Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[smkovalinksy]

Someone should tell Andrea Vogt, Nick Pisa and Barbie Nadeau that they have more at stake here than selling slutty stories.

Everyone knows the two names Bernstein and Woodward. Some called them "Woodstein", but they use the names in journalism school as shorthand for the most successful and meaningful acts of investigative journalism ever. In fact, if you do not know what I'm typing about right now, you were probably dead in the 1970s.

What is at stake here for Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau? As journalism schools, and criminal sociologists, and sociologists of the blogosphere start writing about, "What the hell went wrong in Perugia in 2007?", my bet is that those names......

Pisa, Vogt, and Nadeau

..... will become shorthand for the yellow journalism of the pre-phone-hacking scandal period for tabloids.

Pisa, Vogt, and Nadeau, are you listening?

I appeal to you to listen beyond the "good job" said to you by your editors for keeping the story of sex and murder alive in the glory days of the Knox-myth. No doubt you will read this and say, "what a nutter, he knows absolutely nothing about journalism, or the story that I reported on."

Probably true. But this is not about me, it is about you. Forget a klutz like me and think about yourselves for a second.

When journalism schools use "Bernstein and Woodward" as shorthand for investigative reporting at its finest, do you REALLY want your career-legacy to be the names attached to yellow-journalism?

I can still hear Nadeau - "the bar is higher than in my day for tolerance of sexual experimentation," which is her way of saying, "I think Knox is a sexual deviant, with a dormant-evil side waiting for Perugia to set it free."

Really, Barbie?

But that's getting into it. Please do not listen to the people who support you and take your side.

Listen to those who are warning you that your names very well COULD enter the cultural lexicon for what I am claiming, in the way that post-Nov 2007 Knox's name entered the cultural lexicon, in the manner in which you printed it. You only have to read your own copy to see what I mean.

No wonder you fear the innocence-PR-supertanker. It turns out, they were right!

But rather than hide behind a conspiracy theory that this PR-supertanker somehow got to Hellmann-Zanetti, if I were you, I'd be thinking about how your name is going to play in history. How your names are going to play when Journalism Schools teach journalism and the perils waiting for the up and comers.

Hell, Pisa in 2012 can't even get it right whether Sollecito is now engaged or not!?!!! Do you not triple-source your claims? Or do you cut and paste from a blog somewhere?

Just what do you want your career-legacy to be? Knox never in a million years wanted to be a household name, and if this goes the way I think it's going after sober second-thought and a proper verdict on appeal....

Pisa, Vogt, and Nadeau

..... could very well be the next set of names, like Bernstein and Woodward in a positive sense, which become household names for those up and comers wanting to avoid mistakes in journalism. You helped create the firestorm that almost sunk Knox with the myth you helped create - and the tidal wave could very well consume you now that she is cleared.

Rupert Murdoch pretty well has had his legacy ruined.

Do you even care about yours? If not, disregard everything I've typed. I'm just a dope with a keyboard. Your next paycheque is all that really matters.

Well expressed. After the News International scandal, and the low point of journalism over here in the US, the age of sleaze/scandal/ checkbook journalism with its vanishing ethics, may be reaching its apex and reversal. And all you say here may come to pass.

 

[Grinder]

_________________

Grinder,

If it's a legal violation why didn't Judge Hellmann correct the violation? Did her attorneys ever raise this question of separating the calunnia charge from the other charges?

Did you know that during the trial of Sabrina ---for murdering Sarah Scazzi, to begin in a couple days---Sabrina will also be defending herself---during the same trial--- against a charge of calunnia?

///

You're probably 100% right. I didn't think that the defense had made that argument in the appeal but certainly wouldn't argue with you if you tell me they did.

Is the calunnia combined with the overarching charge common?

Has it always been common?

 

[anglolawyer]

You're probably 100% right. I didn't think that the defense had made that argument in the appeal but certainly wouldn't argue with you if you tell me they did.

Is the calunnia combined with the overarching charge common?

Has it always been common?

Amanda's appeal begins thus:

'First Violation:* Disallow Spontaneous declaration made November 6, 2007 at 5:45am.

The statement that was signed by Amanda on* November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided.*

The Italian Supreme Court ruled in April, 2008 that the statement could not be used against Amanda because at that time, she was a charged suspect, and there was no attorney allowed/provided.* This is prohibited by Article 63.* Amanda also had a right to silence.* Amanda's Constitutional right was breached under Articles 2, 24 & 111.

