Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

To all,

Frank wrote, "The Supreme Court can’t increase the sixteen years inflicted by the Corte d’Assise d’Appello of Perugia (by canceling, for instance, the extenuating circumstances) since the prosecution didn’t appeal."

But this is total BS. I'm sorry but Frank here shows the problem with his work as a blogger. The Supreme Court cannot increase (nor reduce) anything, in any case. It is called Supreme Court of Cassation because its power is a power of cassation, they can only approve or disapprove, and remand, or abolish. They cannot modify, like by increase or diminish or correct. They cannot enter the merits of facts, like for example "cancel the extenuating circumstances"! That is completely off the powers of the court. They could contest the motivation of a point, in terms of legal consistency, and thus order a re-assessment. But they cannot modify a point.

 

[shuttlt]

Somewhere in the Italian governament and tourist industry alarm bells must be wringing about the damage this case is doing to Italies immage worldwide,I would be willing to bet that even in the dark days of the iron curtain that if an East German or Romanian or Albanian citizin reported being hit by a soldier or policeman they would not face charges and prison

Now the justice system in Italy is worse than in East Germany under Erich Honecker, Romania under Ceaucescu, or Albania under Albania under Hoxha?

 

[shuttlt]

For sure. It's a dangerous place for foreigners. I always say about Italy, I love the buildings, I love the food, but I can do without the cheating thieving Italians.

I worked for a German organization that became an Italian one. It is surprising how all pervasive cultural differences can be. Abroad is a strange place.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Your pointless completely black video shows nothing and your pictures are taken from the wrong angles.

You're not doing very well here are you? The video changes to full daylight at 3.20 which has a walk by of the view down to the balcony, obscured as it is by the tree, shot from the railing - from first to last you can see it's obscured. If you're trying to use someone's link against them, it's best not to show you didn't actually watch it eh?

 

[billyryan]

I knew somebody would be about to quote this contradiction by Amanda. But in fact, Amanda claimed to have been well treated after he named Patrick, albeit she says a "no" in this point, when the lawyer points out this and in fact the lawyer points out the right thing. Note how in the previous line she highlights the word after in her speech.

In fact, here I don't know if she mens the declarations of 05:45 or the previous ones (I have to read the whole original in Italian). But I know there isn't any other description of "pressures" (of the kind that she described, in vague terms, as somebody hitting her head, saying she was a liar) following her naming of Patrick.

I also note that all her descriptions of how she made up the Patrick story appear unjustified and not credible, nothing concrete is matched with the term "pressure" to justify her fictional story. But above all, nothing is credible nor consistent when it comes to explain tat she had memories of Patrick who wanted to have sex with Meredith in her apartment, after they went home together to have some fun. Nothing is credible in her various and contradictory explanations for why she made a false accusation. And a false, unreliable memory is obviously inconsistent with her later claim to remember perfectly about an alibi. So many things are unacceptable and not credible that you really shouldn't need my help to notice this totally inconsistent texture of claims.

Since you know so much about Italian law and the judges who ruled on this case,maybe you would tell us what was done with the tapes of the interrogations on the night of November 5/6 2007,who do you think knows they were made,who was given the task of getting rid of them,were they destroyed or are they still in existance,who might use them in the future to blackmail who,how much would they be worth if they were offered for sale to one of the American tv networks

 

[RoseMontague]

I've posted all the picture evidence necessary in the Cottage Gallery in PMF in the last couple of days.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=13

This single picture shows your suggestion that the balcony is too difficult to break in to be demonstrably false.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2164

Let it go - it's all there in front of everyone's eyes. It would be laughable to continue to assert on the basis of the evidence that Filomena's window is easy and the balcony too difficult. The balcony is plainly easier by a very considerable degree indeed - not even close, not even in the same ballpark. It is also a that it was broken into twice after this crime as the route of preference!

