the behest of the PM.

It doesn't appear so - Indeed she could hardly ? make that claim directly as Mignini was in court and about to cross examine her. The section you quoted is yet another 'garble' where AK tries, as she did later unsuccessfully, to confuse the 1.45 & 5.45 issues.

Given that she later on the 6th wrote her unsolicited [by her own words] gift & a later unsolicited memorial from prison - It would appear to indicate that the 5.45 SD arose because she couldn't 'shut up' *

Is curious that RS, for example or PL weren't induced to make statements after being made suspects.

In any case the prosecution didn't even bother with this in their cross-examination, preferring [on this issue] to concentrate on why, in her later gift & memorial she didn't withdraw her accusation of PL etc ; The answer from AK was, in a word - Confusion !

*Actually, not quite true - when she appeared before the Judge on the 8th and had a chance to withdraw her accusation of PL she was unusually reticent !

.

 

[quadraginta]

Ages, not really

The cartwheel [of confusion & talking points] seems to be spinning faster these days.

"Time's fun when you're having flies."

...

...

...

Oh.

Wait.

That doesn't sound quite right.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I would sum up four or five objections.

1. The first: my statement this is possible, was made without taking in account the distance between the grid and the window. In fact looking back at the wall I see them as too distant. A person 1,80 high cannot stand on the grid and reach the window latch.

Hi, Machiavelli. The distance from the topmost bar to the sill is around 150 cm. It can be assessed quite precisely e.g. from this photo knowing the height of the window (Which is at most 140 cm), counting the brick layers further confirms that assesment. The climbing lawyer photos further confirm it.
So we have 150 cm, that allows Rudy to support comfortably on left elbow while raising his right arm. But let's play it safe and make it e.g. 160 cm. He still can raise on his toes a bit and rest his elbow on the sill. Human body is flexible, he can raise one leg, resting on the elbow and the other leg, gaining another few centimeters. So there is a lot of margin here, even if we are extremely pessimistic in our estimates. But just look at the lawyer photo. He is already at sill level despite having another step up to go.
I thing your statement that it is possible holds, and your concerns are unnecessary.

2. You cannot talk about a dry day. You are talking about November in Perugia. And night time. You would find nothing dry on soil. Humidity was 70% in average during Nov 1. and 90% during Nov 2. Even less dry in that pit.

70% Humidity outdoors is nothing special, after all the temperature was above 0. And what was the precipitation during the preceding days or weeks? Not much, isn't it? Again we don't know if there was any exposed soil. The slope looks rather overgrown and covered with fallen leaves. I think it was more rocky then soil, too. After all it was a man-made slope supporting the driveway. Anyway we're talking unknowns here, as no good close-up photos are available.

3. Police witnesses testified not only about the lack of prints and soil inside, but also about the grass and soil being completely moist.

Yes, but 1. it was the day after. 2. Can we treat them as 100% impartial witnesses? I have my concerns, especially that no photos were made of that part of the crime scene.

4. The locution "only some testimonies" is a kind of self deceit. A trial would rest, legally, ultimetely on testimonies. Documents different from testimonies afe hold in hight esteem by internet bloggers, but in reality they don't exist without testimonies. A "visible" document - like a photo or video - can be fabricated, can be a fake. Any document would require the confirmation of a testimony. You cn't bring a video in the trial, for example, without a witness testifying at what time and date the video was recorded, who was there, and so on. Everything rests on testimonies. Experts reports and documents do not exist by themselves without a witness questioned about them. You simply cannot have "solid records" independent from testimony, you can never have this material as a topic of discussion alone in an Italian trial.
The police docmented there were no shoeprints. Whatever you "prefer" to see, you cannot just decide to dismiss witness reports and investigators reports as if they didn't exist.

Yes I agree, but what is sorely missing here is the documentation. Not supported testimony alone is prone to various pressures, mistakes, misremembering etc. When the witnesses have vested interest they can withhold some info and present only partial truth etc. Lack of shoeprints gain different meaning when we know e.g. that the area was generally not susceptible to them, or that the search was not very thorough.

5. Photo documentation showing no trace of soil inside the house is available.

Yes but what about photo documentation of the search outside?

Youd detect crmbles that I easily identify with white paint (not with whitewash), then you identify rock powder (which could be from the stone, but doesn't change anything logically).

Yes you can identify it, by why ILE didn't? I identify it as whitewash from the wall climbing, so it does change much logically. Simple analysis could have settled it, yet it hasn't been done.

But there is no soil. There is no trace of grass. Photo documentation also shows the soil was not covered with rich vegetation: there was a surface of black, soft earth (this can been assessed in a picture taken that day from beneath) together with a kind vegetation (stellaria, amaranthus, etc.) that would show the marks of steps.

Can you link to such a detailed photo(s) or post them? The ones I know paint a different picture. No soil or grass below the window. Slope overgrown with herbs and covered with dry leaves.

There is no trace of removal of broken glass from the window sill, and this is an issue, you think of a person who has crawl or pull himself across the window sill.

I think the proper technique is to raise yourself on your hands and place one foot on the ledge, then step in, not crawl. There is plenty of clear space on the sill to do it, and after Rudy opened the window, he had the wooden frame as a perfect handhold. Grab it, jump up from your firm foothold, place your left foot on the sill (no glass there), hop in, done.

 

[platonov]

"Time's fun when you're having flies."

...

...

...

Oh.

Wait.

That doesn't sound quite right.

Reptile - I knew it, Even when I thought it was the bears I knew it.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

Even regular low copy number (LCN) profiling has scientific questions that are unresolved, and it remains a controversial technique. Dr. Stefanoni’s pseudo-LCN was inferior to regular LCN in a number of ways. The most obvious of these is the fact that the test cannot be repeated, unlike regular LCN profiling which should be done at least twice. I would suggest you make a greater effort than you have shown so far to understand these issues before posting on LCN again; these questions have all been asked and answered before.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html

Calling Chris Mellas names is one piece of evidence that demonstrates how weak your position is. I note that you have not attempted to refute anything that Dr. Waterbury said, just make another personal attack. My qualifications include the fact that I have used the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and restriction endonucleases in my own work, and these are two of the key components of DNA profiling. The bottom line is that you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to LCN DNA profiling.

Where did I claim expertise in LCN DNA profiling?!

Are you, an (associate) chemistry prof, claiming expertise in LCN DNA profiling of crime scene evidence?

 

[RWVBWL]

Naïveté

Ha! Who needs food when you have Condoms and a beautiful woman. Cigarettes might help.

Youth, a beautiful woman, condoms, a bed, pizza, and cigarettes. That's paradise! What better motivation to stay home is there?

You nailed it Justinian2,
What should he do, hang around outside, as Antonio Curatolo says he did, or stay inside, with Foxy Knoxy on a cold night!
Geeky, computer-nerd + Harry Potter look-alike Raffaele Sollecito must've been in his own paradise!

Too bad a young, naive Amanda went home to shower that next day, for if not, well I wonder where she would be today???

Reading this article that I linked the other day,
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-11-25/news/the-chiller-killer/
reminds me how lucky it was for his own future that a young actor named Ashton Kucher was also naive:

Her naïveté about the danger lurking so near tragically put Ellerin in harm's way. But the same youthful naïveté ended up protecting Kutcher, who was a biochemical-engineering student before he moved to Hollywood. His innocent outlook saved him from finding his date dead on the evening of Feb. 21, 2001. As Kutcher peered through her bungalow window, wondering why she didn't answer to his repeated knocking, the That '70s Show heartthrob mistook a trail of blood he could clearly see on her floor for spilled red wine. It was Grammy night. Mayhem never crossed the young man's mind.

Kutcher, interviewed by detectives the day after Ellerin's slaying, said he called her twice that night but she didn't answer. He blamed bad reception and drove over at 10:45 p.m. Ellerin's lights were on and her maroon BMW was in the drive. He knocked several times, and when she didn't answer he peered through a front window.
Kutcher saw what he assumed to be red wine stains leading toward the bedroom. "He figured she was upset" because he was late, and "she brushed him off. So he left," testified LAPD Detective Thomas Shevolek.

It was a fortuitous error by the young actor, although he might not say so were he to comment on the terrible end that befell his beautiful date that night.
Had Kutcher discovered her gruesomely slashed body — sprawled in a hallway near the bathroom just out of his view
— there is no way to know what would have become of the buoyant young man's life and career in the years to follow.

But Kutcher sensed nothing amiss. He got in his car and drove away.

Ellerin's body was found by a roommate the next morning. She had been stabbed 35 times.

I see Amanda Knox's behavior on Nov. 2, '07 as similiar to Ashton Kucher's own reactions in this story I have shared with you.

Think about it for a moment.
If Amanda Knox did not have anything to do with the death of Meredith Kercher,
how could she have guessed that her housemate and friend was brutally stabbed to her death and was laying in a pool of her own blood in her bedroom
as Amanda took a shower that cold morning after spending a cold November night with her new boyfriend?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[TomCH]

Then what's the point here? If it's indistinguishable that the rock could have been thrown from the inside or outside then it is meaningless as proof of evidence against AK and RS. The only argument that matters is proving that the rock could not possibly have been thrown by someone from the outside and created the damage found inside the room.

So, do you claim that Rudy (or any person who is not an olympic shotputter) is man enough to toss a 10 pound rock accurately through a window at such a distance?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

My source is anonymous for now.

Another unnamed source?!

That's twice!!!

Why do you consider this an acceptable means of establishing an argument, Halides?!

You may as well say, "The Apollo landings were faked and as proof I am offering you this: I have an anonymous source. QED."

 

[platonov]

I find it odd that anyone would argue that Guede didn't get leniency. I could be wrong but isn't it the prosecution that asks for the terms of sentencing? Surely someone suggested that if he "cooperated" he'd be treated better.

What sense does it make to have two young people with no criminal record suddenly went off the rails and savagely attacked their room mate. The only evidence that puts them at the scene is Guede's testimony? He states he heard the woman scream while he was on the toilet and did what? You hear a horrible scream and get back to the IPOD?

What motive would these two students have to do this? And if they did do it why would they call the cops to the scene and report it?

Meanwhile the other guy ran away? Shady.

Hard to know how to respond to this argument - are we talking about the same case

On the sentences if you care to look further into this [or back at the relevant posts] you will find RG got the longest penalty - 30 yrs originally.

 

[shuttlt]

Are you saying it's like a time tunnel because you know that it has been pointed out time and time again that what was strange about the lack of recording was that Mignini is quoted as saying that he recorded every other interrogation, including the witnesses and roommates? And that his reasoning for why Amanda's wasn't recorded is bogus and reeks of nonsense?

Nothing so specific. The discussion as a whole.

 

[TomCH]

I could be wrong but he got 16 years and they got 26 years. All for the same crime? He's the one with the absolute connection to the scene? Why pray tell do you think his sentence is so much lower?

I'm a novice to all this so go easy. I just think it seems like common sense that he got a plea deal?

Yes, you are wrong.

First time around, he got life, but since he did a fast-track trial, he got 1/3 off. Life-1/3 = 30 years (by definition).

Second time around, he got it reduced to 24 years (same as Rafaele). 24 - 1/3 = 16 years. (as it was still fast-track)

Basic math.

 

[Kestrel]

Does anyone know if this information is correct?
Did someone use Meredith Kercher's credit card after she was murdered or was it simply a late-posting ATM transaction or even a banking error?

Thank you,
RWVBWL

Meredith got 200 euros from an ATM a day or two before she died. It just didn't get posted to her bank account until the next day.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, you are wrong.

First time around, he got life, but since he did a fast-track trial, he got 1/3 off. Life-1/3 = 30 years (by definition).

Second time around, he got it reduced to 24 years (same as Rafaele). 24 - 1/3 = 16 years. (as it was still fast-track)

Basic math.

Absolutely. All the long time posters/bloggers/commentators know this. Anybody who says different either needs to broaden their sources of information, or is deliberately misleading people.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the prosecution's appeal

Absolutely. All the long time posters/bloggers/commentators know this. Anybody who says different either needs to broaden their sources of information, or is deliberately misleading people.

Shuttlt,

The prosecution could have appealed Rudy's reduction but did not. They are appealing Amanda's and Raffaele's reductions. I have a problem with this.

 

[truethat]

Who asked for the sentence? or do you just get a set number of years no matter what?