This statement was allowed into evidence on June 12, 2009 during Amanda's testimony at trial for the civil suit filed by Patrick Lumumba.* This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The civil trial and the murder trial were run concurrently with the same jury.* The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement. '

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda's appeal begins thus:

'First Violation:* Disallow Spontaneous declaration made November 6, 2007 at 5:45am.

The statement that was signed by Amanda on* November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided.*

The Italian Supreme Court ruled in April, 2008 that the statement could not be used against Amanda because at that time, she was a charged suspect, and there was no attorney allowed/provided.* This is prohibited by Article 63.* Amanda also had a right to silence.* Amanda's Constitutional right was breached under Articles 2, 24 & 111.

This statement was allowed into evidence on June 12, 2009 during Amanda's testimony at trial for the civil suit filed by Patrick Lumumba.* This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The civil trial and the murder trial were run concurrently with the same jury.* The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement. '

Well, in fairness, this is more about the impact upon the murder charges of running the Lumumba slander trial concurrently with the murder trial. The gist of this argument is that a statement (the 5.45am signed statement) judged inadmissible for the purposes of judging on the murder charge was nevertheless introduced to the judicial panel judging the murder charge via the Lumumba slander charge (in which the statement was admissible).

I totally agree with that argument, and I am certain that it would have been a basis of appeal to the Supreme Court had Hellmann's appeal court found for guilt on the murder charges. But what we were discussing here is the reciprocal situation: the impact of the murder charges upon the criminal slander charges. As I have opined in other areas, I think Knox's defence team dropped the ball here - perhaps understandably to a degree, since the overwhelmingly main objective was to secure acquittals on the murder (and related) charges. I think that Knox's team should have at least pointed out the reciprocal issue. Having said that, there's also possibly a legal argument to be made out of saying that since the reciprocal complaint essentially implies that guilt on the murder charges should not adversely influence the view of guilt on the Lumumba slander charge, Knox's defence team might not have wanted to draw undue attention to a situation predicated on a belief in Knox's guilt on the murder charge.

As I have suggested many times before, I think that the overwhelming mission for Knox's lawyers in the Hellmann trial was to secure acquittals on the murder charge (and the directly-associated charges). I believe there might have been recognition that there was a likely point-of-law problem when Massei made his improper decision to link the Lumumba slander charge to the murder charge, which not only affected the murder charge, but also reciprocally affected the slander charge. I think there may have been a view among her defence team along the lines of this: "Let's get the murder charges sorted out first and focus our entire efforts on that; with luck, if she's acquitted on those charges, she might also get acquitted on the slander charge too. However, if she's acquitted of murder but found guilty on the slander charge, we can cross that bridge when we come to it by using the point-of-law breach in our appeal to the Supreme Court."

 

[tronic]

There was I thinking (s)he was being sarcastic!

After all, it certainly read like a very bad parody of a bigoted, biased, unpleasant pro-guilt rant.........

get this "LondonJohn" they are guilty

if you think Guede got through that window 11 feet above soft ground without leaving traces or any marks at all on the wall, CARRYING A 10lb ROCK and not disturbing any glass on the ledge or injuring himself .. without leaving any organic matter within the room or mud you must be flipping insane

you lot KNOW she's guilty - all this here has been down to xenophobia pure and simple

and why "LondonJohn" did knife boy originally state he was at a party, then state he was with knox then state (until very recently) he was alone - he never supported Knox's alibi ("was with knife boy") for years and it was totally disproved that knifeboy was where he said he was that night

knife boys footprint was on the bathmat - that they failed to see to clean up - the trashed state they were in ... IN THE VICTIMS BLOOD

you'll have a really hard job proving Guede did this alone when this is appealed - ever heard of extraordinary rendition? this is far from over

what about the lamp (the only light source in knoxs' room) found on it's side at the bottom of meredith kerchers bed, flex outside the door -- it was used in the cleanup ... what about the fact that knife boy lied and said he hadn't tried to break back into the room (to retrieve said lamp for knox) etc etc etc

what about the scratch on knoxs' neck fresh - shown that morning - wasn't there the night before - nobody in that house supported knox they all know she's guilty - hell everyone in perugia knows she's guilty

the hellman report is an absolute fabrication as is your case for the innocence of knox/sollecito

Moved from another thread; do not post in other threads in an attempt to by-pass Moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, in fairness, this is more about the impact upon the murder charges of running the Lumumba slander trial concurrently with the murder trial. The gist of this argument is that a statement (the 5.45am signed statement) judged inadmissible for the purposes of judging on the murder charge was nevertheless introduced to the judicial panel judging the murder charge via the Lumumba slander charge (in which the statement was admissible).

I totally agree with that argument, and I am certain that it would have been a basis of appeal to the Supreme Court had Hellmann's appeal court found for guilt on the murder charges. But what we were discussing here is the reciprocal situation: the impact of the murder charges upon the criminal slander charges. As I have opined in other areas, I think Knox's defence team dropped the ball here - perhaps understandably to a degree, since the overwhelmingly main objective was to secure acquittals on the murder (and related) charges. I think that Knox's team should have at least pointed out the reciprocal issue. Having said that, there's also possibly a legal argument to be made out of saying that since the reciprocal complaint essentially implies that guilt on the murder charges should not adversely influence the view of guilt on the Lumumba slander charge, Knox's defence team might not have wanted to draw undue attention to a situation predicated on a belief in Knox's guilt on the murder charge.

As I have suggested many times before, I think that the overwhelming mission for Knox's lawyers in the Hellmann trial was to secure acquittals on the murder charge (and the directly-associated charges). I believe there might have been recognition that there was a likely point-of-law problem when Massei made his improper decision to link the Lumumba slander charge to the murder charge, which not only affected the murder charge, but also reciprocally affected the slander charge. I think there may have been a view among her defence team along the lines of this: "Let's get the murder charges sorted out first and focus our entire efforts on that; with luck, if she's acquitted on those charges, she might also get acquitted on the slander charge too. However, if she's acquitted of murder but found guilty on the slander charge, we can cross that bridge when we come to it by using the point-of-law breach in our appeal to the Supreme Court."

I agree with all that, having only the concern that the range of appeal points available might not be as wide as one might wish, from this distance.

And I now see you face an insurmountable challenge from Tronic. Best of luck. Please try to establish Tronic's grounds for believing the Hellman-Zanetti decision to be 'a complete fabrication'. I am very interested in any juicy conspiracy theories he may have to offer as they are always such fun.

If I may chip in my six pennorth on the lamp, one of my specialist subjects, it is most likely that this was brought into the room by the postal policemen who also failed to resist the temptation to lift the quilt to look at the victim before denying that he had done any such thing. I am aware of no evidence led by the prosecution as to whether that lamp was there when the door was first opened and there is no sensible reason why any perpetrator would have left it at the end of the bed, rather than on or near the table. A curious postal policeman, on the other hand, might well have left it where it might seem to him to interfere with the crime scene the least.

If it had been missed in the 'clean up' one would expect it to have yielded fresh prints e.g. on the plug, or DNA, and yet one can see it standing on the table in the CSI video attracting precisely no interest at all from Stefanoni and her crew despite being, according to guilter revisionist theory, a key piece of evidence.

According to Follain, the animated film with which the prosecution closed its case showed either AK or RS (he doesn't say which) bringing the lamp into the victim's room. As Massei ignored the lamp in his decision and so, naturally, did the defendants in their appeals, only Tronic seems to have access to the truth by some means. Let's hope he tells us what they are.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't think he carried the rock

Tronic,

Good to see you here again. I don't think Guede had to carry that weight; I think he threw the rock from the parapet. I don't think anyone here is motivated by xenophobia: I don't think that the conspiracy alleged between Guede, Sollecito, and Knox makes any more or any less sense that the conspiracy alleged in South Carolina (in the United States) between Billy Wayne Cope and the actual murdere/rapist. I think that the mark on Knox's neck looks like a hickey, not a scratch.

 

[Skind]

if you think Guede got through that window 11 feet above soft ground without leaving traces or any marks at all on the wall, CARRYING A 10lb ROCK and not disturbing any glass on the ledge or injuring himself .. without leaving any organic matter within the room or mud you must be flipping insane[/qoute]

Lucky no one thinks this then, isn't it?

"it was totally disproved that knifeboy was where he said he was that night"

Well, barring the independant witness that places him where he said he was, the phone records that place him where and when he said he was, and the computer records that show him doing what he said he was doing when he said he was doing it...... yes, it's been totally disproven.

"knife boys footprint was on the bathmat - that they failed to see to clean up - the trashed state they were in ... IN THE VICTIMS BLOOD"

Well, the print contains two features entirely absent in his reference print, entirely prominent in Guedes reference print, and the only explanation given thus far for the disparity between his reference print and the suspect print would also act to empahsise - not minimise - the self-same features in Guedes print.

So, barring an unlikely and convuluted chain of events that acted to make his rather unusual footprint look like the footprint of a hither-to unrelated person - who just happened to leave his dna on and in the victim - we can saefly say it's not Sollecitos'.

"what about the lamp (the only light source in knoxs' room) found on it's side at the bottom of meredith kerchers bed, flex outside the door -- it was used in the cleanup ..."

What about it? If it was used in the clean up it would have his or her prints on it. If they wiped them off the lamp, then they would have known to remove the lamp at that point. If they were the ones to unplug the lamp, then they would have had another chance to remove the lamp.

Whereas, if the police borrowed it from her room to use to provide extra light to look under the bed, that would explain it's position, and why no-one testified that it was in the room - with the cable fully visible front and centre and right in the way of the door - when the original discovery or search was made.

In addition - what clean-up? What tell-tale streaking, smearing, or void areas were found and where? How did the police tell? Where are the photographs that show absence of accumulated day to day material in the cleaned areas, or which show boundary marks from cleaning? Why do the luminol photos show this background material when there was supposedly a Great Clean-Up?

"what about the scratch on knoxs' neck fresh - shown that morning - wasn't there the night before - "

Looks more like a hickey than a scratch. But what about it? If Meredith was so violent and capable that it needed three people to attack her - why wasn't Knox - and Sollecito - more badly injured? Why didn't the medical examiner find any signs of any struggle during processing after her arrest?

Why are so many questions about her guilt and how she supposedly commited the crime going unanswered? Are we really supposed to believe that they did such a prodigiously efficient and highly selective clean-up, yet left a hoofing great foot print in the bathroom and a large black tablelamp behind in a sudden flurry of incompetance? Why is such utter tosh accepted without any form of even provisional skepticism?

 

[Rolfe]

"Knife-boy." I understand Rafaello Sollecito owned a number of knives, collected them or something. Would someone mind telling me what that was all about?

What sort of knives were they? What did he do with them? Or was it like stamp-collecting?

Why do we think the investigators picked on a kitchen knife that belonged to his landlord as the suggested murder weapon, and not one of his own knives? Did they test his own knives? If anyone had thought it was a good idea for Amanda to carry a knife in her handbag, wouldn't one of Rafaello's collection have been more suitable?

Sorry, just general background questions.

Rolfe.

 

[Skind]

If it had been missed in the 'clean up' one would expect it to have yielded fresh prints e.g. on the plug, or DNA, and yet one can see it standing on the table in the CSI video attracting precisely no interest at all from Stefanoni and her crew despite being, according to guilter revisionist theory, a key piece of evidence.

One can also see it on the floor in the earlier photos.

The complete lack on interest shown by the police is indicative of one thing - they know precisely where the lamp came from.

Otherwise, we have to assume they are too incompetant to realise the importance of the lamp in the crime scene. Highly doubtful as the lamp is too obvious an oddity to be missed, even by them.

Either that, or the police knew the scene had been so badly mismanaged that they knew it could never be proven to be part of the crime scene, unless intergrated into the testimony concerning the discovery.

As far as I know, no-one testified that this obvious and suspiciously placed lamp was part of the scene on discovery.

 

[Bill Williams]

get this "LondonJohn" they are guilty

if you think Guede got through that window 11 feet above soft ground without leaving traces or any marks at all on the wall, CARRYING A 10lb ROCK and not disturbing any glass on the ledge or injuring himself .. without leaving any organic matter within the room or mud you must be flipping insane

you lot KNOW she's guilty - all this here has been down to xenophobia pure and simple

and why "LondonJohn" did knife boy originally state he was at a party, then state he was with knox then state (until very recently) he was alone - he never supported Knox's alibi ("was with knife boy") for years and it was totally disproved that knifeboy was where he said he was that night

knife boys footprint was on the bathmat - that they failed to see to clean up - the trashed state they were in ... IN THE VICTIMS BLOOD

you'll have a really hard job proving Guede did this alone when this is appealed - ever heard of extraordinary rendition? this is far from over

what about the lamp (the only light source in knoxs' room) found on it's side at the bottom of meredith kerchers bed, flex outside the door -- it was used in the cleanup ... what about the fact that knife boy lied and said he hadn't tried to break back into the room (to retrieve said lamp for knox) etc etc etc

what about the scratch on knoxs' neck fresh - shown that morning - wasn't there the night before - nobody in that house supported knox they all know she's guilty - hell everyone in perugia knows she's guilty

the hellman report is an absolute fabrication as is your case for the innocence of knox/sollecito

Moved from another thread; do not post in other threads in an attempt to by-pass Moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Yikes - this information has to be sent to Italy immediately, before a hug injustice is carried out!

Lessee - sanity itself is judge on one's perception on Guede's entry into Romanelli's window. As per "you must be flipping insane...."

Innocenters actually KNOW they are guilty - the all caps in KNOW is proof! Why didn't you put this in all caps before!

This is xenophobia. This is the clincher. And the proof is......? Oooops, we're not talking "proof" we're actually involved in who can come up with the best insult.

"Knife boy"? Footprint on the bathmat? I don't think either Masseu or Hellmann reviewed either of these claims. Aside from the fact that the bathmat footprint could be anyone's really, this needs to go to the final appeal's panel because they might not know about the insult, "knife boy." That will be the clincher!

Actually this was appealed and the panel DID (note the all caps!) conclude that Guede did this alone, or in the very unlikely chance he did not, it most certainly ws not AK and RS with him. Would Guede actually do this thing with those two? (I should have put this in all caps so that the final appeals court would be as convinced as with your all caps.)

The lamp, the hickey, hell everyone in perugia knows she's guilty.... this information needs to get to Italy as soon as possible. Do you think in Italy they don't know that, "hell everyone in perugia knows she's guilty."

The juducual misconduct noted above is the most damning of all. Why didn't someone say that Hellmann-Zanetti is a pure fabrication? If so, how can you then trust the final appeal's court? Are they even going to appeal there?

If the prosecution doesn't, now we know why - the final appeal's court is as corrupt as Hellmann-Zanetti's court.

Thank you for clearing this up.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda's appeal begins thus:

'First Violation:* Disallow Spontaneous declaration made November 6, 2007 at 5:45am.

The statement that was signed by Amanda on* November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided.*

This statement was allowed into evidence on June 12, 2009 during Amanda's testimony at trial for the civil suit filed by Patrick Lumumba.* This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The civil trial and the murder trial were run concurrently with the same jury.* The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement. '

Thank you all for helping Lil old Grinder understand but he still needs help.

Calunnia is a criminal charge so I think it is the that part that needs to be appealed to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

Since the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruled on the 1:45 and 5:45 written spontaneous statements, would the court of the second instance have the power to rule that the calunnia charge could not be held concurrently?

I agree that it is possible that the defense didn't waste much capital on the appeal of the calunnia charge and from the above quote it doesn't appear they asked to undo the calunnia part of trial by removing it completely.

As you all recall my sources indicated that Hellmann would rule ahead of time and in early December, I was able to predict a December 23rd release date of the Hellmann motivation report. As it turned out my source was off by a week.

I'm awaiting new information from my source that I may or may not share with you all.

 

[Dan O.]

if you think Guede got through that window 11 feet above soft ground without leaving traces or any marks at all on the wall, CARRYING A 10lb ROCK and not disturbing any glass on the ledge or injuring himself .. without leaving any organic matter within the room or mud you must be flipping insane

You never responded to questions posed the last time you brought up the wall in the first continuation of this thread (here).

knife boys footprint was on the bathmat - that they failed to see to clean up - the trashed state they were in ... IN THE VICTIMS BLOOD

This was answered in the previous thread (see post #5178), where is your response?

what about the scratch on knoxs' neck fresh - shown that morning - wasn't there the night before

Talk about not responding. When you last brought up that scratch (here), I intentionally set you up with a bit of misdirection. And you took the bait. You took it all the way back to PMF but never responded here. I was so hoping you would respond, I've been waiting so long...



It seems you left out some elements from the first time you posted your list of "facts" from your very first post here at JREF. Maybe you have accepted that you were wrong about some things. Stick around and learn the rest of the truth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"Knife-boy." I understand Rafaello Sollecito owned a number of knives, collected them or something. Would someone mind telling me what that was all about?

What sort of knives were they? What did he do with them? Or was it like stamp-collecting?

Why do we think the investigators picked on a kitchen knife that belonged to his landlord as the suggested murder weapon, and not one of his own knives? Did they test his own knives? If anyone had thought it was a good idea for Amanda to carry a knife in her handbag, wouldn't one of Rafaello's collection have been more suitable?

Sorry, just general background questions.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

I think that Raffaele's father said that he (Francesco) collected weapons. I don't know with certainty whether or not Raffaele collected in the same way, but I seem to recall that a pocketknife is almost a fashion accessory in Italy (might be a regional thing within Italy). My understanding is that they confiscated a knife from Raffaele on 5 November, and it tested negative. Why the investigator picked a kitchen knife has always been a mystery to me. At one point the investigator mentioned investigator intuition. I think that it is unlikely that they picked it up with the intention of framing the two; I think it is within the realm of possibility that they picked it up with the intention of telling Amanda and/or Raffaele that the knife was the murder weapon (positive for DNA or blood) whether or not it actually tested that way. The positive result would presumably elicit a confession.

Before anyone makes the charge of xenophobia, I would like to point out that we are all agreed that police have a legal right to lie during an investigation. And I can think of examples where the police have done so (sometimes outrageously) in the United States.

 

[Kaosium]

get this "LondonJohn" they are guilty

Innocente!

if you think Guede got through that window 11 feet above soft ground without leaving traces or any marks at all on the wall, CARRYING A 10lb ROCK and not disturbing any glass on the ledge or injuring himself .. without leaving any organic matter within the room or mud you must be flipping insane

Actually there was a scuff mark on the wall, there's even a hole where a nail could have been, I've seen Dan-O post the picture a few times already, am I to guess you weren't getting your daily dose of wisdom from JREF on those days?

He didn't have to carry the rock all the way up, he could have easily climbed up and opened the shutters and then gone down and thrown the rock either from directly below the window or farther back where it was a straight shot. It was easy to climb up to the window, even this lawyer had little difficulty with it:

Here he has his hands on the ledge and his head above the bottom of the opening, and he's not even to the top rung yet. There's no need for the ground to be much disturbed, and being as they made it their smoking area the ground didn't exactly get photographed undisturbed. The claim is that there were no marks where they didn't look or where the disturbed it by walking over it, that's not a very strong claim.

You don't know that he didn't disturb glass on the ledge, there could easily have been more there and some was kicked into the cottage as he went through it, at any rate half of the ledge was clear, the part under the 'O' sign here:

There was some organic material in the room incidentally, however Stefanoni didn't go out of her way to try to identify this bit, I wonder why that was?

you lot KNOW she's guilty - all this here has been down to xenophobia pure and simple

Xenophobia? What does that have to do with anything? I've never quite understood this claim, do you think people believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele innocent because they dislike Italy or Italians? Even if that was true, it wouldn't invalidate the possibility they made a mistake, especially since it can basically be proven they did.

Your 'instincts' are wrong if you think the people arguing innocence actually think her guilty, it's actually quite difficult for a fair-minded person to maintain a belief in guilt.

and why "LondonJohn" did knife boy originally state he was at a party, then state he was with knox then state (until very recently) he was alone - he never supported Knox's alibi ("was with knife boy") for years and it was totally disproved that knifeboy was where he said he was that night

My guess is Raffaele had trouble keeping track what they did the night of the murder, perhaps as a result of his 'taking the edge off' the rest of the week after the murder and before the arrest with some of the more fragrant smokables.

However he only said he was alone when he signed that one statement of 10:40 PM on the Fifth, he recanted that two days later before Judge Matteini. From that point on his alibi was Amanda, just as it always was before they got him to sign that mistaken statement saying that was the night he and Amanda parted at the square. The idea that Raffaele hadn't alibied Amanda was an invention of a kooky website that gives bad legal information (perhaps you're aware of this?) to people and never had any validity whatsoever.

knife boys footprint was on the bathmat - that they failed to see to clean up - the trashed state they were in ... IN THE VICTIMS BLOOD

It still looks more like Rudy's. Can you pick out Raffaele's from Rudy's with this picture? Can you convince yourself it could only be Raffaele's, and not possibly Rudy's or any other person who has a foot about the same size, which could be half the men in Italy?

you'll have a really hard job proving Guede did this alone when this is appealed - ever heard of extraordinary rendition? this is far from over

How would 'extraodinary rendition' apply to this case? Will you be surprised if the prosecution doesn't appeal later this month? What will you think then?

what about the lamp (the only light source in knoxs' room) found on it's side at the bottom of meredith kerchers bed, flex outside the door -- it was used in the cleanup ... what about the fact that knife boy lied and said he hadn't tried to break back into the room (to retrieve said lamp for knox) etc etc etc

This is what I have to say about that. If there was a 'clean-up,' then there would be some evidence of a clean-up, and things would have been cleaned up!

There's the blood splotch on the bathmat along with the blood in the sink, bidet and cotton box suggesting there was no thorough clean-up in the bathroom. The luminol stains basically prove there was no clean-up in the hall, they weren't smeared or cloudy like someone had scrubbed the floor, and being as they weren't visible at all, either they weren't blood, or weren't cleaned up. The murder room has copious amounts of evidence all over it, and was described by the ex-FBI guy as an 'undisturbed crime scene.'

