• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. There was blood in the bathroom. Amanda saw it.
Of course it means nothing, as the Postal Police weren't even worried enough about the entire situation (blood and all) to break down Meredith's door.


And Filomena is unfortunately engaging in conscious or subconscious post-hoc rationalisation when she recalls that Knox referred to "blood everywhere" in the phone call, and when she recalls her alleged reaction. By the time Filomena gave her trial testimony, she had clearly become convinced that Knox was a prime mover in Meredith's death. I believe her entire testimony was coloured and influenced by that belief, and that it became exaggerated to better fit that belief.

I wonder if Filomena is now sitting down and having a long, hard think about the truth, and what part she might have wittingly or unwittingly played in the sad tale. I hope that is happening.
 
Obviously she could have accused Guede, which would have been much more in keeping with the prosecution's theory that Knox and Sollecito were only trying to cover up their involvement. But just when you figure she would have ratted on Guede, she accused Lumumba.

-Mike

Why on earth would she have accused Guede for? He was nowhere on the horizon? She had no idea Guede was involved in the murder. I don't understand your way of thinking?
 
How could we be talking about someone trying to deflect suspicion away from herself when she wasn't even being questioned as a suspect?

We all know how this went down. The Perugia police were having an informal tea party in which they invited their friends from Rome. Amanda was invited because she could do gymnastics and everybody likes girls that do gymnastics (except perhaps older girls that can't).

Somehow the informal talk about boys drifted to discussing the case and they were asking Amanda if she knew any of the boys that Meredith knew. Of course she told them about the boys downstairs and some of the other boys that had been to the house or had met Meredith. She adds (being precise as she knows these are police she is talking to):

One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi and I know that he lives in the area near the roundabout of Porta Pesa. Tel. 393387195723, pub where I work twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, from 22.00 until about 2.00.

Since it came up that she was supposed to be working that night, they ask why she didn't go to work. She says she got a text from her boss saying she didn't need to come to work. They ask to see the text and she says she deleted it. But they insist and ask to see the phone and she hands it over and perhaps takes another sip of her tea. It doesn't take these experts of modern technology long to find the reply message "see you later" which Amanda had tried to say in Italian since her boss didn't speak much english. The police in a good humor way replied "Ahh, so you were meeting someone, naughty naughty :)" but Amanda insists she wasn't meeting anyone. The police suggest that they play a game called "lets pretend we have a video tape of Amanda crossing the street to her cottage at 8:41". Amanda doesn't want to leave the party since the tea and cakes are good so goes along with the game. So who were you going to meet? There can be only one answer to this. It has to be the person that sent the text: Patrick. And the game goes on, they entered the cottage because of course there is that video. Amanda is saying that she doesn't remember any of this but now someone else has joined the party that happens to be an interpreter and helps Amanda continue the game by suggesting that maybe she was traumatized and that is why she can't remember. So form this point in the game they can only ask Amanda what could have happened since a traumatized person can't know what actually happened. Could Patrick have gone into Meredith's room? Yes. Did Meredith scream? I don't remember hearing any screams. How could you not hear her scream? Perhaps I had my hands over my ears.

Somewhere during this evening, Amanda forgets they were playing a game. After all, it's been a very stressful week and she was up early that morning for class and now it's well past midnight. Amanda is back at her cottage, she is traumatized, she is hearing screams, Meredith is screaming and Patrick is there. Now Amanda is screaming and Giobbi even hears her screaming down the hall in the control room where they normally operate the recording equipment: "He did it, He's bad he's bad!".

(epilog)

Hearing the commotion, other officers come into the room. Seeing Amanda crying, one turns to Rita Ficarra who is standing behind Amanda and asks "What's going on here? Did you hit her?" This is of course the way they play the game. A light whop on the back of the head sometimes helps people remember facts correctly. Amanda partially regains her composure and explains her outburst as "I confusedly remember that he killed her" (although what is Italian for confusedly? "vaguely" should be close enough).

The police explain that she startled the whole department with that scream and ask her to stick around for a little longer so she can sign the report that they now have to write up.

More truth in your tongue in cheek timeline than in the "official" version of events.
 
Stephanie Kercher indicates that it is possible that they might instruct their own solicitor to represent them in the future in a bid to get justice for Miss Kercher.

She said:

''We have not got a solicitor in this country at the moment. It is a possibility as there are other routes the family may now take. We are just trying to find the truth."


Maresca could yet be binned.


I wouldn't be surprised if Maresca is totally dropped by the Kerchers very soon. I think he convinced them that a) Knox and Sollecito were truly participants in Meredith's death, and b) that the appeal trial would again find them guilty (with subsequent Supreme Court affirmation).

Therefore, prior to Hellmann's verdict on Monday night, the Kerchers would have almost certainly trusted implicitly in Maresca's judgement and guidance, and in addition they would have had no concerns about meeting his fees (which, by the look of him, are probably at the upper end of the scale). It's sad that the Kerchers are now saddled with not only crippling doubt and confusion about the "truths" their lawyer told them, but they also face the prospect of serious financial liability in meeting his fees (after the civil award was also cancelled as part of the acquittals).

The way that the Kerchers have been treated by Maresca and Mignini is one of the more hidden tragedies of this sad affair. I hope they find a satisfactory way of dealing with it - both emotionally and financially.
 
Why on earth would she have accused Guede for? He was nowhere on the horizon? She had no idea Guede was involved in the murder. I don't understand your way of thinking?

No, no, what I meant is that if she had mentioned Guede, we would have had much more reason to suspect her involvement in Kercher's murder. According to the prosecution, after all, she and RS took part in the crime with Guede and they were only trying to cover up their culpability. Why wouldn't she have ratted Guede out at that point, if she had knowledge that he was there that night and his DNA was all over the house?

As it was, her behavior in implicating Lumumba demonstrates persuasively that she had no involvement with the actual murder.

-Mike
 
No, the timeline is the following:

Knox made oral statements during the questioning, at the presence of Anna Donnino, accusing Patrick Lumumba. In the first part of the interrogation she denied all police suspicions/allegations that she was lying and covering somebody. Then she was told that Sollecito had withdrawn from her alibi. When she was aksed about the sms message, and understood the police got focused because of its Italian wording, that they thought she was lying about it and thought she had met with someone that night (the unknown recipient of the msg), Knox suddenly accused Lumumba. Crying, covering her ears wth her hands, saying "he's bad" and said they went home together, they wanted to have fun, he wanted her and asaulted her in her room. The police stopped the questioning due to self-incriminating statement, as the qustioning shifted her status to that of a a formal suspect. She signed the minutes of this questioning at 01:45

Then she was given a chamomille tee.

At a time that we can roughly place about 3:00 (very approx.) Mignini came and told her about her status of formal suspect, told her about her rights, and told her that he would not interrogate her but if she wanted to provide them with information so to arrest Lumumba, she could make further statements.

Amanda released an oral statement that was not recorded but verbalized at the presence of the magistrate, the interpreter Anna Donnino and other officers. The statement was finished at 5:54 am and Amanda signed it.

Later in the morning, at about 8:00, Amanda asked for paper and a pen, she wrote herself a two pages memoriale which she gave to Rifa Ficarra saying "it's a gift". She later claimed she wrote this hand written note by her decision, voluntarily, and she gave it voluntarily to the police.

Two days later, on nov 8., Amanda appeared before GIP Claudia Matteini. Because the hand written statement was partly retracting and contradicting the previous statement, while still producing evidence against Patrick Lumumba and also against Raffaele Sollecito, she was asked if she wanted to answer questions by the judge. She decided not to answer. She also decided to not release further spontaneous statements to clarify the previous ones.

Amanda did not make any further statement - nor written nor oral - to clarify anything about her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, she kept her silence for about 20 days until Guede was arrested.

Amanda was interrogated again on Dec 18., this time by the Public Minister. In this occasion, when she was asked questions about her false accusation of Lumumba, she burst in tears and was unable to answer, and pleaded her right not to answer.

Some of the details of that account of course are verifiable, such as the dates when Amanda appeared in front of Matteini. I haven't paid much attention to details like this, so I'll defer to you on that information.

However, when you state as fact information about what happened in the early hours of Nov 6, that can only have come from the lying gang of bandits in police uniforms who destroyed and falsified so much of the other evidence about the case, you don't do your own credibility any good.
 
Stephanie Kercher indicates that it is possible that they might instruct their own solicitor to represent them in the future in a bid to get justice for Miss Kercher.

She said:

''We have not got a solicitor in this country at the moment. It is a possibility as there are other routes the family may now take. We are just trying to find the truth."


Maresca could yet be binned.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8803239/Amanda-Knox-verdict-latest.html

They don't need a solicitor. What they needs is an expert to tell them whether this murder could have been committed by Rudy Guede, alone. The Italian courts have made a total cluster of this issue. In fairness, though, this appears to be because they were misled by the demurrer of the prosecution in its single-minded quest to pin the crime on Knox/Sollecito.
 
Journalism, citizenship, and stains...

Yummi said:
"This was something I disagreed about with Mignini. I also spoke with him about it. In my opinion trivial motive and sexual violence are two aggravating circumstances that should not be added to each other; they both have a logical implication on motive and as such, a further aggravation due to motive would be like counting the aggravation twice.I am not convinced by a few of Mignini and Comodi's arguments. I do not subscribe to mentioning a sovreignity/national argument for example. I do not subscribe entirely on their legal arguments about the implications of Aviello and Alessi testimonies.
I do not subscribe to a few assessments of Comodi on the physical evidence.
<snip>."


I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?

Hi Machiavelli,
A question for you:
Say I, Mr. Joe Surfer, had met a beautiful Italian gal, fell madly in love and moved to Perugia and became a citizen too. Could I have just walked over to Prosecutor Mignini and talked with him in detail about a murder case that has attracted world wide attention also? Or would a person specifically need to be a journalist?

From what you wrote on PMF, if I recall, it seemed that you were sufficiently close to him to discuss a disagreement you had with something he did in the case (can't remember what now). Anyway, based on your response, does this mean you're a journalist?Do you know Giuseppe Castellini? You seem to have very similar views as him.


Hi Machiavelli,
Thanks for your participation, and even though others might disagree, I feel that you have brought a lot of discussion into being by your particpation at PMF, IIP and here at JREF.

Yummi said:
<snip>
I note the semen stain has disappeared from defense arguments."


Was that really a semen stain?

Thanks for any answers, :)
RW
 
Last edited:
There has been much speculation about the shower taken by Amanda prior to getting in touch with the police. Amanda herself admitted that the bathroom had spatters of blood so what exactly is the point of trying to prove otherwise.

----------------- Snip -------------------------------
[/I]

Ah there you are Madrigal! Busy couple of days eh? Thought we might have heard a re-assessment of your position by now, in light of the verdict - still clinging on to the 'guilty' story then?

Still stand by the last four comments you posted in this thread then? How did that work out then? :D:D


''Lets hope they were crying with laughter on hearing the expected self absorbed sob story.''

''The Italian judiciary do not generally kow tow to the wishes of NBC, FOX and other TV stations.....''

''I'd rather a verdict be concluded by quiet rationality rather than emotional pleas''.

''Not one member of jury shed tears, contrary to the untruths posted on this forum.''
 
Hellmann blames Micheli?

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/C...erano-ma-restava-il-dubbio_312517329582.html:

Quindi il presidente della Corte difende l'operato dei pm. "Con gli elementi che avevano avrei fatto la stessa cosa. I pm avevano elementi più che sufficienti per avviare l'indagine". Quindi ricorda che "il pubblico ministero non porta su di sé la responsabilità di condannare. Se ha elementi li porta alla valutazione del gup che deve verificare se sono sufficienti a celebrare un processo".

Thus the presiding judge defends the prosecutors' actions: "With the evidence they had I would have done the same thing. The prosecutors had more than enough evidence to launch the investigation." He recalls that "the prosecutor does not bear the responsibility of convicting. If he has evidence he brings it to be evaluated by the preliminary judge, who must determine whether it is sufficient to hold a trial".
 
Originally Posted by madrigal
There has been much speculation about the shower taken by Amanda prior to getting in touch with the police. Amanda herself admitted that the bathroom had spatters of blood so what exactly is the point of trying to prove otherwise.

Housemate Filomena Romanelli, told the Perugia court...

“She told me, ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere . . . Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’

“I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told the chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.”

Police forensic experts later found numerous traces of blood in the bathroom including a 10in-long smear on the floor.

This testimony alone should make all of Filomena's assertions questionable.

Do you really believe if there was blood everywhere the police would have waited for Filomena to authorize breaking down the door.

I don't think she closed her shutters and I think her room was much more messy than she admitted.

Yes. There was blood in the bathroom. Amanda saw it.
Of course it means nothing, as the Postal Police weren't even worried enough about the entire situation (blood and all) to break down Meredith's door.
 
No, no, what I meant is that if she had mentioned Guede, we would have had much more reason to suspect her involvement in Kercher's murder. According to the prosecution, after all, she and RS took part in the crime with Guede and they were only trying to cover up their culpability. Why wouldn't she have ratted Guede out at that point, if she had knowledge that he was there that night and his DNA was all over the house?

As it was, her behavior in implicating Lumumba demonstrates persuasively that she had no involvement with the actual murder.

-Mike

Well she only implicated Lumumba because the police put her up to it, and Guede wasn't even on the radar.

Incidentally, on the subject of police coercing witness into making statements implicating their favoured suspects - here is another case worthy of consideration. (In this particular example, the police officers concerned are, belatedly, being called to account for their misdeeds.)
 
They don't need a solicitor. What they needs is an expert to tell them whether this murder could have been committed by Rudy Guede, alone. The Italian courts have made a total cluster of this issue. In fairness, though, this appears to be because they were misled by the demurrer of the prosecution in its single-minded quest to pin the crime on Knox/Sollecito.


They could do with speaking to Ron Hendry.

Lyle has said he browses the blogs (and forums?) - maybe he hasn't been reading the right ones?

I sincerely hope they find the truth and some sort of peace at some stage.
 
They don't need a solicitor. What they needs is an expert to tell them whether this murder could have been committed by Rudy Guede, alone. The Italian courts have made a total cluster of this issue. In fairness, though, this appears to be because they were misled by the demurrer of the prosecution in its single-minded quest to pin the crime on Knox/Sollecito.


Well, a decent, impartial new criminal law solicitor could be an immensely helpful resource for them. Such a figure would be able to assist the Kerchers in making sense of the situation in ways that Maresca self-evidently cannot. And a new solicitor might even be able to offer some advice on the way in which the Kerchers ought to deal with Maresca from here on. In addition to these immediate issues, I suspect that a good solicitor would be able to help point the Kerchers towards various independent experts who might be able to help them find truth and closure.

Of course, it goes without saying that there's one particular (alleged) criminal solicitor in London who should not be let within 10 miles of the Kerchers under any circumstances, though I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if he either contacts them or even actually has tried to contact them in the past. Still, he can always lie and claim that he didn't contact them, I suppose..........
 
She signed the statement. And the note she wrote to police the next day made it clear that (as davefoc pointed out) she quite understandably regretted implicating Lumumba.

For the millionth time, I'm not saying that means she was guilty. I think Knox was innocent of Kercher's murder. I'm just opposed to the way people infantilize Knox, as if there could have been no other conceivable outcome for that interrogation than her signing a statement accusing an innocent man of Kercher's murder. Obviously she could have accused Guede, which would have been much more in keeping with the prosecution's theory that Knox and Sollecito were only trying to cover up their involvement. But just when you figure she would have ratted on Guede, she accused Lumumba.

In addition, she could have signed a false confession to the murder. Contrary to what some people here would have you believe, that would entail signing a statement confessing that she had murdered Kercher. That's not what she did.

-Mike

Then I'm not clear what point you're making, when you criticise Amanda's supporters for not accepting that she "accused" Patrick. From what you're saying, the police should bear total responsibility for eliciting the statements from Amanda, as well as their actions for which they were the pretext.
 
Well she only implicated Lumumba because the police put her up to it, and Guede wasn't even on the radar.

Incidentally, on the subject of police coercing witness into making statements implicating their favoured suspects - here is another case worthy of consideration. (In this particular example, the police officers concerned are, belatedly, being called to account for their misdeeds.)
Very telling, indeed:

Mark Grommek had told a jury at Swansea Crown Court that he "broke" under police pressure and provided a fictitious account of what he had seen and heard in the early hours of February 14, 1988.

His false account - which would result in an 18 month prison sentence for perjury - helped to jail the Cardiff Three, who were wrongly convicted of the murder of Miss White and jailed for life. They were released in 1992 when the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions.

In 2003 Jeffrey Gafoor, who never figured in the 1988 investigation, was identified as the real killer and jailed for life.

A probe into how the Cardiff Three came to be charged and convicted has led to a trial of eight former police officers and two witnesses in the trials.



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ive-s-behaviour-91466-29164562/#ixzz1ZvnRJByS
 
They could do with speaking to Ron Hendry.

Lyle has said he browses the blogs (and forums?) - maybe he hasn't been reading the right ones?

I sincerely hope they find the truth and some sort of peace at some stage.


I have a niggling feeling that Lyle has been doing a little more than just browsing. Maybe that's just an over-blown machination on my part though...
 
And Filomena is unfortunately engaging in conscious or subconscious post-hoc rationalisation when she recalls that Knox referred to "blood everywhere" in the phone call, and when she recalls her alleged reaction. By the time Filomena gave her trial testimony, she had clearly become convinced that Knox was a prime mover in Meredith's death. I believe her entire testimony was coloured and influenced by that belief, and that it became exaggerated to better fit that belief.

I wonder if Filomena is now sitting down and having a long, hard think about the truth, and what part she might have wittingly or unwittingly played in the sad tale. I hope that is happening.

Doesn't Filomena still live in Perugia? Judging by the scenes outside the courtroom on Monday night, the mood in Perugia is regrettably still one of backing the actions of their police and local prosecutor.
 
I have a niggling feeling that Lyle has been doing a little more than just browsing. Maybe that's just an over-blown machination on my part though...
I don't think it is any over-blown machination. He speaks in a recognizable " voice" - unless I myself have an over-blown machination of the mind???:boggled:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom