Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

I assume all shutters in the premises would have been locked except Filomena's because they couldn't be closed.

Why would they be locked? Only Filomena was going away for days, nobody else. And Amanda herself testified the shutters were open. Was she lying then?

 

[Katody Matrass]

This idea that Curatolo said that AK and RS were in the basketball court for 2 hours is total nonsense. There's nothing to do, it is bare, it is frigging cold in November. There is no-one who would stay there for two hours and that's not what Curatolo said in testimony. This is a ridiculous assertion and it's not terribly credible you're all sitting around saying that's what was said in the trial. It wasn't. Fight the case, not the made up stuff that makes you feel better.

Sorry, but that's what he said. He saw them for two hours. Last time just before midnight, as he was leaving. That's a major point of both appeals actually, they quote his testimony.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You never answered my response requesting reinstatement to your invitation to "try PMF" and the reason for my banning remains a rather hateful word when I attempt to go to that website. Just exactly what does that word demonstrate?

I don't think I suggested that you join PMF. My inference was that you search it to find the data you were looking for.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm very sorry for your loss - that sounds like an appalling thing to have happened in front of children. That is sincerely meant.

Googling the case shows that Junta was convicted of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder and, in this case, sexually aggravated murder. Respectfully and aware of your loss, I'm afraid the Junta case is not relevant to the sentencing in the Perugia case.

They don't have the death penalty in Massachusetts anyway.

 

[katy_did]

I chose unsolicited because it was unsolicited. Knox asked to be heard again, the ILE didn't demand she be interviewed again.

I do find it really odd why you are so determined to contest this when Amanda's defence never have.

No, she didn't ask to be heard again. What you're discussing is a specific legal term, you can't just base all your assumptions on the English word one translator chose to use for that term and assume it's exactly the same as its English equivalent, with all the same implications.

But this has all been said before.

 

[piktor]

Great photos. They demonstrate very well how how the kitchen window can't be seen from the road (blocked by the roof of the outhouse). In those shots, one can see 'most' of the balcony (although only for a fraction of a moment since the cars are moving), but not at night. At night that area isn't lit, being at the back of the house rather then the front areas which are close to the road and street lights.

The camera on the google earth van is three meters above ground. Hardly a normal point of view.

A person sitting on a car or walking has a viewpoint one and less than two meters high. What you can see while standing or while sitting is very different to THREE meters up. Very different.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4xcNKPXfm...B8/w2nb0QwO5Ss/s400/google-360-camera-van.JPG

http://www.techbloog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/google_street_view.jpg

 

[katy_did]

By the way Fulcanelli, did you manage to unearth the reasons for which Micheli rejected the defence's argument on the Naruto file yet?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think it was an additional statement she wrote (not part of her journal) and is mentioned a few times in the appeals. The PMF team claimed to have access to it, IIRC - maybe Fulcanelli could post it? I'd definitely be interested to read it, though apparently it doesn't say much of relevance about the interrogations or the night of the murder. Still interesting, though.

Look in the "In their own words" section. As I recall, it's what she wrote after speaking to the nun. You can read some of it here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4794841.ece

 

[shuttlt]

Hey, SomeAlibi

I checked in the appeals. Looks like they did catch it. They point out that Massei used a cell tower that covers Raffaele's to conclude Amanda wasn't there. What do you think about it?

I happen to have been reading a computer networking book that covers the handover of mobile phones between cell towers. What information do we have on this? I take it the tower in question has signal in the area, but is not the closest tower? Do we know if a handover occurred between the closest tower and the more remote one?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The buses are easy: either the defence has sworn statements from ALL the relevant companies they weren't running that night or they don't. Either the prosecution can prove that that is incorrect or they can't.

We'll find out soon

Massei's report doesn't make clear the duration of AK and RS's presence in the square.

Indeed, we have to consult Mr Curatolo's testimony on this. He saw them for 2 hours. Last time before midnight, he saw them each time he lifted his eyes from the newspaper, right?

Do you redial every time you can't get through?

I would, if I was calling my ailing mother.

 

[Chris C]

This idea that Curatolo said that AK and RS were in the basketball court for 2 hours is total nonsense. There's nothing to do, it is bare, it is frigging cold in November. There is no-one who would stay there for two hours and that's not what Curatolo said in testimony. This is a ridiculous assertion and it's not terribly credible you're all sitting around saying that's what was said in the trial. It wasn't. Fight the case, not the made up stuff that makes you feel better.

Kokomani was discounted as unreliable so I don't believe anything he said. The court found the other three witnesses credible. You're making an argument from your conviction - there's no evidence to support you so no, I don't have any concern because no-one shows they have lied. The fact that you need Stefanoni, Kokomani, Curatolo,Quintavalle, Filomena, the Postal Police attending the same room and an absolute host of police personnel and forensic staff, ALL to be lying, really ought to give you a clue as to how unlikely your arguments really are.

Stefanoni said they didn't test for blood after using luminol. Yet didn't they do 1 more additional test. Stefanoni was present for it. So she lied about the additional test.

Curatolo's statement is a fabrication. He KNEW the exact time they arrived, even though he didn't have a watch. Plus he was wrong about the buses. Thats not counting the fact that he changed his statements from seeing people dressed up in costumes to seeing buses instead.
PS Curatolo stayed there for over 2 hours and claimed to see them while reading the newspaper and didn't see them leave until at/around 1130pm. So apparently according to Curatolo, Knox and Sollecito where all willing to stand there in the November cold for 2 hours. Meanwhile Rudy has been standing outside Meredith's place for 1 hour in the cold before Knox/Sollecito ever arrived at that park. Well thats according to Curatolo.

Quintavalle contradicted by 3 people.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I know that Rose. Just with the other way round for the subjects as you mean them. The fact is one person is trained, while the other person has read a couple of articles and claims to be a world expert as a result, the same person who claims he can accurately nail down TOD from the stomach contents when all respectable articles state one must not use stomach contents to pronounce TOD due to it's unreliability and inaccuracy. To do so is indeed hoodoo in search of voodoo.

You appear to have forgotten that the passage from someone's on-line lecture notes that you have on PMF as your source on stomach contents evidence (not exactly peer-reviewed literature but I realise the distinction is mostly lost on your target audience) states quite clearly that you can have reasonable medical certainty that t(lag) is not more than three or perhaps four hours. That's the Massei narrative exploded right there by your own preferred source.

This is pretty much what Dr Lalli and Professor Ronchi also concluded. Read the Massei report if you want to check that.

Now none of those people appear to be quite up to date on the literature and its application in highly unusual cases like the murder of Meredith Kercher. If they had been, they could have told you the likely time of death with significantly more precision.

You know all this very well however, since we've been patiently explaining this to you and your disciples for months.

Really, your argument has passed the point at which mockery is even meaningful when you are trying to position "statement analysis" woo on a higher level than the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Wham!

Case closed.

Giobbi did say that. That was De Felice.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Sorry, but that's what he said. He saw them for two hours. Last time just before midnight, as he was leaving. That's a major point of both appeals actually, they quote his testimony.

No he doesn't. Cite!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Oh I see, so since we are not in court we can just make baseless unsupported accusations against people and then claim them to be fact. Do I have it right?

What accusations? Those are facts! That he was caught after breaking into a kindergarten. That he was caught with items from another burglary done by breaking window with a rock. That some link him to other burglaries, too. Fulcanelli, I beg you, just a bit of basic common sense...

If he's found guilty in yet another crime, that looks exactly like a burglary he is linked with, and you want to say "no, it's not him and it's not a break-in", and you want to use it in a murder case against others, then the burden of proof lies on you. And it's a heavy one. Because a break-in is common sense here. Staging to prove a three way orgy accident, ritual-killing, murder because of hygiene disagreements, whatever, now that's extraordinaire.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So, is the theory that they can use anything and everything until the Supreme Court tells them not to, regardless of the law?

I thought we were basically in agreement on this: the statement could be legally used for investigative purposes but not against the suspect. In order to be used against the suspect, it would need to have been made with a lawyer present, amongst other safeguards. There was no lawyer, yet the statements were used against her. Given these facts, I'm just puzzled as to how they could justify using the statements against her - can you shed some light on it?

It's not a theory, it's a fact. An investigation does not have to wait for the High Court. Same with the trial...the trial does not have to wait for the determination of the High Court at the end of the third degree. It all must proceed in an order. And I didn't say they could use anything and everything. They use all that is legal within their understanding of the law. If an error was made it was by Judge Matteini, not by the prosecution.

WE agree for it to be used against the suspect a lawyer needed to be present but not on the 'among other safeguards'. What are these other safeguards you imagine would be a legal requirement for it to be used so? There were no others, if there were they would have been included in the High Courts ruling, but the lack of a lawyer was the only grounds for that decision.

As I said, this is the purpose of the courts, to periodically revise the investigation and judge that which is correct and which is not. It's a process. If it was all obvious, I say again, there would be no need for the courts to be involved in the investigation itself.

 

[katy_did]

It's not a theory, it's a fact. An investigation does not have to wait for the High Court. Same with the trial...the trial does not have to wait for the determination of the High Court at the end of the third degree. It all must proceed in an order. And I didn't say they could use anything and everything. They use all that is legal within their understanding of the law. If an error was made it was by Judge Matteini, not by the prosecution.

Why do you think the judge and prosecutor thought a statement made by a suspect without a lawyer could be used as evidence against her? Are they that ignorant of the law?

WE agree for it to be used against the suspect a lawyer needed to be present but not on the 'among other safeguards'. What are these other safeguards you imagine would be a legal requirement for it to be used so? There were no others, if there were they would have been included in the High Courts ruling, but the lack of a lawyer was the only grounds for that decision.

Is it a requirement for interviews with a suspect to be recorded? That was my understanding.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But it is a fact that, regardless of the legal requirements, significant witnesses in murder cases are recorded in the UK as a matter of policy. I don't care about Italy, I was asked about the UK.

NO they are not. And even if they were, which they are not, you are aware 'policy' is not the same as a legal requirement right?

And you are also aware that even if Knox's statements were recorded, which they weren't, under Italian law those recordings would not be admissible in court right? Only statements in written form or under cross examination on the stand are admissible in a trial in Italy. That is Italian LAW. The reason is to for the protection of the witness or suspect. Therefore, the whole argument is moot anyway.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

atypical

Rudy Guede is a convicted sex murderer. Cite the people on PMF and TJMK who are "Rudy loving". You can't. Ugly and ad hominem, once again.

SomeAlibi,

Here I must beg to differ. One commenter last summer referred to how Rudi was studying the law and bettering himself. To the best of my recollection, he or she then called Rudi a "typical youngster." I am sorry but Rudi's DNA shows that he had sexual knowledge of Ms. Kercher, and it is extraordinarily improbable that such an event was consensual. Rudi is not a typical youngster, and I can only ask what this person was thinking.

 

[platonov]

it's up to the appeal court I think, but doesn't it mean Amanda didn't leave Raffaele's after all?

No you have the timing wrong - its before Popovic called to the flat, so if it casts doubt, its on the earlier trip thru town. Not the later RS 'statement' that AK was out between 9 & 1 - or all the other evidence

Where is it mentioned in the appeals, if its at odd with the trial 'cell phone ' evidence surely the defence have picked up on it. If not - best get emailing FOA (they can pass it onto the defence teams) with the news.

Did you find the Nov 7th memorandum reference yet ?