Therefore no clean-up, thus one cannot use the curious location of the lamp to 'prove' one, or that Raffaele's failure to break-down the door is somehow 'proof' of anything outside Raffaele didn't break down that door for whatever reason, perhaps not being confident he should risk destroying anything at that juncture, not knowing for sure that they ought to.

what about the scratch on knoxs' neck fresh - shown that morning - wasn't there the night before

There was no scratch on Amanda's neck, it was a hickey that was misremembered by one of the witnesses, might have been Laura, I forget for sure. At any rate as Massei notes, and I recently quoted from a few pages back, Amanda was not wounded and she was examined thoroughly in captivity by police who needed to find wounds for evidence purposes.

- nobody in that house supported knox they all know she's guilty - hell everyone in perugia knows she's guilty

Except the ones who exonerated her, who knew the case best. You're right though that nearly four years of police and prosecution lies had an effect on the Perugian people's opinion of the case. Especially when clowns like Mignini keep filing suits on journalists who displease him.

the hellman report is an absolute fabrication as is your case for the innocence of knox/sollecito

Nope, it's common sense, science, logic and a rational interpretation of the evidence. That was all missing from the original case, which is why when re-asserted by Hellmann it looks so very much like what I and many others posted here the last two years. That sort of thing doesn't change much from place to place.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rolfe,

I think that Raffaele's father said that he (Francesco) collected weapons. I don't know with certainty whether or not Raffaele collected in the same way, but I seem to recall that a pocketknife is almost a fashion accessory in Italy (might be a regional thing within Italy). My understanding is that they confiscated a knife from Raffaele on 5 November, and it tested negative. Why the investigator picked a kitchen knife has always been a mystery to me. At one point the investigator mentioned investigator intuition. I think that it is unlikely that they picked it up with the intention of framing the two; I think it is within the realm of possibility that they picked it up with the intention of telling Amanda and/or Raffaele that the knife was the murder weapon (positive for DNA or blood) whether or not it actually tested that way. The positive result would presumably elicit a confession.

Before anyone makes the charge of xenophobia, I would like to point out that we are all agreed that police have a legal right to lie during an investigation. And I can think of examples where the police have done so (sometimes outrageously) in the United States.

Indeed, it would have been an entirely legitimate police/prosecutor tactic to have confronted Knox and/or Sollecito with something along the lines of "Well, we've found a knife in Sollecito's apartment, and it has tested positive for Meredith's blood/DNA. How do you explain that?" This could legitimately have been used by a tactic by the police as soon as they found the knife - in other words, they didn't even need to have waited for the result of the testing.

However, police have to be cunning in how they employ lies to elicit confessions. Firstly, they have to have a good idea of the truth. If the police, for example, have a very strong belief that Mr A and Mr B committed a robbery together, it might very well be a good idea for them to lie to Mr B and tell him that Mr A had broken and incriminated himself and Mr B. Mr B might then think the jig was up, and implicate Mr A in turn. Police/prosecutors would then have both men accusing each other - very useful evidence for a subsequent trial. However, if Mr B had actually committed the crime alone, and Mr A in fact knew nothing about it, then it would backfire for the police to lie to Mr B that Mr A had "broken" and "confessed" to the joint involvement of himself and Mr B. Mr B would immediately know the police were lying, and would probably clam up completely.

Secondly, the police need to back the suspect into a corner on the one hand, but at the same time offer the suspect some form of redemption or "help" on the other hand. This was the tactic the police appeared to use on Knox: "We know you were involved, that you let Patrick in, but if you tell us nothing you'll be imprisoned for a very long time for murder. On the other hand, if you tell us "the truth" now, your minor role in the crime will be acknowledged by the judge and you will be treated leniently."

I believe the police played an extremely cunning game with Knox in the interrogation on 5th/6th November. They deliberately (in my view) did not accuse her of direct involvement in the murder. Had they done so, I believe (and I think they believed) that Knox would continue a vehement denial. But by finessing the scenario, they artfully placed Knox in a massive dilemma: by agreeing with the police's version of events, she wasn't confessing to murder, but to something she was told was much more minor. And if she refused to agree with the police's version, she was given the very firm impression that any court would believe (from the "evidence" the police said they had) she was a direct participant in the murder, and she would be punished accordingly. I think that a combination of fear, confusion, and a desire to make it end, all contributed to Knox finally agreeing to sign the statement implicating herself and accusing Lumumba.

 

[tronic]

Tronic,

Good to see you here again. I don't think Guede had to carry that weight; I think he threw the rock from the parapet.

I recently addressed that on pmf. That sir, is impossible. It was a 10lb rock the distance is too far - the shutters were closed. He'd have had to have climbed up opened the shutters which were in fact found the next morning to be ajar - they couldn't be pinned back. Clamber down again - up the banking across and to the parapet. Shotputting that 10lb rock with amazing accuracy through the window - then he clambered down the banking and up the wall (again without leaving any traces at all or disturbing the rusty nail jutting out) and through the window, without damaging himself, disturbing the glass fragments which were actually found in a line on the ledge where they had in fact fallen against the CLOSED shutter when the rock was cast by the obliterated Sollecito from the inside.

There were no traces of Guede within the room. It was November. There were no organic traces on the ledge. That crime scene staging is the weakest part of the new "Hellman" report.

No glass was found on the ground outside. Large pieces of glass blocking access were still in the window frame.

All that is apart from the obvious difficulty of getting up over the ledge and through the window. All that again without Meredith Kercher hearing and fleeing. Without Guede beeing seen or heard from the road or the residences above - sound travels in cold air. I really believe many people heard the later scream Meredith Kercher issued as Amanda Knox finished her off with Sollecitos 32cm kitchen knife she carried to the apartment but they didn't want to get involved.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe the police played an extremely cunning game with Knox in the interrogation on 5th/6th November. They deliberately (in my view) did not accuse her of direct involvement in the murder. Had they done so, I believe (and I think they believed) that Knox would continue a vehement denial. But by finessing the scenario, they artfully placed Knox in a massive dilemma: by agreeing with the police's version of events, she wasn't confessing to murder, but to something she was told was much more minor. And if she refused to agree with the police's version, she was given the very firm impression that any court would believe (from the "evidence" the police said they had) she was a direct participant in the murder, and she would be punished accordingly. I think that a combination of fear, confusion, and a desire to make it end, all contributed to Knox finally agreeing to sign the statement implicating herself and accusing Lumumba.

It's called the Reid Technique of interrogation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Technique

Whereas it is advertised as "assessing the witnesses credibility" is is harshly criticised for being capable of eliciting false confessions, particularly on the young.

The question really is - I have to ask it - is someone who makes what amounts to a "false statement" because of the use of the Reid Technique truly criminally liable? I'll leave it at that, because I've already expressed my view on this.

It seemed, though, that the reason Hellmann upheld calunnia, is that it was his opinion that the urge to simply sign something to end the stress, constituted criminal liability. His sentencing reflected his further belief about the "amount" of liability to be assessed, as he imposed a sentence of three years in the range of from two to six tears, if it is calunnia not combined with a conviction on another charge.

Strangely, the Massei court was even more lenient that the Hellmann court - since the range for calunnia when paired with the 25 years sentence, should have been between four to twelve years additional. Massei's court imposed a one-year sentence for it.

I think this demonstrates the belief of the Italian judicial system, that while technically guilty of calunnia, the mitigating circumstances required as low a sentence as possible.

 

[curi0us]

"Knife-boy." I understand Rafaello Sollecito owned a number of knives, collected them or something. Would someone mind telling me what that was all about?

What sort of knives were they? What did he do with them? Or was it like stamp-collecting?

Why do we think the investigators picked on a kitchen knife that belonged to his landlord as the suggested murder weapon, and not one of his own knives? Did they test his own knives? If anyone had thought it was a good idea for Amanda to carry a knife in her handbag, wouldn't one of Rafaello's collection have been more suitable?

Sorry, just general background questions.

Rolfe.

Somealibi posted some info on Sollecito's knives at PMF but the most useful pictures no longer load:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=84567

^A quick summary is that Sollecito owned one military replica combat knife that was mounted on his bedroom wall and two ~3 inch blade folding knives. One of the folding knives he usually carried and had on him when the police arrested him. As your questions suggest Sollecito owning a few knives that would have made very appropriate self-defense or murder weapons just made Massei's kitchen knife in the handbag for protection rationalization even more preposterous.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

book him, Dan O.

tronic,

Filomena might or might not have closed the shutters. Her testimony changed a little with time (RoseMontague may remember better than I do). If she did not, Guede would have to climb partway one time or open them with a stick (this may have been Dan O.'s suggestion). IIRC the former carabinieri officer (Pasquali, IIRC) threw the rock from the parapet, and got a reasonable distribution of glass. I believe that you are incorrect with respect to organic traces on the ledge. Rep. 199 (I can never keep Reps. 198 and 199 straight) was positive by TMB, but the presence of blood could not be confirmed. The other (Rep. 198) one was hair with a few cells.