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

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. I think to the general public, her name has been cleared with the acquittal. It's only the people who still think she's guilty who feel she has a need to clear her name. I find their suggestion disingenuous, because IMO, what they're really after is for her to maintain media attention, thus generating more fodder for the innuendo mill. If and when she actually does release a book, I have no doubt that everything she says about her experience will just be taken as more lies anyway. As much as the PGP say they would never read a book by her or Sollecito, I think it's pretty obvious that they will need something down the line to complain about (and read too much into) in order to keep PMF running. I can already see the TJMK spin and detailed dissection of such books.

Apparently, "30 Rock" had an Amanda Knox line it it this evening - I didn't see it, but one of the PMF sites reported that a character said, "Amanda Knox is the most famous person never to have killed anyone."

That comment alone guarantees another page of comments on those sites. However, for 99.999% of people, it will be as 30 Rock signals.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill --

I think it is fine that you are able to have a give and take with a PGP person, on PM or otherwise. My only comment is that I find it a bit of an odd debate for someone to claim a point (such as the 6 lies), and then refuse to tell you what they are, saying you have to do your own work. Isn't it this person's debating point? If it exists, can't they just tell you?

To illustrate, imagine the current US Presidential race, with all the debates.

Candidate 1: "Candidate #2 lied about his support for XYZ."
Candidate 2: "When? That is an unfounded charge!"
Candidate 1: "Look it up yourself, and the voters too. I am not going to do the work for you."

Does this make any sense? Just saying.

That was my point. And I know the person involved reads this. However, we do have a good relationship and I don't want to pressure the person - he/she could arguably be thinking, "Why should I tell the bugger, he'll just find a reason not to call them lies!"

It cuts both ways.

I mean, when I read Harry Rag's list, I do, in fact, regard the list as silly, in the main.

Anyway, it's good to have a back and forth with people who do not agree with you. Otherwise we end up drinking from the same bath water.

Still - I am puzzled as to why a list is not forthcoming. But I'm in not position to make demands. Nor do I want to.

 

[geebee2]

Bill Williams,

This is difficult, because it often transpires that the PG and PI camps just don't agree on the facts. There was the question of what Amanda really said with respect to Meredith's locking her door. The Italian for "also when" - "anche quando" - is the same as for "even when", so maybe Amanda with her poor Italian was trying to say "Meredith locks her door when she goes to England and also when she takes a shower", while Luca heard "Meredith locks her door when she goes to England and even when she takes a shower", so implying that she locked her door all the time. I am grateful to Katy_did for first pointing this out, and I also note that if others besides Luca heard this exchange, it would not change the argument.

I agree that the "always/even" issue is likely one of translation, but I recently realised from Massei that Luca Altieri (who seems one of the most reliable witnesses) stated that Raffaele did the translation, so I think it's more likely that Raffaele mis-understood Amanda's English.

Luca Altieri also stated that when they arrived they saw the room of Romanelli in a mess and then Meredith's room locked with a key. They asked if this was normal and Raffaele, "translating Amanda’s answer told me that she usually locks the door even when she goes into the bathroom to take a shower ... so there was no concern arising about the fact that the door was locked‛ (p. 218, hearing on February 6, 2009, see also statements of Paola Grande, p. 254).

 

[Bob001]

Question: If Amanda is contesting the "calumnia" conviction (and I certainly hope she does and wins), would she have to return to Italy for any purpose? If so, would she be in danger of being arrested for anything else? If her conviction stands, what would be the long-term impact in terms of international travel, jobs, etc.? Would it keep her from working at a job that requires a background check or a security clearance, especially considering that there is no comparable crime in the U.S.? (I know the Knox case is unique, but some employers are inclined to say "the rules is the rules...").

 

[Grinder]

Beware the Ides of March and PMing with the PGP

Go ahead and print the HR/TM list of thirteen, haven't seen it in awhile (wonder why). If someone has his complete list of evidence it might be fun - you know the double DNA knife, bottle of bleach.

Someone else mentioned the key, which is that she is guilty and everything thing must be seen in that light. She lied about the phone calls, she lied about when she woke up, she lied about taking a shower (police said she smelled or so say the PGP), she lied about the mop and bucket, she lied about taking her clothes to the cottage, she lied about the time of dinner (the English girls had a spread of hour 5:30 - 6:30 but they aren't liars), she lied about using the bathmat, she lied about turning her phone off and so much more.

