Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Death threats on the Internet is serious!

A former Veterans Administration law enforcement officer from New York state will serve six months of home confinement for threatening to kill a Rapid City woman through e-mail.
Edward S. Grenawalt, 47, of Yonkers, N.Y., pleaded guilty Monday in U.S. District Court in Rapid City to one count of making a threatening communication and was sentenced to two years probation.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-11-04-death-threat-guilty_x.htm

 

[Paninaro]

In addition, as others have pointed out, if Knox and Sollecito had been involved in the murder, there's a decent argument to be made that Knox would have made repeated attempts to reach Meredith on her phones (even to the point of near parody). After all, this would give Knox far more ammunition to subsequently claim that she was deeply concerned about Meredith's whereabouts and condition.

Agreed.

The argument against this that have been made at PMF is that the wanted to delay the discovery of the phones and the murder further. So Knox only made short calls to make sure nobody heard the ringing. She called Romanelli at the same time and wanted her to come back to the cottage, because Knox and Sollecito wanted her to discover Kerchers body instead of them. I guess that's possible.

But this doesn't really hold up as evidence of any sort; it just get us into an endless argument of how they should have acted if... And that's not proof of anything, that's reasoning after the facts, even if it's a baffling circumstance that this way of thinking apparently is how judges in Italy are supposed to reason in their reports. (it is likely, therefore it's probable, therefore it's proven: never seen anything like it.)

I only mentioned it because I can see how a thing like this can add to suspicions already in place.

Do you also agree with two other posters that the Kercher phone at the police station could have been turned off and still ringing at Knox's end? Is there a source for this? If I try to reach my phone when it's turned off it just goes " the number you have tried to reach is not available at the moment". But I guess that differs between countries too?

 

[LondonJohn]

So, we have a complete, 100%, retraction from the Director of Oggi. Looks like Italian law worked here?.

The Director then goes on to make four completely irrelevant observations about the 2 1/2 hour secret recording .... he won't be in line for the Pulitzer Prize this year?

Gutter press is the same the world over?

Hahaha is that what you really saw when you read the Oggi piece?! Seriously?!

Because what I saw was this: I saw Oggi printing Mignini's "rebuttal" letter as requested (and I don't think that under the law they had much choice other than to print this anyway), but then proceeding to point out the numerous contradictions in Mignini's letter and confirming their original story.

The most amusing bit is Mignini's claim that he was just having some sort of casual chit-chat with Graham (rather than any kind of interview), when the evidence shows not only that he engaged in over two and a half hours of conversation in his office (with an interpreter present) with a man who he must have known (or should have known) was a journalist working for a UK national newspaper, but also that he had a nice photo-op with the journalist the following day. Mignini clearly has problems with the "actualite".

By the way, since you clearly have an interesting pro-guilt agenda, Kevin, I'm wondering what your history of following this case is? Of course, it's your prerogative not to want to talk about this, but I'm curious, that's all. Just sayin'....

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you also agree with two other posters that the Kercher phone at the police station could have been turned off and still ringing at Knox's end? Is there a source for this? If I try to reach my phone when it's turned off it just goes " the number you have tried to reach is not available at the moment". But I guess that differs between countries too?

No. Nobody ringing either Meredith's UK phone or her Italian phone (lent to her by Filomena) would heard a "phone ringing" tone on their handset if the phone being called was turned off (or out of signal range). The person calling would either have received an automated message (in English or Italian respectively) telling them that the phone they were calling was not available, or the voicemail associated with the phone being called would kick straight in (if it was configured to do so).

The "phone ringing" tone that you hear when you call someone else is only activated when a positive two way connectivity has been established between the calling party and the party being called. If a mobile phone being called is either switched off or out of signal range, the mobile network will page for the phone, but will receive no response, and consequently will not activate either the "incoming call" ringtone on the phone being called or the "phone ringing" tone on the phone of the calling party.

So....... if Knox says that she called Meredith's UK phone and heard the "phone ringing" tone on her (Knox's) phone, then either Knox is lying/mistaken or Meredith's UK phone was switched on at that moment. Meredith's UK phone was left turned on when it was dumped in the garden, and it was the ringtone alert caused by Knox calling it which initiated its discovery the following morning. But in addition, even after it had been handed in at the police station, the police likely had the phone turned on for a while while they interrogated its call history. Once the SIM was removed for examination, however, any calls to that number would have not connected at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just for clarification ahead of Napoleoni's appearance before Hellmann's court on Monday:

1) None of the out-of-town discos near Perugia were open on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd 2007

2) Many of the smaller clubs and discos (Domus, Velvet, etc) in the centre of Perugia were open on that night

3) It's only the out-of-town discos that operate shuttle buses to take customers to and from their premises (for obvious reasons)

4) There were no disco buses whatsoever running on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd 2007

5) The owners of the relevant discos have already given testimony to this effect, and it's a fact not in dispute

6) Curatolo claimed in his testimony that the night on which he allegedly saw Knox and Sollecito acting strangely over a period of many hours was notable for being a night when there were disco buses (and crowds of young people waiting for and boarding those buses)

7) Curatolo is therefore demonstrably mistaken in his recollection in this regard, and this - in and of itself - therefore calls his whole testimony into doubt

8) If Napoleoni testifies on Monday that there were disco buses running in the square on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd 2007, then she will be either mistaken or lying

Hope that clears things up!

 

[komponisto]

So, we have a complete, 100%, retraction from the Director of Oggi.

No. Nothing was retracted, as far as I can tell. 0%.

The Director then goes on to make four completely irrelevant observations about the 2 1/2 hour secret recording ....

Also incorrect. Observation #3 addresses Mignini's claim about his regard for the police; #4 confirms his doubts about Amanda's involvement. (The point was never that Mignini doesn't think she's guilty; it was whether that belief is based on compelling evidence -- and in such quotes Mignini effectively acknowledges that it isn't, despite his protestations.)

As for #1 and #2, Mignini is the one who insisted on bringing up the matter of whether or not the convesation was an "interview".

he won't be in line for the Pulitzer Prize this year?

The Pulitzer is exclusively a U.S. prize.

 

[Amazer]

You're listing a false dichotomy here.

Really? I think I just mentioned the two claims that those favoring innocence seem to favor with regard to RS's activities that night.

I presume that by your loaded use of the phrase "behind his computer", you're intending to convey an impression of Sollecito sitting behind a desk (or something similar).

You presume wrong.

You seem to be missing the possibility - either through accident or design - that Knox and Sollecito were both in Sollecito's bed, but that Sollecito was intermittently dozing and messing around on his laptop as he lay in bed next to a sleeping Knox.

Sure it's a possibility... Is this what RS is claiming (with regard to his activities that night) at the moment?

 

[pipelineaudio]

If someone threatened to murder you, you wouldn't take action against that? Really?

Have you ever been to that place called "the internet"?

 

[Draca]

Just for clarification ahead of Napoleoni's appearance before Hellmann's court on Monday:

LJ,

Monica Napoleoni was already questioned about there being other buses last time. I believe her and Marco Chiaccheria are being called in to testifly about their questioning of Rudy Guede on Jun 27. Anyone know more?

 

[Draca]

Translation of Mignini's letter to Oggi regarding the Graham interview, and the editor's comments.

Also, contrary to Kevinfay, Oggi is comparable to People, not the National Enquirer.

Thanks for the translation Komponisto and also Kevinfay for the help,

It's amusing how Mignini trys to say a 2 1/2 hour interview with a photo shoot lined up afterwords was just an off the record converstation.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ,

Monica Napoleoni was already questioned about there being other buses last time. I believe her and Marco Chiaccheria are being called in to testifly about their questioning of Rudy Guede on Jun 27. Anyone know more?

I believe that she is there for three reasons: first, to receive a public admonishment from Hellmann over her non-appearance some weeks ago; second, to testify as to the questioning of Guede; and third, to clarify her testimony on the disco bus issue in the light of the testimony from the out-of-town disco operators. This last issue is the one that she was due to be questioned on when she mysteriously failed to show up in court. It could be quite an interesting day for the 100%-truthful Ms Napoleoni...

 

[LondonJohn]

Really? I think I just mentioned the two claims that those favoring innocence seem to favor with regard to RS's activities that night.

You seem to have set up a false dichotomy.

You presume wrong.

In that case, I think it was an odd choice of words. If someone is lying on a bed using a laptop, it's unusual (in my opinion) to refer to him as "behind his computer". Maybe the vernacular is different in your neck of the woods though....

Sure it's a possibility... Is this what RS is claiming (with regard to his activities that night) at the moment?

Nice use of the throwaway final phrase "at the moment" there. Well done. But yes, I believe that this is what Sollecito's defence indicates - and it tallies with Sollecito's version of events at all times except for a short time under police questioning on November 5th 2007.

 

[Draca]

Monica Napoleoni - May 21 court date

I believe that she is there for three reasons: first, to receive a public admonishment from Hellmann over her non-appearance some weeks ago; second, to testify as to the questioning of Guede; and third, to clarify her testimony on the disco bus issue in the light of the testimony from the out-of-town disco operators. This last issue is the one that she was due to be questioned on when she mysteriously failed to show up in court. It could be quite an interesting day for the 100%-truthful Ms Napoleoni...

LJ,

Monica Napoleoni was ALREADY questioned about the disco buses during the May 21 court date.

Summary:

She identified four disco's. The defense showed that one was closed, two were in the central district and the last was out of town but never used a shuttle bus service.

She speculated that there were tour buses where Curatolo said; but wasn't able to back it up.

She was then asked about the weather being wet and the open air market.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ,

Monica Napoleoni was ALREADY questioned about the disco buses during the May 21 court date.

Summary:

She identified four disco's. The defense showed that one was closed, two were in the central district and the last was out of town but never used a shuttle bus service.

She speculated that there were tour buses where Curatolo said; but wasn't able to back it up.

She was then asked about the weather being wet and the open air market.

D'oh! I forgot she'd appeared on May 21st as well! Apologies for my forgetfulness - in which case I think you must be correct that she will only be asked to testify about Guede's questioning (and possibly also Benedetti's end of the Skype call with Guede).

 

[lane99]

Sick mind

...What kind of sick mind would say they were threatened with murder if they hadn't been??

So you reported to the police that you had received obscene and quasi violent messages on JREF, did you?

...I think it's important to have the details of this prosecution made public for anyone else who might be going through the same situation...

Let's have the details of the prosecution of your case, please...

...This happened at PMF, yes? I'm sure it will be shut down very soon, don't you think?

...and quickly. Before they shut this place down.

 

[Amazer]

You seem to have set up a false dichotomy.

How... because I asked how you reconcile two seemingly contradictory descriptions of what they did that night.

In that case, I think it was an odd choice of words. If someone is lying on a bed using a laptop, it's unusual (in my opinion) to refer to him as "behind his computer". Maybe the vernacular is different in your neck of the woods though....

It is.... or used to be. Perhaps I'm just getting old and not keeping up with the terminology du jour.

Nice use of the throwaway final phrase "at the moment" there. Well done. But yes, I believe that this is what Sollecito's defence indicates - and it tallies with Sollecito's version of events at all times except for a short time under police questioning on November 5th 2007.

If you say so.... I personally think that he's got a rather odd way of describing his actions then.

 

[Kevinfay]

Hahaha is that what you really saw when you read the Oggi piece?! Seriously?!

Because what I saw was this: I saw Oggi printing Mignini's "rebuttal" letter as requested (and I don't think that under the law they had much choice other than to print this anyway), but then proceeding to point out the numerous contradictions in Mignini's letter and confirming their original story.

The most amusing bit is Mignini's claim that he was just having some sort of casual chit-chat with Graham (rather than any kind of interview), when the evidence shows not only that he engaged in over two and a half hours of conversation in his office (with an interpreter present) with a man who he must have known (or should have known) was a journalist working for a UK national newspaper, but also that he had a nice photo-op with the journalist the following day. Mignini clearly has problems with the "actualite".

By the way, since you clearly have an interesting pro-guilt agenda, Kevin, I'm wondering what your history of following this case is? Of course, it's your prerogative not to want to talk about this, but I'm curious, that's all. Just sayin'....

LondonJohn,

'I don't think that under the law they had much choice other than to print this anyway'

Precisely .... the law say's Oggi had to give a right to reply. Oggi ALSO FULLY ACCEPTED that both the article and its title were incorrect, in no way did Oggi confirm it's original story, neither did they list numerous conradictions .. may I suggest that you re-read the (excellent) translation.

Might I be allowed to make some observations?

Stressing that making secret recordings of conversations is not illegal, hardly encourages public officials to explain their actions?. Some posters on this board have expressed the odd reservation about the way the Prosecutors handled the case? ... I've suggested that instead of anonomous mud slinging, we compile a list of concerns and put them to the people concerned.

I'm not sure of the location of the secretly recorded conversation, but 2 1/5 hours suggests it could be an Italian lunch or dinner?. I'm sure that you, LondonJohn, would be eager to put these concerns to the prosecutors?. After the secret recording and subsequent publicly acknowledged distortion of the facts, would you consider it more or less likely that the officials involved would be prepared to grant your request?.

If people are free to make secret recordings, surely others are free to grant a request for a photo? ... I know which I find the more ethical!

Pro Guilt 'agenda'

'By the way, since you clearly have an interesting pro-guilt agenda, Kevin, I'm wondering what your history of following this case is? Of course, it's your prerogative not to want to talk about this, but I'm curious, that's all. Just sayin'.... '

Like all other observers, I have an opinion on the case ... if that is an 'agenda' then fine .. for you, everybody, including yourself, have agendas rather than opinions ... you seem to have a rather strange way of approaching the case?.

My 'history' of following the case is a rather good one. In terms of time, of course I followed the case long before you formed your agenda. I am always happy to discuss the case with newcomers, and can also contribute my experience of living 10 years in Italy, mixing socially with foreign students and the people they get themselves mixed up with ... often stupidly, and of course being fluent in Italian is a great help.

Please go ahead and ask your questions, always happy to help.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

'I don't think that under the law they had much choice other than to print this anyway'

Precisely .... the law say's Oggi had to give a right to reply. Oggi ALSO FULLY ACCEPTED that both the article and its title were incorrect, in no way did Oggi confirm it's original story, neither did they list numerous conradictions .. may I suggest that you re-read the (excellent) translation.

Where did Oggi FULLY ACCEPT (your caps) that both the article and its title were incorrect? Maybe you could point me to that part, since you've obviously read the article much more carefully than I....

And, in case you didn't notice, every point numbered 1-4 raised by the editor was to point out a contradiction between Mignini's assertions and the truth. Maybe you chose not to notice that part, though......

Might I be allowed to make some observations?

You certainly might.

Observing that making secret recordings of conversations is not illegal, hardly encourages public officials to explain their actions?. Some posters on this board have expressed the odd reservation about the way the Prosecutors handled the case? ... I've suggested that instead of anonomous mud slinging, we compile a list of concerns and put them to the people concerned.

Why do public officials need to explain their actions in private or off the record? Why is Mignini having a 2.5 hour conversation with someone he barely knows about the nuts and bolts of a criminal case which is not only ongoing, but in which he still plays a part (albeit an increasingly marginal one)?

I'm not sure of the location of the secretly recorded conversation, but at 2 1/5 hours suggests it could be an Italian lunch or dinner?. I'm sure that you, LondonJohn, would be eager to put these concerns to the prosecutors?. After the secret recording and subsequent publicly acknowledged distortion of the facts, would you consider it more or less likely that the officials involved would be prepared to grant your request?.

Err... what? Why on earth does it matter where the conversation took place? You're heading off into the realms of ridiculous irrelevance here. Whether Mignini accepted a lavish lunch invitation from Graham, or whether he received Graham in his office, the fact remains that he had a 2.5-hour conversation with a British reporter, with an interpreter present, in which he discussed the Knox/Sollecito prosecutions at vast length. And, as I've said before, either Mignini must have known that Graham was journalist (and that he was working for a major UK national print title), or Mignini was a foolish idiot for not finding that out beforehand. Either way, it reflects dreadfully on Mignini's judgement. If you can't see that, then you need to have another think about it.

If people are free to make secret recordings, surely others are free to grant a request for a photo? ... I know which I find the more ethical!

What?

Pro Guilt 'agenda'

Like all other observers, I have an opinion on the case ... if that is an 'agenda' then fine .. for you, everybody, including yourself, have agendas rather than opinions ... you seem to have a rather strange way of approaching the case?.

My way of approaching the case is to try to remain objective and logical, and to evaluate things on a constant best-evidence basis. I suggest that your interpretation of this Oggi article indicates that you do not adopt a similar approach. That would be the difference between an opinion and an agenda.

My 'history' of following the case is a rather good one. In terms of time, of course I followed the case long before you formed your agenda. I am always happy to discuss the case with newcomers, and can also contribute my experience of living 10 years in Italy, mixing socially with foreign students and the people they get themselves mixed up with ... often stupidly, and of course being fluent in Italian is a great help.

Please go ahead and ask your questions, always happy to help.

Thanks for your kind offer. And your condescension. I believe that you've formed a fixed opinion of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt and are viewing every current development through that lens (it's also known as confirmation bias). So please excuse me if I don't take you up on the offer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my question

Please go ahead and ask your questions, always happy to help.

kevinfay,

Would you mind answering some of the questions/comments that have already been directed toward you?

 

[Kaosium]

My 'history' of following the case is a rather good one. In terms of time, of course I followed the case long before you formed your agenda. I am always happy to discuss the case with newcomers, and can also contribute my experience of living 10 years in Italy, mixing socially with foreign students and the people they get themselves mixed up with ... often stupidly, and of course being fluent in Italian is a great help.

Please go ahead and ask your questions, always happy to help.

What time do you think Meredith was stabbed? The witness testimony indicates they ate anywhere from about 6:00-6:30 PM. She was last seen a little before nine PM. When she was autopsied, nothing from her stomach had passed to her duodenum. This means something.

In the first trial all computer interaction after they put in Naruto was lost when the police overwrote those files, at about 9:27. The defense has since recovered indications of human interaction with the computer all night, but let's set that aside for a moment.

by 9:30 PM, the very earliest both Raffaele and Amanda could have been at the cottage, there's only a small percentage chance Meredith hadn't been stabbed yet going by generous assumption she didn't have a bite until 6:30, does that not constitute reasonable doubt in your mind they weren't involved?