• 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.
Supernaut said:
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
Click to expand...

Barbie should stick to her truffle hunting articles.
 
You know, the more I read about he gross inaccuracies in books about this murder, the more tempted I am to write my own about the Lockerbie bombing. I obsess about not having assimilated every word of the court transcripts, and not knowing every step the inquiry took, and maybe making a fool of myself. But is seems the standards are pretty low.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
You know, the more I read about he gross inaccuracies in books about this murder, the more tempted I am to write my own about the Lockerbie bombing. I obsess about not having assimilated every word of the court transcripts, and not knowing every step the inquiry took, and maybe making a fool of myself. But is seems the standards are pretty low.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

There is both a lot of information as well as a ton of mis-information about this case and much of it is in Italian. Mistakes are going to happen. Some of these more obvious ones should have been easy to catch and for the bleach receipt one has to wonder if the error is intentional.
 
bolint said:
I'm not confusing them, I even think that their first hand memories differ from what they presented as reconstruction. :)
Click to expand...


You draw the attacks upon yourself by making the argument of what you think. Maybe you should present an argument based on facts and logic for us to attack so we won't be attacking your mental processes.

What I've done when I've found information surrounding this case to be contradictory is gone through and documented the time place and source of each piece of that information so it can be reconstructed into logical chains of events including how information has been propagated. I then present what I've found and seek additional elements to refign my theories and eliminate alternatives.
 
Interesting:

"Noi non faremo direttamente appello contro la sentenza, i Pm faranno il loro appello contro i due prosciolti. Noi procediamo andando a vedere le motivazioni della sentenza contro Rudy Guede. Dice che ha ucciso in concorso con altre due persone, ma se non erano le due persone assolte, allora chi erano? Molti pensano che il nostro appello sia contro i due prosciolti, ma l'abbiamo sempre detto, noi non vogliamo che vadano in carcere le persone sbagliate, vogliamo solo capire cos'è successo quella notte".
Click to expand...

Does this represent a change in the Kercher's strategy? Hard to say.

http://www.gqitalia.it/viral-news/a...ontro-sentenza-raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox
 
Evidently Broken_English saw the Kercher interview on TV, hope he won't mind cross posting his summary:

A brief interview (3 minutes) with Stephanie and Arline Kercher was transmitted today by Channel 5, the most-watched television of Berlusconi.

The interview seemed to me fair and devoid of polemical tone, very different from the statements attributed, in recent days, to John Kercher. :)

In the interview the two women said that their belief in a murder committed by several people is based on the verdict against Rudy. (That verdict states that Rudy held Meredith from behind while she was stabbed by someone who was in front of her).

Arline Kercher said that she did not feel offended by the costume worn by Amanda for Halloween, she recalled that also Meredith used make-up for this celebration.


Then Arline Kercher said their lawyer informed them that the prosecutors want to appeal against the verdict of acquittal for Amanda and Raffaele. She added that the Kercher probably will do the same, but only because, according to Italian law, this is the only way to remain informed about developments. :geek:

Arline Kercher said clearly that she does not know if Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and that the Kercher family does not want to send innocent people to prison.


The interview, made in recent days, was broadcast during a very popular show that every Sunday afternoon focuses on sports. Today, however, the show was dedicated to the sudden flood that hit the city of Genoa causing 6 deaths. In the study, there were several journalists and among them there was Salvo Sottile (the journalist who interviewed Raffaele, last Friday). Suddenly on a screen connected via videoconference appeared the parliamentarian Alessandra Mussolini.

(picture)

(big name in Italian politics. Granddaughter of the late dictator Benito Mussolini, founder of fascism, and niece of the well-known Italian actress Sofia Loren).




Mussolini expressed strong support for the guilt of Raffaele and Amanda, she has accused Salvo Sottile of having made an interview without credibility and has suggested that the acquittal is not an "error" committed by judges but the result of U.S. pressure. Salvo Sottile defended himself, but he has been criticized a bit by all present that, although with different tones, have expressed concerns about the verdict of Perugia.
Click to expand...
 
RoseMontague said:
Interesting:

Does this represent a change in the Kercher's strategy? Hard to say.

[URL]http://www.gqitalia.it/viral-news/articles/2011/11/meredith-kercher-mamma-e-sorella-no-appello-contro-sentenza-raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox[/URL]
Click to expand...


That's interesting. They still don't understand that all the evidence presented to Guede's trial suggesting more than one attacker was the evidence suggesting Knox and Sollecito had been involved. That evidence was not challenged at Guede's trial, so stood by default. It was challenged in Knox and Sollecito's trial and now has the status of confetti being swept into the gutter. There is no evidence that strongly supports the involvement of anyone else.

Guede was just playing along with the police fantasy of other killers, which of course he knew about even before he was arrested. He took advantage of that to try to deflect culpability from himself. If the cops had done their job properly, not pulled in anyone on a wild hunch, and then pulled in Guede when the evidence was available, it's likely nobody would even be thinking about more than one attacker. Guede might even have confessed completely.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Interesting:



Does this represent a change in the Kercher's strategy? Hard to say.

http://www.gqitalia.it/viral-news/a...ontro-sentenza-raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox
Click to expand...

Isn't it that in a civil case they have to cover the court expenses when they lose? Where I live the fee is proportional to the claim in some cases, it can get rather high when you sue for millions.
There were reports they are already in danger of losing a house because of their expenses. There are also reports of a fund to cover the appeal costs. If they're not going to appeal that would mean they're asking for money to pay off what they already owe to the scum Maresca.
Anyway it is about time to stop throwing good money after bad.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...


The problem with the computer evidence is that there is not direct evidence of interactions. The data itself cannot simply be presented and if it were, the prosecution would simply say it's possible the data was created by something else without even offering what that something else could be. The only way to make this evidence stick is to hand the hard drive over to a court appointed independent expert like was done with the DNA. Then when the prosecution makes their claim that it could have been something else the expert can retort: "if there was I would have found it".
 
bolint said:
The problem is that they did not remember days after that night, not four years.

Anyway, it is hypocrisy to invoke the "4 years ago" excuse when they exercised their right to silence very shortly after the murder.
Click to expand...

Wow. So your argument is so weak, in your effort to twist everything anyone says to reflect badly on AK and RS, you have to resort to that?

No, it is not hypocrisy to bring up the 4 years -- you are the one that said they should be talking about it now, that was your point. My point is that they don't remember what they were doing exactly, and one of the things that got them in trouble was trying to explain something they don't remember. 4 years later it is even harder to remember, since they couldn't remember days after.

I guess they did not want to say, "oh crap, we were really wasted, so we don't know what happened". So if it is now, or 4 years ago, not being able to say exactly what they did, or if they ate at 9 pm, or 10, or whenever, is not proof of anything. They could have said they flew to Mars, and that would be suspicious, but it doesn't prove any involvement in a murder. I realize the "they can't tell us what they did" mantra is all there is that is left to make them look bad, but I understand why Raffaele would avoid talking about it. He knows there are people waiting to pounce on any inconsistency.
 
pilot padron said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right :) Maybe the previous title was a typo?

pilot padron said:
I mean, JEEEEZ, the link prominently shows a clear picture of the book with the correct title.
You didn't miss that did you??
Click to expand...
Time for new glasses? :rolleyes:


Apparently Beast's lawyers brought it to the management's attention that their out of control "budget travel" star is libelling people not only on the inside of her sleazy booklet but also on the cover.

Judging by the reviews and rating on Amazon I seriously doubt the scraping of the libellous edition and printing another cover was economically justified. Cutting loses by simply recalling and recycling her trashy book would have been a better move.
 
pilot padron said:
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.
Click to expand...

You make it so easy. Marcia Clark was on CNN the day of and after the verdict saying that Amanda was innocent and the police had no case.

Over.
 
bolint said:
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.
Click to expand...


How do you know exactly what Raffaele said on November 5th? The only documentation of that night is what the police wrote up and we know from studying Amanda's statements from that night that the police tend to write what they want to believe instead of what the suspect actually said.


Raffaele diary:

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.
Click to expand...


The only inference that can be made from that statement is that Raffaele doesn't remember exactly what he did that night. The ISP logs showed that there was an Internet connection that night so Raffaele's hypothetical that he thought was very remote is in fact invalid.
 
Rolfe said:
That's interesting. They still don't understand that all the evidence presented to Guede's trial suggesting more than one attacker was the evidence suggesting Knox and Sollecito had been involved. That evidence was not challenged at Guede's trial, so stood by default. It was challenged in Knox and Sollecito's trial and now has the status of confetti being swept into the gutter. There is no evidence that strongly supports the involvement of anyone else.
Guede was just playing along with the police fantasy of other killers, which of course he knew about even before he was arrested. He took advantage of that to try to deflect culpability from himself. If the cops had done their job properly, not pulled in anyone on a wild hunch, and then pulled in Guede when the evidence was available, it's likely nobody would even be thinking about more than one attacker. Guede might even have confessed completely.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
This is hugely important and relevant to the whole pending Supreme Court thing. I expect Hellman's Motivation report to strongly suggest Guede as lone wolf in light of all the changed evidence and the new appellate rulings, and for the SC to respect this, and to change their own stance.

Would like to post your response to me on Websleuth's, too, if you do not mind, Rolfe, as it is so eloquent and pertinent:

Indeed, thank you. I think it's important to emphasise that it was the prosecution in Guede's trial which introduced the theory of the three killers. Clearly, this was done to be consistent with the accusations against Knox and Sollecito, and to avoid contradicting in advance the case that was being prepared against them. So obviously, the prosecutors were not going to argue a "lone wolf" case at that stage.

The theory that Guede had not been alone but had acted with others on whom blame could be placed, was very positive for Guede's defence. There was no way the defence was going to challenge the evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved, because that would have been entirely counter-productive for their client.

So how could the Supreme Court have done anything else but rubber-stamp the theory of multiple killers? It wasn't their job to look at the evidence and spot that the case against the two students was built on sand! It was absolutely inevitable that the Supreme Court ruling would supprt the multiple-killer theory, because no other theory was presented to Guede's trial and the presence of others was agreed by both prosecution and defence.

There's no possible way this can pre-empt a proper examination and testing of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito in their own trial. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that it can. And now that that evidence has been shown to be a pile of manure, the Supreme Court will have no difficulty acknowledging that. Guede's verdict and consequent light sentence will merely remain as an anomaly of the system, caused by the prosecution not having pressed the more serioous charge against him at the time.

Unless of course Guede appeals, and I really don't think he's that stupid.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Marcia Clark on the Anderson Cooper show Oct. 3, 2011

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER LOS ANGELES DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, exactly. And Anderson, you know, it's one of these things where you look at, now you think, well, why didn't nobody look at this at the time of trial? Why did this even get this far if it was this badly handled?

And of course on appeal we discovered it was. But they have a different system there. And in trial, unlike here, where we really weed it all out before we ever get to court, there it seemed as though they go to trial, and then they weed it out on appeal, whereas here an appeal is a very limited thing. So they have a different balance.

...
CLARK: Until you're under the gun, until you're a -- especially look at her, for example. A young girl in a foreign country who feels very alone and very frightened. And perhaps being on some level whether it's implicit or explicit assured that if she does admit some kind of culpability, she'll get out eventually. It'll be better for her if she tells the truth right now.

There's that kind of a promise and implicit threat that if you don't tell the truth right now, as they see it, it will go much worse for you. So, you know, picture her alone in that situation.
Click to expand...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/03/acd.01.html
 
smkovalinksy said:
I would agree. But I just wish the supreme court would put the final seal on all - then I would feel no need to say anything further....
Click to expand...


In that vein, I'll be interested to see what happens to the guilty verdict on the slander charge. It's hard to see how Hellmann will motivate that, and I rather expect the defence to appeal it.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bolint,
Thanks for your efforts on this. I see the evidence that RS was uncertain about what kind of evidence of computer activity would be found on his hard drive. Could you also point to where he says that he was active a lot on the computer and there would be a lot of evidence of that.

bolint said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom