Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Jungle Jim]

Thanks Jungle Jim for including that photograph.

I have a question for you:
I have read of Rudy Guede saying that there was a white car in the driveway when he 1st arrived around 8:30pm that night, he recognised some drug dealer near it.
I have also heard that a black car was seen there in the driveway too later on that night.

Do you know the whereabouts of the either car's location that night?
Thanks, RWVBWL

No, I know nothing about either car. Maybe the parking garage across the street was was full.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think there was any extra visibility compared to the balcony.
Considering the neighboring houses, the line of sight to the cottage is generally blocked by the edge of the concrete multi-level parking lot structure. Apart from the top level windows of the few taller buildings there is no line of sight to Filomena's window or the driveway. But the balcony has even better line of sight with the upper stories of the neighbors, too.

What about the direction of the driveway and the corner of the streets?
There's a large tree that significantly blocks view to Filomena's window and covers most of the driveway. Let's look through Filomena's window:
http://injusticeinperugia.org/dsc_0059.jpg We see a tree.

http://injusticeinperugia.org/105.JPG No neighoburs or road, only a tree.

http://injusticeinperugia.org/150.JPG Again, a tree.

What about the illumination? Is Filomena's window illuminated? Let's look at this cool long exposure photo:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21914http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d068b083378a.jpg

Not exactly. Yes, the wall facing the road gets a lot of light from the nearby streetlight - the porch is a bit darker yet we can see some sharp highlights and shadows there, too. But the side wall with Filomena's window don't get any direct light - only blue gloomy ambient light of the misty evening. It's not illuminated any better then the balcony.

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.



Note that this is hundreds of feet from the balcony. It is a momentary view, quickly obscured both before and after by intervening trees, and then intervening building. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that a brief glimpse of someone standing on a balcony is not exactly the sort of thing which causes instant suspicion in most people's minds. After all, that is what balconies are for.

At night? There would be virtually no chance that anyone on the balcony would be noticed at all, and it would be unremarkable even if they were.

Here is a different street view of Filomena's window than the one you picked out.



Note that it is only a little way down the road from the perspective you chose.

Why worry about ambient light (leaving aside the question of whether or not it was misty on the night of the murder)? What about headlights, which, unlike the approach from the opposite direction would be pointed very nearly at the side of the house instead of away from it? Pointed at what would be someone trying to scale the side of a building. From a fraction of the distance.

Can you honestly look at those two images and say that you believe that breaking in from the balcony would be just as conspicuous as the window?

 

[babycondor]

Hi Katody Matrass, El Buscador, LondonJohn, Chris C, and anyone else!
As I have an hour left before I hit the road, I am really wondering if anyone had reported to the local police that they heard a scream the night Meredith Kercher was murder,
before the fatefull night that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were interrogated.

You know, something along the lines of this: Everyone in the neighborhood hears of the murder, people gather and watch the investigation scene unfold, talking amongst themselves. Someones says "I heard the scream". Someone else says "So did I!" and then someone tells the cops this...
One reason that I ask is that awhile back,
I had wondered if Alessandra Formica had went to the police to tell them she and her guy friend had bumped into a black male leaving the area that same night Meredith Kercher was murdered.
Had she done this before that night that RS and AK were interrogated or afterwards?

No one could help answer my question, so I asked someone who really, really knows ALOT about this case.
No, not Michael at PMF or Newsweek writer Barbie Nadeau, but Perugia local Frank Sfarzo, who is, according to some, just a nobody as far as this case is concerned.
Mr. Sfarzo was kind enough to write me back and said she came forth after Raffaele and Amanda were interrogated that night.
And that helped me to form an opinion whether the cops were already looking for a black male the night Raffaele and Amanda were questioned.

So, does anyone know if someone had informed the police that they had heard a scream the night Meredith Kercher was killed
but before Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were interrogated the night/morning of Nov. 5/6, 2007?

If so, I can see why Mignini was asking Amanda Knox "But how could you not have heard the scream?"

However if there were no reports of anyone reporting that they heard a scream that night Meredith Kercher was murdered,
then isn't Mignini making it up?
Hmmm, I wonder?
RWVBWL

PS-Check out
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
+
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/

As far as I can determine, the prosecution presented only one witness at the trial who claimed to have heard a scream. Nara Capezzali, who lived in an apartment building nearby, said she heard a chilling scream the night Meredith was murdered. She was unable to testify what time she heard it.

It seems odd that only one person could be found who heard this scream, given all the apartments overlooking the cottage.

 

[quadraginta]

Indeed so far we considered Rudy's actions assuming he was indeed a skilled and seasoned burglar, perfectly rational and professional in picking his targets.

But looking on the entirety of his career it cannot be missed that it consists of a series of blunders:
He got caught multiple times. He didn't manage to sell the stolen items, he got caught with them. Where he managed to make it - like with the lawyer's office - it was more of bravado then skill. Breaking the window with rock in a courtyard where everyone could see or hear it?
He's methods were rough and he was a very unlucky burglar.
And his last burglary ended up very unfortunately for him, his victim and many other people.

Good. So we can disregard all the prior discussion about Guede being a practiced cat burglar, not to mention the idea that he was the author of a one man B & E crime spree which left Pergugia free of all upper story break-ins after he was apprehended.

Glad we've got that settled.

 

[el buscador]

Hi Quadraginta, do you have any night photos from the same prospectives from a car with headlights on? These might actually make a better comparison. The road curves along this section and the headlights might not illuminate much of the house at all.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody Matrass: Several comments regarding your post #20412:

1. Two of the photo links you provided from the perspective of Filomenia's window are the same photo.

Thanks, Jungle Jim, fixed

2. The long exposure photo is indeed pretty cool. However, you can still plainly see Filomenia's window.

That's how long exposure works, especially in the fog which gives lots of ambient light.

3. A more telling photo of the window from the street shows that any vehicle coming down the road would have its headlights pass directly on Filomenia's window. http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=132

I don't think I can agree with it, although I love google's Street View, too.
Google's car has a camera on a pole that places it 2,7 m above the ground.
Notice in your photo how you can easily admire the entire roof of the quite large van in front.
(Actually the StreetView car's camera height was a privacy concern in some countries as it is "peeking over the fence")
Filomena's window and the driveway is way below the street level.
I don't think someone driving on the right side of the road (that's how Italians do), and looking from the actual street level would get a good look there, not to mention illuminate it with headlights. And most of that distance you would see only the large tree, with branches going quite low.

Finally, when you look at the long exposure photo, you'll see that some cars passed on the right side of the road, yet there is no yellow glare from headlights captured on the side wall.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Good. So we can disregard all the prior discussion about Guede being a practiced cat burglar, not to mention the idea that he was the author of a one man B & E crime spree which left Pergugia free of all upper story break-ins after he was apprehended.

Glad we've got that settled.

Sincerely I don't remember discussing anything like this with you

 

[Chris_Halkides]

paradox

She covered the Supreme Court Date? Barbie was there every day, but two. Let me know exactly how many days, Ms. Dempsey attended. In toto.

How's Ms. Dempsey's *parade* statement coming along, factually? And, prove me wrong re: The prosecutor may not appeal a fast track trial verdict.

Thank you.

Capealadin,

Candace Dempsey did not use the word “parade.” If you think that the reporter and the cameraman were not reliable sources, please state you reasons. As someone else pointed out today, similar accounts are available from multiple sources. It puzzles me that you and treehorn criticize Ms. Dempsey without providing examples. Yet, you praise Ms. Nadeau as if knowing Italian were a sufficient condition to being a crime reporter, consistently ignoring the errors in Ms. Nadeau’s work that have been repeated enumerated on this thread. How do you square her errors with your evaluation?

LondonJohn was one of the people to respond to you on the question of appealing fast track trials. Machiavelli also added some more information.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

It's just some fun, assuming Rudy was a perfectionist and professional planner. Knowing his other exploits I have no doubt he had a nerve to break through Filomena's window without thinking twice , so it passes my (forgive me I won't sniff) test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.

