Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,597
Code:
I've seen this written before and it needs a little clarification. On the previous evening didn't Raffaele claim that he put some Halloween makeup on, an abstract figure, and go out to meet Amanda to take her back home with him? She had been at Le Chic I think, with other friends. Was there a mention of what time?
I looked at this quite intensely back when and once I stopped looking for a skirt and looked for jeans and a beige bag, that is exactly what I thought I saw. I think it is Meredith.
I thought there were only one movie and one cartoon played. Where di you come across a quote from Raffaele saying he didn't pay attention to the screen?
it would be kind of ludicrous to suggest she was still wearing the same white skirt as the evening before if she had participated in a murder and cleanup.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
If there is any contrast in the background, as I believe there is in the CCTV footage, a figure moving across the scene would show up as an occultation of that background no matter how dark they may be.
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
I don't have the video link handy but I do have the transcript (sorry for the formatting - this was not of my making).
http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=62507&tmpl=transcript
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Hi Grinder,
davelebon just posted it on the IIP Forum.
Justice On Trial - Italy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abtYPO2QKBY
Draca
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Because Amanda lied about Patrick being there we know she was telling the truth?
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
So you are accepting that the prosecution lied when they said the CCTV showed Amanda crossing the street at 20:43 (or was that Meredith at 20:41).
- 2007-11-12 Corrier (it)
PERUGIA - On the evening of November 1 Amanda Knox returned home at - 20:43. His entry was recorded by the camera which is located in the parking lot in front. The images are quite sharp, capturing the details. You see the young through the door. Wear light-colored clothing, the skirt has. She is alone.
- 2007-11-12 Telegraph
A camera in the carpark opposite Miss Kercher’s house has a "clear-cut image" of 20-year-old Amanda Knox, from Seattle, on the premises, according to police.
The CCTV footage apparently shows Knox entering the driveway of the house at 8.43pm on the night, wearing a light-coloured skirt. - 2007-11-13 Independent
Police revealed that Amanda Knox was picked up by CCTV cameras situated above the building where she lived with the Leeds University student, contradicting her previous claims that she had spent the night with her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
The images appear to show Ms Knox wearing a light coloured skirt and top entering the building at 8.43pm on 1 November, the night Ms Kercher was killed. - 2008-02-28 Sky News
Cameras overlooking the 'House of Horrors' as it has been dubbed have captured US student Knox at 20.43 on November 1 dressed in a light coloured skirt and top.
A police source in Perugia, where Meredith was studying, said: It will be interesting to see what she has to say when we show her the footage. - 2008-09-23 in the Studio Aperto video the narrator says 20:53 for the woman (bolint@JREF CP2:12805)
- 2008-09-24 Perugia Shock
Studio Aperto aired today some frames of the garage video showing at about 8.31 a guy going out of the garage and at 8.41 a 'white spot' going towards the house. - 2008-09-25 Telegraph
links to Corrier (video) - 2009-03-13 Affaritaliani (it)
After a few minutes a new image from passaggio.Sempre, November 1, around 20:41, you can see the image of a person, wearing a light colored jacket, which is rapidly disappearing shortly after. Picture that, according to the reconstruction of accusation, could refer to the return home of Meredith Kercher the night of the crime, although the lack sharpness is not possible to establish with certainty. - 2009-03-13 L'Unione Sarda
The assistant then described the pictures taken at 20:41 on November 1, with a person "who allegedly could correspond to Meredith." Barbadori explained that the cameras in the area of the murder house and along the path followed by Kercher up the house of English friends, where he dined before being killed are used to control traffic and thus are activated only if there are no cars or people on the move. Sollecito's defense, however, has questioned the manner in which they were identified times of the images. - 2009-03-14 Sky News
They were timed at 8.41pm on the night Meredith was last seen alive and minutes after she had left a friend's house to return home.
Police inspector Mauro Barbadori told the court the CCTV footage had been recovered in the hope that it would provide key information.
He said: From the time on the film and the fact it is a female figure - the belief is that it is Meredith but it is very poor quality and we cannot say for definite.
We know now of course that the image timestamp was actually 20:51:36.17 and the CCTV clock was 10-12 minutes slow making the actual time after 21:00. How so many different times got represented for the same image when the time stamp is right there on the frame is quite the mystery but it is apparent that the cops got the time correction totally wrong and continued to lie about it from the pre-trial publicity all the way through the trial.
Last edited:
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
Yikes!
All this to go through again?
Rolfe.
No worries about that Rolfe. If Amanda and Raffaele are released in the next couple of weeks they will no longer be in Italy if the prosecution is somehow successful on appeal with the Supreme Court. Both will be in the United States and there is no way in hell that they will be extradited back. From what I am told, the prosecution cannot even file an appeal until the court completes the motivation. I believe that takes 90 days. I imagine it will take very little time for Amanda to get out of Italy if her appeal is successful. She knows she is innocent but she is also well aware of the vindictive nature of the prosecution.
As far as the slander lawsuits that have been filed; if Amanda is released, Italy can continue the process if they like but I think we all know it is highly unlikely that Amanda and her parents will be there to participate.
theRealBob
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 235
I did manage to drag up this tripe on one of my rare visits to PMF
Yummi wrote:
"Mignini claims he is "satisfied" with the disputed forensic work, finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable", and also has a new legal argument up his sleeve. "The legal code states that any review of evidence must be requested immediately, not two years later." If the couple are acquitted, he added, the verdict could yet be annulled if Italy's high court decides the recent DNA review was illegal."
Mignini is correct. In fact, I was quite unsatisfied on the same grounds when the judge allowed a new expert report on a defense request.
A request by the defense to appoint new experts must be done when the report is deposited, which in this case about Stefanoni's report, that was in the preliminary hearing, before the trial at Massei court started.
Why, then, the prosecution requested(at the very last hearing this September) yet another review of the already reviewed evidence? It does not make any sense...The two years comment is, at best, funny.
The prosecution failed to deliever all documents to review the report by Stefanoni. The raw data was handed at the appeal trial.
What's the problem. I don't understand. Or maybe, better we must realize that the topic is complex: in the procedure code this is not a matter of one article, there are many articles in different chapters that regulate on this topic and there are several conditions. The prosecution made a request for a further investigation by experts; I don't know if that would meet the legal requirements to be allowed, but may meet several conditions: it is specifically about a part of the evidence that has not been reviewed (C & V refused to test some samples for DNA), and some other requests, like a bio-statistical analysis, were to analyze some new topics brought in by C & V that were not part of the original Stefanoni report. The request was made immediately as Vecchiotti's report was brought into court and - maybe, at least the rosecution could claim - they can prove these request could not be done before, they are entirely based on the new information. And after all, nobody prevents the prosecution from doing a request that is formally inadmissible, it is the judge's task to decide.
By the defense, some might claim the same but personally I don't think the defence's requests met the same conditions; the request was not made immediately after Stefanoni's report and was made in december 2009, hence the two years comments. Contrarily to the prosecution's request, the request was based on the "old" information from 2008, which means it could be well done in 2008 (I was not entirely correct in saying the prelimnary hearing: in fact the request should have been made within seven days before the beginning of the debate phase of the trial, which is by the beginning of the first instance trial).
When I say "based on old information" I mean that - by procedure code - a request to introduce new evidence can be accepted by the court at a later time only if the requesting party can prove that it was impossible to make that request to introduce that evidence before. I didn't see the impossibility of the defense in making the request for an independent review within the legal terms. They could have said "we don't trust Stefanoni's report", because has no raw data files or because of her dirty gloves video or whatever, and we request a court-appointed expert review; they did not. I only see their choice to not make it, a choice which was made for obvious reasons; the defence at that time was focused on carrying on a fight via their own experts, why should they take the risk of asking an independent expert review by court-appointed experts? They decided to take this risk only later, as the evidence was already discussed and the situation had become desperate.
If I remember correctly the defence had been forced into a corner where it was best to not deliver any impolite statements about Italian jurisprudence or their often brilliant prosecution techniques.
