Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

True, Raf avers to his diary that all he told the police, he told of his own free will. The problem is that he recalls having told the police, in a misguided moment, something quite different. 11-7: "The judge questioned me today, and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to the bar where she worked, Le Chic." He goes on to claim, of course, that in truth and fact he doesn't "exactly" remember whether she left or not.

Is it really of much consequence whether you believe Raf admitted that Amanda had put him up to perjury? His previous version dovetailed with Amanda's, and by admitting that she had gone to Le Chic, he admitted that both of them had been lying.

I'm still waiting to hear how Raf was "coerced" into laying the "grossa cavolata."

Aargh. This isn't what he wrote. As I said earlier, the translation is misleading. Here's one hypothetical coercion scenario based on what he actually said, from Raffaele's point of view:

a) Amanda acted like we were together the entire night, and I believed her;
b) the police tell me they have hard evidence she was at her house that night, and I guess they wouldn't have told me that if it weren't true;
c) come to think of it, it was Thursday, and she was supposed to work wasn't she?;
d) now you've pointed out these inconsistencies, I suppose she must have left after all;
e) hell I dunno, I was stoned, my memory's a bit hazy anyway. If you're telling me she left then I guess she must have.

These would be the same tactics used with Amanda: telling him they had evidence she was at the house (which according to Amanda is what they told her), then playing on his hazy memory of an evening four days earlier to get him to say that she might have left. Additionally, according to Raffaele, they even outright suggested to him that she'd asked him to cover for her. They didn't quite get him to admit that, but they did get a statement where he indicates she tried to mislead him, which is understandable if they'd told him they knew for sure she'd left the flat and she'd been acting like she hadn't (you can see a similar situation in his diary when he reads in the paper that Amanda had been seen in a laundromat with a man washing bloody shoes or clothes, and he believes it and starts to distrust her).

Perhaps there are statements or transcripts I haven't seen which would rule out the above interpretation, but based on what I've read and what's been posted here, there's nothing to contradict the above as one possible theory of what happened.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Jungle Jim,

Filomena got a lawyer right away. It is in her court testimony. Happy Holidays.

Thank You. Is her court testimony available online? I imagine it would be quite informative regarding several issues.

 

[Malkmus]

Aargh. This isn't what he wrote. As I said earlier, the translation is misleading. Here's one hypothetical coercion scenario based on what he actually said, from Raffaele's point of view:



These would be the same tactics used with Amanda: telling him they had evidence she was at the house (which according to Amanda is what they told her), then playing on his hazy memory of an evening four days earlier to get him to say that she might have left. Additionally, according to Raffaele, they even outright suggested to him that she'd asked him to cover for her. They didn't quite get him to admit that, but they did get a statement where he indicates she tried to mislead him, which is understandable if they'd told him they knew for sure she'd left the flat and she'd been acting like she hadn't (you can see a similar situation in his diary when he reads in the paper that Amanda had been seen in a laundromat with a man washing bloody shoes or clothes, and he believes it and starts to distrust her).

Perhaps there are statements or transcripts I haven't seen which would rule out the above interpretation, but based on what I've read and what's been posted here, there's nothing to contradict the above as one possible theory of what happened.

I'd go even further and say that because they thought they had Amanda on CCTV going to the cottage that they told Raf that it was a fact she went out that night and they had the video to prove it.

 

[Mary_H]

So now the question becomes why a young hedonist of 23 would have returned home at 9:00 pm on a holiday weekend night, there to roll a joint, dine and fiddle with his computer in solitude. Kate Mansey of the Sunday Mirror wrote two articles about her brief encounter with Raf shortly after the body was discovered. In the one styled "Italy Murder Details Emerge" (dateline 11-4), she has Raf saying, in response to her question about where he had been on the night of the murder, "It was a normal night....Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends" (frequently misquoted as 'went to a friend's party.") This could hardly be a mixup with Holloween night, since Raf and Amanda had gone out separately that evening, meeting up and returning home about 2:00 am. I suspect Mansey may be rather more conversant with Italian than some have supposed, since she managed to follow Raf's end of a cell phone dispute, in Italian, about the wisdom of speaking with journalists. In any event, I see that Amanda, in her trial testimony, says she often depended on Raf to translate Italian to English for her.

nopoirot, in addition to the article mistakenly claiming that Raffaele saw what was in Meredith's bedroom, it also claims that Raffaele said, "My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'" as well as, "...Amanda started crying and screaming."

Does that fit into your impression of how most other people portrayed Amanda after the crime?

The article says Raffaele lived on the other side of the city (he lived a few minutes' walk away), Amanda was 22 (she was 20), and that she is from Washington, DC (she is from Washington state).

It quotes Raffaele as saying, "That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone."

It claims, "When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and Raffaele followed them into the room."

And, "Police hunting for the killer found two mobile phones in nearby Parco Saint Angelo, a favourite hang out for heroin addicts."

How many errors does it take before this article is accepted as a careless collection of unchecked "facts" and unsubstantiated rumors?

 

[Mary_H]

Well, hal, we're not in a court of law here, and I think a bit of rhetorical license in the characterization of untruthfulness harmless enough. If you're suggesting some theory of inadvertent untruthfulness, we part company.

Raf is not altogether consistent concerning what, precisely, Amanda gave him as the reason for her departure. Reading between the lines, I don't know that it's out of the question she told him she was going to Le Chic, and ended up elsewhere.

As I have earlier remarked, one of the problems with Raf's "coercion" is that he is quite loquacious in his diary about his tribulations, but nowhere complains of "coercive" techniques. I'm sure being forced to walk on bare foot is uncomfortable, but. . . .

Fortunately, in a court of law the attorneys are forced to rely on documentation, as opposed to "reading between the lines." The use of hearsay in trials is supposed to have been outlawed in Italy, although we saw that Mignini struggled with that rule, too.

As halides1 pointed out, the only documentation of Raffaele's interrogation has been withheld. A sentence or two is not "loquacious" by any means. Maybe when Raffaele is released and perhaps relocates to a democracy, he will tell the true story of how he was coerced into agreeing with the police's version of events, if that is what he actually did.

Meanwhile, you may find humor in "rhetorical license in the characterization of untruthfulness," but use of rhetorical license by the press got two innocent people convicted. Funny, huh?

 

[Fine]

Rejection?

Aargh. This isn't what he wrote. As I said earlier, the translation is misleading. Here's one hypothetical coercion scenario based on what he actually said, from Raffaele's point of view:

Quote:
a) Amanda acted like we were together the entire night, and I believed her;
b) the police tell me they have hard evidence she was at her house that night, and I guess they wouldn't have told me that if it weren't true;
c) come to think of it, it was Thursday, and she was supposed to work wasn't she?; d) now you've pointed out these inconsistencies, I suppose she must have left after all;e) hell I dunno, I was stoned, my memory's a bit hazy anyway. If you're telling me she left then I guess she must have.


These would be the same tactics used with Amanda: telling him they had evidence she was at the house (which according to Amanda is what they told her), then playing on his hazy memory of an evening four days earlier to get him to say that she might have left. Additionally, according to Raffaele, they even outright suggested to him that she'd asked him to cover for her. They didn't quite get him to admit that, but they did get a statement where he indicates she tried to mislead him, which is understandable if they'd told him they knew for sure she'd left the flat and she'd been acting like she hadn't (you can see a similar situation in his diary when he reads in the paper that Amanda had been seen in a laundromat with a man washing bloody shoes or clothes, and he believes it and starts to distrust her).

Perhaps there are statements or transcripts I haven't seen which would rule out the above interpretation, but based on what I've read and what's been posted here, there's nothing to contradict the above as one possible theory of what happened.

_______________________

katy_did,

Your scenario of Raffaele's interrogation is implausible, knowing Amanda's court testimony, where she says:

__________________________________________
"AK: Yes, actually, I really didn't want to go to work that night, I preferred
to stay home with Raffaele. [Laughs.] I was really pleased. In fact I actually jumped on Raffaele and went "Woo! I don't have to go to work!"
And then....yes."
__________________________________________

Clearly, Amanda had emphatically announced to Raffaele that she wasn't going to work that night. And as he said in his Diary, he thought Le Chic was closed that night. Nothing the cops said to Raffaele would have changed his mind on that topic.