What did the PLE think they were being lied to about when they were able to make Amanda buckle and tell them what was correct? They had some phone records that didn't line up perfectly with the accounting R&S had given. The call from Papa that didn't occur at night and the call in the morning she didn't remember. They didn't have any witnesses at that time.

It was always the case that PGP conflated Raffaele's "lies" with Amanda's "lies". They seem to have a special feeling for Amanda and a need to blame her for everything.

It is possible from what we think we know that Raffaele did what he accused Amanda of, and left her sleeping. Had he gone to the cottage alone that night and murdered Meredith it would explain her lack of memory (I'm sure he had a little Xanax around*), Rudy's account, DNA of the clasp etc.

*Did we ever see an inventory of legal and illegal drugs found in this case?

 

[Grinder]

I agree that the "always/even" issue is likely one of translation, but I recently realised from Massei that Luca Altieri (who seems one of the most reliable witnesses) stated that Raffaele did the translation, so I think it's more likely that Raffaele mis-understood Amanda's English.

Always hard to rank these things but I'd put the "door always locked" near the top of the list of exaggerated points of "evidence". First of all, why would she lie about it? If she was trying to get them to break the door down why would she say it was always locked? So it makes no sense for her to have lied.

The words closed and locked are similar in Italian so Amanda wouldn't have noticed Raffaele's mis-translation.

I've always wondered how Filomena could be so sure that Meredith never locked her door. Did she walk around the house testing doors to see if they were locked? Did Meredith always keep her door open, even while sleeping? Did Meredith never close her door while at school?

Much ado about nothing.

 

[freeski]

I agree that the "always/even" issue is likely one of translation, but I recently realised from Massei that Luca Altieri (who seems one of the most reliable witnesses) stated that Raffaele did the translation, so I think it's more likely that Raffaele mis-understood Amanda's English.

Indeed. Raffaele's English was quite poor and he certainly would struggle if someone was speaking quickly. When it doesn't seem important people are never that accurate. Funny how no one really made much of a big deal about the translation issues in this case, both linguistic and cultural. But they were key.

I just checked this in Massei to clarify your point and one thing I noticed in the surrounding text. Page 33 of translation: "Inspector Battistelli has also ruled out having entered this room". But next paragraph it says "Battistelli informed his own superior that the lifeless body of a girl, quickly identified as Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, had been found".

If he never went in, and given that she was covered with a duvet, how did he know it was a girl? How did he know she was lifeless? Did he just assume it from the foot? And who identified her "quickly"? Was it Battistelli, or someone else?

Luca says he went into the room and I'm sure he entered the room and had a peek under the duvet. Surely that's what any cop would do. Is it really such a big deal for the first cop on the scene to determine if she's actually dead, or if something can be done for her. Funny how Massei says Luca's testimony is rather circumstantial, so he believes Battistelli. Whereas other circumstantial evidence like phones and locked doors is just fine and dandy. But we know all this.

 

[anglolawyer]

Always hard to rank these things but I'd put the "door always locked" near the top of the list of exaggerated points of "evidence". First of all, why would she lie about it? If she was trying to get them to break the door down why would she say it was always locked? So it makes no sense for her to have lied.

The words closed and locked are similar in Italian so Amanda wouldn't have noticed Raffaele's mis-translation.

I've always wondered how Filomena could be so sure that Meredith never locked her door. Did she walk around the house testing doors to see if they were locked? Did Meredith always keep her door open, even while sleeping? Did Meredith never close her door while at school?

Much ado about nothing.

If she were guilty, along with Raffaele, and something had happened necessitating the locking of the door (please don't ask me what - maybe just a real or perceived need to delay discovery of the body) then it might be in her interest to represent the locking of the door as normal and not as an indicator of anything terrible or worrying. This would be useful in reducing the alarm-bell quotient of the locked door thus explaining the complacency she and Raffaele are supposed to have displayed in not calling the cops earlier etc. or just not being worried about the door being locked.

 

[Dan O.]

then it might be in her interest to represent the locking of the door as normal and not as an indicator of anything terrible or worrying.

So they surely wouldn't have told the police: "the problem is that there's that locked door".

