Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way, reading Mignini's recent increasingly-desperate attempts at self-justification, which appear to be incorporating a strangely subjective view of the truth, I was reminded of a spookily similar exercise currently being undertaken here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

:)

(It looks like the editor has taken some time out from his crusading campaign for "justice for Meredith" to use his website for more.....personal...issues. I'm sure Meredith would be very proud.)
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, reading Mignini's recent increasingly-desperate attempts at self-justification, which appear to be incorporating a strangely subjective view of the truth, I was reminded of a spookily similar exercise currently being undertaken here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

:)

(It looks like the editor has taken some time out from his crusading campaign for "justice for Meredith" to use his website for more.....personal...issues. I'm sure Meredith would be very proud.)
Click to expand...

I read stuff like this, a very common 'observation' on that site and I can't help but shake my head:

"Yesterday I posted on TJMk about the group blog “Ground Report” which seems to have stupidly lashed itself to the hairbrained rants and libels of “Bruce Fisher” to keep itself alive.

Its reader numbers have tanked ever since."
Delusional.
 
I have nothing to add. This is a bookmark. BTW...nice swithchup on the stabbed question. I guess 9:12 since I have determined TOD at 9:15PM. The amount of blood and severity of the wounds indicates about 3 minutes from the fatal stab. Maybe 5 minutes from the first wound.
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, reading Mignini's recent increasingly-desperate attempts at self-justification, which appear to be incorporating a strangely subjective view of the truth, I was reminded of a spookily similar exercise currently being undertaken here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

:)

(It looks like the editor has taken some time out from his crusading campaign for "justice for Meredith" to use his website for more.....personal...issues. I'm sure Meredith would be very proud.)
Click to expand...

I shudder to think about what Meredith would think about that site, the guilter community, and everything that has happened to Amanda and Raffaele, ostensibly in her name.

I'd momentarily forgotten how repulsive Quennell's site is. Even from a visual standpoint -- far too many pictures of poor Meredith. And the domain name: as someone on Less Wrong put it, "what is this, Marvel Comics?"
 
komponisto said:
I shudder to think about what Meredith would think about that site, the guilter community, and everything that has happened to Amanda and Raffaele, ostensibly in her name.

I'd momentarily forgotten how repulsive Quennell's site is. Even from a visual standpoint -- far too many pictures of poor Meredith. And the domain name: as someone on Less Wrong put it, "what is this, Marvel Comics?"
Click to expand...


If you like that, you'd have loved "excitingarrivals.com" :D

(Unfortunately, that website is no longer available in all its classy, non-creepy glory...)

PS: I have the "Trials of Amanda Knox" documentary (in which our "UN world trouble-shooter" friend appeared) on my Skyplus - although it seems not to be available online for some reason - and it won't surprise you to know that the his physical appearance (he is filmed speaking for about 10 seconds) is exactly as captured in the still from that programme (contrary to his misleading claims to the contrary). But he does seem to be very concerned about his physical appearance, for some reason.....
 
Last edited:
komponisto said:
I shudder to think about what Meredith would think about that site, the guilter community, and everything that has happened to Amanda and Raffaele, ostensibly in her name.

I'd momentarily forgotten how repulsive Quennell's site is. Even from a visual standpoint -- far too many pictures of poor Meredith. And the domain name: as someone on Less Wrong put it, "what is this, Marvel Comics?"
Click to expand...

Daniel Burfoot noticed the same thing I did:

Daniel Burfoot LW said:
The name is just one piece of evidence. Overall the pro-conviction site did not impress me at all. It seemed to be full of irrelevant statements, and things like site usage statistics.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice a fixation on this issue from that site. Every venue from Perugia Shock to CNN that offers material supportive of the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda seems to 'tank' in numbers or even see stock declines (!) whilst every one that supports the convictions 'rises' in numbers.

Also the wildly inflated 'total number reading' which curiously seems to go up by one every time I reload the page. I wonder if that's just the total number of times someone clicked on something at that page... ;)

I also note this little bit of mewling over having his nose swatted with a newspaper has given him an excuse to post two pictures of the rather attractive Rachael Stern. Not that I mind, of course, but I wonder how she feels about it? I also wonder if he realizes that advertising that PMF offers 'daily ridicule' of Bruce Fisher merely lowers the esteem of that site as well, suggesting it's 'credibility' lies near the gutter level politics outlets and 'professional' wrestling sites where such fare is commonplace?
 
LondonJohn said:
If you like that, you'd have loved "excitingarrivals.com" :D

(Unfortunately, that website is no longer available in all its classy, non-creepy glory...)

PS: I have the "Trials of Amanda Knox" documentary (in which our "UN world trouble-shooter" friend appeared) on my Skyplus - although it seems not to be available online for some reason - and it won't surprise you to know that the his physical appearance (he is filmed speaking for about 10 seconds) is exactly as captured in the still from that programme (contrary to his misleading claims to the contrary). But he does seem to be very concerned about his physical appearance, for some reason.....
Click to expand...


I've seen the video footage of Peter Quennell's appearance in the documentary recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoQk3kufaG4
 
LondonJohn said:
PS: I have the "Trials of Amanda Knox" documentary (in which our "UN world trouble-shooter" friend appeared) on my Skyplus - although it seems not to be available online for some reason - and it won't surprise you to know that the his physical appearance (he is filmed speaking for about 10 seconds) is exactly as captured in the still from that programme (contrary to his misleading claims to the contrary). But he does seem to be very concerned about his physical appearance, for some reason.....
Click to expand...


It is online on Youtube;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lccObjh1U
 
BTW, I wonder why the next hearing in the appeal is on a Monday, rather than a Saturday? Is Bongiorno able to devote more time to the case at the moment*? Or is she not going to be involved in Monday's hearing?

* It was essentially due to Bongiorno's parliamentary obligations that the courts in both the first trial and the first appeal agreed to hear the case only on Saturdays and occasional Fridays.
 
Kaosium said:
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?
Click to expand...


Strange that you haven't received any sort of reply to this post as yet. I'd certainly be interested in hearing a reply.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify: It was the Italian phone Knox claimed in her E-mail "just kept ringing", when in reality: “Amanda’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to answering service.” (Massei, p. 326)

So first Knox calls the English SonyEricsson phone at 12.07.12 to 12.07.28. This phone is then situated in the garden of Signora Lana. Knox's E-mail: "The first time I called the English phone, it rang and then sounded as of there was disturbance, but no one answered." (Knox is correct in her E-mail.)

Then Knox calls Filomena Romanelli at 12.08.44 to 12.09.52. She tells Romanelli that she is going to call Kercher, but doesn't tell her that she already tried. This Massei founds highly suspicious. But it can be just language problems, maybe? (Knox is incorrect in her E-mail)

Then Knox calls the Italian Motorola phone owned by Romanelli, at 12.11.02 to 12.11.05. It is located at the police station. According to the Massei report: “Amanda’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to answering service." (translation p. 328) Knox E-mail: ”I then called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer.” (Knox is incorrect in her E-mail)

Then at 12.11.54 to 12.11.58 calls the English Motorola phone again. It is now located in the house of Signorina Lana? Knox's E-mail: .”I called her English phone again and this time an English voice told me her phone was out of service.” (Knox is correct in her E-mail)

Apparently Knox now decides to stop trying to get hold of Kercher. Maybe not so strange after all, since both of the phones redirects her. As been pointed out, Knox must believe that Kercher can see for herself that she has called. But of course, Massei and the people who agree with him sees this a sign of guilt. But why? If she wanted a really good alibi she would have called more times. Since she had heard for herself that the calls didn't go through, Masseis conclusions are not very valid. It's not in any way, shape or from, "evidence" of anything.

At 12.12.35 to 12.13.01 Romanelli tries to call Knox but gets no answer.

At 12.20.44 to 12.21.32 Romanelli gets hold of Knox and talks to her. Knox is then still in Sollecito's place in Corso Garibaldi, according to Massei.*

This is maybe a minor point, but anyway.

Knox is clearly incorrect about her calls to Meredith in her E-mail. But is this lying? Much has been made of these by both the judges and the Internet believers in guilt. There doesn't seem to be much point for Knox to lie about these things. The explanation that she doesn't recall correctly what happened exactly seems perfectly plausible. She could just has well told the truth, that the Italian phone didn't kept ringing. The pair had nothing to gain by this lie, that I can see. (hope I got everything right)

EDIT. *Bruce Fisher's summary of Knox's appeal doesn't agree with the Massei translation about the 12.20.44 call. It says Amanda calls Filomena, not the other way around. (Massei: Romanelli F. calls Amanda.)

There were 7 phone calls made by Amanda between 12:07 and 13:34. There are 3 calls to Meredith and 4 to Filomena. The first one at 12:07:12 is to Meredith’s British phone Lasting 16 seconds, then at 12:11:02 for 3 seconds she calls Meredith’s Vodafone number, and at 12:11:54 she calls the British number again for 4 seconds. After the first call to Meredith she called Filomena at 12:08:44 for 64 seconds. Then at 12:12:35 Filomena calls Amanda for 36 seconds. Then at 12:20:44 Amanda calls Filomena for 65 seconds. Finally at 12:34:56, Filomena calls Amanda for 48 seconds.

In her testimony of June 12, 2009 Amanda was asked if she had called Meredith and Amanda said “we already called.” Filomena says “then when you finish go home and determine what is going on and call back.” This shows Amanda was concerned about the situation and persistently called her roommates with 7 calls in a short time frame, and Filomena told Amanda she had also tried to reach Meredith. The court tries to use Amanda calling Meredith’s phones again as proof of guilt. But Amanda had only called one of the phones and after speaking with Filomena tried to call Meredith’s second phone first since it had not been tried yet, then called the British phone a second time. Amanda did so because she knew Meredith’s mom was sick and Meredith usually always had the British phone with her. Saying this shows guilt for calling Meredith a second time is dangerous and misleading reasoning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Ah yes - it's blocked in the UK. Which is extremely strange for a co-funded documentary where one of the producers is a UK public broadcaster (Channel 4). I wonder why this should be the case.....
Click to expand...

Seems obvious, from the page

This video contains content from 4oD, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

or did you think there was another reason.....
 
bolint said:
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)
Click to expand...

And all the measurements taken outside, by the doorway, not inside the actual apartment. Apparently that doesnt matter, to actually go inside and check each of the rooms and determine which tower is "best", because the expert didnt do that. I suppose it could still be done, but probably won't be and wasn't included in the request by the Defense.
 
Regarding the upcoming appearance of Rudy Guede.

In Bruce Fisher's summary of Raffaele Sollecito's appeal he says the following:
The defense is asking for further investigation of Mario Joseph Alessi. Alessi is a prison inmate that claims to have had confidential conversations with Rudy Guede. During these conversations, Guede allegedly discusses sexual acts that could be attributed to the stains left on the pillow. The defense argues that Alessi’s statements contain details of the crime that only Guede would have known. These details confirm that these discussions actually took place. In light of this testimony, it is imperative that further testing be done on the substance found on the pillow.
Click to expand...

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

Wonder what happened with that? Did the defence drop that argument?

And also:

Rudy’s Skype Conversation
During Rudy's skype conversation with Giacomo, Rudy is heard saying:

“They say there was a broken window, but when I was there, there wasn't any broken window; it's a window that's on the left when you're facing the house, the wooden shutters were open so I could see the window, it wasn't broken, and also when I left.”

The defense would like to know how Rudy could have known which of the windows was supposed to be broken. The defense confirms that this precise information was never printed in any newspaper at that time, In fact, it was mistakenly reported that Meredith's bedroom window was broken. The defense believes that there is a very logical reason why Rudy knew which window was broken.
Click to expand...

I suppose they can ask him now? There seem to be some confusion to this. Did Guede really knew what window was broken, or was he referring to a wrong one?
 
Paninaro said:
Then Knox calls Filomena Romanelli at 12.08.44 to 12.09.52. She tells Romanelli that she is going to call Kercher, but doesn't tell her that she already tried. This Massei founds highly suspicious. But it can be just language problems, maybe? (Knox is incorrect in her E-mail)
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, since there are a couple of Italian speakers here. How easy is it to mix up tenses? I know that when people learn English, that they often have issues with the past, present, and future tenses, in fact a lot of native speakers have issues with getting them right.

What are the differences between "I have called" (Past Tense) and "I will call" (Future Tense) in Italian? Could this also explain the issue with Filomena thinking that Knox said that she was going to Rafaelle's when she was actually already there?

Also anyone that might know about the timing of the police interviewing Ms Popovic would be very helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom