Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I can't remember where I saw it now, I thought it was in the Matteini Report, but I can't find where we analyzed those parts in the thread. I can't seem to find it in the partial translation by Catnip over at PMF, but there's an official paper which details Raffaele's statement to the cops like Matteini does, that also included his 'admitting' to that in the statement he signed. It came up again not that long ago, a few months I think, but I can't find it now.

For katy_did and Kaosium:

In the corriere.it article of November 7, 2007 they have what is allegedly Raffaele's statement given to the police on November 5-6. This is what is written in the last sentences:

"Ho cercato di sfondare la porta ma non ci sono riuscito e a quel punto ho deciso di chiamare mia sorella e mi sono consigliato con lei perché è un tenente dei carabinieri. Mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale."

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

This article is the only place I have seen what is supposed to be Raffaele's statement to the police. It was not brought against him in court.

 

[katy_did]

I can't remember where I saw it now, I thought it was in the Matteini Report, but I can't find where we analyzed those parts in the thread. I can't seem to find it in the partial translation by Catnip over at PMF, but there's an official paper which details Raffaele's statement to the cops like Matteini does, that also included his 'admitting' to that in the statement he signed. It came up again not that long ago, a few months I think, but I can't find it now.

I found the English version of their statements in the Telegraph - the 'in the meantime the postal police arrived' statement comes from that, not Raffaele's diary as I thought. Hmmm. Could the police have interpreted that as meaning he called them after the postal police arrived? Curious. I remember a discussion ages ago on PMF about that sentence, and even there the consensus in the end was that it could have just meant he called 112 but then the postal police arrived before the Carabinieri got there. Now I'm starting to wonder if the police read it differently...

ETA: Thanks Christiana, I see that you've found the original (LOL, too much time spent editing on my part).

 

[HumanityBlues]

Here is SA's reply:



Sorry SA, for me, it doesn't pass the smell test. You showed exactly how credible your evaluations of demeanor are with the heroin addicted, drug dealing, professional witness and paid liar of a homeless park bench bum.

It is pretty amazing he thought by talking to this guy for like 20 seconds that he he could tell Curatolo was telling the truth. It's complete buffoonery that is so hilarious it's not even offensive.

You really gotta hand it to the people from the sick site when they turn on the cheesey-o-meter:

"I saw what I saw” he says simply.

I look him straight in the eyes throughout the whole conversation. He doesn’t once break eye contact back – never - and I particularly note it when he says those final words. I look at him some more and I nod again.

“I know you did,” I say.

But this time I really do know it, with certainty."

Smitten by the fame seeking vagrant. He got bamboozled by the junkie who happily took his $20 bucks.

He writes: "I know the lies of drug addicts and thieves and other types more innumerable than I care to mention. He’s none of these things whatsoever."

WRONG. So why should anyone believe Toto is not a liar because of anything this "somealibi" says? Not only is he a drug addict, he's an admitted one. Guess somealibi's experience doesn't count for diddily when it comes to making flash judgments on people. Boy did he mess up on this one.

But don't forget the article: "The Chilling Killing Propensities Of Sollecito’s Various Knives". Thanks to this article I, as I am sure many others here, have now learned that sharp knives can kill people. It's an amazing concept he brought to light. I'll give him credit for that one.

It is funny, there are some people who have tons of experience but learn nothing from it and are always wrong.

 

[pilot padron]

Maybe stint can read and not only watch boob tube videos

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewto...b97b443c0509587e8c5153ac65&start=2000#p101540

Hi Stint!

Maybe you need to watch the video in the article you linked to....

It's a shame we can't post over there, but the blanket ban on dissenting opinion has been strengthened. Apparently newbies are to be banned pre-emptively before they've had a chance to post, even though the moderator professes to "hate it when someone has to be banned, it goes against every fibre of my being...."

Which of course means that people who post here can be insulted with impunity, by people without the guts to identify themselves here to take responsibility for what they post.

Rolfe.

On page 2 of the URL stint quoted it clearly says:
"It's hard, everything being said in an hour," she said of the family's brief visits with Knox in the prison reception room where the walls have been, at times, sprayed with anti-Knox graffiti, including "Amanda is a whore."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...s-hoping-best-appeal/story?id=14622148&page=2

Surely you also read that after watching the video.
Didn't you.

I really cannot help that ABC producers say one thing in their video and write another in the accompanying Article.

But since they also write repeatedly 'Deana' (sp), I am not surprised

Also, I am not sure why you used the remainder of your argument to rant and rail so about PMF and its Administrative Policies.
But I hope you benefited from it.
I did not.
(But I speak for myself, and not stint, of course)

As an aside:
Who is this SA guy ?
I have seen his name mentioned in arguments here about a dozen times just today, and several dozen in the past weeks.
Yet yesterday Grinder said he never saw anyone refer to him except me ??
HUH ???

 

[RoseMontague]

I found the English version of their statements in the Telegraph - the 'in the meantime the postal police arrived' statement comes from that, not Raffaele's diary as I thought. Hmmm. Could the police have interpreted that as meaning he called them after the postal police arrived? Curious. I remember a discussion ages ago on PMF about that sentence, and even there the consensus in the end was that it could have just meant he called 112 but then the postal police arrived before the Carabinieri got there. Now I'm starting to wonder if the police read it differently...

ETA: Thanks Christiana, I see that you've found the original (LOL, too much time spent editing on my part).

Thanks to both of you. I think the cops read it the way they wanted to, much like everything else, unfortunately.

 

[RoseMontague]

On page 2 of the URL stint quoted it clearly says:
"It's hard, everything being said in an hour," she said of the family's brief visits with Knox in the prison reception room where the walls have been, at times, sprayed with anti-Knox graffiti, including "Amanda is a whore."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...s-hoping-best-appeal/story?id=14622148&page=2

Surely you also read that after watching the video.
Didn't you.

I really cannot help that ABC producers say one thing in their video and write another in the accompanying Article.

But since they also write repeatedly 'Deana' (sp), I am not surprised

Also, I am not sure why you used the remainder of your argument to rant and rail so about PMF and its Administrative Policies.
But I hope you benefited from it.
I did not.
(But I speak for myself, and not stint, of course)

It is reported both ways, and perhaps it exists on both venues? It is pretty obvious that some believe what is written and have the desire to tell others about their opinion, in one way or another.

 

[RoseMontague]

)

As an aside:
Who is this SA guy.
I have seen his name mentioned dozens of times just today, and several dozen in the past weeks.
Yet yesterday Grinder said he never saw anyone refer to him except me ??
HUH ???

Perhaps tomorrow this poster will say differently. They should have both known in advance and should have read the previous 50,000 posts, at least 3 times before posting.

This getting a name wrong thing seems to be a rather weak argument, I saw SB use that with Zachman as well. I have called Torre by the name of Tower; Handy, Bedside, Comfortable, Stefinono, Migneeniemeamy, Marattlesnakesca also come to mind.

I can't tell you how many ways I have seen both Meredith and Kercher spelled on both sides of the isle. I don't think discounting an argument because of this really means a whole lot.

 

[Grinder]

_________________________

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?

///

Anything's possible but one would think that would have been explicit. Filomena would have said that in court. I've never seen a group house where people hang their keys by the front door.

I think it was a language issue and that Meredith did on occasion lock her door.

 

[Rolfe]

On page 2 of the URL stint quoted it clearly says:
"It's hard, everything being said in an hour," she said of the family's brief visits with Knox in the prison reception room where the walls have been, at times, sprayed with anti-Knox graffiti, including "Amanda is a whore."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...s-hoping-best-appeal/story?id=14622148&page=2

Surely you also read that after watching the video.
Didn't you.

I really cannot help that ABC producers say one thing in their video and write another in the accompanying Article.

But since they also write repeatedly 'Deana' (sp), I am not surprised.

Look, both SomeAlibi and Thoughtful have bothered to review the video showing what Deanna SAID, rather than blindly parroting what journalists in a hurry wrote. It's not long and it's not hard going. I realised where she'd really said she saw the graffiti before I even read the start of that ludicrous PMF sleuth-fest to prove that there was no table in the court-room. And no, she didn't say it was sprayed on the walls at the prison either.

If you can't be bothered to check the original material before you run around posting sneering comments about "the resident JLOL doggie doctor", then that's not my problem.

Also, if you'd watched the VIDEO, you'd have seen that Deanna's name was spelled correctly. As you say, the written text isn't so accurate. Which is sort of what I was saying from the start....

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is SA's reply:



Sorry SA, for me, it doesn't pass the smell test. You showed exactly how credible your evaluations of demeanor are with the heroin addicted, drug dealing, professional witness and paid liar of a homeless park bench bum.

Greetings from sunny Brighton!

It's nonsense to suggest that one can make this sort of assessment of any individual (whether Knox, Sollecito or anyone else) based on a few published still photographs (which have been carefully chosen by photo editors to illustrate a particular angle in any case) and some grainy video feeds. To presume to be able to do so merely demonstrates an intrinsically biased point of view, coupled with misplaced belief in one's own deductive powers. Knox (particularly) and Sollecito (possibly) have made errors or presentation, style and demeanour in the courtroom, for sure. But the first trial lasted some nine months with probably 40-50 court days, and the appeal trial has lasted nine months and around 30-40 court days. Overall, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that Knox in particular has been anything other than naive at times, unguarded in her actions at other times, and perhaps badly advised at other times. Neither she nor Sollecito can be accused of being "dead behind the eyes" though - that's a ridiculous and biased claim, made by a ridiculously biased commentator.

For someone alleging to be some sort of criminal defence solicitor, this individual's writings and general behaviour are growing increasingly bizarre, narcissistic and worrying. I wonder why that could be? He even pompously claimed in a post today that he knew the secret behind a defendant's success or failure in a court speech, but that he wasn't going to post that information because it might be picked up and used by Knox's lawyers!!! And he quite clearly doesn't understand either the burden of proof in civil libel suits, and nor does he understand the malice element of such a suit. Add in the very strange and very childish twitter argument (packed to the gills with puerile "LMAO"s and "ROFL"s), the demonstrably malfunctioning "sleuthing" radar, his backtracking over contacting Pepperdine about Steve Moore, his frequent attempts on twitter to influence journalists tweeting about the case, and his genuine bursts of venom on .org, and he just doesn't seem to me like a credible candidate to be a member of the legal profession.

And of course, on top of this, he's called this case totally and utterly wrong. It's fascinating, though, to see how many pro-guilt commentators have now changed from dogmatic certainty of conviction to a rationalisation of the meaning of acquittals. And it's even more fascinating to watch the pitiful "justification" for this change - ranging from the predictable: "It's only logical to examine all possibilities " (well, why weren't you examining all possibilities six months ago then?), through to the increasingly imaginative theories on why Knox/Sollecito might be acquitted despite there being cast-iron proof of their guilt. It's simultaneously astonishing and somewhat sad to watch from a distance.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Look, both SomeAlibi and Thoughtful have bothered to review the video showing what Deanna SAID, rather than blindly parroting what journalists in a hurry wrote. It's not long and it's not hard going. I realised where she'd really said she saw the graffiti before I even read the start of that ludicrous PMF sleuth-fest to prove that there was no table in the court-room. And no, she didn't say it was sprayed on the walls at the prison either.

If you can't be bothered to check the original material before you run around posting sneering comments about "the resident JLOL doggie doctor", then that's not my problem.

Also, if you'd watched the VIDEO, you'd have seen that Deanna's name was spelled correctly. As you say, the written text isn't so accurate. Which is sort of what I was saying from the start....

Rolfe.

It's funny. There is a person here who sends me PMs about me being uncivil who simultaneously calls you a doggie doctor simply because he doesn't like your opinion. That's called being a hypocrite.

 

[Rolfe]

It is reported both ways, and perhaps it exists on both venues? It is pretty obvious that some believe what is written and have the desire to tell others about their opinion, in one way or another.

Deanna says it was on a table in the visiting room of the prison. She never said anything else. One journalist turned that into "sprayed on the wall", though how Deanna could have casually covered that with her arm to prevent Amanda seeing it, he doesn't seem to have considered.

Another journalist, in that bastion of strict accuracy the Daily Mail, managed to remember that it was on a table, but got it entirely wrong otherwise.

Amanda Knox’s sisters have told of their heartbreak after discovering abusive graffiti scrawled on the tables in the Italian courtroom where her appeal is being heard.

Deanna Knox, 22, said that she looked down to find ‘Amanda is a whore’ written on the table beneath her as she listened to the proceedings.

She did not speculate who was to blame but her disclosure raises the prospect that court officials or police may have put it there.

That last bit seems to have been entirely invented by Mr. Bates.

All this is easily cleared up simply by watching/listening to the actual video which contains Deanna's actual words. Which nobody on PMF seems to have bothered to do before shooting their mouths off, in spite of posting the link themselves on several occasions.

This is nearly as much fun as watching the "Obama and the teleprompter" train wreck of a year or so ago. (No I take that back, that was incomparable.)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's funny. There is a person here who sends me PMs about me being uncivil who simultaneously calls you a doggie doctor simply because he doesn't like your opinion. That's called being a hypocrite.

Let's not go into any more detail about PMs from that particular source. The only word I can find to describe the situation is "surreal".

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

A "doggie Doctor" operates under a distinct disadvantage. The patient can't really tell the good doctor what the problem is and has to rely on those dump pet owners for help. I admire the work that they do. I am a cat person by choice, same goes for any animal doctor.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, as I said, I'm a clinical pathologist who also does gross pathology. Most of my work these days is with farm animals, though I do also have a proportion of companion animal work. And today's highlight was European beavers, for God's sake.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, as I said, I'm a clinical pathologist who also does gross pathology. Most of my work these days is with farm animals, though I do also have a proportion of companion animal work. And today's highlight was European beavers, for God's sake.

Rolfe.

Thar ya go. Additional language barriers to overcome.

Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.

 

[Grinder]

A "doggie Doctor" operates under a distinct disadvantage. The patient can't really tell the good doctor what the problem is and has to rely on those dump pet owners for help. I admire the work that they do. I am a cat person by choice, same goes for any animal doctor.

Was that dumb pet owners or those dumps for help?

 

[RoseMontague]

I see the pesky lamp has come up again. My issue with this is the problems with them "forgetting" the lamp after the non-clean up. First they would have to step over the lamp cord and then they would have to close the door over the lamp cord. It seems rather obvious it would be difficult to forget this. It also appears that the door has rubbed the cord against the floor in a couple of photos. I just don't see it.

 

[LondonJohn]

A quick word on the "Sollecito's failed attempt to break down Meredith's door" issue, as it's been incorrectly interpreted elsewhere:

It's common amongst pro-guilt commentators to suggest that it was a very deliberate act of Knox and Sollecito to have stopped short of breaking the door totally open. There are seemingly two schools of thought on why: 1) The partial break-in was designed to show concern for Meredith's safety and whereabouts, but Sollecito failed in his attempt to break the door open; 2) Knox and Sollecito realised they had mistakenly left Knox's lamp inside the locked room, Sollecito made an initial attempt to break in to retrieve it (they had thrown the keys well away by this point), but then they both realised that they were better off leaving the door intact rather than having to "discover" Meredith's body at that earlier point.

Well, the truth is probably far simpler and far more obvious. And it has everything to do with the escalation of concern coupled with uncertainty on what was acceptable to do. At around 12.15-12.30, after Knox and Sollecito returned to the cottage, they were concerned about Meredith - having failed to reach her by phone, and having linked the blood spots with the broken window in Filomena's room to summise that something wrong had happened in the cottage. But it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Knox/Sollecito were not desperately worried about Meredith at that stage. And breaking down a locked door is a very extreme thing to do, especially without any sort of official condoning of such action.

My opinion is therefore that Sollecito made an attempt to "force" the door, kicking it lightly and maybe putting his shoulder against it, to see if it would open with just a little pressure. Once he realised that the door was securely locked, and that it would literally need to be broken down in order to gain entry to Meredith's room, I think he and Knox reasoned that this was too dramatic a step to contemplate at that specific point in time.

However, the situation changed significantly once a number of things happened: firstly, Sollecito spoke to his sister who seemingly reassured him that he was right to be concerned, and told him to phone the police emergency number; secondly, Sollecito phoned the police, and their response to what he told them again served to validate his and Knox's concerns; thirdly - and most significantly - the postal police officers arrived at the cottage. The arrival of the postal police changed things dramatically. not only were law enforcement officers now present in the cottage, but they had also brought Meredith's Italian phone with them. Knox and Sollecito (and the others by now present) now knew that one of Meredith's phones had been found lying in the garden of a woman on the outskirts of Perugia. The clear implication of that had to be that something extremely strange - and very probably harmful - must have happened to Meredith. There was now a much more clear imperative to get into Meredith's room, whatever the cost to the fixtures and fittings in the rental cottage. And not only that, but two police officers were there to validate and condone such action - even if they were hesitant to do it themselves for procedural reasons, they were in agreement that it ought to be done.

So it seems to me that this issue has a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation that is entirely consistent with Knox's/Sollecito's innocence. As someone else said: we have to hope this is the sort of thing the jury (sic) are thinking through.

 

[RoseMontague]

Was that dumb pet owners or those dumps for help?

LOL, speaking of spelling errors and one that spell-check does not highlight.