There's plenty you can argue with validity in trying to prove Amanda Knox innocent put this is a dead duck. No-one can argue this so just accept it for what it is. Credibility in part comes from conceding points which are well made, much less when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and all posters can see it on their screens.

Good to see you posting again SA. To me, either way looks easy enough. I am not sure that the debate over which is easier really has much significance, to me at least. Rudy has not shown himself to be the best and brightest of all burglars by any means. At least of the burglaries we know of, so far.

 

[Malkmus]

SomeAlibi, please remove your subtitle from the video "Raffaele and Rudy" where you falsely claim Amanda and Rafaelle were LSD and cocaine users.

 

[RoseMontague]

I knew somebody would be about to quote this contradiction by Amanda. But in fact, Amanda claimed to have been well treated after he named Patrick, albeit she says a "no" in this point, when the lawyer points out this and in fact the lawyer points out the right thing. Note how in the previous line she highlights the word after in her speech.

In fact, here I don't know if she mens the declarations of 05:45 or the previous ones (I have to read the whole original in Italian). But I know there isn't any other description of "pressures" (of the kind that she described, in vague terms, as somebody hitting her head, saying she was a liar) following her naming of Patrick.

I also note that all her descriptions of how she made up the Patrick story appear unjustified and not credible, nothing concrete is matched with the term "pressure" to justify her fictional story. But above all, nothing is credible nor consistent when it comes to explain tat she had memories of Patrick who wanted to have sex with Meredith in her apartment, after they went home together to have some fun. Nothing is credible in her various and contradictory explanations for why she made a false accusation. And a false, unreliable memory is obviously inconsistent with her later claim to remember perfectly about an alibi. So many things are unacceptable and not credible that you really shouldn't need my help to notice this totally inconsistent texture of claims.

From Amanda's appeal:

So during the question there were people all around me in front so back, and someone yelled from here, someone said "no, no, no, maybe no memories here, "shouted another with this guy and then there was a cop behind me that I did so. Dif. (Mr. Ghirga): once twice. Charged two times the first time I did so and we ran towards her and then he made another.

Sounds like she was frightened to me.

Charged: they brought me things only after I
you say, then you have a crying, then you are brought some tea
some coffee, some pastries, something, if it happens, if more precise. statements, so I was there, they were screaming at me and I only wanted go away because I thought my mom came and then I said look I have my phone because I want to call my mom "said no and then there was all this mess, I screamed, I said that I threatened, just then it was only after I made the statement that he said, "No, no, no, do not worry protects you from" so it is come.
And further: So before they asked me to make other statements, I can not tell the time because now I have a horror of the same things, but at some point I asked "but I should not have a lawyer at this point or not," because really know, because I thought I saw the television show usually when you do these things you have a lawyer, but ok I get it, and their I was told at least one, told me it would be worse for me because it shows that I did not want to cooperate with the police

 

[platonov]

platonov,

I gave a iink to the FOA to show a portion of the gift statement, one that was larger than the portion I had quoted. You objected, so I provided a link to the whole statement. The way you keep misrepresenting this incident is not helping your credibility.

Give it up, halide1

I didn't object to anything. I merely showed your quotes were partial and selective - a week later when you unwisely brought the matter up again I checked and found that your original link was also dodgy

See LINK & LINK

 

[SomeAlibi]

Nice to have you back, SomeAlibi!

2010 you say?

In 2007 it looked a bit more leafless:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d09386ee9bc8.jpg[/qimg]Global warming marches on...

You've got the angle completely wrong on this. If you look at your picture and mine, you will see the leafless bits in the right of my picture are the more prominent part taken by the video cameras in yours - the same in 2010 as in 2007. However you can also see on the far left of your picture the right hand edge of tree that obscures the view from the flats - nice and green just like now which is the main part of my shot which is taken much closer to the cottage and directly with the "overlooking" flats behind me. Because that's the point: where this video was shot from you've taken the still from is not where the flat are overlooking...