This was a side effect of the gloom of Massei’s cave.
I would imagine that Raff’s team would not be amused to find that he had (magically) handled Meredith’s bra clasp when he wasn’t even there that night.
The request was made just after the court (experts) had debated the dodgy DNA evidence.
The application was then placed immediately.
There was also the eruption in court at that stage that the raw data files had not been handed over. This lead to an early summer recess and was seen as quite a big deal. I wonder if you could use this as an example of difficulties in requesting that review before, unlike Yummi’s ingeniously mentioned prosecution request for new tests for items that either have no DNA or were destroyed in storage, because they represent new evidence by not having been tested by C & V, even though they’ve (supposedly) already been tested. It’s all cleverly thought out new stuff.
It’s amazing, and as time goes by amazingly boring to once again find that PMFer’s arguing techniques, and the obviousness of their personality types, simply arouse belief in the opposite side of the subjects they discuss.
After reading this hollow c*** it’s impossible to be worried in the slightest, or take seriously by anything Yummi might believe.
What I think is that the earlier forum comments about Mignini clutching at straws could be right.
Hopefully he and a few others are going to be in really deep s*** after this case has drawn to it’s logical confusion. If I was the Knox and Sollicito teams I would kick up a huge stink.
It would be really nice to see significant retribution from Italian justice figures who do worry about the more crazy and dangerous applications of their law.
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Hi Bruce Fisher,
Is Raffaele Sollecito coming to Amercia if he is found innocent of participating in Meredith Kercher's brutal murder? I would think that he would just continue to live in Italy after his release. Care to elaborate?
You also made mention of 90 days, as did I earlier today too. My 90 day question is a bit hard to find an answer for, maybe you can help me out.
Do you have any knowledge if Rudy Guede was drug tested after he was arrested and if so, what were the results?
Thanks, RW
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
I believe the Court had 90 days after the first trial to complete the motivation so I was basing the time frame on that.
I will not elaborate further on Raffaele other than what I said as I don't want to start wild rumors over at PMF. I have had the privilege of reading some his letters to the US and he is doing very well with his English. I cannot say for sure what Raffaele will do. I am hopeful that he will be able to get a fresh start very soon.
I do not have any drug test results for Guede. I will see what I can find out.
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
If bolint were here, he would be the first to inform you that this CCTV camera is not recorded continuously but rather records only when there is a vehicle or other large object in the frame and for about 30 seconds after.
What we can say is that the timing and action of the person in the video is consistent with Meredith coming home so the this information cannot be positively attributed to Amanda.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
If the Hellmann court does vote for acquittal (am not holding my breath here because I remember what happened at the first trial instance), they could decide to bypass all the illegality of the C&V report by not even directly referencing to it in their motivational report.
As I posted before when pilot first brought this up (it seems to have slipped by unnoticed by everyone here like I'm invisible or something hehehe), I have not seen it written anywhere that this court cannot receive new evidence or new test as part of the appeal process.
IF Mignini is right (big if) and the review is illegal, and when and IF (another big if) this court does acquit Amanda and Raffaele, they can easily make a case that all they needed to reject the (knife and bra clasp) DNA evidence (as probably contaminated) was the original video showing the collection of the bra clasp, it's current condition (as proof of improper collection and storage techniques), and the "new" test (and thus "new" evidence) showing there was no bleach or blood found on the knife, but that starch was detected which thus proved (or a strong case could be made) that it being the murder weapon is highly unlikely.
Mignini would then have nothing to protest about at the Supreme Court level.
This would be a hard and bitter lesson for Mignini to learn here (it would be his own fault really) and that lesson would be to NEVER reveal to anyone your courtroom legal strategies, especially to a newspaper reporter...
IF, of course, Italy does allow him to continue practicing law, but that would be their problem because they would then be admitting that they didn't themselves learn anything from this charade either,
Dave
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Dan O.,
This is awesome. Thanks for putting this all together.
The Police presented in court March 13, 2009 that the CCTV figure was likely Meredith Kercher arriving home and had that time 20 MINUTES WRONG! How do they have the time this off? Wouldn't there have been a way to check the clock time when collecting the video to verify for correctness?
It also doesn't make any SENSE AT ALL. The English girlfriends had already testified and been interviewed. The police KNEW that it was impossible that it was Meredith Kercher if the time arriving home was 8:41 p.m. Meredith would have still have been at her friend's place at that time. Shouldn't that have given the police a CLUE that either their clock time was wrong or it wasn't Meredith? This is what they presented at trial. They had a year and 4 months to figure out the CCTV clock time before they presented it in court.
Last edited:
While not being an Italian law expert, I can't imagine Mignini is right here. If this review is wrong, it is really blatently wrong. So Hellmann is just walking merrily down the path, and allowing something obviously wrong? Of course he could make a mistake, but this would be too huge to be missed.
As others would say, why have an appeal at all if you can't challenge anything? Especially when the defense requested a review of the same evidence and was denied, and the reason given for the denial was NOT that it was not requested at the correct time.
If prosecution claimed the CCTV clock was 10 minutes slow when in fact it was 10 to 12 minutes fast. It may have been just a simple mistake. The technician who collected the data failed to clearly note the direction of the error.
This mistake had the side benefit of showing that the Postal Police arrived 20 minutes earlier the next day. Keeping alive the myth that Raffaele called the police after they had already arrived. The fact that they released the video of Kercher crossing the street with the time stamp clipped out of the image may indicate the prosecution was being knowingly deceptive.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
The Image.....wonder why it is not an image similar to Rudys image where he walks around the auto gate? Why just this blur ...did she take a different route?
4 computer hard drive were destroyed...RS, AK, MK, and Filomenas (this last one is karma coming down)
RS Mac Book Pro was used to surf the internet by police and to open the VLC movie player (also by the boneheaded police) which forever altered the time stamp by overwriting the data. We can never know what movies were played on VLC after this. So actually the police destroyed evidence on 5 computers. That some material was later salvaged is important but what is more important is the courts denial of the defense request to send AK computer to the factory to recover it. They went so far as offering to pay for this repair but were refused...not sure which judge ...I think it was Massei the mind reader.
If you believe in guilt then please explain how at least two persons snuck past the cameras? I see a blur that corresponds to the facts of the time Meredith would have returned home. And I see RG going out around the gate...so where are two more images? Even if you claim this is AK and RS then where are MK and RG? Or if AK and RG then where are MK and RS? Something’s just not adding up here. 1 plus 1 = what in Italy?
The men hiding in the bushes…about a week before MK was murdered she reported scary persons hiding in the yard or near the cottage. Is it possible ???? Of the 14 good finger prints found in MK room the only ones ID were from RG and MK. There were prints never identified. But of course there is no footprints, DNA, semen (not that we will ever know it seems) or any type of evidence that anyone but RG committed this crime…just saying.
4 computer hard drive were destroyed...RS, AK, MK, and Filomenas (this last one is karma coming down)
RS Mac Book Pro was used to surf the internet by police and to open the VLC movie player (also by the boneheaded police) which forever altered the time stamp by overwriting the data. We can never know what movies were played on VLC after this. So actually the police destroyed evidence on 5 computers. That some material was later salvaged is important but what is more important is the courts denial of the defense request to send AK computer to the factory to recover it. They went so far as offering to pay for this repair but were refused...not sure which judge ...I think it was Massei the mind reader.
If you believe in guilt then please explain how at least two persons snuck past the cameras? I see a blur that corresponds to the facts of the time Meredith would have returned home. And I see RG going out around the gate...so where are two more images? Even if you claim this is AK and RS then where are MK and RG? Or if AK and RG then where are MK and RS? Something’s just not adding up here. 1 plus 1 = what in Italy?
The men hiding in the bushes…about a week before MK was murdered she reported scary persons hiding in the yard or near the cottage. Is it possible ???? Of the 14 good finger prints found in MK room the only ones ID were from RG and MK. There were prints never identified. But of course there is no footprints, DNA, semen (not that we will ever know it seems) or any type of evidence that anyone but RG committed this crime…just saying.
- Status