I've seen better, but I was actually considering the line of sight from the houses above the parking lot.

Here is a different street view of Filomena's window than the one you picked out.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069f5f5d535.jpg[/qimg]

Note that it is only a little way down the road from the perspective you chose.

Why worry about ambient light (leaving aside the question of whether or not it was misty on the night of the murder)? What about headlights, which, unlike the approach from the opposite direction would be pointed very nearly at the side of the house instead of away from it? Pointed at what would be someone trying to scale the side of a building. From a fraction of the distance.

Thanks, please refer to my remarks to Jungle Jim about the Google StreetView camera specifics.

Can you honestly look at those two images and say that you believe that breaking in from the balcony would be just as conspicuous as the window?

The balcony is visible from the top level windows of the neighboring houses. The view from the road is as much momentary as is Filomena's window which quickly hides behind the tree and is below the street level. The level of illumination is comparable.

BTW my argument about rational choice of the break-in point doesn't end on it's visibility. There are more factors a perfectly rational Rudy would consider

 

[Justinian2]

However if there were no reports of anyone reporting that they heard a scream that night Meredith Kercher was murdered,
then isn't Mignini making it up?
Hmmm, I wonder?
RWVBWL

PS-Check out
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
+
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/

I've always thought Mignini could have been the killer.

Just kidding...

 

[quadraginta]

Hi Quadraginta, do you have any night photos from the same prospectives from a car with headlights on? These might actually make a better comparison. The road curves along this section and the headlights might not illuminate much of the house at all.

They might be better examples, but since the question is the comparative visibility of the two perspectives to each other I don't think that it needs a great deal of imagination to make a judgment between the two.

Yes. The road curves. It curves like this.



Note that from the east approach, driving towards the balcony side of the house, the road is already pointed about 45 degrees away from the building. It doesn't begin to turn toward the building until it is well past the point where trees and then the house itself obscure any view of the balcony. From the other direction the road is relatively straight towards to house until it has passed beyond the building entirely.

What's your opinion? Do you think that nightfall would make a big difference in the relative exposure of the two views?

Which one would you think was more conspicuous, if you were "casing the joint"?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

citizen involvement

Is citizens involvement even a particularly good indicator of guilt/innocence? I've seen posts, and heard/read comment that Rubin Carter may not have been as innocent as his supporters supposed. Isn't it as much to do with how personally appealing the person is, how committed their family and friends are, and what resources they can draw on? I suppose to a degree the commitment of their core supports isn't wholly independent of the evidence against them, and therefore not wholly independent of the guilt or innocence. Still, the fact that there is support for her in some quarters isn't necessarily a very good indicator of innocence, is it?

Shuttlt,

With respect to citizen involvement, I was not claiming that it was an indicator of guilt or innocence. Let me define citizen involvement as any time an individual involves himself or herself in a case without remuneration. Therefore, pro bono legal work would be citizen involvement by this definition, as would expert testimony from a person not employed by the defense. I know that the Innocence Project is not for profit, but obviously they accept donations. I would still count their work as citizen involvement, whether or not they exactly my provisional definition.

My point is that quietly waiting for the CJ system to right its own errors would be an unrealistic position to take, and my evidence is that in certain cases with which I have a passing familiarity (Patricia Stallings, for example), citizen involvement was decisive. In the case of the Norfolk Four, even after twelve years, they have only gotten a conditional pardon. The number of persons whom the Innocence Project has helped to exonerate is not trivial.

 

[el buscador]

Actually, Quadraginta, driving home after dark on curves what I notice most is that headlights track with the car and light the road ahead, not much of the scenery on the side. Also, my eyes tend to do the same and stay where the headlight point so I watch the road more than the side scenery. I would have to actually see both perspectives after dark with the headlight beams to make up my mind.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

TRANSLATION of Amanda's speech:

Greetings all from warm, sunny Southern California!

On Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010,
Amanda Knox gave a 14 minute speech in Italian while appearing in court.

I wish to read a full translation of this speech.
Or see a YouTube video with English subtiled at the bottom.

Does anyone know if that has been done yet?
If so, can you post a link to it?
Thank you,
RWVBWL

Hi RWVBWL,

Hope you (and everyone else on JREF) is well. I don't post much nowadays as I need to 'bite my tongue' before saying something (to a particular troll each time he posts more nonsense) that could get me suspended.

Anyway, I was perusing PMF and came across this translation which 'thoughtful' has done. I'm sure we are all grateful for her efforts, even if she did undertake this more for the people at PMF rather than those at JREF...lol.

It's not the complete translation (she does state this to be fair) but it is excellent imho. So, without further ado:


''I've put in some minute marks in case anyone is interested in listening while reading. It's interesting matching the tone with the words. The link is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7-uLuwceU

Amanda's speech in court:

...It would happen sometimes that someone would propose a subject to discuss among us, everyone giving their opinion. I liked to followed these discussions but I was uncomfortable about whether I should participate directly, because I'm not talented for discussions. Often I don't succeed in expressing my convictions, at least verbally right at the moment. In fact, of all my friends, I'm the weakest for this. That's why, jokingly, my friend would usually jump on this, that my character was so peace-loving, and would inspire me with a little sentence: “Stand up for yourself Poindexter”, which means “Defend yourself, grind” [secchiona=someone who studies too hard, too serious]. It was a joke. And inevitably I would answer, but when the answer would come out of my mouth it would get all twisted around and incomprehensible, incomprehensibly twisted around itself. I mean, I just didn't succeed in answering, because my mind would get blocked and my tongue would get all stuck. I couldn't do the thing that my friend often asked me to do, which was to defend myself. We have to imagine that I'm the weakest person in this room for expressing myself. That's why I ask for patience, because all this that I've prepared are the things that I didn't succeed in saying to you yet. Or better, I'm in front of you for the second time, but these are the things that I would like to have said already. I ask you for patience because there have been opportunities to speak, but I was of few words. [?] I hope that words are going to come to me now, because I never expected to find myself here, condemned for a crime I didn't do. In these three years, I've learned your language, and I've seen how the procedure goes, but I've never gotten used to this broken life. I still don't know how to face all this [3:00] if I don't [?] myself, who I've always been, in spite of the suffocating awkwardness. I was wrong to think that there are right or wrong places and moments to say important things. Important things have to be said, and that's all.

The only thing I am really sorry about now is that there are people to whom I should turn, who are not here, but I hope my words will reach them, because I am either locked in prison, or I'm here. And I'm here. To the family and dear ones of Meredith, I want to say that I'm so sorry that Meredith is not here any more. I can't know how you feel, but I too have little sisters, and the idea of their suffering and infinite loss terrifies me. It's incomprehensible, it's unacceptable, what happened, what Meredith underwent. [Long pause] I'm sorry all this happened to you [??] It's not just and never will be. You're not alone [??] because I'm thinking of you. I also remember Meredith, [5:00] and my heart bleeds for all of you. Meredith was kind, intelligent, nice and always available. She was the one who invited me to see Perugia, with her, as a friend. I'm grateful and honored to have been able to be in her company and to have been able to know her.

Patrick? I don't see you. But, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, because I didn't want to wrong you. I was very naïve and really not courageous, because I should have been able to endure the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. I didn't want to contribute to all that you suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn't deserve what you went through. I hope you'll succeed in finding your peace.

