Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[babycondor]

Ah, you're back!

RS:
1. Amanda and I were at a party at my friend's house.
2. Amanda and I were at my place but she went out for awhile.
3. Amanda and I ate, watched a movie, had sex, went to sleep.
4. I was on the computer all night long.

AK:
Just ask her lawyer, even he admits she had multiple stories.

How can two people be so forgetful about what they did if all they used was weed? Hmmmmm......

1. This was never RS's alibi for the night of the murder. The date of the party was Oct. 31. A reporter got the date wrong.

2, 3 and 4 are the same alibi.

2. "...but she went out for a while" is not the same as "I was asleep, I can't be sure she DIDN'T go out, but I doubt it."

3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive.

Therefore you are proven wrong about Raffaele having four alibis. He has only one alibi.

As for Amanda's multiple stories, police coercion and an induced false confession have been proposed as likely explanations. There was a lengthy discussion here about this aspect of the case. If you missed it, the relevant posts are accessible via the Search function at the top of this page.

 

[Kaosium]

It's that first verdict that has kept them in prison for the past 14 months so I would think they think it's quite important.

Actually it's been about 39 months total for each of them now, hasn't it. If Patrick can ask for half a million Euros for his two whole weeks of incarceration, think of what Our Heroes will be able to ask for!

In addition, it seems that the appeal is only going to cover a small portion of what brought out in the first trial, meaning most of the original evidence won't be questioned.

Where did you get this idea? He reserved judgment on all of that, giving me the impression he wanted to take out the trash first, but the rest is still subject to trial.

We will have to see what is covered in the March and April hearings, in addition to the bus/disco people and the forensics of the knife and bra clasp.

I think at that point the prosecution has to decide what it's going to have to try to prove. Without the faux-DNA evidence and Curatolo they have nothing whatsoever that could be construed as a connection to the murder site and nothing that breaks their alibi, and possibly the recovered computer data strengthening theirs.

Going from what the Italian said on the IIP site, the new prosecutor may try to get a rational motive through the Supreme Court and reduce the burden of proof and try to prove a clean-up or something.

 

[Kaosium]

But now he's going with "I was up all night on the computer" so he would have known if she went out. He also told her the bar was closed, so either he's lying or she is.

Anything Raffaele said about sleeping or being up all night on the computer simply has to cover the latest possible time of the murder, which is about 10:30, though realistically closer to 9:30. Anything past that is irrelevant, who cares what he said?

 

[Alt+F4]

Actually it's been about 39 months total for each of them now, hasn't it. If Patrick can ask for half a million Euros for his two whole weeks of incarceration, think of what Our Heroes will be able to ask for!

It's been fourteen months since their conviction. If they had been found not guilty then they would have been freed back in 'December 09. Therefore the first trial was of major significance.

 

[Kaosium]

It's been fourteen months since their conviction. If they had been found not guilty then they would have been freed back in 'December 09. Therefore the first trial was of major significance.

Yes, to their eventual remuneration, but not to their chances of conviction in the second trial. That's the point of the trial de novo otherwise why bother with it, they could just do it like we did and save appeals for points of law.

I think in the end the 'major significance' of the first trial will be to Stefanoni, Napoleoni, Mignini, Comodi and that postal policeman...

 

[Danceme]

The party(s) of the night before are in the official statements and they match what Kate Mansey claimed Raffaele said about the night of the first.

Raffaele had already been telling the police that he was home on the night of the murder, there is solid evidence that backs up that story and there is no reason for him to change it. The simplest explanation is therefore that the reporter got it wrong.

The reporter didn't get it wrong. The story describes it as follows,

"Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

It is clear it is the same night, the night of Nov. 1st that this is referring to.

I think there is also some confusion over the term Raffaele used, "to party". It is not the same thing as "to go to a party". "To party" simply means to drink, maybe smoke up, have fun, and could refer to doing it with one other person or more than one. The young people I know use this term all the time.

"To go to a party" means simply that, to leave where you are and go to somewhere else where there is a party. This meaning usually implies many more people in a specific location.

The way Raffaele describes it they spent the night (I take this to mean slept there) at his apartment but that the earlier evening consisted of partying with a friend of his, although he doesn't say who this friend is.

This quote from the ABC article implies Spyridon is Amanda's friend, not Raffaele's and in the article it clearly refers to Halloween night, not Nov. 1st.

"After hitting a couple of night spots together, Knox asked Spyridon to accompany her to the Fontana Maggiore -- the fountain in the heart of old Perugia -- where she was meeting Raffaele Sollecito, whom she had just started seeing.

 

[Danceme]

The Google translated article posted above says phone records proved crucial to reconstruct their movements. It also confirms he said in his first questioning that he was out with Amanda, then changes his story, presumably after being confronted with these phone records, to say he went home around 21 while Amanda went to meet up with friends at Le Chic. He talks about eating alone, the phone call with his father, and Amanda arriving around 1am.
He definitely changed his story and this obviously led to much suspicion of him by LE.

 

[Mary_H]

The reporter didn't get it wrong. The story describes it as follows,

"Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

The reporter did get wrong that Raffaele lived in a house, that it was on the other side of the city, and that Amanda was 22 (she was 20). Also, in their diaries and in testimony, Amanda and Raffaele say nothing about Meredith going out with one of her English friends. In fact, when she left, she did not tell them where she was going or who she was going to meet.

The Kate Mansey article is hogwash.

 

[Dan O.]

The party(s) of the night before are in the official statements and they match what Kate Mansey claimed Raffaele said about the night of the first.

Raffaele had already been telling the police that he was home on the night of the murder, there is solid evidence that backs up that story and there is no reason for him to change it. The simplest explanation is therefore that the reporter got it wrong.

The reporter didn't get it wrong. The story describes it as follows,

"Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

It is clear it is the same night, the night of Nov. 1st that this is referring to.

It is the morning of Nov. 1st (after the party of Oct 31) that Amanda returns to the cottage around lunch time, Meredith is still sleeping and Amanda helps Filomena wrap a present. Raffaele shows up later and prepares some lunch.

from Amanda't testimony:
"So, on November 1st, yes, there was Filomena who came back in a big hurry, and she asked me to help her boyfriend to put together this package, which was a present for a friend."

Was Meredith there?
"I think Meredith was still sleeping."​

After the evening at Raffaele's place on the night of Nov. 1, the morning of Nov 2, Amanda returns to her place for the shower around 10 AM.

 

[Dan O.]

The Google translated article posted above says phone records proved crucial to reconstruct their movements.

We've been through those phone records before. Apart from the outright lie about what cell tower reaches Raffaele's place, they also fail to account for the fact that SMS messages are sent through the last cell tower that is known to be in range of the phone and don't always use the tower with the strongest signal.

It also confirms he said in his first questioning that he was out with Amanda, then changes his story, presumably after being confronted with these phone records, to say he went home around 21 while Amanda went to meet up with friends at Le Chic. He talks about eating alone, the phone call with his father, and Amanda arriving around 1am.

Have you got a recording of that interrogation? ILE seems to have lost theirs

He definitely changed his story and this obviously led to much suspicion of him by LE.

Again, as we've been through so many times before, what purpose would changing his story serve. He already told the police he was at home. There's a witness that saw him at home. The computer activity shows he was at home. What possible gain could Raffaele see resulting from changing his story?

The prosecution may have been tripped up by the misinformation in the tabloids. But they wanted to believe that Raffaele was lying to them and were willing to accept anything as evidence just as you have done.

 

[sln708]

Suppose that you have a piece candy and you drop it on the floor. Then 47 days later, you remember where you dropped it and go back to retrieve it. When you get there, you find that it is missing and continue to search around the floor. Then remarkably you find it under a throw rug that is a part of a stack of trash that has been shoved in the corner. I will add to this that it is known that someone with e coli poisoning had been in the area.

Ask yourself: Would you pickup eat that piece of candy? If not ask yourself why.

PS: I had to chuckle when I read that passage. It adds a little common sense to that discussion.

No I would not....unless I had a bra clasp or something to wipe it off with.

 

[Dan O.]

No I would not....unless I had a bra clasp or something to wipe it off with.

Welcome to JREF sln, what bring you to our little boring thread?

 

[sln708]

Certainly not boring. Actually I have been following this thread and several others related to this case for more than two years. Initially in the hope that I might find answers to some of the questions I have. But it seems the more I read, the more confused I become.

 

[Dan O.]

You probably have many of the same questions as the rest of us but you might as well ask and maybe we'll get lucky with an answer.

 

[RWVBWL]

Orange Juice is good for?

