Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Hey, it is Raffaele who says that it is written, so the newspapers are clean,
and I don't dare to imagine that Candace invented it in her book.

LOL. You may be right about this and you and halides1 have convinced me I may be wrong about this one. A review of 3 Italian articles seems to indicate they reported Amanda's statement pretty accurately.

I am interested in the truth of these things and you have helped me with this one. I am glad you have decided to join the discussion.

I wonder if it went like Amanda's questioning? I believe it was something along the lines of surely you heard a scream and she said fine, I heard a scream and they said fine, we will write that down. Pilot has also pointed out to me Raffaele used a similar statement in his diary, so thanks for that input as well.

 

[bolint]

...Therefore, it's far from unusual for a handset to receive (and send) SMS messages from a base station which is not the one with which it has established a PCH/RACH connection....
...

So you argue that congestion may have caused the 20:15 SMS to be delivered through the downtown cell. I would think that even more congested but who knows...
Well, at least the long term cell memory myth with which this thread began is debunked.

Anyway, almost all of Amanda's traffic went through that cell while Raffaele managed to use the straightforward best cell.

Was not it congested for him?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Queen B

bolint,

Amanda indicated that the police made suggestions to her, and in some cases she did not entirely go along with them (Murder in Italy, p. 210 & pp. 235-237). I dealt with this topic in a little bit more detail some time ago on the first Knox thread. It sounds to me as if the police are unhesitant to put words into people’s mouths. So is PM Mignini, as he did in his closing remarks.

To take another example of how she was treated, “She [Amanda] said that Interpreter Donnino stood behind her shouting things in her ears.” (MiI, p. 149) I decided to include this incident because it goes to the question of whether Donnino was a police officer more than an interpreter. With respect to both Amanda and Raffaele, it is not surprising what people will do under pressure.

 

[snook1]

I'm saying she has to be part of the conspiracy necessary for the innocentisti narrative to make sense.

I, for once, do not believe there is any conspiracy.

I believe in evidence. There's nothing that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were involved in the murder. Nothing.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I don't believe in doing everything just to make sure something fits the "innocentisti narrative". I, along with many others, simply believe they're innocent and it's not just wishful thinking. I have no idea why there are still people that believe in their guilt.

 

[Draca]

The Massei report may be at odds with Mignini's memory of the sequence of events (it is also somewhat at odds with itself -- no surprise there). According to the report, Luca Lalli, the medical examiner, arrived at the scene hours before Patrizia Stefanoni:


According to Mignini's recollection, he arrived at the scene, spoke to Patrizia Stefanoni, asked her if she had taken the temperature of the body, and agreed with her that it could wait. That means Mignini got there after 5:00 or 7:00 p.m. (depending on which part of the report you believe).

So who gave Luca Lalli the order at 2:00 not to touch the body? Did Patrizia Stefanoni phone it in en route from Rome? If so, why does Mignini call it "the very first decision that he made?"

Did Mignini really did not get to the scene until the evening of November 2nd?

Very interesting Mary H. I had always heard that Dr. Lalli was not allowed to take the temperature. Never thought of WHO didn't allow it. I had been surprised by Mignini's quote that Stefanoni decided.

It seems very possible that Mignini's quote is true. He upon arrival asked Stefanoni about taking the body temperature and she said to wait. She is this case is not the sole decider, but is in agreement with whoever already told Dr. Lalli to wait.

So if Stefanoni arrived around 17:00 what time did Mignini arrive?

Who told Dr. Lalli not to take the temperature? It would have to be someone there early on. Maybe Profazio or someone? Who would have been the highest level official on the scene at 14:00?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ahh - you see, what you've done here is you've failed to understand that some death threats are real and constitute a genuine risk, and others are not and don't. The latter category might include threats made over internet message boards or forums, and/or made by people with likely personality disorders but neither the means nor the opportunity to carry out the threat.

If the person being threatened judged that there was even a small risk that the threat was real, then of course the only possible action would be to call in the authorities and investigate the person making the threat. But if the person being threatened judged that the threat was baseless, hollow and presented no real risk, the best remedy would probably be to ignore the threat, and hope that the person making the threat recognised (or was told by someone close to him/her) that (s)he needed some professional help.

Note also that this is a completely different situation to someone writing potentially libellous allegations. In this case, the motivation or state of mind of the person writing the allegedly defamatory material is of no importance. Libel is libel is libel - no matter who writes it or where they write it. And the person who is allegedly being libelled has only two options: 1) to disregard it and either hope (or assume) that others will perceive the material to be false anyhow, or accept the injurious nature of the allegations; 2) to pursue a legal case against the person making the statements, and resolve the situation in a court of law.

So if the threat is "baseless, hollow and presented no real risk", why even mention that you've been threatened?

 

[Mary_H]

So if the threat is "baseless, hollow and presented no real risk", why even mention that you've been threatened?

Why not mention it?

 

[Mary_H]

Very interesting Mary H. I had always heard that Dr. Lalli was not allowed to take the temperature. Never thought of WHO didn't allow it. I had been surprised by Mignini's quote that Stefanoni decided.

It seems very possible that Mignini's quote is true. He upon arrival asked Stefanoni about taking the body temperature and she said to wait. She is this case is not the sole decider, but is in agreement with whoever already told Dr. Lalli to wait.

So if Stefanoni arrived around 17:00 what time did Mignini arrive?

Who told Dr. Lalli not to take the temperature? It would have to be someone there early on. Maybe Profazio or someone? Who would have been the highest level official on the scene at 14:00?

My conclusion is that Mignini is a big fat liar who wants to put the blame for his decision on Stefanoni. I hope he does it often enough that she gets fed up and blabs.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>And I think it was Amanda who first named Lumumba, yes.<snip>

Now there's some faith.

 

[Mary_H]

The overriding piling on endlessly expressed here faith in the imminent release of Knox and Sollecito due to supposedly thrown out evidence and discredited witness testimony (and the hearsay of a guy who killed a toddler with a shovel which was immediately contradicted by another jailbird) also might just be a bit of premature wishful thinking fortified by faith and lots of little more than factless cheerleading.

My opinion is fortified by the fact that the individual who probably has possession of, and access to, more current inside information than all the arguers here combined, the esteemed Mr Wilkes (aka Jim Lovering) is still deafeningly silent about Appeal success for Knox and Sollecito.

Correct me if not up to the minute, because I admittedly do not hang on Wilkes's every word, but to my knowledge he has not changed his oft expressed cynical opinions that Judge Hellmann will make no significant changes to the initial verdict.

But we shall see.<snip>

This is an insightful argument, pilot. However (you knew there was a however), while the esteemed Mr. Wilkes is an archivist of evidence that has been produced in the past, even he is not privy to evidence that will be produced in the future.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Also bear in mind that Knox probably knew that Meredith had gone to her English friends' house to spend the afternoon and evening on the 1st, and that she knew that the 2nd was a public holiday and a day off from university. Therefore, unless Meredith had mentioned specifically that she planned to return to the cottage on the night of the 1st, I'd have thought that it would be perfectly reasonable for Knox to suppose that Meredith might either have crashed over at her friends' house, or even that she might have ended up going out and subsequently spending the night at some other location.<snip>

If I remember correctly, Amanda and Raffaele both wrote about Meredith as having gone out without saying where she was going. There is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele gave any thought to Meredith's whereabouts that night.

 

[pilot padron]

However, redux

This is an insightful argument, pilot. However (you knew there was a however), while the esteemed Mr. Wilkes is an archivist of evidence that has been produced in the past, even he is not privy to evidence that will be produced in the future.

Mary, I love your 'howevers'.

My point is that the esteemed Mr Wilkes has often 'shared' information about the case that was not available to the public, and probably sourced directly from the defendant's families.( more significant to me than merely 'archived')

Yes, although I have been 'impressed' with the mind reading argumentative abilities of some here, you are correct that Mr Wilkes cannot definitely tell us what will happen in the future.
But it his *opinion* (on some matters) and his foundations that I simply suggest is superior to many others.

Stated another way ( hi Matt), the esteemed Mr Wilkes's continued close association with these inside sources makes what he opines (IMHO) a step above the unwashed masses of us who are reduced to much less authoritative and not first hand research.

That is why I respect and cite here his initial and his continued unequivocal pessimism about the Appeals as * much more significant to me* than some of the completely unfounded unadulterated wishful thinkers arguing that Knox and Sollecito are on the verge of freedom and will receive huge compensatory monetary damages to boot.

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

If Knox and Sollecito serve their full sentences, they will not have careers, may not have families, and will be generally reviled. By the time that they are released, their parents may have died and possibly even some of their friends. Their lives would be effectively ruined.

If AK and RS serve their full sentences that will mean that they will have been found guiltly in the main trial and two appeals. Knox would be particulary lucky not to be serving her time in the brutal US prision system.

As you know, I believe that the evidence supports both Knox's claim that she was present, but not involved in the murder. and Guede's version that she was present but not involved.

It would be wonderful if we see an end to the whole affair tomorrow, with Guede's testimony. My main concern is that, if I am right, Knox should get a reduced sentence, and also be able to rebuild her life as someone who made very grave errors, but will not be made to 'wear the mask of a killer'.

 

[LondonJohn]

If I remember correctly, Amanda and Raffaele both wrote about Meredith as having gone out without saying where she was going. There is no evidence, that Amanda and Raffaele gave any thought to Meredith's whereabouts that night.

If that's the case, then (as you point out) there's little reason to suppose that Knox should have been particularly expecting to find Meredith in the cottage on that Friday morning. As I've said before, that day was a public holiday with no university (although it appears that Meredith and her English friends may have forgotten this, though Knox had not).

My view is this: if Knox didn't notice the broken window and mess in Filomena's room on her entrance to the cottage that morning, then what she was looking at was an open front door, some small evidence of blood in the small bathroom, and unflushed faeces in the large bathroom. All of these would count as unusual and a little disconcerting, but certainly not indicative that anything criminal or injurious had occurred.

But when Knox discovered the situation in Filomena's room, suddenly the element of a break-in and possible burglary was introduced. Now there was some evidence of criminal activity, and the blood and faeces took on a different connotation. At this point, Knox would have wondered where Meredith and Filomena were (assuming she knew that Laura was away). And since she and Meredith were not only closer than her and Filomena, but also they were obviously able to communicate far more easily, it makes sense that Knox tried to reach Meredith.

When Knox tried and failed to reach Meredith's two mobile phones, I still think that there would have been no immediate reason for her to be especially worried about Meredith's welfare. She and Meredith led very separate lives, and Meredith might very well have been anywhere, doing anything (or sleeping). But I think that when Knox had not heard back from Meredith 15 minutes or so after her first attempts to reach her, this - coupled with trying her bedroom door and finding it locked - started to raise concerns. One other important factor here - which Knox was well aware of - is that Meredith generally kept her UK phone close at hand and switched on constantly, on account of her mother's medical condition. Knox would therefore have found it worrying that Meredith wasn't responding to calls to this phone.

So, personally, I find the escalation of concern on the morning/lunchtime of the 2nd November to be entirely plausible and non-contrived. There is (to me) a logical progression from the time Knox first walked through the door of the cottage to the fairly major concern about Meredith's welfare at the time her bedroom door was broken down.

OT: Watching Kool & the Gang's Glastonbury set on BBC4 right now I was offered a nice ticket + accommodation package for Glasto, but declined on the grounds of work and mud. As it happens, I could have rejigged work commitments, but the mud this year was even worse than usual - so I'm quite glad to be watching it on TV. "Oh yes it's layyyyydies' night, and the feeeeeeling's right........."

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, I love your 'howevers'.

My point is that the esteemed Mr Wilkes has often 'shared' information about the case that was not available to the public, and probably sourced directly from the defendant's families.

Yes, although I have been 'impressed' with the mind reading argumentative abilities of some here, you are correct that Mr Wilkes cannot definitely tell us what will happen in the future.
But it his *opinion*and their foundations that I simply hold above many others

Stated another way ( hi Matt), the esteemed Mr Wilkes's continued close association with these inside sources makes what he opines (IMHO) a step above the unwashed masses of us who are reduced to much less authoritative and not first hand research.

That is why I respect and cite here his initial and his continued unequivocal pessimism about the Appeals as * much more significant to me* than some of the completely unfounded unadulterated wishful thinkers arguing that Knox and Sollecito are on the verge of freedom and will receive huge compensatory monetary damages to boot.

Yours truly!

I wouldn't call Charlie's pessimism unequivocal. He often admits that he hopes he is wrong. That's a little bit equivocal.

I don't think he bases his pessimism upon what he has seen in his archives -- certainly not on the evidence -- but rather on what he has seen of the behavior of the principal actors on the scene in Perugia.

 

[Kevinfay]

Kevinfay,

An unnamed juror told ABC "It is hard to envision Knox doing this. But it is possible. We can all drink too much, then get into a car and drive." (Murder in Italy, p. 319)

Does "possible" mean beyond reasonable doubt? Does the analogy presented make sense?

A lady juror said in tears ' She was there, so she is guilty' ... it does sound very much like some jurors believed she was definetely present at the crime scene, but not so sure that she was one of the killers. Legally, that makes Knox guilty, but morally, a lot of people, including me, think there is a difference.

 

[Kaosium]

Mary, I love your 'howevers'.

My point is that the esteemed Mr Wilkes has often 'shared' information about the case that was not available to the public, and probably sourced directly from the defendant's families.

Yes, although I have been 'impressed' with the mind reading argumentative abilities of some here, you are correct that Mr Wilkes cannot definitely tell us what will happen in the future.
But it his *opinion*and their foundations that I simply hold above many others

Stated another way ( hi Matt), the esteemed Mr Wilkes's continued close association with these inside sources makes what he opines (IMHO) a step above the unwashed masses of us who are reduced to much less authoritative and not first hand research.

That is why I respect and cite here his initial and his continued unequivocal pessimism about the Appeals as * much more significant to me* than some of the completely unfounded unadulterated wishful thinkers arguing that Knox and Sollecito are on the verge of freedom and will receive huge compensatory monetary damages to boot.

Do you realize that's because he thinks the Italian System is even more corrupt than I do? He makes me look like a salesman for the Italian Court System!

Pilot were you aware that about a year ago the ones at PMF who really knew the case and the law came to the conclusion their exoneration by the Supreme Court was inevitable? Some were pretty sure they'd get a non-guilty verdict out of this court, others hoped the conditions in Perugia detrimental to their chances would last through the first appeal, but even they had to concede the inevitable?

I don't recall reading your name during my stint down the Rabbit Hole last summer. Of course I don't remember everyone....

 

[Mary_H]

If that's the case, then (as you point out) there's little reason to suppose that Knox should have been particularly expecting to find Meredith in the cottage on that Friday morning. As I've said before, that day was a public holiday with no university (although it appears that Meredith and her English friends may have forgotten this, though Knox had not).

My view is this: if Knox didn't notice the broken window and mess in Filomena's room on her entrance to the cottage that morning, then what she was looking at was an open front door, some small evidence of blood in the small bathroom, and unflushed faeces in the large bathroom. All of these would count as unusual and a little disconcerting, but certainly not indicative that anything criminal or injurious had occurred.

But when Knox discovered the situation in Filomena's room, suddenly the element of a break-in and possible burglary was introduced. Now there was some evidence of criminal activity, and the blood and faeces took on a different connotation. At this point, Knox would have wondered where Meredith and Filomena were (assuming she knew that Laura was away). And since she and Meredith were not only closer than her and Filomena, but also they were obviously able to communicate far more easily, it makes sense that Knox tried to reach Meredith.

When Knox tried and failed to reach Meredith's two mobile phones, I still think that there would have been no immediate reason for her to be especially worried about Meredith's welfare. She and Meredith led very separate lives, and Meredith might very well have been anywhere, doing anything (or sleeping). But I think that when Knox had not heard back from Meredith 15 minutes or so after her first attempts to reach her, this - coupled with trying her bedroom door and finding it locked - started to raise concerns. One other important factor here - which Knox was well aware of - is that Meredith generally kept her UK phone close at hand and switched on constantly, on account of her mother's medical condition. Knox would therefore have found it worrying that Meredith wasn't responding to calls to this phone.

So, personally, I find the escalation of concern on the morning/lunchtime of the 2nd November to be entirely plausible and non-contrived. There is (to me) a logical progression from the time Knox first walked through the door of the cottage to the fairly major concern about Meredith's welfare at the time her bedroom door was broken down.

I agree.

OT: Watching Kool & the Gang's Glastonbury set on BBC4 right now I was offered a nice ticket + accommodation package for Glasto, but declined on the grounds of work and mud. As it happens, I could have rejigged work commitments, but the mud this year was even worse than usual - so I'm quite glad to be watching it on TV. "Oh yes it's layyyyydies' night, and the feeeeeeling's right........."

Kool & The Gang are still performing live?

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

At the FOA website I found a letter coauthored by two forensic scientists and cosigned by seven more criticizing the DNA evidence. I also found a review article on the uses of luminol. Is putting out forensic information absurd? a joke?

I'm sure I've already answered this, but anyway:

If these two scientists have something to contribute to the defense, then surely they should contact the defense lawyers, the appeals are being conducted in open court, not in any exchange of letters?

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

I don't think that Chris C or RoseMontague have particularly high opinions of Ms. Knox; there is a spectrum of opinions even among the pro-innocence commenters. Glad you are back. Many have asked you questions or made comments in response to things you said. Speaking only for myself, I hope the appeal lasts long enough to reexamine the major elements of the first trial. That includes DNA, TOD, and the break-in.

Agreed, that is why there are two levels of appeal?