Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

The question specifically was how many people signed the statements.

As for the twelwe people were probably all those in the homicide group.

From my news collection I could find the following names handling the pair that night

Raffaele
--------
Napoleoni
Facchini

Amanda
----------
Ficarra
Zugarini
Raffo
Donnino (translator)


I don't see how the "hordes of cops torturing them all night long" story comes out of this.

Especially beacuse all the breakdown happened relatively shortly after the questioning began.

Raffaele had been questioned on Nov 2, so he had 3 full days to recover and Amanda also had more than 24 hours

No, those were the cops solely involved in the interrogation, there were something like thirty-something cops at the Questura all told. The positions of the twelve are revealed in the second link.

Now, according to the phone records, Amanda is on the phone with Filomena when she cuts them off as the cops are approaching to talk to her, that called ended at 10:39 She also says elsewhere it was shortly after she arrived, she was still on her first page of homework. Raffaele and Amanda walked in there at 10:15, by 10:40 the stoned Raffaele is signing his statement that he and Amanda split up at the town square the night of the murder around 9PM and he went home, and also that he'd called the carabinieri after the Postal police arrived. That suggests to me that Amanda's interrogation began right around 10:40, with those 'admissions' from Raffaele they'd want to have a conversation with her posthaste.

The first statement was signed at 1:45 AM, that's about three hours from the likely beginning of the festivities. 5-10 cops at a time. If they weren't available for the interrogation, they wouldn't be eligible for the calunnia charge. I don't know what information you're operating under, but it sounds like it's pre-calunnia filing, as that changed the whole ballgame. It is no longer possible to argue that there were only a handful of cops there, ILE themselves has proven that incorrect.

 

[Justinian2]

I tend to dislike this "X person must be guilty because they did not act like I think they should act" business. People don't know how they would act, and it is not relevent as proof of anything anyway. After tragedies, people react in various ways. At worst, Amanda reacted in a way that was offensive to some, but she did not understand that at the time, and was trying to deal with the tragedy herself, and was not thinking about how it looked to others.

When my mother died at home under hospice care, my sister and I were the only ones home. When she died my sister and I didn't cry. We were stunned. We were numb. We sat apart from each other lost in our own thoughts. My mother passed so easily, that we were scared. Could we just cease to exist also?

Amanda could have been nervous that it could have happened to her.

Amanda was effected more by fear than grief.

Only idiots would think that her actions indicated guilt.

I'm agreeing with you, by the way.

 

[JREF2010]

Let's speculate. I found this quote on some other, not very good, site. Here it goes:
Quote:
Raffaele and Amanda at the bar
The ruling will go on live TV

http://www3.lastampa.it/cronache/sezion ... tp/422471/

Between Saturday and Monday is expected
the final verdict. Even
CNN book a place in
the front row to film the reactions


Anyone can listen "live" the ruling that will decide the future of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, charged with the murder of the young American Meredith Kercher. Following the numerous requests made ​​by Italian and foreign issuers, today the President of the Court, Claudio Pratillo Helllmann, gave his permission to "live television coverage and photo shoots during the reading of the device." In the front row, to film the reactions of two main suspects, including the likes of CNN networks worldwide. The fateful verdict is expected on Saturday and Monday, but for many the game is not yet closed.


Does anyone think that it's a good sign for Amanda and Raffaele? Or, maybe, Hellmann wants the whole world to see Amanda and Raffaele's reaction when he convicts them?

It's quite huge if you ask me.

I would say a good sign.

Someone else posted about eye contact psychology, if they are making eye contact and smiling its a good sign. There is some support for this human behavioral stuff...but it wont be truly supported without the data (verdict). In the Massei trial I recall Curt Knox mentioning how they wouldn't look at him, none of them.

So to go public and invite the media, I'd bet its a positive for the defense.

Exactly like you said, what kind of person would request a worldwide telecast for a conviction? that would be mentally-twisted.

How could they convict on issues they refused to review also, is my talking head point. I could understand if their appointed experts came back with negative results and convicted. ...but its all looking like a positive for them.

but after all the bizarre events, who knows? seems a surprise around every corner in this case.

 

[Fine]

Okay, in the interests of accuracy, and amusement, I looked to determine exactly the manner in which the Supreme Court mutilated Amanda Knox's name in their MOTIVATION REPORT confirming the conviction of Rudy. (And describing the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele, too)

Andrea Vogt has it right............

Amanda Knox's name is repeatedly misspelled: First its "Knok," then "Xnox," then "Xnok." Once they even refer to her as "Anna Xnox." (See: Vogt)

Hmm. No wonder she's losing sleep. Should her present trial find her guilty, this Supreme Court is Anna Xnox's last hope.

///

 

[Diocletus]

Okay, in the interests of accuracy, and amusement, I looked to determine exactly the manner in which the Supreme Court mutilated Amanda Knox's name in their MOTIVATION REPORT confirming the conviction of Rudy. (And mentioning the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele, too)

Andrea Vogt has it right............

Amanda Knox's name is repeatedly misspelled: First its "Knok," then "Xnox," then "Xnok." Once they even refer to her as "Anna Xnox." (See: Vogt)

Hmm. No wonder she's losing sleep. Should her present trial find her guilty, this Supreme Court is Anna Xnox's last hope.

///

Yet another reason why Judge Hellmann won't be bound by the Rudy decision--it doesn't even involve Amanda Knox, but rather, Anna Xnox, a totally different person!

 

[Rolfe]

Talking of misunderstandings.... There's an interview in which one of Knox's sisters describes their visits to her in prison, and mentions that they have to be careful which table they choose for the conversation because some have been graffitied with anti-Amanda insults. She spoke of putting her arm over one reading "Amanda is a whore" in the hope that Amanda wouldn't notice.

The Daily Mail seem to have reported this as the graffiti being on a bench in the spectators' area of the courtroom. With their usual standard of accuracy, I guess.

On PMF.org there is a whole conversation about the Mail version, with not one person realising that the paper has its facts wrong.

Rolfe.

 

[snook1]

I think they realize the paper got it all wrong, again. They just like it more this way. Funny and disturbed group of people.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, I dunno. Kermit has posted a long sleuth-like investigation showing that Deanna Knox doesn't have a table in the court room, lavishly illustrated. All to prove that Deanna is actually reciting lines scripted for her by the Gogarty-Marriott PR supertanker.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=420&start=1750#p101495

Kermit, watch the ABC video and find out where the graffiti really was!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-murder-trial-sisters-hoping-best-appeal/story?id=14622148

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

I think they realize the paper got it all wrong, again. They just like it more this way. Funny and disturbed group of people.

Yeah. They seem to be happy that she is losing hair and has hives, due to stress. Very disturbing.

 

[snook1]

I would say a good sign.

Someone else posted about eye contact psychology, if they are making eye contact and smiling its a good sign. There is some support for this human behavioral stuff...but it wont be truly supported without the data (verdict). In the Massei trial I recall Curt Knox mentioning how they wouldn't look at him, none of them.

So to go public and invite the media, I'd bet its a positive for the defense.

Exactly like you said, what kind of person would request a worldwide telecast for a conviction? that would be mentally-twisted.

How could they convict on issues they refused to review also, is my talking head point. I could understand if their appointed experts came back with negative results and convicted. ...but its all looking like a positive for them.

but after all the bizarre events, who knows? seems a surprise around every corner in this case.

Yes, I thought the same as well. We've seen many weird and unexpected twists against Amanda and Raffaele and I wouldn't be that surprised to see yet another one.

However, after previous "good signs" from Hellmann, after the independent experts report, after denied requests from the prosecution and after his one last ruling against Commodi, I would be totally devastated if the verdict would be anything else than a full acquittal.

I just can't see any different scenario after all that took place in court recently.

Hopefully, this decision, to allow the cameras to show their faces while the verdict is read, is based on Hellmann's confidence that he will deliever a good verdict for Amanda and Raffaele. As you've said, it would be more than disturbing if he would agree to this knowing he will convict.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh, I dunno. Kermit has posted a long sleuth-like investigation showing that Deanna Knox doesn't have a table in the court room, lavishly illustrated. All to prove that Deanna is actually reciting lines scripted for her by the Gogarty-Marriott PR supertanker.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=420&start=1750#p101495

Kermit, watch the ABC video and find out where the graffiti really was!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-murder-trial-sisters-hoping-best-appeal/story?id=14622148

Rolfe.

Is this Kermit ever right about ANYTHING?

 

[RoseMontague]

If anyone is thinking of indulging this request, I suggest they first look at this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201839

Rolfe.

Well, for anyone else that is interested, I believe the best evidence of her language and communication problems comes from an intercepted call between Amanda and Filomeana just one day before her arrest.

LG: So, this is the telephone call that was intercepted on Nov 5th 2007,starting at 22:29, and the first question that I will ask Amanda is: wherewere you? Maybe it's better if -- do you remember where you were at 22:29?AK: Twenty-two...wait...LG: Ten twenty-nine, ten thirty.AK: Which day?LG: The 5th.AK: On the 5th...umm...ten thirty...that would be around class time, so...LG: No, in the evening.AK: Oh, in the evening, oh, the evening! I was still at the house of theseneighbors.[Telephone call audio: loud ringing or beeping] FR: Hello?AK: Ciao bella.FR: Ciao bella, how are you? [very sweet, friendly voice]AK: [Italian noticeably less good than now, slow, yet really not so bad, not absolutely a beginner] Oh, fine. I had a good day, without police.FR: Aah...AK: But Raffaele received a "call" [in English]--FR: From whom?AK: From the police. So we umm just got here, to the Questura, for questioning.But I have to wait outside. And...umm...umm...when he...[LG cuts off the audio]LG: I'm stopping it. Amanda, who were you talking to in this phone call?AK: With Filomena.LG: And where were you?AK: At the Questura. I was near the elevator. Waiting for Raffaele.LG: And the call came on the cell phone? [Strange question, it was Amandacalling]AK: Yes.[LG restarts the audio]FR: Finishes?AK: That's right.FR: So you're there again today.AK: Yes.FR: Madonna!AK: I know. And I thought I wouldn't have to go [inaudible squeak but I'm guessing she said "there today"]. And what did you do today?FR: Me, today, I went to my office to get some information about our contract.AK: Yes? And how is it?FR: It's good, it's good. And then I called the agency.AK: Mmm. And?FR: And I have an appointment for tomorrow morning.AK: Tomorrow morning?FR: At 9:30. Yes. I'm going. Do you want to come?AK: Um, I have to meet my mom at the station.FR: Fine, fine.[LG interrupts the audio]LG: I'm stopping it for a moment to ask this question. How is it that you were worried about the rental contract of the house? What was your worryon November 5th?AK: We had to clarify with the agency about the house, because when we paidthe rent, we were paying either the agency or the landlady, and what wewanted to do is, we wanted to get out of this contract at the agency, tofind another house together.LG: And who was taking care of these questions?AK: It was mainly Filomena.LG: I see.[Restores telephone audio]FR: Then let's -- [at this point she switches to English. Cute accent -- buther English isn't really any better than Amanda's Italian! Literal transcription.] We can do in this way, if you want. After that I getin the agency office to talk about what we have to do...AK: Yes?FR: ...after I have to go to office to talk with my lawyer...[A voice intervenes, perhaps the interpreter? LG stops the audio] Afterwardsshe had to go to her office to see her lawyer. [Background murmuring.Audio rewinds a bit and starts again, this time translated orally bit bybit by the interpreter]FR: ...about the problem of the home because he says that we have a problem.AK: Yes?FR: And if...if the agency says there are some problems with the rest of the...rest of the...in legal ways [I think this is what she just tried to say butit's hard to understand. The interpreter simply says "One can't understandRomanelli's English very well" (!) At this point Filomena switches back toItalian.] We're okay because it's all in our favor.AK: Good.FR: Then I'll go to work but if you want, we can see each other after andyou can tell me how it went.AK: Yes, and you can meet my mom.FR: Great!AK: Good.FR: Great! Then if she needs anything, we can see about it, okay?AK: Yes, sure. Call me, okay?FR: Okay, fine. Say hi to Raffaele. AK: Okay.FR: Take it easy, Amanda. Bye.AK: Sure, of course. Oh, right now somebody wants to talk to me. Ciao bella.FR: Ciao, ciao.[End telephone audio]

I think this is important to understand for several reasons. Like many who are learning a new language when you need to say a word you don't know you give your native language word hoping the other person knows what it means. Both thoughtful and the court interpreter have a hard time following this conversation and they are both fluent in both languages. This is also important to understand when it comes to the always/never locked door question.

 

[snook1]

Yeah. They seem to be happy that she is losing hair and has hives, due to stress. Very disturbing.

Ahh yes, the hair loss. They were at their very best that day. Disgusting.

 

[Grinder]

Well, for anyone else that is interested, I believe the best evidence of her language and communication problems comes from an intercepted call between Amanda and Filomeana just one day before her arrest.



I think this is important to understand for several reasons. Like many who are learning a new language when you need to say a word you don't know you give your native language word hoping the other person knows what it means. Both thoughtful and the court interpreter have a hard time following this conversation and they are both fluent in both languages. This is also important to understand when it comes to the always/never locked door question.

Always has seemed that the PGP made way too much of the locked versus closed door. I always wondered how Filomena could have known that Meredith didn't lock her door - did she try the door when Meredith and Amanda weren't there?

 

[JREF2010]

Interesting...

The judge presiding over the appeal by Knox and Sollecito said that the final arguments were moving along so quickly that a verdict could come as soon as Saturday. It had originally been anticipated to be delivered early next week.

I wonder whats going on behind closed doors?

Also this link Vargas says she personally asked Maresca if he had permission to exploit Merediths crime photo's and he admits he(Maresca) did not and it was a mistake.

at 2:16..

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/amanda-knox-appeal-trial-countdown-verdict-14621813

excuse if its a repeat, the pages are going by so fast these days.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Exactly like you said, what kind of person would request a worldwide telecast for a conviction? that would be mentally-twisted.

How could they convict on issues they refused to review also, is my talking head point. I could understand if their appointed experts came back with negative results and convicted. ...but its all looking like a positive for them.

What kind of person would request a worldwide telecast for a conviction? Well, for one, someone who was convinced that this day would be his "fifteen minutes of fame" and wanted the whole world to see him. Or someone who is really, really convinced Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and wants to make sure the whole world realizes it.

And, as to your "talking head point": they could easily convict on issues they refused to review if, upon reading the case files from the first trial, they became convinced that those issues had been so well covered, and the evidence in them so unassailable, that they decided the case per se. Others have written that, since the DNA evidence was the only matter they elected to review, it meant that they had decided that it alone was crucial to guilt or innocence; therefore, since that review came back criticizing the work of the first DNA analysts, acquittal is a near-certainty. But, in fact, that is not the only possible interpretation of events. It may be that they decided to appoint independent experts because the failure of the first judge to allow the defense to reexamine the evidence might be considered a procedural failing that could get the case reversed by the Supreme Court, and this was just a matter of making sure the case was procedurally sound. And, although the second review was critical of the first, it is worth noting that said criticism is wildly overstated on a number of pro-innocence sites. From their account, it would seem the independent experts concluded there was no DNA evidence at all; but, in fact, all they said was that errors by the first examiners made the results, in their opinion, unreliable. It is quite possible for Hellmann and the other judges/magistrates to grant them the right to disagree, but be themselves unconvinced the original lab work was wrong.

In other words, every "tea leaf" that pro-innocence posters are jumping on as proof acquittal is imminent can be just as valid if the court has already heard all that they need to hear, and have decided to uphold the convictions.

(Personally, I'm hoping for an acquittal, but I'm not banking on anything.)

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks for the article, bolint.

It does go on to say that Amanda's lawyers advised her to remain silent: "Amanda, invece, su consiglio degli avvocati, tace."

So that explains her failure to speak up.

I've always found it sad that the Knox family didn't reach out to the Kerchers. I think that might have helped the Kerchers keep an open mind; though maybe not, seeing as it was a crazy time with a lot of crazy accusations. I've seen others excoriate the Knox family for not reaching out. Yet I know when one seeks legal counsel in the U.S. the FIRST thing your lawyer tells you to do is avoid all communication with involved parties.

So I agree with you that it would have better if Amanda had clarified her statement when Lumumba was defending himself at the Matteini hearing. I agree with others that it would have been better if the Knox family had expressed their condolences to the Kerchers. Nevertheless, it's an unfortunate reality that lawyers essentially forbid clients to speak up on behalf of others or to engage in direct communication with other principals.

I have had some of these same feelings. During the appeal Amanda reached out to the Kerchers and apologized to Patrick. While not everyone has agreed it was wise or that it was genuine, I think it was both wise and genuine. I think Amanda will touch again on these points tomorrow.

Amanda's demeanor this appeal is much different from the first trial. I don't think it is as much her being coached as it is being in prison for four years and having time to reflect on all that has happened. I think there is a sensitivity she possesses now which maybe didn't show in the first trial. I think she realizes the gravity of the situation, even if innocent, and this weighs heavy upon her. Acquittal will surely be good news but will not erase all she has experienced the past four years.

I think the appeal court will bring back an acquittal for both Amanda's and Raffaele's involvement in Meredith's murder. The two pieces of evidence which tied them to the crime scene are now questionable (along with Curatolo's testimony placing them near the cottage), and the evidence remaining does not support a verdict of guilty.

I don't think an acquittal will in any way take away the memory of Meredith. She was special to those who knew her and will always remain so.

 

[bolint]

OK, the note was in italian (so not written by her), said "I met Patrick. We went to my apartment. Patrick had sex with Meredith. I confusedly remember that he killed her" and was signed by her, reportedly after 14 hours interrogation, and immediately recanted later the same day.

Yes, reportedly after 14 hours of interrogation.
In reality, however, it was after 3 hours (from 22:40 to 1:45AM)

And it was not recanted.

The rest is OK:

 

[bolint]

Interesting...

The judge presiding over the appeal by Knox and Sollecito said that the final arguments were moving along so quickly that a verdict could come as soon as Saturday. It had originally been anticipated to be delivered early next week.

I wonder whats going on behind closed doors?

Simply the rebuttals were cut to half hours per lawyer, that's half a day.
Even with the prosecutions couple of hours it fits into one day.

And Hellmann and probably the other judges, too, want to finish it ASAP.

 

[Fine]

Always has seemed that the PGP made way too much of the locked versus closed door. I always wondered how Filomena could have known that Meredith didn't lock her door - did she try the door when Meredith and Amanda weren't there?

_________________________

My guess. Whenever Meredith entered the cottage she left her keys on the key rack, near the front door, and easily seen by Filomena. Maybe all the girls did that. Why would they need their keys once beyond the front door?

///