Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

Once again, you are the one confused. Sollecito did call the police. You have been reading tabloid lies, not even guilters will argue that the police were not called

But not until over 40 minutes after Filomena had told them to call the police.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Meredith probably did lock her door when she was out during the day. Maybe not in the evenings. Why does it always have to be 'she did one thing at one time so she did it forever all the time?'

Filomena and Laura testified Meredith only ever locked her door on those occasions she returned to England.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Didn't I say if I hear mole or wacked anymore I would shove a pencil in my ear? Can we pick a new phrase at least?

Anyway, I remember her saying that she went to Filomena's bathroom to get her hairdryer, I think at first I thought she dried her hair in that bathroom (the turd bathroom), but I guess what actually happened is she went back to her own bathroom to dry her hair?

I still would have flushed it if I saw it, even if I didnt plan on staying in there long. However, Dan O. I think said she may not have seen it when she went in the first time. But doesn't she tell Raffaele she saw it when she was in the house showering? Anyway, I still stand by what I say, I still would have flushed it, but it's not AS suspicious if she indeed didnt dry her hair in there...

She did. She saw the mess in the toilet while she was drying her hair.

 

[Withnail1969]

Filomena and Laura testified Meredith only ever locked her door on those occasions she returned to England.

But they don't know that. They were out at work.

 

[piktor]

But not until over 40 minutes after Filomena had told them to call the police.

Knox took a shower, traipsed around on the bathmat, dried her hair in full presence of an unflushed toilet, walks back to Sollecito's, has breakfast, walks back to Pergola 7 with Sollecito in tow, open Filomena's door and see a broken window and a holy mess all around, "panic" and try to kick down Meredith's door, etc., etc, etc. before it dawns upon them to call Mum, Vanessa, Filomena, anyone but the police.

Yes, that is believable.

 

[RoseMontague]

Where did you get that time from? My, that's really odd since Amanda and Raffaele didn't even arrive at the police station until 10:15 and at 10:29 Amanda was on the phone to Filomena and at 11 PM Amanda was getting told off for doing cartwheels in the waiting room. yet amazingly, she's being interrogated at 10 pm.

Although, I do understand the desperate need to make the interrogation as long as possible in order to make it fit the waterboarding/thumb screws meme.

Amanda wasn't pressed for more detail. After signing the accusation at 1:45 she requested to be heard again.

The cite for the pressed for more detail has already been provided. I tried to give arrival and departure times (from the police station) to come up with a more conservative and realistic estimate of her total interrogation times with out including the total time at the police station as being interrogated. In that I used around 10PM instead of 10:15 as an arrival time. My estimate of 17 hours over 5 days is in stark contrast to some I have seen in the 50 hour range and I believe it is much closer to the reality of the situation. You are welcome to do some research and present your own findings.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The proof is that the Supreme Court threw out the second statement because Amanda had been denied her right to counsel. That counts as Amanda and her lawyers "contesting" the fact, too, since they are the ones who took it to the Supreme Court.

They didn't rule it inadmissible because she had been 'denied her rights', they ruled it inadmissible because because only suspect verbally made statements are only admissible as evidence against them if they are made in the presence of a lawyer.

Suspects do not have the 'legal right' to a lawyer and make a voluntary statement and waive their right to a lawyer. This is under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings:

Re the question of the defence lawyer
Mr Preston was questioned as a person with information about the facts (ie almost as a witness) then, evidence of a criminal offence having emerged, his questioning was suspended because he had to be assisted by a lawyer, and because there was the possibility of an offence, the law required the suspension of proceedings until a ruling was delivered on the proceedings relevant to the statements which had been made.
All I did was to apply the Italian law of proceedings. I really cannot understand. Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

 

[RoseMontague]

But not until over 40 minutes after Filomena had told them to call the police.

I have never seen a cite that Filomena told them to call the police. I would like to see one if you have it.

From the Massei report:

Around midday, at ten past twelve, when they had not yet arrived at the car park of the Fair, and she was in the car with her friend Paola Grande, she received a phone call: it was Amanda letting her know that there was something strange.

She had arrived and had found the door open: she had had a shower and it had seemed to her that there was some blood; moreover she said that she was going [17] to Raffaele’s place (declarations of Romanelli page 31, hearing of February 7, 2009). To her (Filomena’s) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.

From AK appeal:

In its reply the interrogation, the hearing on June 12, 2009, the Knox has stated:
“Filomena was concerned, she asked me if I called Meredith and
I said, has already called her and not me is responding, and I explained what
I saw her and said, "then when you are finished go home and assess what
is going on and call back “

 

[Withnail1969]

They didn't rule it inadmissible because she had been 'denied her rights', they ruled it inadmissible because because only suspect verbally made statements are only admissible as evidence against them if they are made in the presence of a lawyer.

Suspects do not have the 'legal right' to a lawyer and make a voluntary statement and waive their right to a lawyer. This is under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings:




http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

Run this by us again please Fulcanelli as i think you got a little garbled somewhere along the way.

 

[Fulcanelli]

According to Raffaele, Tiziano said this: "But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing ..."

Raffaele said this: "The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real explanation of the kitchen knife is this."




Can you provide documentation that Raffaele believed the knife was being held as evidence against him?

But that doesn't in any way resemble the story he actually made up to explain away the knife.

As for my cite? My cite is his own words in the lie he made up to explain away the knife. Why would he make up a lie to explain away a knife that he 'didn't' believe was evidence against him?

 

[RoseMontague]

An interpretor, not a cop.

The article I quoted earlier states that both are police interpreters. This is the same article I provided where one of them defines her role as that of a mediator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/kercher-knox-trial

If you have a cite that shows these interpreters were not employed by law enforcement, I would like to see it. It was my understanding that at least one of these interpreters was part of the group included in the calumnia charge against Amanda. I never got a list of those cops that were given awards/commendations for their actions in this case. Were they included in this? If someone has this list I would like to see that as well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We have discussed this before. I was going to address Truethat's three dozen or so posts that state that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't remember what happened the night before, but since you're doing it, too, I might as well just answer yours and hope Truethat reads it.

The only evidence we have of what the police asked Amanda about on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th of November is contained in her e-mail home:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/from-amanda-knox.html

There is no evidence in that e-mail that the police asked Amanda or Raffaele anything about themselves, or where they were or what they did on the night the murder took place. The police may have asked them about it, but we don't have any evidence of that, so we can't assume it.

If the police spent all their interview time on questions about Meredith, then it is not the least bit hard to believe that Amanda and Raffaele would have been focused on Meredith and on the day the body was discovered, rather than on what they did the night of the 1st. By the time they were interviewed about it on the 5th, it is very likely they would have forgotten many details, such as the time they ate, or what times they slept.




No, if I went out and bought and cooked fish, I would not remember it four days later. I haven't seen any evidence that they gutted a fresh fish. I suspect the "fish blood" remark belongs in the same category with the "pricked Meredith" remark -- made on the advice of lawyers, just in case.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the police when questioning witnesses in the course of a murder enquiry consisting of a victim the witnesses knew, were connected to and actually LIVED WITH are not going to ask them where they were and what they were doing the night of the murder. It's one of the most important questions to ask. Ask a policeman.

And as for your claim that if you had gone out and bought fresh fish, gutted it, cooked it and are it with your partner you wouldn't remember that four days later...I don't believe you. In any case, I think we can all be reasonably certain that at the young age of 23 Raffaele was not suffering from the early onset of alzheimers.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda's testimony seems to show that the only time she requested making a statement was for the memoriale she wrote the evening of the 6th -- after she had been arrested at midday on the 6th. The 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. statements were made before that. Can you provide a citation showing that Amanda asked to make a statement at 5:45 a.m.?

Amanda said so...it MUST be true

 

[Withnail1969]

And as for your claim that if you had gone out and bought fresh fish, gutted it, cooked it and are it with your partner you wouldn't remember that four days later...I don't believe you. In any case, I think we can all be reasonably certain that at the young age of 23 Raffaele was not suffering from the early onset of alzheimers.

In Italy buying fresh fish or meat from the market is quite normal, isn't it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Please see my answer to Fulcanelli, above, about this subject matter. We have no evidence of any memory problems until the police introduced alternate scenarios during the interrogations.

The only evidence we have of why the police were suspicious about Amanda and Raffaele are the comments of Giobbi about the hip swiveling, crying and pizza-eating. The police said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele's memories or alibis before they were brought in for questioning the night of the 5th.

You forgot to mention that they were seen doing the pizza-eating during Meredith's memorial they were supposed to be going to.

The police were suspicious because they had been found AT the crime scene by police on the morning of the murder, knew the victim and because of inconsistencies in their statements. This is why Raffaele was called in for questioning on the evening of the 5th...to 'clear up' said inconsistencies.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You missed out the part where it automatically turns pink after 30 seconds exposure to air.

That's why you take the photos before the 30 seconds.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In a shared house where there had already allegedly been some friction about bathroom hygiene, Amanda may have wanted to make a point.

But the friction had been with Meredith only. That was Laura's and Filomena's bathroom. Why would she want to make a point to Laura and Filomena?

In any case, Amanda herself has never stated she left it deliberately to make a point. Why are you inventing excuses for her she herself is not making?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda's bag is understood to be the means of knife transport in Massei. None of the things you mention would form an effective sheath for the knife as they are all vulnerable to holing themselves.

I'm guessing Amanda's bag wasn't tested for Meredith's DNA or blood at all. If Stefanoni can detect DNA on a thoroughly scrubbed knife at the molecular level, she would have found it on Amanda's bag.

But knives get taken out of bags. Massei never stated she returned the knife to the bag after the murder, so this is rather a straw man. Also, his speculation that she used the bag to transport the knife is just that...speculation. It's not meant to be carved in stone.

And that's your fault...all your 'guessing' and then asserting it as fact and certainty.

 

[Withnail1969]

That's why you take the photos before the 30 seconds.

Try reading about how the Kastle-Meyer test is actually done.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But they don't know that. They were out at work.

Filomena and Laura weren't at work the afternoon of the murder, were they?

What do you suppose, they work seven days a week fifty two weeks of the year? No weekends? No days off? No sick days? No holidays? No coming home for lunch? No having to be home to let the plumber in?