The lovebirds were working a deceitful scheme the night of their interrogations, a scheme devised by Amanda. Raffaele wasn't coerced by the cops. He was coerced ---or "persuaded"---by Amanda.
And Amanda wasn't coerced either. Amanda's so-called coercion was a sham, created by Amanda in real time, while she was being interrogated. Yeah, she probably was slapped a couple times by the cops, but that was invited by Amanda herself, as she pretended to be protecting her boss, Patrick, by saying something like "I don't know nothin' 'bout nothin.' " Amanda's wailing and gnashing of teeth before the cops was part of the scheme, designed to make it look look the cops were extracting information from her that she was afraid to say ("He's bad"), when---in fact!-- that's exactly what she'd come to say. And so Amanda's simulated resistance to accuse Patrick led the cops to think she was telling the truth when, finally, she "confessed."

If innocent, this is odd behavior indeed. Maybe the APPEAL trial will reveal more about Amanda's strange relationship with Patrick. The cops are supposed to have told Patrick, on the day of his arrest, that Amanda said he killed Meredith because he'd been rejected by Meredith. HERE Do you suppose Amanda had been rejected by Patrick, though neither has said so?

///

 

[moodstream]

_______________________

katy_did,

Your scenario of Raffaele's interrogation is implausible, knowing Amanda's court testimony, where she says:

__________________________________________
"AK: Yes, actually, I really didn't want to go to work that night, I preferred
to stay home with Raffaele. [Laughs.] I was really pleased. In fact I actually jumped on Raffaele and went "Woo! I don't have to go to work!"
And then....yes."
__________________________________________

Clearly, Amanda had emphatically announced to Raffaele that she wasn't going to work that night. And as he said in his Diary, he thought Le Chic was closed that night. Nothing the cops said to Raffaele would have changed his mind on that topic.

The lovebirds were working a deceitful scheme the night of their interrogations, a scheme devised by Amanda. Raffaele wasn't coerced by the cops. He was coerced ---or "persuaded"---by Amanda.
And Amanda wasn't coerced either. Amanda's so-called coercion was a sham, created by Amanda in real time, while she was being interrogated. Yeah, she probably was slapped a couple times by the cops, but that was invited by Amanda herself, as she pretended to be protecting her boss, Patrick, by saying something like "I don't know nothin' 'bout nothin.' " Amanda's wailing and gnashing of teeth before the cops was part of the scheme, designed to make it look look the cops were extracting information from her that she was afraid to say ("He's bad"), when---in fact!-- that's exactly what she'd come to say. And so Amanda's simulated resistance to accuse Patrick led the cops to think she was telling the truth when, finally, she "confessed."

If innocent, this is strange behavior indeed. Maybe the APPEAL trial will reveal more about Amanda's strange relationship with Patrick. The cops are supposed to have told Patrick, on the day of his arrest, that Amanda said he killed Meredith because he'd been rejected by Meredith. HERE Do you suppose Amanda had been rejected by Patrick, though neither has said so?

///

ah, the Sharon Stone Amanda Knox!

What could she gain by blaming Patrick that she could not do better by saying nothing at all, or blaming Guede?

Amanda's jumping on Raffaele may have been a more common occurrence than you suspect.

 

[nopoirot]

Transcripts of Amanda's trial may be found on the PMF site. I recently quoted the section where Amanda says she was "astonished" when she was informed, during her interrogation, of what Raffaele was saying. I'm not sure, but I think Raf may have been in the room when she offered this testimony. His lawyer was. You will find several interesting things in the transcripts not often discussed here. For sake of example, there is extended discussion of the telephone call Amanda made to her mother on Nov 2, around noon Perugia time and 3:00 am Seattle time. Inquiring minds want to know why Amanda would have called her mother at such an ungodly hour shortly before Meredith's body was discovered. Amanda's mother, visiting her in prison on Nov 10, remonstrates with her "But at 12, nothing had happened yet." Amanda replies "I don't remember that." This exchange was recorded. It is discussed in #5 of the second series of audioclips.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lionking,

Merry Christmas!

 

[Dan O.]

For sake of example, there is extended discussion of the telephone call Amanda made to her mother on Nov 2, around noon Perugia time and 3:00 am Seattle time. Inquiring minds want to know why Amanda would have called her mother at such an ungodly hour shortly before Meredith's body was discovered. Amanda's mother, visiting her in prison on Nov 10, remonstrates with her "But at 12, nothing had happened yet." Amanda replies "I don't remember that." This exchange was recorded. It is discussed in #5 of the second series of audioclips.

We've already discussed this at length. Amanda is right that nothing (as far as Amanda knew) had happened yet at 12. Amanda did not call her mother around noon. Amanda did make 2 calls to her mother around 1PM: the first when there was sufficient concern that Amanda's mother told her that she should call the police. The second call was after Meredith's body was discovered.


Now, who was it that presented this lie that Amanda had called her mother around noon before anything had happened?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, I'd like to wish both sides here a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe Holiday. We may disagree on a great many things here, but the one thing we can all agree on, we all want justice done. Good Night......

 

[Mary_H]

Transcripts of Amanda's trial may be found on the PMF site. I recently quoted the section where Amanda says she was "astonished" when she was informed, during her interrogation, of what Raffaele was saying. I'm not sure, but I think Raf may have been in the room when she offered this testimony. His lawyer was. You will find several interesting things in the transcripts not often discussed here. For sake of example, there is extended discussion of the telephone call Amanda made to her mother on Nov 2, around noon Perugia time and 3:00 am Seattle time. Inquiring minds want to know why Amanda would have called her mother at such an ungodly hour shortly before Meredith's body was discovered. Amanda's mother, visiting her in prison on Nov 10, remonstrates with her "But at 12, nothing had happened yet." Amanda replies "I don't remember that." This exchange was recorded. It is discussed in #5 of the second series of audioclips.

The transcripts have been discussed at length here, nopoirot. I think it was just in November that people were discussing the dialogue you refer to. I didn't participate in that discussion, but I think the consensus was that Manuela Comodi acted in bad faith when she asked Amanda to comment on a phone call that Comodi knew had actually taken place at a different time.

You can probably find many comments and insights about it if you search for Comodi.

 

[lionking]

lionking,

Merry Christmas!

Thank you. And same to you.

 

[Mary_H]

If innocent, this is odd behavior indeed. Maybe the APPEAL trial will reveal more about Amanda's strange relationship with Patrick. The cops are supposed to have told Patrick, on the day of his arrest, that Amanda said he killed Meredith because he'd been rejected by Meredith. HERE Do you suppose Amanda had been rejected by Patrick, though neither has said so?

///

Amanda doesn't have a history of dating anyone but boys her own age, Fine, and Patrick was at least 15 years older than she. She had dated another boy in October, was dating Raffaele, and had a boyfriend in Seattle. I can't really see her having any interest in Patrick or in breaking up Patrick's marriage; he had a two-year-old son, and she has a lot of respect for families and kids.

That Mail article is probably false. Patrick couldn't speak English at the time of that so-called interview, and so many of the "facts" in the article are false or unfounded.

 

[Onofarar]

Thank You. Is her court testimony available online? I imagine it would be quite informative regarding several issues.

One of the basic problems with this case is that the court transcripts are only available for inspection at the courthouse in Perugia they are not posted on line anywhere. I am not aware whether you can copy what you inspect. The motivation report is published and given to both the prosecution and defense teams. It is this document commonly called the Massei report that PMF volunteers translated into English. It does provide snatches of testimony. Other quotes - some from trial testimony are available here and elsewhere - ask Rose she has the best catalog of case related docs.

 

[nopoirot]

In the translation of the trial transcript offered on PMF, Francesco Moresca, the attorney for the Kercher family, in his examination of Amanda about the aforementioned call, makes the following comment:

FM: Yes, certainly, page 35-36 of the transcription of the conversation of Nov 10. Your mother, surprised, says: You called me three times. You say: Oh, I don't remember that. She says Okay, you called me once to tell me of some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house, says your mother.

Carlo dalla Vedova, Amanda's lawyer, rises to his feet to protest that Moresca has left out Amanda's explanation that the "stress" inducing her failure of memory was occasioned by the rapidity of events, but he makes no objection to the authenticity of the transcript of the recording or of the 12:00 pm / 3:00 am timing assigned to Amanda's telephone call to her mother, nor does he raise a claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Bah, humbug.

 

[RoseMontague]

In the translation of the trial transcript offered on PMF, Francesco Moresca, the attorney for the Kercher family, in his examination of Amanda about the aforementioned call, makes the following comment:

FM: Yes, certainly, page 35-36 of the transcription of the conversation of Nov 10. Your mother, surprised, says: You called me three times. You say: Oh, I don't remember that. She says Okay, you called me once to tell me of some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house, says your mother.

Carlo dalla Vedova, Amanda's lawyer, rises to his feet to protest that Moresca has left out Amanda's explanation that the "stress" inducing her failure of memory was occasioned by the rapidity of events, but he makes no objection to the authenticity of the transcript of the recording or of the 12:00 pm / 3:00 am timing assigned to Amanda's telephone call to her mother, nor does he raise a claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Bah, humbug.

We know that Amanda was at Raffaele's at noon and we also know by Amanda's phone records that she did not call her mom at noon. The failure of her defense lawyers in pointing this out during Comodi's false demands regarding a noon call to Amanda's mom is unfortunate given the interpretation of things by the court regarding this forgotten call. In the previous discussion we had on this several posters pointed out that they felt it was Comodi that was attempting to be disingenuous rather than Amanda. Others felt that Amanda knew what call she was referring to despite Comodi's obvious error in the giving the incorrect time. Again the fact that there was no objection to the timing presented by the prosecution does not make that timing accurate. We know it was not.

 

[Dan O.]

In the translation of the trial transcript offered on PMF, Francesco Moresca, the attorney for the Kercher family, in his examination of Amanda about the aforementioned call, makes the following comment:

Have you got your sources right? I thought the translation came from the video tape recording of Amanda's testimony.

I still find it very puzzling that Amanda's own mother would be interrogating her in prison. I wonder if the prosecution seeded the question in a conversation before Edda visited her daughter by mentioning something like: "What puzzles me is why Amanda called you that morning around noon before anything happened." The other possibility is that Edda tried to do her own reconstruction of the events and didn't realize that the timezone conversion was one hour off for that week only because of the difference in when daylight savings time changed. Edda would understandably be surprised that Amanda called her about the broken window 15 minutes before telling Raffaele that only the front door was open.

The big question though is: why is the prosecution bringing this up in court when they know for a fact that Amanda didn't call her mother until 12:47:43 and this was after Amanda had told Filomena about the broken window and even after the prosecutions attempted claim of when the postal police arrived?! Something smells here and I don't think it is reindeer poop.

 

[capealadin]

Wishing all a happy Xmas, and a fabulous New Year. May all your wishes come true. And, I mean that for everyone...from either side of the Equator

 

[capealadin]

We know that Amanda was at Raffaele's at noon and we also know by Amanda's phone records that she did not call her mom at noon. The failure of her defense lawyers in pointing this out during Comodi's false demands regarding a noon call to Amanda's mom is unfortunate given the interpretation of things by the court regarding this forgotten call. In the previous discussion we had on this several posters pointed out that they felt it was Comodi that was attempting to be disingenuous rather than Amanda. Others felt that Amanda knew what call she was referring to despite Comodi's obvious error in the giving the incorrect time. Again the fact that there was no objection to the timing presented by the prosecution does not make that timing accurate. We know it was not.

Not NOON!!!! 12.00am!!!!!!!!!!!!!So, let's go back. There is after all, a difference between an afternoon call, and an early morning call.Perhaps this has been pointed out earlier, so I'll read and catch up.

Sorry. You were talking about NOON Perugia time. Even so, waking up MOM, at 3.00 am, Seattle Time, seems URGENT..NO?