Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

But his question was why you think the prosecution didn't introduce the statement, not why he thinks it. So you haven't answered the question at all.

If I ask you if you believe in the tooth fairy, and you point out that I don't believe in the tooth fairy, that's not really an answer to my question, is it?

It's really not worth the effort, Matthew. You and I know that what you've written above sums up the position accurately, and I suspect that everyone else with a smidgen of logic can see it too. Unfortunately, when you get people with specific agendas, they seem willing to suspend all rational thinking in favour of what they see as "points scoring". It's sad to observe, and of no value whatsoever in a discussion of the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. When it reaches that point (as it all too frequently does with our farmer friend), I don't see the point in even attempting a discussion with him/her.

 

[Mary_H]

I still think that my original take on what might happen on Monday is the most likely scenario. I think that Guede will be asked whether he said to Alessi the things that Allessi (and the others) allege that he said. I think that Guede will answer in the negative.

I then think that Guede will be asked to explain what he said to Benedetti in the recorded Skype call. He will be asked why his opinion on Knox's/Sollecito's involvement appears to have changed so markedly between this Skype conversation and 2009. I think that this will be harder for him to answer coherently, especially as he definitely knew Knox by sight before the murder, and would almost certainly have been aware of Sollecito's physical appearance by the time he made the Skype call.

I don't therefore think that Monday will be a particularly revelatory day in Hellmann's court. I don't think that Guede will blow the case wide open by stating that Knox and Sollecito weren't there, but nor do I think he will make positive statements to the effect that they definitely were there and were the main protagonists. I am ready to be shown to be wrong in either direction though!

During his trial .... "he took the witness stand to tell the judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he would "exercise my right not to respond." I wonder if he still has that right in this trial. If so, I would agree with your predictions.

I remember his lawyer saying something about how Rudy had chosen not to talk because the authorities hadn't been very nice to him thus far, or something like that.

 

[LondonJohn]

During his trial .... "he took the witness stand to tell the judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he would "exercise my right not to respond." I wonder if he still has that right in this trial. If so, I would agree with your predictions.

I remember his lawyer saying something about how Rudy had chosen not to talk because the authorities hadn't been very nice to him thus far, or something like that.

No, he has to respond to questions (and respond truthfully - so far as can be determined, that is) in the Knox/Sollecito appeal trial. That's because he's appearing as a witness, and not as a defendant. I believe he will still have protection against self-incrimination under questioning, but that's not really an issue here, as he's already been convicted of murder.

If Guede either refuses to answer questions, or gives answers that are provable untrue, then he will be liable to being found guilty of contempt. The Italian penal code indicates a prison sentence of between 6 and 20 years for anyone who gives false testimony (or refuses to testify) in a trial for offences such as murder. So Guede could potentially be in a lot of additional trouble if he does not answer to the best of his ability.

Judge Hellmann is the one who will define the frame of reference for Guede's questioning. Of course, it's possible that Hellmann will go "off piste", and allow (or himself ask) questions of Guede regarding the crime itself. But I think it's more likely that Hellmann will restrict questioning to the specific issues of what Guede said (or didn't say) in both the Skype call with Benedetti and the alleged prison yard conversation with Alessi. We'll see on Monday.

 

[bolint]

Your statement above suggests that when A and R parted, they were not as his place.
A later comment of yours suggested that they were at his place when Ms. Popovic arrived.

Yes to both.

That is why I was unsure of what you meant. There is an additional problem with Raffaele's statement. When he spoke of Meredith's departure, it sounded as if he and Amanda stayed at her flat before going out. That does not square with Ms. Popovic's earlier visit.

Raffaele says that they left the cottage at about 18:00, the Popovic visit was earlier.
If only that were the problem it could be explained as a simple wrong time estimate. A la postals.

But many things are wrong in his story, so it is fundamentally not true.
Why was he lying?
I don't buy the explanation that "it was coerced".

"I cannot see the rationale for choosing to accept parts of Raffaele's statement, when we know that other parts are false."

Amanda has alibi at 20:40, after that until about noon next day she has no alibi, except Raffaele's groggy claims.
He was found lying, evaluating his own earlier alibi statements as crap.

So what should I think about Amanda's alibi?

 

[Katody Matrass]

During his trial .... "he took the witness stand to tell the judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he would "exercise my right not to respond." I wonder if he still has that right in this trial. If so, I would agree with your predictions.

According to Sollecito's lawyers he has to answer all the questions as witness now.
According to Maresca he's obliged to respond only to questions about Alessi.

 

[Kaosium]

But many things are wrong in his story, so it is fundamentally not true.
Why was he lying?
I don't buy the explanation that "it was coerced".

Were you unaware that Raffaele was stoned on hash when he went to the questura?

Amanda has alibi at 20:40, after that until about noon next day she has no alibi, except Raffaele's groggy claims.
He was found lying, evaluating his own earlier alibi statements as crap.

So what should I think about Amanda's alibi?

There's no evidence of her being anywhere else, and Raffaele's electronic alibi covers her.

I wonder how many people in Perugia that night had alibis no better than hers?

 

[bolint]

I believe the statement is simply what the police believed at the time and Raffaele choose not to argue with them.

Why? Why? Why?

Of key importance to the police was the cell tower connection when Amanda's phone received the text message from Patrick. This connection was to a cell in old town.

How can Amanda be watching a movie at Raffaele's place and connect to the cell in old town? SMS messages do not require the phone to find the best connection but will use whatever connection the phone already has.
Amanda and Raffaele went through old town on the way back to his place. Amanda's phone registered with a cell in old town and still had that connection when the text from Patrick came through.

It's a myth.
There is no such a thing as idle connection to a tower.
If your handset is not active (but of course switched on), it always measures the signals of up to 6 towers available and maintains a best quality candidate.
When it is paged either for talk or for SMS it answers it by connecting to that best candidate.
So at 20:15 when Lumumba's SMS arrived Amanda's phone connected to the server that was best candidate based on measurements of the last few minutes before that.

 

[Kaosium]

Why? Why? Why?

Because he was stoned. Who would argue with angry policemen when they're 'smoked' on hash? Why would Raffaele think they were lying to him? My guess is he assumed his memories were incorrect, and they had to be right. They might even have told him they had 'hard evidence' Amanda went out that night, just like they did to her. That would explain a lot.

It's a myth.
There is no such a thing as idle connection to a tower.
If your handset is not active (but of course switched on), it always measures the signals of up to 6 towers available and maintains a best quality candidate.
When it is paged either for talk or for SMS it answers it by connecting to that best candidate.
So at 20:15 when Lumumba's SMS arrived Amanda's phone connected to the server that was best candidate based on measurements of the last few minutes before that.

So are you suggesting that Amanda actually was in Oldtown at 8:15?

 

[bolint]

What would make it hard for Guede is that he's probably not so well versed in the details of AK and RS case as e.g. you or I. Would he know to avoid the pitfall of 21:26 media playback? Or to not contradict J. Popovic testimony?

How about telling the truth?
It has the advantage that he doesn't have to care about those pitfalls.

Not that I expect him telling the truth Monday.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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).

Very unlikely considering that the cottage had it's own wide selection of cheap kitchen knives.

Or it may have been used at Raffaele's place to cut something brought there from the cottage.

Don't know if you have something innocent on mind or something macabre

But assuming the knife has nothing to do with the murder ( I understand you think it's more likely) what explanation for Raffaele's diary musings about it and for Stefanoni results can you see?

 

[bolint]

According to Sollecito's lawyers he has to answer all the questions as witness now.
According to Maresca he's obliged to respond only to questions about Alessi.

According to Biscotti the judges have to specify beforehand to which questions he has to answer.

But Biscotti and Gentile probaly will not be too sharp nowadays as they are involved in two other high profile cases now (Sarah Scazzi, Melania Rea) and they have less energy for Rudy and fortunately at least they cannot raise objections in this case as Rudy as a witness is not entitled for lawyer's aid during his testimony.
Of course, he may fall ill suddenly, like Alessi, and still consult his lawyers.

 

[Katody Matrass]

How about telling the truth?
It has the advantage that he doesn't have to care about those pitfalls.

That's the problem, it's hard to envision the truth compatible with those pitfalls in which all three are guilty. That's why if he tells the truth I expect it to be that AK and RS were not involved.

 

[bolint]

Very unlikely considering that the cottage had it's own wide selection of cheap kitchen knives.

What are you talking about? Raffaele, the collector, with cheap kitchen knives? He'd rather cut his hands than touch them.

Don't know if you have something innocent on mind or something macabre
But assuming the knife has nothing to do with the murder ( I understand you think it's more likely) what explanation for Raffaele's diary musings about it and for Stefanoni results can you see?

I don't see it proven that it was used either for the murder or for the cover-up. Can't exclude it, either.

 

[bolint]

Because he was stoned.

You mean when he went to the police station on Nov 5?

So are you suggesting that Amanda actually was in Oldtown at 8:15?

It is possible that she was there, but it is not sure as two antennas of that tower also cover Raffaele's place, though they are not the best servers there.
Still, next day Amanda's all calls allegedly from Raffaele's place were made through this tower.
That's rather curious.
She may not have been at his place also at that time.

 

[bolint]

I think Hellmann is taking seriously his active role as for the inquisitorial system. He might ask Guede a few very direct questions about the murder. Not doing so would be neglecting his duty of an investigative judge.

I agree with this.
The trial would be a clown show if he did not ask Rudy if Amanda was there and if Raffaele was there.

 

[Kaosium]

You mean when he went to the police station on Nov 5?

Yes.

It is possible that she was there, but it is not sure as two antennas of that tower also cover Raffaele's place, though they are not the best servers there.
Still, next day Amanda's all calls allegedly from Raffaele's place were made through this tower.
That's rather curious.
She may not have been at his place also at that time.

To what purpose would she lie about where she was when she made a call? She was at both places that morning, it's not like she was trying to pretend she hadn't been both at Raffaele's and the cottage.

 

[bolint]

To what purpose would she lie about where she was when she made a call? She was at both places that morning, it's not like she was trying to pretend she hadn't been both at Raffaele's and the cottage.

Don't know yet.

But look at the list of Amanda's 8 connections allegedly made from Raffaele's house (the last one may have been on the street according to her narrative):

(Source: Massei)
(time, contact, tower, sector)
Nov 1
20:18 Lumumba Aquila S3
20:35 Lumumba Berardi S7
Nov 2
12:07 Meredith Aquila S9
12:08 Filomena Aquila S3
12:11 Meredith Aquila S3
12:11 Meredith Aquila S3
12:12 Filomena Aquila S3
12:20 Filomena Aquila S9

There is only one among them, the 20:35 SMS to Lumumba, with which it is corroborated by independent source (Popovic) that at that time she indeed was at Raffaele's place. And interestingly it is the only one that uses the best server for Raffaele's house (Berardi S7).
I find this amazing and quite unlikely to be a random communication situation.
(And I also find it rather strange that she went back to Raffaele before calling Meredith or Filomena)

 

[Katody Matrass]

What are you talking about? Raffaele, the collector, with cheap kitchen knives? He'd rather cut his hands than touch them.

You're not aware that the kitchen knife was not Raffaele's and that it was a cheap generic knife?

I don't see it proven that it was used either for the murder or for the cover-up. Can't exclude it, either.

So you accept that Stefanoni's results might be wrong and Raffaele's writing nothing to do with the crime, OK.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I agree with this.
The trial would be a clown show if he did not ask Rudy if Amanda was there and if Raffaele was there.

Followed by questions of the defense, of course.

 

[bolint]

So you accept that Stefanoni's results might be wrong and Raffaele's writing nothing to do with the crime, OK.

No. I think Stefanoni's results are good in the sense that what she found on the knife is Meredith's DNA.
But how, when and why it got there is not clear for me.

As for Raffaele's "pricking" explanation, the provenly false explanation itself is the problem.
He lied again and this time he definitely was not stoned.
What is his excuse?