Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody:
"Which claims indicate that Amanda was not with Raffaele when he was starting a movie at 21:26?"

Raffaele's Nov 5 claim that they parted at about 21:00 and he went home alone.
 
Katody:
"Amanda didn't bring the knife to the cottage yet it still have some connection. What kind of connection do you have on mind?"

For example it may have been there before (despite Filomena's and Laura's not remembering it).
Or it may have been used at Raffaele's place to cut something brought there from the cottage.
 
"Those are just side questions, don't feel discouraged - I'd love to see the rest of the reconstruction. What we have so far: it is about 21:30, RS is at his place watching a cartoon, AK at the cottage with Meredith, but without the kitchen knife. Meredith has at most 30 minutes to live left. What's happening there?"

I'll wait for Rudy's Monday testimony.
I don't expect much, I think most likely he will repeat his ridiculous story.
But the reconstruction can wait a few days...
 
bolint said:
Katody:
"Which claims indicate that Amanda was not with Raffaele when he was starting a movie at 21:26?"

Raffaele's Nov 5 claim that they parted at about 21:00 and he went home alone.
Click to expand...


Where is this claim documented?
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes: the wording of the GR article (particularly the apostrophes around the word "opposing") clearly indicates that an individual contacted GR demanding the removal of certain articles, and claimed to be represented by a certain named lawyer. Then, when GR's attorney contacted this lawyer directly to discuss the situation, the lawyer stated that (s)he had not been retained by the individual lodging the complaint.

So it sounds to me like the individual in question was attempting to bully/threaten GR into taking down certain articles, and falsely claiming specific named legal support and representation to support his claim (I wouldn't be at all surprised if the individual's complaint had included something like the following: "I am being advised by renowned attorney XYZ, who tells me that I have a watertight claim for libel"). Ah well, I'm sure that this individual can find a super-duper lawyer who really will represent him in this matter. If not, he can always summon up the big guns of the United Nations :D

(PS: I make these observations since I think it's interesting that certain people are apparently trying very hard to suppress free speech: a matter that affects us all. Of course, if someone has a genuine case for libel, they are entitled to the full protection of the law. If that's the case, then the correct procedure is to issue a writ and start due process. It certainly seems more than a little fishy to me that someone who felt they had been libelled would instead apparently choose to start their process by issuing threats to the publisher to remove the article, seemingly also falsely claiming to have named legal representation).
Click to expand...

I think this is key. If Technorati had bothered to follow up on these threats with a legal resource, they might have found they had no merit, and kept Bruce Fisher's article(s) on their site. The same goes for gather.com and zimbio.

The reality is that no legal claims were ever filed on account of libel or slander. That's a good indication there was no libel or slander. These websites need to develop some backbone.
 
Mary_H said:
Where is this claim documented?
Click to expand...


"Io e Amanda siamo andati in centro verso le 18 ma non ricordo che cosa abbiamo fatto. Siamo rimasti in centro fino alle 20.30 o 21. Io alle 21 sono andato da solo a casa mia, mentre Amanda ha detto che sarebbe andata al pub Le Chic perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici. A questo punto ci siamo salutati."
 
Alt+F4 said:
Missed this part of your post. What are these professional folks going to do?
Click to expand...

Steve Moore was fired by Pepperdine University for speaking out on behalf of Amanda Knox. He is currently in the process of suing them for wrongful termination. I am not aware of any of Steve's detractors having contacted Pepperdine before he was fired, but I believe some contacted the Pepperdine lawyers afterward, in order to help them "bolster" their case against Steve. (It's hard not to laugh when writing that.) I have a feeling it is making the lawyers rather uncomfortable to realize with whom they have thrown in their lot.

Michael Krom's employers supported him against the complaints and retained him on their faculty at Leeds. I believe the same is true of high school teacher Michael Wiesner, although I haven't followed that case closely.

KevinLowe, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they also wrote to your employer; at least they threatened to. (ETA: Or whom they thought to be your employer.)

Seattle University seems to have roundly ignored any protests about the seminar given there in April, which was presented by Candace Dempsey, Steve Moore, Mark Waterbury, Judge Mike Heavey and Paul Ciolino.

Judge Mike Heavey was admonished by the the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct, essentially for using his office stationery and staff to contact Italian officials (including Mignini) on Amanda's behalf in 2008. The letter he wrote recently to President Obama and the US Congress has been the impetus behind the current complaint process against him.

All of the professionals named above will survive, and in some cases, will be looked upon as visionaries when Amanda and Raffaele are freed. Still, it's inconvenient and painful to be harassed, slandered and stalked, whether virtually or physically.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
"Io e Amanda siamo andati in centro verso le 18 ma non ricordo che cosa abbiamo fatto. Siamo rimasti in centro fino alle 20.30 o 21. Io alle 21 sono andato da solo a casa mia, mentre Amanda ha detto che sarebbe andata al pub Le Chic perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici. A questo punto ci siamo salutati."
Click to expand...

That tells me what was allegedly said, it doesn't tell me where it appeared.
 
bolint said:
Give me a break.
In many newspapers from the first days of the arrest.
Click to expand...

You're right. And it was printed in English in The Telegraph.

There are some things to keep in mind, though. The report was based on a report the police gave to the press; it was not a recorded statement. Many of us believe the interrogators put words in Amanda's mouth, and the same could be true of Raffaele. Both defendants or their attorneys denied the reports when they went before Judge Matteini.
 
Mary_H said:
There are some things to keep in mind, though. The report was based on a report the police gave to the press; it was not a recorded statement. Many of us believe the interrogators put words in Amanda's mouth, and the same could be true of Raffaele.
Click to expand...

Well it is easy to correct it by claiming very clearly and pointedly that he did not say those words and Amanda was always with him.

Did Raffaele make such a clear claim?
 
bolint said:
Well it is easy to correct it by claiming very clearly and pointedly that he did not say those words and Amanda was always with him.

Did Raffaele make such a clear claim?
Click to expand...


Claudia Matteini said in her report that Raffaele had retracted his claim that he was not with Amanda that night.

"As far as the presence of Knox Amanda is concerned in the place of the murder, there are the statements from Sollecito who has lately confirmed that he was always together with her and in the objective circumstances that only the aforementioned had access to the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola and had therefore the ability to open the front door without leaving any signs of breakage. […] "

That's from The Telegraph.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
"Those are just side questions, don't feel discouraged - I'd love to see the rest of the reconstruction. What we have so far: it is about 21:30, RS is at his place watching a cartoon, AK at the cottage with Meredith, but without the kitchen knife. Meredith has at most 30 minutes to live left. What's happening there?"

I'll wait for Rudy's Monday testimony.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :)

bolint said:
I don't expect much, I think most likely he will repeat his ridiculous story.
Click to expand...
It is probable. I also expect Maresca and prosecution to fight valiantly to stop him from testifying about the murder.
But there are some new factors that may encourage him to change his position. First of all he's already convicted both of murder and rape (IIRC) and nothing he admits to can add to his sentence. Guede, reportedly a model prisoner, is aiming for an early release. Full confession definitely would help him. I think Hellmann will also inform him that he's expected to be telling the truth this time and the court can punish him for lying or refusing to talk. Any such thing would spoil his record of good behavior and hinder his chances of early release.

Anyway, unless a sudden medical condition stops him from appearing in court, I expect drama - with both defendants pleading Guede to tell the whole truth and confronting him about the lies.
 
Ms. Popovic and Ms. Knox

bolint said:
Katody:
"Which claims indicate that Amanda was not with Raffaele when he was starting a movie at 21:26?"

Raffaele's Nov 5 claim that they parted at about 21:00 and he went home alone.
Click to expand...
bolint,

When and where did Ms. Popovic encounter Amanda, and what did Amanda do afterwards?
 
Kaosium said:
Funny you mention the Innocence Project, as that's another one of their 'campaigns.' They are deeply suspicious of Dr. Greg Hampikian's involvement and that of the Idaho Innocence Project. Amanda isn't from Idaho! Thus e-mail campaigns have been waged, they're defrauding their contributors somehow! Someone should look into their tax exempt status! :p:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Had the "Meredith supporters" done a little research they would have learned the following:
1.) Washington Innocence Project tales only (according to their website) cases from indigent persons.
2.) Idaho has no such restriction. BTW - the general restriction that cases are limited to the USA as noted by pilot and others is just that - a general restriction NOT a specific restriction or absolute requirement. Given IIP's interest in expanding the IP concept internationally (see #4) taking the AK case was a valid exception - IMHO.
3.) Dr. Hampkian's combination of DNA expertise and leadership is unique among the various state innocence projects - most are organized and led by lawyers or law students - not biologists. DNA analysis has been and will continue to be crucial to this case.
4.) Idaho IP has an interest in developing international innocence projects to spread the work of the IPs outside the US. In fact since the AK case began it was instrumental in the establishment of the Ireland IP.
5.) 501(c)3 charitable organizations have broad latitude under the regulations to conduct their work, especially those whose main purpose is education. BTW - the IRS has publications, available online, that explain the requirements for tax-exempt organizations in excruciating :) detail. The fact that the folks from certain other sites have not referenced anything from this wealth of IRS information is IMHO indicative of how weak an argument they have about Idaho IP taking AK's case being somehow a violation of its tax exempt status.
6.) Obviously, based on #1 above if Washington IP makes no exception to the poverty requirement it is simple logic that Amanda's family would explore the options in surrounding states - of which Idaho is one - first.
 
bolint said:
Katody:
"Which claims indicate that Amanda was not with Raffaele when he was starting a movie at 21:26?"

Raffaele's Nov 5 claim that they parted at about 21:00 and he went home alone.
Click to expand...

Hard for Popovich to see Amanda at Raffaele's door if they were not at home?

ETA: I see halides1 already asked this question.
 
Last edited:
 
Katody Matrass said:
"But there are some new factors that may encourage him to change his position. First of all he's already convicted both of murder and rape (IIRC) and nothing he admits to can add to his sentence. Guede, reportedly a model prisoner, is aiming for an early release. Full confession definitely would help him.".
Click to expand...

I can't imagine a scenario in which he is less guilty than what he has already admitted so I don't know why he would confess more, let alone fully.


Katody Matrass said:
Anyway, unless a sudden medical condition stops him from appearing in court, I expect drama - with both defendants pleading Guede to tell the whole truth and confronting him about the lies.
Click to expand...

That would be amazing, but it is highly unlikely. Especially that so far they have not spent much effort in pleading him.
Silently surviving Rudy's testimony is a more probable strategy.

It is enough to recall the preliminary trial. All three were there passively enjoying the lawyers' clashing and then withdrawing into their cells.
 
halides1 said:
bolint,

When and where did Ms. Popovic encounter Amanda, and what did Amanda do afterwards?
Click to expand...

At Raffaele's place, at the front door, at about 20:40.
In my theory Amanda then went to the cottage to change clothes as she did not have to go to work in the bar.
I don't know where she planned to go afterwards, nor what she had said to Raffaele about it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom