Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

Did the police make any attempts to validate their alibi by asking them independently what they did without battering them into speaking nonsense that the police wanted to hear?

Surely they asked them independently. Starting on Nov 2.
Later, however, when they contradicted each other, they started to avail themselves of the option of not responding.

It would be informative on these kind of issues if you could provide a link to a transcription of the police interviews of Sollecito and Knox.

Yes it would be informative.
Though I guess that all inconvenient parts would be immediately labelled "coerced".

 

[bolint]

The entire case was ginned up by battering Knox and Sollecito into saying some confusing things without their lawyers present. Reasonably enough they listened to their lawyers and kept their mouth shut after that.

As witnesses they had no right to have lawyers present at all, no matter how many times it is hammered that it was illegal. As witnesses they have no right to keep their mouth shut. They have to answer the questions.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Bolint,
My apologies, I am not nearly as informed as many of the participants in this thread (although of course this doesn't stop me from having strong opinions about the issue.)

So could you be a little more specific? Are you making a general reference to the confused statements initially reported by the police? And then your point is that Sollecito and Knox didn't adequately correct those confused posts so you have taken that as indication that they were hiding something?

Anyway, please state with a little more detail exactly what RS/AK said and what you think they should have said if they had really been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping instead of participating in a gruesome murder.

 

[bolint]

Where is the evidence for what they remembered of their evening? You seem to be confusing first hand memory with reconstructions.

I'm not confusing them, I even think that their first hand memories differ from what they presented as reconstruction.

 

[bolint]

So could you be a little more specific? Are you making a general reference to the confused statements initially reported by the police? And then your point is that Sollecito and Knox didn't adequately correct those confused posts so you have taken that as indication that they were hiding something?

I consider all their output available to me (which is not as much as I would like to consider).
List of their outputs of which I know:

Amanda
Nov 2 police
Nov 3 police
Nov 4 email
Nov 4 police
Nov 6 1:45am
Nov 6 5:45am
Nov 6 handwritten statement
Nov 6 second handwritten statement (scarcely known)
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini) (Amanda availed herself of not responding)
Diary
Dec 18 interrogation
2009 summer Trial witness

Raffaele
Nov 2 police
Nov 3 Kate Mansey interview
Nov 5 10:40pm police
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini)
Nov 7-Nov 20 Diary

Anyway, please state with a little more detail exactly what RS/AK said and what you think they should have said if they had really been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping instead of participating in a gruesome murder.

Well, if they had really been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping,
then they should have both said that they had been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping.

Instead of saying that he was working on the computer while she was out for hours.
That simple.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, whatever happened to the the whole night computer activity so precisely "proven" by the screen saver records?

Once there was a vast and mighty castle of guilter evidence.

Now we've just got a few dead-enders raking through the smoking rubble, searching for something tiny that might be salvageable.

Maybe the computer evidence that the court decided it didn't need in order to pronounce Knox and Sollecito totally innocent had some flaw in it. It's possible. We'll never know. If that thought comforts you then enjoy it, I guess.

Maybe Knox and Sollecito did deliberately lie about exactly what they did at home that night, although since they were indeed at home that night it's hard to see why they would, or indeed why it would matter if they had. But if the thought comforts you that nobody knows absolutely for sure they didn't deliberately lie as opposed just succumbing to confusion under pressure then enjoy it, I guess.

 

[davefoc]

I consider all their output available to me (which is not as much as I would like to consider).
List of their outputs of which I know:

Amanda
Nov 2 police
Nov 3 police
Nov 4 email
Nov 4 police
Nov 6 1:45am
Nov 6 5:45am
Nov 6 handwritten statement
Nov 6 second handwritten statement (scarcely known)
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini) (Amanda availed herself of not responding)
Diary
Dec 18 interrogation
2009 summer Trial witness

Raffaele
Nov 2 police
Nov 5 10:40pm police
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini)
Nov 7-Nov 20 Diary




Well, if they had really been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping,
then they should have both said that they had been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping.

Instead of saying that he was working on the computer while she was out for hours.
That simple.

Cool, I'm sure I could look this stuff up, but I'd really appreciate it if you got specific with times and quotes. To evaluate your point I need to understand what they said and when they said it. Maybe if you just focused on the computer issue. When did RS make the statement about being on the internet and what exactly did he say about that and did he not withdraw the claim before the results of the disk evaluations were done?

 

[bolint]

I'd really appreciate it if you got specific with times and quotes. To evaluate your point I need to understand what they said and when they said it. Maybe if you just focused on the computer issue. When did RS make the statement about being on the internet and what exactly did he say about that and did he not withdraw the claim before the results of the disk evaluations were done?

On Nov 2 they were both questioned with the many other witnesses.
From Matteini's short survey of those questioning I think they both said roughly the same about the night, otherwise the differences would have been pointed out. But I don't know if they went into any details, except the mop which is discussed in Amanda's questioning.

RS came up with the internet browsing alibi in the Nov 5 questioning.
His Nov 11 diary entry clearly shows, however, that he knew full well that there wouldn't be any computer evidence supporting his activity on the computer.

Raffaele diary:

My real concerns are now two:
the first one derives from the fact that, if that night Amanda remained with me all
night long, we could have (and this is a very remote possibility) made love all evening and
night only stopping to eat... it would be a real problem because there would be no
connections from my computer to servers in those hours...

This paragraph from the horse's mouth lays to rest the computer browsing and at the same time the all night sex version is deemed a very remote possibility, too.

 

[pilot padron]

What is nice about it

Ok, is it just me or did Barbie Nadeau change the title of her book?

http://www.barbielatzanadeau.com/

Whoa, nice catch!

Anyone looking at the link through unbiased, non agenda driven eyes, might correctly conclude that what you point out as "nice catch" is more likely just an understandable typo type error by a low level Beast copywriter.

I mean, JEEEEZ, the link prominently shows a clear picture of the book with the correct title.
You didn't miss that did you??

While on this subject of books about Knox and the murder of Meredith Kercher, I was impressed again with the glowing reviews of Barbie's book by Prosecutor Fairstein, and District Attorney Clark also clearly visible in your link.

This seemed a much more notable part of the information you share rather than harping about a probable simpleton title error.
These glowing reviews of Barbie's book, seem in direct contrast to the name calling and bashing of Barbie on this venue that usually accompanies any quotes from her book that might just favor guilt.

Also, I have never seen such favorable reviews from such highly qualified criminologists having lawyer training and vast trial experience for the later published, copy cat, self published 'book'.
The one from IIP that is endlessly spammed here and held in such high esteem here, but praised by few, if any, reviewers not rabid in their arguments for innocence.
And praised by no one with the impeccably superior legal credentials of Fairstein and Clark.
The disgraced and professionally censured 'good old boy' pal of Knox who serves as elected Judge from Seattle notwithstanding.

 

[LondonJohn]

Anyone looking at the link through unbiased, non agenda driven eyes, might correctly conclude that what you point out as "nice catch" is more likely just an understandable typo type error by a low level Beast copywriter.

I mean, JEEEEZ, the link prominently shows a clear picture of the book with the correct title.
You didn't miss that did you??

While on this subject of books about Knox and the murder of Meredith Kercher, I was impressed again with the glowing reviews of Barbie's book by Prosecutor Fairstein, and District Attorney Clark also clearly visible in your link.

This seemed a much more notable part of the information you share rather than harping about a probable simpleton title error.
These glowing reviews of Barbie's book, seem in direct contrast to the name calling and bashing of Barbie on this venue that usually accompanies any quotes from her book that might just favor guilt.

Also, I have never seen such favorable reviews from such qualified criminologists for the later published, copy cat, self published 'book'.
The one from IIP that is endlessly spammed here and held in such high esteem here, but praised by few, if any, reviewers not rabid in their arguments for innocence.
And praised by no one with the impeccably superior legal credentials of Fairstein and Clark.
The disgraced and professionally censured 'good old boy' pal of Knox who serves as elected Judge from Seattle notwithstanding.

I couldn't let this one pass without comment

For the ignorant amongst us, the full title of Clouseau's Nadeau's book has indeed curiously morphed from this:

ANGEL FACE: The True Story of Student Killer AMANDA KNOX

to this:

ANGEL FACE: Sex, Murder, and the Inside Story of AMANDA KNOX

Can anyone tell the difference?


Oh, and just out of interest, Linda Fairstein was disgraced as the prosecutor behind the wrongful convictions in the Central Park Jogger case in 1993, which incidentally involved coerced false confessions. And of course Marcia Clark is notorious as the prosecutor who utterly bungled the OJ Simpson murder trial. Just sayin'.....

"Impeccably superior legal credentials" ahahahahahahaha

 

[bri1]

Anyone looking at the link through unbiased, non agenda driven eyes, might correctly conclude that what you point out as "nice catch" is more likely just an understandable typo type error by a low level Beast copywriter.

I mean, JEEEEZ, the link prominently shows a clear picture of the book with the correct title.
You didn't miss that did you??

While on this subject of books about Knox and the murder of Meredith Kercher, I was impressed again with the glowing reviews of Barbie's book by Prosecutor Fairstein, and District Attorney Clark also clearly visible in your link.

This seemed a much more notable part of the information you share rather than harping about a probable simpleton title error.
These glowing reviews of Barbie's book, seem in direct contrast to the name calling and bashing of Barbie on this venue that usually accompanies any quotes from her book that might just favor guilt.

Also, I have never seen such favorable reviews from such highly qualified criminologists having lawyer training and vast trial experience for the later published, copy cat, self published 'book'.
The one from IIP that is endlessly spammed here and held in such high esteem here, but praised by few, if any, reviewers not rabid in their arguments for innocence.
And praised by no one with the impeccably superior legal credentials of Fairstein and Clark.
The disgraced and professionally censured 'good old boy' pal of Knox who serves as elected Judge from Seattle notwithstanding.

Actually, no. The old title was 'Angel Face: The true story of student killer Amanda Knox'. This is clearly a new edition (with a new epilogue) and Nadeau could clearly not call someone acquitted of murder a 'student killer'.
ETA: London John got there before me

 

[Caper]

I mean, JEEEEZ, the link prominently shows a clear picture of the book with the correct title.
You didn't miss that did you??

I think you might be the one missing something. The link with the clear picture of the title.... That's what I'm talking about. The book was not called that a month ago.... That's what my point was. In the last month or so, I think she changed the title of her book.

 

[Caper]

Man this podcast is painful to listen to.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2011/10/09/levi-page-show

The errors are horrid.

 

[LondonJohn]

I note that over on the trainwreck that is .org "The Bard" is getting all worked up about allegations of people photoshopping images in order to bolster their case. In fact, she goes so far as to say this (my bolding):

I can fully understand how people who have not read anything to the contrary would believe their version of events, and I just find it very depressing that people would photoshop evidence in order to prove a point when the matter under discussion is so very serious and tragic.

Well, might I suggest that "The Bard" has a word with her mate SA about the dark arts of photoshopping images related to this case in order to fraudulently "illustrate" a point. Paddy might be able to pass on some great tips and hints to you, santamariaxx; as you might say in one of your curious (and rather sad) attempts at a connection with youth culture: pwned

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bmanda and Raffaele in front of Judge Matteini

Bolint,

Amanda's decision (made upon consultation with her lawyer, IIUC) to remain silent was logical under the circumstances. It implies nothing with respect to what she remembered about the evening in question. Your list should also include her letter to her lawyer, which is was written on or about 9 November. My understanding is that it is similar in content to her second memoriale, but I do not know of a link to the text. Raffaele had quite a bit to say in front of Judge Matteini, including about the broken drain pipe.

 

[RoseMontague]

I consider all their output available to me (which is not as much as I would like to consider).
List of their outputs of which I know:

Amanda
Nov 2 police
Nov 3 police
Nov 4 email
Nov 4 police
Nov 6 1:45am
Nov 6 5:45am
Nov 6 handwritten statement
Nov 6 second handwritten statement (scarcely known)
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini) (Amanda availed herself of not responding)
Diary
Dec 18 interrogation
2009 summer Trial witness

Raffaele
Nov 2 police
Nov 3 Kate Mansey interview
Nov 5 10:40pm police
Nov 8 hearing (Matteini)
Nov 7-Nov 20 Diary




Well, if they had really been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping,
then they should have both said that they had been watching movies, having dinner, dealing with a plumbing overflow, smoking pot, having sex and sleeping.

Instead of saying that he was working on the computer while she was out for hours.
That simple.

Thanks bolint. Here is yet another version:

http://translate.google.com/transla...-11-2007/articolo-id=219510-page=0-comments=1

Also contains statements from Patrick and James. I think this quote is interesting and may be the cause of the contradictory and confusing statements:

The Flying Squad gave me a great psychological pressure.

 

[RoseMontague]

I couldn't let this one pass without comment

For the ignorant amongst us, the full title of Clouseau's Nadeau's book has indeed curiously morphed from this:

ANGEL FACE: The True Story of Student Killer AMANDA KNOX

to this:

ANGEL FACE: Sex, Murder, and the Inside Story of AMANDA KNOX

Can anyone tell the difference?


Oh, and just out of interest, Linda Fairstein was disgraced as the prosecutor behind the wrongful convictions in the Central Park Jogger case in 1993, which incidentally involved coerced false confessions. And of course Marcia Clark is notorious as the prosecutor who utterly bungled the OJ Simpson murder trial. Just sayin'.....

"Impeccably superior legal credentials" ahahahahahahaha

Too funny. I wonder if she dropped the bleach receipt in this new version?

 

[RoseMontague]

The Kate Mansey article is interesting. The numerous factual errors have been pointed out on many occasions. There is the (yet again) confusion with Halloween night and the night after as well as many others including the Washington state/city obvious one. What has not been discussed is the sister article posted a week later after Raffaele's arrest giving the context of the first article. Links to both:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/11/day-i-met-meredith-suspect-raffaele-98487-20092572/

 

[RoseMontague]

A few things in the second article also seem to me to be very strange:

Raffaele Sollecito is not much to look at.

OK, Kate Mansey is blind. (just for starters)

We met by chance when I was asking around to see if anyone knew Meredith - he looked lost and frightened but agreed to talk to me.

Amazing stroke of luck for Kate, was she holding a sign up that said "If you knew Meredith, talk to me?"

He was obviously nervous. It seemed he was desperate to show he had nothing to hide.

Nervous=desperate. Her instincts are incredible.

We went to a cafe and he ordered an espresso. I sat down inside the cafe with a cappuccino but he refused - instead standing, shifting his weight from foot-to-foot.

I can see this happening but she claims in the first part:

What I didn't know then was that the calm, quiet man I interviewed in a cafe for 40 minutes

That's a long time to be standing drinking an espresso. And I thought he was nervous, not calm and quiet.

We got talking about what happened the day before the killing.

Ah, there is the source of some of the confusion from the first article.

The conversation ended badly and he didn't say goodbye when he hung up.

I asked who he was speaking to. He replied: "Just a friend."

Wow, pretty bad ending, she is correct about that.

 

[Supernaut]

Too funny. I wonder if she [Latza Nadeau] dropped the bleach receipt in this new version?

or this;

p 42: “[Nov 1 12:35] The postal police arrived to find Amanda and Raffaele standing outside [with a] mop and bucket…”

or this

p 47: “Patrizia Stefanoni…picked up Meredith’s bloodied bra from the floor…[and said] we’re missing a piece of the bra clasp.”

or this

p 53 “there were a woman’s bare footprints [shown with Luminol] Amanda’s size, outside Meredith’s room. These prints would be positively matched to
Amanda, but in a serious procedural oversight they were never tested to show conclusively that they were made in Amanda’s [sic] blood.”

On and on and on.

Listed by Doug Bremner here