If you look here http://goo.gl/ESGnJ you will see the main car-park. However the video was not shot from it but from the 'extra' bit of car park over to the far right which has a shallow horse-shoe shape and a point at its upperpost tip and is higher up than the main car park. They went and positioned themselves up on that and took the shot in from the far right where you can see there are no overlooking flats behind. The angle that you can see into the L shape of the balcony shows you this to be true.

I am happy to have an argument on many points of this case but on this one, please trust me, it's absolutely open and shut. You go there and you'll see what I mean. It is honestly not in contention that the balcony is well protected and many times easier a climb. Know what you're fighting in terms of prosecution case strength - this is very strongly against any credibility once you see it. If you do care about a credible defence, concentrate on Rudy simulating the break-in because this absolutely does not stand up.

Thanks for that very interesting video! I noticed the area of the cottage driveway and gate is utterly black in your video. No way to see the house at all. No Filomena's window, no driveway, no nothing.
Do you have any closer video clips showing how well Filomena's window and the driveway is illuminated?

The video is completely unhelpful because it's digital and the pictures in the dark are massively underexposed. Clearly the gate and the approach are not in pitch dark - you can see the gate as you approach it! And the cottage from the gate.

Here's a pic of Filomena's taken on Nov 1st at 9pm (I traced the routes at the exact times) taken from the carpark up above.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2222

and here is a picture taken from the road, which is admittedly over-bright due to a long-exposure but see pic before for balance - it's well illuminated. You note that a car driving by the house on the road in either direction could have seen "Rudy" both in rock throwing and window climbing position with great ease at very short distance.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2223


Are we really done on this? I hope so. You've got much better parts of your case to argue than this. I hope the site visit helps clear this up for people.

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi, please remove your subtitle from the video "Raffaele and Rudy" where you falsely claim Amanda and Rafaelle were LSD and cocaine users.

No I shall not, for two reasons: i) The video quite clearly says that it is only in reference to Raffaele and not Amanda and ii) the video also quite clearly says that the source for Raffaele's use of LSD and cocaine is Amanda herself in the police interviews which are in evidence in the case. She stated that he discussed it in the same conversation where Raffaele opened up about his mother.

Please ensure you are aware of the evidence adduced in the case, in this case by one of the co-defendants herself, before you accuse others of "false" claims. I trust you withdraw?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why do you keep on believing the front window is dark and the rear balcony is visible?

Oh dear, this discussion will never end

Actually, SomeAlibi have shown that the whole area of the cottage is very dark. The video shows complete blackness where the driveway and Filomena's window should be. His photo show complete blackness of the other side, that faces the road and streetlights.

I told you the front window is illuminated. It is not as much illuminated as the centre of the road, but it is illuminated enough by street ights for the human eye to see it perfectly. I just know if I go with a light meter on the balcony it would detect a diffuse light 10 times lower than at Filomena's window.

You just know. OK. But it's not convincing to me. I don't think we can agree here.

But this is not the only difference. The balcony is on the back, far from sight,

I beg to differ, it's facing the road and houses above:

there is also one window totally not visible there, the balcony is not visible by cars, the person on the balcony is not suspicious.

You missed my post in which I've shown it is visible from cars.

Filomena's window is under the nose of passers by. Right under your eyes!

I don't think there are many passers by there. Unless they pass by car. Here's a photo showing how it really looks from the street level (e.g. for the approaching cars):

And the intruder may be caught a moment when he is stuck in position in which he cannot hide.

Yes, that's why I think balcony was worse for Rudy. If he startled some sleeping (or having fun in bed) tenants he would be sitting duck on that balcony.

Almost all break ins in apartments take place from a 2nd store balcony, almost never from a window. That balcony is perfect for a break in.
And, also the physical feasability and hazards connected are to be compared with the very easy and safe entrace from the balcony, and the evidence of the distribution of unmoved glass shards on the sill and no evidence of soil traces, are further elements that show this climbing did not happen and they work in a system with the concept of "physical" obstacle for the climber.

I believe all that arguments were shot down already multiple times. Everything shows that the break-in did happen. From the distribution of the glass, position of the rock, traces on stepped upon clothing, evidence of someone jumping into the room, to the glass tracked into Meredith's room, her stolen items, the various multitude of traces left by the burglar-gone-killer and finally, her dead body.

 

[billyryan]

Now the justice system in Italy is worse than in East Germany under Erich Honecker, Romania under Ceaucescu, or Albania under Albania under Hoxha?

Where else in the civilised world is it legal to hold a suspect for twelve months without charge while perjurers and liars are sourced by the local paper to frame them

Where is it legal to tell a young girl you are holding without charge that she has aids,a fact that is known not to be true,ask her to write down a list of the lovers she has had and then release it to the press.then while she is trying to come to terms with with having the aids virus she listens on the tv news to the list of her lovers with a few more thrown in for good measure.

Come to think of it the regimes run by Honecker,Ceauscescu and Hoxha would never stoop that low

 

[platonov]

Your bias is showing. Charlie's zip file includes the original Italian documents which no one has contested the authenticity of since they were posted back in May. Charlie has been an invaluable source of such documents, none of which have ever been proven to have been doctored or falsified in any such way. If you have reason to question any of the evidence documents he has posted then you need to cite actual reasons, not just paranoid bias.

Its not bias - it simply a case of not being credulous.

I don't bother searching out errors on other IIP or FOA sites (or in tabloids for that matter).

When the information is used here I look at it [The Waterbury stuff Kaosium quoted for example] and if its rubbish I will say so. So far much of the material and arguments I've seen here originating from sources like these is mendacious or nonsensical (or both).

And no, for the record I wont unzip files from these sites any more than I would from AiG or Stormfront or the like - If the material is good post it openly.
As Mary H has now done for the first time on this thread - and as I noted she took it from PMF ?

If these docs are accurate and they may well be - fine.
ETA I looked at them previously and they seemed to tie in with the short references that CP used in the trial but I wouldnt expect anyone to take my word on it.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Oh dear, this discussion will never end

Actually, SomeAlibi have shown that the whole area of the cottage is very dark. The video shows complete blackness where the driveway and Filomena's window should be. His photo show complete blackness of the other side, that faces the road and streetlights.

It's not. This will be pretty clear if people are reading down the thread but #20770 deals with all your points above, just in case people read this out of sequence.

 

[katy_did]

Google Earth is a free application. Anyone else has always had the same opportunity to look at all of the same images if they were interested enough. It seems that the main difference in conclusions is when someone has a monomaniacal fixation on excluding every means of entry to that apartment except for Filomena's window. I'm only interested in what is plausible and likely, not what is remotely possible and convenient to a particular argument, and to me what we know about the conditions there do not put that window at the top of any rational list.

My impression is the opposite: that it's often those wanting to argue that Filomena's window would be a totally impossible feat for a burglar who present the balcony as the only possible means of entry (SomeAlibi: "A burglar would choose only one [point of entry], time and time again"). After all, from a pro-innocent perspective, it's enough that Filomena's window is a feasible point of entry; there's no need for it to be the only possible way to break in. Even if we were to all agree the balcony was a better bet, we'd still be left with the possibility Rudy just wasn't a very bright burglar.

And in fact I think there are good reasons Filomena's window would've been his first choice of entry. Rudy's biggest single fear at this point must have been that he would be seen and recognized - 6/8 of the residents of the two flats knew him at least by sight. He couldn't be certain the two flats were empty, even if they appeared to be. Climbing up to the balcony and breaking the kitchen window would make it far more likely he would be seen: had someone switched on a light and come out to see what was going on, he would've needed to clamber back over the balcony railings and down to the ground, run round the house, and back up the driveway, all taking precious time. The double doors to the girls' flat open onto the balcony, the boys' front door is directly beneath it, and the girls' front door opens onto the driveway (meaning Rudy would've needed to run past anyone who'd come out of the door). If someone was home, there's a pretty fair chance he'd have been seen and recognized before he managed to escape.

In contrast, Filomena's window is right next to the driveway, and had a light been turned on in the cottage, it would've taken him only seconds to leave. The only time he would be exposed is in the act of climbing into the window itself (and even then, as has been pointed out, the window is angled away from the road and in shadow); beforehand, he'd be hidden in the shadows beneath the window. It also allowed him to keep a look-out through the window after he'd broken in, in case anyone arrived home. Rudy even says he saw Amanda on the driveway while looking through Filomena's window - assuming he's lying, he'd obviously thought about the fact it offered that view...

As has been pointed out, the people who carried out the break-ins following the murder would've been aware that the place was empty - it's a completely different situation to that Rudy was faced with, in which being seen and recognized was the biggest worry he had.

 

[Machiavelli]

From Amanda's appeal:


Sounds like she was frightened to me.

Indeed she is scared.
This is logically understandable. What is not understandable, is how it happens that she remembers things. And how she suddenty recovers confidence in a clean memory, on some unspecified, and not declared, later moment.


I think the original quote is this:
(I just highlighted the time connectors indicating the order of events)


<<Allora durante l’interrogazione c’erano tutte le persone attorno a me davanti indietro così, e qualcuno urlava da qua, una persona diceva “no, no, no, forse non ricordi qua” un altro urlava con questo qua e poi c’era una poliziotta dietro di me che mi ha fatto così.

Dif. (Avv. Ghirga): una volta due volte...?

Imputata: due volte la prima volta, ho fatto così e abbiamo girato verso di lei e poi mi ha fatto un’altra.

Dif. (Avv. Ghirga): quando poi tu hai avuto il colloquio racconti va bene questo lo hai detto, poi tu hai una crisi di pianto , poi ti viene portato qualche the qualche caffé, qualche pasticcino, qualcosa, quando avviene, se lo precisi meglio.

Imputata: loro mi hanno portato delle cose soltanto dopo che ho fatto dichiarazioni, quindi stavo là, loro stavano urlando a me e io volevo soltanto andare via perché pensavo che mia mamma arrivava e quindi ho detto guarda posso avere il mio telefono perché voglio chiamare la mia mamma” hanno detto di no e poi c’era tutto questo casino, mi urlavano, mi dicevano che, mi minacciavano, proprio poi era soltanto dopo che ho fatto la dichiarazione che aveva detto, “no, no, no, non ti preoccupare ti proteggiamo dai” così è venuto.>>

[note: Amanda avoids to answer, fails be more precise compared to the lawyer's proposed order]

<<Allora prima che loro mi hanno chiesto di fare altre dichiarazione, non posso dire il tempo perché ora ho orrore delle stesse cose , ma a un certo punto io ho chiesto “ ma non dovrei avere un avvocato a questo punto o no” perché non sapevo veramente, perché io ho pensato che ho visto degli show di televisione che di solito quando si fa queste cose si ha un avvocato, ma ok dovrei averlo, e loro mi hanno detto almeno uno, mi ha detto che sarebbe stato peggiore per me, perché dimostrava che non volevo collaborare con la polizia, quindi ho detto di no.>>

Note the word altre, meaning she made more than one declaration. Assuming this narrative is chronological, we are now able to distinguish the two declarations she refers to on the timeline. This prima che .. altre is located before the 05:45 declaration. But apparently, after the "tea and pastries" that was described in the previous part along with Ghirga's suggestion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

people can make up their own minds

Give it up, halide1

I didn't object to anything. I merely showed your quotes were partial and selective - a week later when you unwisely brought the matter up again I checked and found that your original link was also dodgy

See LINK & LINK

platonov,

My advice to you is that you stop digging. Making unsubstantiated claims about some source being dodgy is not helpful to your case. I am happy if anyone wants to go back to page 400 and read for himself or herself what I said. Now, if you will excuse me, I have better things to do.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You've got the angle completely wrong on this. If you look at your picture and mine, you will see the leafless bits in the right of my picture are the more prominent part taken by the video cameras in yours - the same in 2010 as in 2007.

You're right, the bare trees ae the smaller ones, the larger one goes out of the view. Although I think it's too close to the street and not tall enough to obscure the view from the opposing top floors.

I am happy to have an argument on many points of this case but on this one, please trust me, it's absolutely open and shut. You go there and you'll see what I mean. It is honestly not in contention that the balcony is well protected and many times easier a climb. Know what you're fighting in terms of prosecution case strength - this is very strongly against any credibility once you see it. If you do care about a credible defence, concentrate on Rudy simulating the break-in because this absolutely does not stand up.

I'm not the defence , I'm more interested in what really happened then what the Perugian court finds probable or not.
Knowing Rudy's other attempts I can't see how it's implausible that he chose that window to climb.
I also can't see how the window could be any difficulty to climb. Although I can understand that someone of more sedentary lifestyle and not accustomed to climbing (not even ladders) could feel intimidated by looking at that wall.

The video is completely unhelpful because it's digital and the pictures in the dark are massively underexposed. Clearly the gate and the approach are not in pitch dark - you can see the gate as you approach it! And the cottage from the gate.

Here's a pic of Filomena's taken on Nov 1st at 9pm (I traced the routes at the exact times) taken from the carpark up above.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2222

and here is a picture taken from the road, which is admittedly over-bright due to a long-exposure but see pic before for balance - it's well illuminated. You note that a car driving by the house on the road in either direction could have seen "Rudy" both in rock throwing and window climbing position with great ease at very short distance.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2223

Thanks but you've posted pictures made with strong flash. By mistake, I'm sure.
It can't be ascertained from them how the cottage was really illuminated. Do you have any real long-exposure pictures like the one of the balcony you've posted before?

 

[shuttlt]

Where else in the civilised world is it legal to hold a suspect for twelve months without charge while perjurers and liars are sourced by the local paper to frame them

Are you just guessing? Do you have some reason to think that all European, American etc... legal systems handle this issue the same way?

Where is it legal to tell a young girl you are holding without charge that she has aids

My recollection is that they told her the test had come back positive and that they needed another test.

a fact that is known not to be true

They knew this wasn't true?

ask her to write down a list of the lovers she has had and then release it to the press.

I agree it isn't great, or obviously necessary. The release of this kind of thing isn't specific to Italy though.

then while she is trying to come to terms with with having the aids virus she listens on the tv news to the list of her lovers with a few more thrown in for good measure.

Did this happen? If so not great. Where did the extra names come from?

Come to think of it the regimes run by Honecker,Ceauscescu and Hoxha would never stoop that low

I stand corrected, I'm sure they wouldn't have dreamed of it.

One émigré, for example, testified to being bound by his hands and legs for one and a half months, and beaten with a belt, fists, or boots for periods of two to three hours every two or three days. Another was detained in a cell one meter by eight meters large in the local police station and kept in solitary confinement for a five-day period punctuated by two beating sessions until he signed a confession, he was taken to Sigurimi headquarters, where he was again tortured and questioned, despite his prior confession, until his three-day trial. Still another witness was confined for more than a year in a three-meter square cell underground. During this time, he was interrogated at irregular intervals and subjected to various forms of physical and psychological torture. He was chained to a chair, beaten, and subjected to electrical shocks. He was shown a bullet that was supposedly meant for him and told that car engines starting within his earshot were driving victims to their executions, the next of which would be his.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

In her wildest fantasies I'm sure Amanda can't even dare to dream to have been arrested in Hoxha's Albania, instead of Perugia. It sounds like a summer camp.