Meredith's death was a terrible shock for me. She was my new friend, a reference point for me here in Perugia. But she was killed. [7:00] Because I heard an infinity about her [?un infinita verso di lei?], suddenly, in her death, I recognized my own vulnerability. I clung above all to Raffaele, who was a source of reassurance, consolation, availability and love for me. I also tried to help with[?] the investigation, because I wanted to help render justice for Meredith. It was another shock to find myself accused and arrested. I needed a lot of time to accept that reality, of being accused, and redefined unjustly. I was in prison, my photo was everywhere. Unjust, mean rumors about my private life, almost always[?], were circulated about me. Living this experience [?] unacceptable. I have trusted above all to the hope that everything will be arranged as it should have been, and that this enormous error about me will be recognized, and that every day that I spend in a cell and in court is one day nearer to my liberty. This is my consolation, in the darkness, that lets me live without despairing, doing my best to continue my life as I always have, in contact with my dear friends and my family, dreaming about the future. [9:06]

Now, I am unjustly condemned, and more aware than ever of this hard and undeserved reality. I still hope for justice, and dream about a future. Even if this experience of three years weighs me down with anguish and fear, here I am, in front of you, more intimidated than ever, not because I'm afraid or could ever be afraid of the truth, but because I have already seen justice go wrong[?] The truth about me and Raffaele is not yet recognized, and we are paying with our lives for a crime that we did not commit. He and I deserve freedom, like everyone in this courtroom today. We don't deserve the three years that we already paid, and we certainly don't deserve more. I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. We did not kill Meredith. [10:54] I beg you to truly consider that an enormous mistake has been made in regard to us. No justice is rendered to Meredith or her dear ones by taking our lives away and making us pay for something we didn't do. I am not the person that the prosecution says I am, not at all. According to them, I'm a dangerous, diabolical, jealous, uncaring and violent girl. Their hypotheses depend on this. But I've never been that girl. Never. The people who know me are witnesses of my personality. My past, I mean my real past, not the one talked about in the tabloids, proves that I've always been like this, like I really am, and if all this is not enough, I ask you, I invite you, I ask you to ask the people who [?] me for three years. Ask them if I have ever been violent, aggressive or uncaring in front of the suffering that is part of the broken lives in prison. Because I assure you that I'm not like that. I assure you that I have never resembled the images painted by the prosecution. [13:00] How could it be possible that I could be capable of achieving the kind of violence that Meredith suffered? How could it be possible that I could throw myself like that at the opportunity to hurt one of my friends? [?] such a violence, as though it were more important and more natural than all my teaching, all my values, all my dreams and my whole life? All this is not possible. That girl is not me. I am the girl that I have always shown myself to be and have always been. I repeat that I also am asking for justice. Raffaele and I are innocent, and we want to live our lives in freedom. We are not responsible for Meredith's death, and, I repeat, no justice is accomplished by taking our lives away. [Whispers: “okay”] Um, thank you.

 

[Machiavelli]

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg[/qimg]

Note that this is hundreds of feet from the balcony. It is a momentary view, quickly obscured both before and after by intervening trees, and then intervening building. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that a brief glimpse of someone standing on a balcony is not exactly the sort of thing which causes instant suspicion in most people's minds. After all, that is what balconies are for.

At night? There would be virtually no chance that anyone on the balcony would be noticed at all, and it would be unremarkable even if they were.

Here is a different street view of Filomena's window than the one you picked out.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069f5f5d535.jpg[/qimg]

Note that it is only a little way down the road from the perspective you chose.
(...)

Filomena's window is screened by a tree only for a trait of about 12 meters along the road Via S. Antonio. Any car or passer by on the road would see it before and after this point.
The window is visible also from any other point that falls in the visual angle on the parking lot, and elsewhere.

The rear balcony wondow is definitely dark, screened on the road level and generally the balcony has always an area not visible.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov
AK admitted on the stand that she was the one who brought up PL's name and by (very direct) implication that her earlier Dec 17 answers and her whole 'story' on this issue were in fact lies.

Quote:
AK: A They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make me say a name that I couldn't give.
Quote:
AK: B Because I knew that they arrested him because I gave them his name. But they are the ones who suggested the name. They wanted me to accuse him, and I didn't like that.
Quote:
AK: C Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me.

Something tells me you're looking at some other part of her testimony and taking it out of context.

Something tells me you and I have a different definition of 'out of context'

A & B above are from 2 completely different part of PL's lawyer (CP) cross examining AK
B in fact relates to the Nov 10 bugged conversation.
C comes from a whole day later where Mignini (GM) is cross examining AK.

But they are useful, for all that, as we may see shortly, if its not already very apparent.

In any case I'll post from the testimony transcript that I actually have seen in support of my argument.

You still need to produce the Nov 5th statements you earlier claimed you had seen and that were posted on this thread by CW before I continue this with you - that humble pie of mine must be getting cold, just serve it up.

.

 

[el buscador]

They might be better examples, but since the question is the comparative visibility of the two perspectives to each other I don't think that it needs a great deal of imagination to make a judgment between the two.

Yes. The road curves. It curves like this.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d06a98a21718.jpg[/qimg]

Note that from the east approach, driving towards the balcony side of the house, the road is already pointed about 45 degrees away from the building. It doesn't begin to turn toward the building until it is well past the point where trees and then the house itself obscure any view of the balcony. From the other direction the road is relatively straight towards to house until it has passed beyond the building entirely.

What's your opinion? Do you think that nightfall would make a big difference in the relative exposure of the two views?

Which one would you think was more conspicuous, if you were "casing the joint"?

Another thing, looking at this photo and knowing that the parking garage had an exit onto the road somewhere along the "other way" and if I was a Perugian driver, I might just be watching for a car to enter the roadway more than I would be paying attention to a house on the side of the road I had probably driven past multiple times. Also, isn't there a stop light at the garage exit? Another distraction.

 

[el buscador]

Filomena's window is screened by a tree only for a trait of about 12 meters along the road Via S. Antonio. Any car or passer by on the road would see it before and after this point.
The window is visible also from any other point that falls in the visual angle on the parking lot, and elsewhere.

The rear balcony wondow is definitely dark, screened on the road level and generally the balcony has always an area not visible.

Do you have night photos showing how visible the window is if lit by the headlights of a passing car?

 

[platonov]

Changing Stories over 18 mins - as well as 18 months

AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was tellingme "Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you're not able to remember anything you've done." So I said, how could that be? And she said, "Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can't remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg..."

<snip>

GCM: .............. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven't really heard the answer to it. AK: Yes, sorry.

<snip>
GCM: So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun "him"? This "him", did they say who it could be?AK: It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying "Are you sure you don't remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message."
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene.
Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?

AK: Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
<snip>

GM: Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, "suggerire" means "indicate", someone who "suggests" a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what "suggerimento" is, and I...so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
?? Objection! Objection!
GM: On page 95, I read--
CDV: Before the objection, what was the question?
GM: The question was: the question that was objected was about the term "suggerimento". Because I interpret that word this way: the police say "Was it Patrick?" and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.

GCM: Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let's return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?
AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?

AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember," and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

GCM: "Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather...

AK: But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him!
AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."

GCM: So, these were the suggestions.
AK: Yes.
GCM: Go ahead, pubblico ministero.

GM: I object here on the dynamics, because here there's a contrast...well...per carita--[Brief interruption from GCM]-- From Amanda's answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this "Answer, answer," whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested-- [Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it's different in their version. ]

GCM: While the pubblico ministero is talking, let's avoid interrupting him. It's true that the pages are different, but still, if you can't find the page, ask for a moment's pause, don't interrupt the reading.

GM: So, on line number one, two, three, four...

GCM: Pubblico ministero, don't worry about the lines, please read.

GM: [reading] She said: "I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick." Suggesting, to use Amanda's words. I asked: "The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?" Knox: "The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him." This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn't know who it was--
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.

AK: Okay.

CGM: Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?

AK: I explained it better now.
GCM: You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.

GM: So, let's move forward.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you have night photos showing how visible the window is if lit by the headlights of a passing car?

No. Never attempted such a photo. But Filomena's window is perfectly visible without car lights. The balcony is too far and, due to the bend of the road, is also out from the line of illumination of car headlights.
A person on a balcony also is essentially a non suspicious scene.