Hi all,
I have a question, 1 that has crossed my mind since I recently watched The Godfather movie collection. In Part 3, Chapter 16 there is a scene at the Vatican where Don Corleone, looking faint, sits down and asks for orange juice, something sweet, he has a little trouble with diabetes, his blood sugar level goes low.

So I wonder, does anyone know if Rudy Guede is diabetic? Does he have problems with low blood sugar?
I ask this because I recall reading a post that Katy_did wrote awhile back that in the lawyers office break in, someone had apparently drank orange juice.
"The witness Brocchi, heard at the hearing of 26 June 2009, stated: "I noticed that this person or persons who had broken into the office had also drunk some drinks that were present in a cabinet" (p. 16 transcript); and also the witness Palazzoli, at the same hearing, reported "Yes, I remember that there was a bottle of orange juice left, if I remember correctly, in the trainees' room (p. 37 transcript 26 June 2009). And also it is likely that the bathroom was used (Palazzoli: "the light had been left on in the office bathroom" p. 35 transcript of the hearing on 26 June 2009)."

Link to Katy_did's original post is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6099654#post6099654

This also happened at Meredith Kercher's apartment the night she was brutally stabbed to her death, with Rudy Guede, IIRC, admiting to drinking orange juice, of all things, which I always found kind of odd, hence my question...

Thanks for any replies,
RWVBWL

 

[Draca]

Kate Mansey Mirror article

MIRROR

ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007
EXCLUSIVE MURDERED IN ITALY..MEREDITH, 21 Friend tells how he broke down door

• Raffaele didn’t break down the door.

A friend of murdered British student Meredith Kercher told last night how he discovered her body in her blood-spattered bedroom.

• Raffaele didn’t discover her body. He was in the kitchen with Amanda. He never saw her body, her foot or the bedroom crime scene.

Raffaele Sollecito, 23, relived the horror of finding the body of the pretty brunette who died when her killer broke into her home and cut her throat as she lay in her bed.

• Again, he didn’t find MK’s body.

"It is something I never hope to see again," he said. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in.

• Again, he never saw any of this.

"My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'"

Meredith, 21, who had been studying in Perugia, Italy since August, was murdered the day after a Halloween fancy dress party at the city's British-themed Merlin Pub on Wednesday.

On Thursday she posted happy snaps of herself in fancy dress on the internet and in the evening had returned home alone after watching a film at a friend's house.

But her flatmates - two Italian girls and one American - had all stayed out for the night, so the gruesome discovery wasn't made until the next day.

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

• He didn’t live across town, he lived nearby.
• Amada would have been 20yrs old – not 22yrs.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

• Amanda and Raffaele did not know Meredith’s plans for that night. Meredith spent the evening with 3 friends at one of their places having dinner and a movie staying in.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

• Amanda went back to the cottage around 10am, not lunchtime.

As Amanda, from Washington DC, stepped into house she could tell there was something terribly wrong.

• Amanda is from Seattle not D.C.
• She did not think something was terribly wrong immediately. The following sentence written even says that:

Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. 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. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

• Amanda was not freaked by the little blood she saw. She thought it might be a menstrual problem.
• The bathroom was not speckled with blood spots that looked like they had been flicked around.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."

• Spelled Filomena’s name wrong.

Their panic grew as they desperately banged on her door.
Raffaele said: "I tried to knock it down. I thought maybe she was ill... I made a dent, but I wasn't strong enough on my own so I called the police."
When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and Raffaele followed them into the room.

• The police didn’t break down the door, Luca Altieri did. It also wasn't straightaway.
• Raffaele never went into the room.

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming. I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible.

• Again, he never saw anything, how could he not believe what he didn’t see?
• No one saw MK’s face, only her foot. Except for postal police Battistelli, who stepped into the room briefly and lifted the duvet to see if she was alive.

"It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal.

• Normal except for the large bathroom with poop, small bathroom with bathmat blood stain and blood on sink.


In this short TABLOID article the author Kate Mansey makes over 15 mistakes.

WHY does anyone leaning toward the guilt side bring this article up as a proof or evidence of guilt in any way, considering how filled with errors it is?

How can anyone pick one or two lines out of this error filled article and say THOSE LINES are true.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/i-found-her-body-there-was-blood-all-over-it-was-horrific-98487-20058122/

 

[Dan O.]

Honestly, it often seems like the interview is with Luca instead of Raffaele.

Why would Luca pretend to be Raffaele in the interview?

 

[Draca]

Why would Luca pretend to be Raffaele in the interview?

In regards to breaking down the door and seeing blood. It is a huge part of the article and seems more like something Luca would talk about. Not saying the interview is with Luca.

 

[RoseMontague]

• Raffaele didn’t break down the door.



• Raffaele didn’t discover her body. He was in the kitchen with Amanda. He never saw her body, her foot or the bedroom crime scene.



• Again, he didn’t find MK’s body.



• Again, he never saw any of this.





• He didn’t live across town, he lived nearby.
• Amada would have been 20yrs old – not 22yrs.



• Amanda and Raffaele did not know Meredith’s plans for that night. Meredith spent the evening with 3 friends at one of their places having dinner and a movie staying in.



• Amanda went back to the cottage around 10am, not lunchtime.



• Amanda is from Seattle not D.C.
• She did not think something was terribly wrong immediately. The following sentence written even says that:






• Amanda was not freaked by the little blood she saw. She thought it might be a menstrual problem.
• The bathroom was not speckled with blood spots that looked like they had been flicked around.



• Spelled Filomena’s name wrong.



• The police didn’t break down the door, Luca Altieri did. It also wasn't straightaway.
• Raffaele never went into the room.



• Again, he never saw anything, how could he not believe what he didn’t see?
• No one saw MK’s face, only her foot. Except for postal police Battistelli, who stepped into the room briefly and lifted the duvet to see if she was alive.



• Normal except for the large bathroom with poop, small bathroom with bathmat blood stain and blood on sink.


In this short TABLOID article the author Kate Mansey makes over 15 mistakes.

WHY does anyone leaning toward the guilt side bring this article up as a proof or evidence of guilt in any way, considering how filled with errors it is?

How can anyone pick one or two lines out of this error filled article and say THOSE LINES are true.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/i-found-her-body-there-was-blood-all-over-it-was-horrific-98487-20058122/

It is not even clear to me that these are direct quotes. The article starts out:

A friend of murdered British student Meredith Kercher told last night how he discovered her body in her blood-spattered bedroom.

Told whom? I would think that it should say, told me, told us, told the mirror, or something along those lines, stating it was in an interview, phone call, or where it may have taken place. I sent this reporter an e-mail on this over a year ago asking for clarification and did not get a reply.

As far as I can tell it might be that Raffaele told someone else this and we are getting the quotes third hand mixed in with some other statements from some of the other people involved. Very poor reporting, in my opinion.

 

[Danceme]

• Raffaele didn’t break down the door.



• Raffaele didn’t discover her body. He was in the kitchen with Amanda. He never saw her body, her foot or the bedroom crime scene.



• Again, he didn’t find MK’s body.



• Again, he never saw any of this.





• He didn’t live across town, he lived nearby.
• Amada would have been 20yrs old – not 22yrs.



• Amanda and Raffaele did not know Meredith’s plans for that night. Meredith spent the evening with 3 friends at one of their places having dinner and a movie staying in.



• Amanda went back to the cottage around 10am, not lunchtime.



• Amanda is from Seattle not D.C.
• She did not think something was terribly wrong immediately. The following sentence written even says that:






• Amanda was not freaked by the little blood she saw. She thought it might be a menstrual problem.
• The bathroom was not speckled with blood spots that looked like they had been flicked around.



• Spelled Filomena’s name wrong.



• The police didn’t break down the door, Luca Altieri did. It also wasn't straightaway.
• Raffaele never went into the room.



• Again, he never saw anything, how could he not believe what he didn’t see?
• No one saw MK’s face, only her foot. Except for postal police Battistelli, who stepped into the room briefly and lifted the duvet to see if she was alive.



• Normal except for the large bathroom with poop, small bathroom with bathmat blood stain and blood on sink.


In this short TABLOID article the author Kate Mansey makes over 15 mistakes.

WHY does anyone leaning toward the guilt side bring this article up as a proof or evidence of guilt in any way, considering how filled with errors it is?

How can anyone pick one or two lines out of this error filled article and say THOSE LINES are true.

Has it ever occured to you that those are the lies Raffaele told her, not "mistakes" she made?

I think Raffaele is a habitual liar and used that interview to overly dramatize his role long before he would become a suspect.