 

[bookworm]

Bill --

I think it is fine that you are able to have a give and take with a PGP person, on PM or otherwise. My only comment is that I find it a bit of an odd debate for someone to claim a point (such as the 6 lies), and then refuse to tell you what they are, saying you have to do your own work. Isn't it this person's debating point? If it exists, can't they just tell you?

To illustrate, imagine the current US Presidential race, with all the debates.

Candidate 1: "Candidate #2 lied about his support for XYZ."
Candidate 2: "When? That is an unfounded charge!"
Candidate 1: "Look it up yourself, and the voters too. I am not going to do the work for you."

Does this make any sense? Just saying.

Thank you. My sentiments, exactly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Harry Rag's list of lies

Because I cannot find a list of lies..... I am reconstructing it from these two sources. First Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie.)


Now from the blog I found.....

Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a sontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.

So this is the best I can do to catalog the lies PGP say Knox and Sollecito told. Thirteen of them.

To my way of thinking, there is only one, bona fide lie in there. Everything else is a result of what the police did in the Questura which the police actually bragged of doing:

They held them in isolation, not only from the outside world, but from one another precisely so that they could not know what the other had, indeed, said.

That's a very good, and acceptable police tactic when you have known Mafiosi in each room.

Mileage certainly varies when it's a couple of naive, somewhat gormless kids.

 

[Grinder]

This is from Follian I think:"Shortly afterwards, Meredith found out that the elderly banker who owned the cottage had died. 'It's really weird!' she laughed when she told her friend Sophie. 'First the cat dies, and now the landlord's dead.'

To Amy, Meredith said: 'It's spooky. Things keep dying.'

Just imagine that instead of Meredith, Amanda had laughed about the landlord dying. The PGP would make a huge deal of it similar to " she ******* bled to death.

This quote was after Meredith had complained that no one had removed the dead kitten. If it were Amanda, the PGP would make some remark about Amanda's lack of doing chores and her bad hygiene.

 

[Bill Williams]

Question: If Amanda is contesting the "calumnia" conviction (and I certainly hope she does and wins), would she have to return to Italy for any purpose? If so, would she be in danger of being arrested for anything else? If her conviction stands, what would be the long-term impact in terms of international travel, jobs, etc.? Would it keep her from working at a job that requires a background check or a security clearance, especially considering that there is no comparable crime in the U.S.? (I know the Knox case is unique, but some employers are inclined to say "the rules is the rules...").

Knox is subject to TWO calunnia charges - one is presently a conviction (vis a vis Lumumba) and the other has yet to be tried (vis a vis her claim the police hit her during interrogation).

Her parents are also subject to a calunnia charge, for repeating the "they hit me" claim. That has yet to be tried.

This could drag on for years......

 

[Bob001]

Knox is subject to TWO calunnia charges - one is presently a conviction (vis a vis Lumumba) and the other has yet to be tried (vis a vis her claim the police hit her during interrogation).
......

Does that mean that Italy could issue a warrant for her arrest? I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't honor it, but if she traveled abroad -- particularly to the UK -- could she be arrested and extradited back to Italy? It would have a pretty big impact on her life if she can never cross the U.S. border. (Also, I was surprised to note that the charge, as you correctly observe, is "calunnia." I thought it was with a "m," for "calumny." But apparently there is a distinction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calunnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumnia_(Roman_law)

 

[Bill Williams]

Does that mean that Italy could issue a warrant for her arrest? I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't honor it, but if she traveled abroad -- particularly to the UK -- could she be arrested and extradited back to Italy? It would have a pretty big impact on her life if she can never cross the U.S. border. (Also, I was surprised to note that the charge, as you correctly observe, is "calunnia." I thought it was with a "m," for "calumny." But apparently there is a distinction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calunnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumnia_(Roman_law)

I have no idea if Italy could issue a warrant. The second calunnia charge was still in process when Knox was released on 3 Oct 2011, so I am assuming there would be no legal reason in Italy to detain her if she went back. Whereas for the murder thing they kept her in custody as a flight risk, apparently the calunnia charge (outstanding) is not considered so serious that someone could not be released, on a "promise to appear". Then again, that is only a guess..... I am not a lawyer, and even less an Italian lawyer.... even less an international law lawyer with how extradition plays into this.

Hellmann uses the word "calumny" in print, but I have seen it also rendered as "calunnia". I am not an Italian speaker, so that's about all the wisdom I can offer on this, too.....

 

[Dan O.]

Harry Rag - Lie 1

Because I cannot find a list of lies..... I am reconstructing it from these two sources. First Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Before one can make the claim that this is a lie that Raffaele told, one must first demonstrate that Kate Mansey's reporting is accurate.

From the Sunday Mirror article: ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
by Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007 (read from Google's cache since the article is no longer located on the Mirror's server)

Meredith, 21, who had been studying in Perugia, Italy since August, was murdered the day after a Halloween fancy dress party at the city's British-themed Merlin Pub on Wednesday.
On Thursday she posted happy snaps of herself in fancy dress on the internet and in the evening had returned home alone after watching a film at a friend's house.
But her flatmates - two Italian girls and one American - had all stayed out for the night, so the gruesome discovery wasn't made until the next day.
Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.
He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."
As Amanda, from Washington DC, stepped into house she could tell there was something terribly wrong.

The inconsistencies within this article and the details that she gets wrong makes me question Kate's reporting accuracy. This article came out on the 4th. By that time, Amanda and Raffaele had been to the police at least twice for extensive interviews and had till then been giving the police a consistent story. We get a glimpse of that story in the email Amanda wrote at 3:24 am on the 4th:

After lunch I began to play guitar with Raffale and Meredith came out of her room and went to the door. She said bye and left for the day. It was the last time I saw her alive.

After a little while of playing guitar me and Raffale went to his house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the evening and night indoors. We didn't go out.

Amanda repeats this in her trial testimony 18 months later. At a minimum, Amanda and Raffaele had a well rehearsed story so there is no reason that Raffaele would say something different in the interview with Kate. What is possible is that Kate had confused elements that Raffaele was saying and mixed part of what Raffaele was doing on the 31st into her story for the 1st.

On Lie #1, the PGP have not made their case.

 

[komponisto]

What calunnia is and isn't

Does that mean that Italy could issue a warrant for her arrest? I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't honor it, but if she traveled abroad -- particularly to the UK -- could she be arrested and extradited back to Italy? It would have a pretty big impact on her life if she can never cross the U.S. border. (Also, I was surprised to note that the charge, as you correctly observe, is "calunnia." I thought it was with a "m," for "calumny." But apparently there is a distinction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calunnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumnia_(Roman_law))

Calumnia is a Latin word, not a (modern) Italian one. The Italian is calunnia. Both, of course, mean "calumny". But Amanda Knox is being prosecuted under the laws of the modern Italian Republic, not the ancient Roman Empire.

Knox is subject to TWO calunnia charges - one is presently a conviction (vis a vis Lumumba) and the other has yet to be tried (vis a vis her claim the police hit her during interrogation).

Her parents are also subject to a calunnia charge, for repeating the "they hit me" claim. That has yet to be tried.

No, this is wrong. The only calunnia charge is the Lumumba one. The others are charges of diffamazione (defamation), which is a distinct offense. The confusion is caused by the fact that both terms have been translated as "slander" in English-language media. But they are different: calunnia is falsely accusing someone of a crime in an official legal context, as in Amanda's signed statements regarding Lumumba (so it is like "filing a false police report which accuses someone of a crime"); whereas diffamazione is more like libel or slander as we would normally understand it: saying something bad (but false) about somebody to harm their reputation (but not necessarily to get them arrested for a crime).

 

[Kaosium]

Although the PGP hasn't said it, I think one of the statement that they see as a "lie" is Filomena's and Knox's disagreement on whether or not Meredith habitually locked her door.

You have to agree that this point fits neither of the scenarios ("sources") you think the PGP is operating from? N'est pas?

It may be, Some Alibi and The Machine went through everything related to the case and came up with as many 'lies' as they could. Some of them are in Massei, in the 'Inconsistencies and Denials in Amanda Knox's Tale' section from page 77-91 in the PMF translation of Massei. I see Grinder got most of them, I'll fill them out for you, summarizing them with citations.

First is the time they ate dinner, Amanda recalls it being later than it (probably) was, which suggests to Massei she is 'lying' to give her an alibi later into the evening than it was.¹ The 'proof' of this 'lie' is Curatolo's testimony, Raffaele mentioning they were washing dishes, and of course that the computer Raffaele was using was wiped after ~9:10 PM. (9:26) Whether Amanda was mistaken about this or not, her 'story' doesn't actually give an alibi for the prosecuted ToD of 11:45 anyway, it's a pretty desperate attempt. She was off by an hour or two about when they had dinner on a night she spent smoking hash, watching movies and cuddling. Actually I personally would be more suspicious of the two if everything matched precisely after an evening spent like that.


The second, somewhat related, is that they slept in and stayed at Raffaele's until morning.² This is 'contradicted' by the computer records showing the music being played ~5:32 and Raffaele receiving his father's text ~6:00 AM. Of course Quintavalle's testimony also contradicts this, having Amanda lurking amidst his bleach, presumably eying it hungrily. Quintavalle running only second to Curatolo amongst 'witnesses' whose testimony is both dubious and discredited, but the prosecution used them anyway, in part probably to be able to say 'she was lying about her alibi!'

Amanda did testify on the stand that she slept to about 10 AM, however that doesn't preclude Raffaele from getting up at 5:30, playing some music for a while, getting his father's message and then going back to sleep. Or even Amanda getting up to go to the bathroom or something, playing music, perhaps they both woke up and did some more snuggling and went back to sleep and Amanda forgot about it, or just didn't mention it.

Another previously mentioned was what Amanda said about the door being locked, which prosecutors tried to twist to suggest Raffaele and Amanda were trying to 'delay' the finding of the body, a very strange contention being as they called Raffaele's sister, Amanda's mom, Filomena and eventually the police, invited the Postal police in even though they were just there to return the phones and the Carabinieri Raffaele had called hadn't arrived. They even tried to break down the door.

One piece of information you don't get from Massei is that the prosecution's case included the contention that Raffaele had called the Carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived. However during the last days of the (original) trial the defense conclusively proved by cross-referencing the CCTV cameras with the cell phone records that Raffaele had called the Carabinieri before the Postal Police arrived. A healthy dollup of common sense ought to have told them that as well, considering the backdrop of what else they were doing, but that seems to be in short supply in Perugia. As such much of the prosecution's 'hypothesizing' about the events of the morning of the discovery are entirely in that context in Massei, and with it being proven wrong most of their other distortions of that behavior ought to be put back into the proper context.


Everything is 'twisted' in an attempt to pretend that Amanda and Raffaele for some reason were attempting to delay discovery of Meredith's body, waiting away from the door, Amanda not rushing in like she was a ten year-old boy hoping to see some of the gore that resulted from the death of her friend. This was all considered 'proof' of her being involved by the prosecution at the trial. The remnants of that are reflected in Massei, ³ from which the 'lie' about the door being locked from Amanda was mined.⁴
Another one that has been brought up in the past, last time I recall it was Bolint, that's in Massei (and thus 'documented') is what Amanda told Raffaele--who in turn told Monica Napoleoni--about the dump in Laura and Filomena's bathroom. Monica Napoleoni testified⁵ that Raffaele told her that Amanda had said she failed to the see the dump in the toilet when she returned to the cottage. The dump was of course there and intact, thus that information was untrue. Some have tried to speculate on what a guilty Amanda may have been trying to 'hide' by 'lying' about not seeing it, but my guess is either her second glance was at a deceptive angle (Dan-O has posted some really cool pics on how this can happen with that toilet) or the dump sunk down into where it drains and thus was hidden from view when she looked again.

The next one comes mostly from court, but is also reflected obliquely in Massei⁶ and is also part of the failed prosecution attempt to 'prove' Amanda had foreknowledge at the scene, this time the 'evidence' comes from she was talking on the phone to her mother. The drama for this one mostly happened in court, as Comodi stood up and asked Amanda about a call she'd made to her mother at 12:47 PM on November second, the morning of the discovery. However she phrased it as such that she asked about a call at 'noon' which didn't actually exist, but was in reference to that call Amanda had made to her mother 'before anything else had happened.' Comodi also made a mistake 9in court) in figuring the time difference, and suggested it would have been ~3:47 AM in Seattle when it happened, an unusual time to call about something if it was 'before anything had happened.'

Amanda claimed in court she didn't remember the call, which in this case could also be explained by the fact that the 'call' Comodi referred to didn't actually exist, there was no call at 'noon' that day between Amanda and her mother, the call being referred to is the 12:47 call. However if I recall correctly, that entirety of that recorded prison conversation suggests Amanda simply doesn't recall that specific call, whether it was at noon or 12:47, she called her mother, Raffaele, Meredith and Filomena several times that afternoon, and making that unique call just doesn't register in her memory of that morning, she had a lot going on at the time and that call only lasted 88 seconds and she'd talk again to her mother about a half-hour later and they might well have munged together in her memory.

There is one lie (of omission at least) that I know of and I even believe Monica Napoleoni about it, it might be one of the few actually truthful things she said when she testified about the interrogation. She says she berated Amanda for not telling police that she and Raffaele were smoking hash the night of the murder. Being as Raffaele by his own admission went into the interview stoned on the night of the Fifth, I find it quite believable the cops would soon figure that out during the interrogation, and Monica's 'story' has her confronting Amanda about it (and her shameless public cuddling and exercises) directly after Raffaele 'drops' Amanda's alibi.

My suspicion is that most of these so called lies are, in fact, Knox continually stating on six occasions, matter of factly, "Oh, I was at Raffaele's all night." If one assumes guilt, then they've caught her in a lie.

That pretty much sums it up, basically the prosecution had no real evidence so they had to manufacture some from statements that appear to conflict with other 'evidence'--in some cases that being the testimonies of Curatolo and Quintavalle. So they went through and parsed everything she said and did and tried to twist it to appear to be untrue, or it it was untrue then it was 'evidence' of guilt and not just a mistake or misunderstanding which is inherent to all human endeavors. In order to make them relevant they try to make them 'about' more than they are, so it can be said 'She lied about her alibi! There's documented proof she lied about when they had dinner so she could pretend they were at Raffaele longer than they were!'

Or about their 'alibi' for the 'clean-up.' There wasn't actually a clean up, (almost) nothing appears to have been disturbed, there's not of the effects one would expect of a clean-up up scene (like things actually being clean-up for instance!) or the residue as such, but since Quintavalle 'came forward' after a year's urging by a local journalist for the paper which also 'found' Curatolo and Nara, and they needed to imply a clean up for their theory even though forensics strongly suggested there wasn't one, they can 'backdoor' it with accusations such as 'she lied about her alibi for the clean-up'--thus that and the lamp proves there was a clean-up!'

A variation of this is that it was only late in the game when Raffaele would return to the original alibi, ie. that they were together all night. Raffaele was not exactly speedy at abandoning the "well, if i were asleep, then of course she could have been gone...." meme.

But I am still holding out for the outright "lies". One's that do not presuppose guilt, but rather the lies themselves make one (like Mignini) genuinely suspicious without actualy suspicion of guilt. I hope I've phrased that all right to get the meaning through.

This is basically where they come from, there's others which I couldn't find the citations for. One of which was apparently during one of the phone calls the morning of the discovery Amanda said something that suggested she had to 'go and get Raffaele.' Apparently that occurred at a time she was was at Raffaele's or somesuch, and the tower that (usually) connects from Raffaele's (at night) didn't relay the signal, but another tower that serves the cottage as well did. This suggested to some, if I recall correctly, that Amanda had 'lied' about being at Raffaele's when she made that call--or something like that--suggesting duplicity the morning of the discovery.

As I recall it's merely a factual error on the part of Massei that the call couldn't have gone through that tower during the day, elsewhere in the Report he uses it to 'prove' something about the whereabouts of Meredith's phone. Or Amanda simply meant she had to go to another room (or part of the grounds) to get Raffaele. I forget how this one all worked out, and I found some reference to it, but not the text from Massei. Perhaps this one was something PMF came up with on their own, I don't recall the genesis. Hopefully someone else can clarify what it was.

I'm still taken with Harry Rag's listing of 13 lies - and 11 of them are lies he attributes to Sollecito!

I it still a mystery to me why PGP resist listing these, yet still claim them as basic to the reason they hate Knox.

Because Amanda is responsible for all the evil of Raffaele too! Raffaele is a mindless minion of 'Foxy Knoxy' in the minds of some, a besotted sot seduced by her wiles to do her every bidding!

¹

In the course of her witness examination she indicated that they had dinner around 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm; then she put the time further out, at about 23:00 pm. But this claim is contradicted by the declarations made by Francesco Sollecito. He, as noted, stated that he spoke with his son on the phone at 20:42 pm (phone records corroborate his statement), who told him "he was with Amanda" (p. 16, hearing of June 19, 2009). Indeed, later on, around midnight of that "November 1", knowing that he was with this girl, he limited himself to just sending him a text message (p. 19, hearing cited above).

Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink.

Therefore, the statements by Amanda Knox in which the hour of dinner is postponed until 10 pm or even 11 pm constitute an attempt to reduce insofar as possible the length of time devoid of activity that could be documented in some way, during the final hours of November 1, 2007, thus creating an alibi that could put her and Raffaele away from the Via della Pergola house where, precisely during that time, the murder of Meredith Kercher was being perpetrated.

²

Raffaele Sollecito's computer appears to have been activated in order to listen to music at 5:32 am on November 2 for a period of about half an hour (as discussed in more detail in the part devoted to this aspect) after which he switched on his mobile phone again and he could receive, at precisely 6:02 am, the SMS sent to him by his father at 23:14 pm on November 1 (also on this issue we will return in the [74] section dedicated to the cellular telephone traffic by Raffaele Sollecito): these circumstances, while they indicate the peculiarity of that night due to something very unusual happening in it, it does not seem possible that they may have escaped from Amanda Knox’s attention, who instead makes no mention of them, and she claims her waking up was at 10:00 am in Raffaele’s arms as already mentioned.

Such activation on the computer and the switching on of the phone that took place between 5:00 and 6:00 am on November 2, were also followed by the call at 9:30 am to Raffaele Sollecito by his father who, knowing that his son on November 2nd had plans for a trip to Gubbio along with Amanda, had called to see if they had left, he understood by how his son answered that he was still in bed. Well, even about this call, and the response to the same by Raffaele, Amanda gave no word, sticking to tell about a long sleep since the evening of November 1st till 10:00-10:30 am of Nov 2nd when, after leaving the house in Corso Garibaldi she went to her own house in Via della Pergola.

³

This last circumstance, downplayed by Amanda, who said that even when she went to the bathroom for a shower Meredith always locked the door to her room (see declarations of Marco Zaroli, page 180, hearing of February 6, 2009 and declarations of Luca Altieri, page 218, hearing of February 6, 2009), had alarmed Ms. Romanelli more. She said she was aware of only once, when she had returned to England and had been away for a few days, that Meredith had locked the door of her room. (This circumstance was confirmed by Laura Mezzetti, page 6, hearing of February 14, 2009).

It was in this context, full of anxiety and concern, that the decision was made by the four young people – Filomena Romanelli, Paola Grande, Luca Altieri, and Marco Zaroli - to break down the door of the room of Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher.

Nevertheless, with regard to this specific aspect – the locked door and the decision to break it down – some - to say the least - contradictory elements had emerged: Amanda, as has already been reported, had stated that Meredith always locked the door to her room and therefore it was normal that it was locked; Raffaele Sollecito had tried to break down the door with a kick, thus putting in action behaviour which contradicted the normality of the locked door claimed by Amanda; strangely, however, he had not persisted in his effort to break down the door, which had suffered only a scratch, and notwithstanding that he had not been able to offer genuine resistance to a greater and effective determination – as is evidenced by the fact that Luca Altieri, a little later, had been able to force it with a kick and a blow from his shoulder – he had not tried again to force the door.

⁴

This locked door in Meredith’s bedroom was also discussed by the young people who came to the house around 13:00 pm. Marco Zaroli, at the time Romanelli’s boyfriend, arrived with Luca Altieri, the boyfriend of Paola Grande. In the same hearing on February 6, 2009, he declared: ‚I believe it was one of the officers of the postal police that said there was a locked room and Amanda said however that Meredith was in the habit of locking the bedroom even to go to the shower and this reassured us‛. The same Zaroli has stated that it was Luca Altieri who asked about the door and the response about the normality of it being locked he got it from Amanda and we were reassured (p.181).

Luca Altieri also stated that when they arrived they saw the room of Romanelli in a mess and then Meredith's room locked with a key. They asked if this was normal and Raffaele, "translating Amanda’s answer told me that she usually locks the door even when she goes into the bathroom to take a shower ... so there was no concern arising about the fact that the door was locked‛ (p. 218, hearing on February 6, 2009, see also statements of Paola Grande, p. 254).

[86] The reassuring answers given by Amanda and Raffaele, which strongly clash with the panic that Amanda writes about in the e-mail of November 4, 2007 and also with the kick Raffaele Sollecito is alleged to have given to that door (on this point see also Luca Altieri’s statement, page 219, hearing on February 6, 2009).

The conduct of Filomena Romanelli when she came back to the house, saw the situation and learned that Meredith's door was locked was very different. Romanelli

⁵

To a related question put forward by the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, she confirmed the information content of November 5 in relation to which, upon arrival at the house in Via della Pergola on November 2, Raffaele Sollecito had told her: "My girlfriend has now remembered and told me that when she went into the bathroom this morning by herself there were feces in the toilet and that when we returned to the house it was no longer there‛ (page 22, hearing of February 28, 2009).

⁶

The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room; on this point, some parts of the [prison] conversation between Amanda and her mother and wiretapped are rather telling:

M. "You called me one time saying<‛
A: ‚I was in shock you know‛
M: "But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was<‛ (RIT 397/08, of November 10, 2007).

The mother, who says to Amanda that at the time nothing had happened, demonstrates a significant contradiction in this sequence of events, of which the daughter would have progressive knowledge.

This conversation [the first call] between mother and daughter was not intercepted. The first call, to U.S. phone user 00120069326457, was made at 12:47 pm on November 2 and corroborated by analyzing the telephone traffic of Amanda Knox’s cellphone. However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known.

⁷

The day of 2.11.07

− 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)

− 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)

− 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector3)

− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)

− 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)

− 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (good for Corso Garibaldi 30)

− 12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7 (the cell used is that on Piazza Lupattelli sector 7. As mentioned, Raffaele also used the same cell when he called the service centre at 12:35 hours to recharge [the credit of] his mobile phone)

− 12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number 00120069326457, using the cell on Piazza Lupatetlli sector 7; the phone call takes place prior to the one which, at 12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito will make to ‚112‛, connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1, which gives coverage to Via della Pergola 7)
− 13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage, where by this point, several minutes earlier, the Postal Police had shown up, represented by Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi, who were engaged in the task of tracking down Filomena Romanelli, who was the owner of the Vodafone phonecard contained in the mobile phone found earlier in the garden of the villa on Via Sperandio

− 13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350, still using the cell at Piazza Lupattelli sector 7.

− 13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call] from No. 075/54247561 (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)

− 13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother’s number

− 13:50:06 (350 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350 by using the Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell

− 14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty Craft

− 15:31:51 (1 second): Amanda receives an SMS sent from the number 389/1531078; at this point the cell being used is the one on Via Cappuccinelli 5/A sector 2, where the Questura [police headquarters] is located.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, this is wrong. The only calunnia charge is the Lumumba one. The others are charges of diffamazione (defamation), which is a distinct offense. The confusion is caused by the fact that both terms have been translated as "slander" in English-language media. But they are different: calunnia is falsely accusing someone of a crime in an official legal context, as in Amanda's signed statements regarding Lumumba (so it is like "filing a false police report which accuses someone of a crime"); whereas diffamazione is more like libel or slander as we would normally understand it: saying something bad (but false) about somebody to harm their reputation (but not necessarily to get them arrested for a crime).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox was framed

Kaosium - thank you for the detail.

Wow.

I think what is operative here is the subtle distinction between:

1) assuming they are guilty, and then seeing the variation of what they say (even when they actually don't vary that much) as a lie - because of course they'd lie to hide their guilt, and:

2) starting with being agnostic about guilt, and seeing which way all the various statements and activities Raffaele and Knox engaged in pushes one's thoughts.

I am told by some PGP that the reason they think of Knox as guilty is, "all the lies she told." Yet this becomes yet another of those whack-a-moles.... it doesn't matter that you can show that Lie #1 is actually a misreport on the 4th of Nov, by a British journalist who herself is struggling with the fog-of-war..... because the person claiming Knox's lies as a sign of guilt can then move to Lie #2. And so on, and so on.

I think I'm not up to 15 "lies" PGP say that Knox was supposed to have told. So it's a fairly complex game of whack a mole.

When the sum total is put together, I see neither Knox nor Sollecito as any more mature or immature (under extraordinary conditions!) than any of the other 20-somethings caught up in this. Laura, Robin, Filmena.... Amanda, no one comes across looking partcularly savvy.

The point, for me, returns to Mignini entering the interrogation room after 1:45 am for the second formal interrogation (The first being called "formal" in the sense that it concludes with the 1:45 am memorandum signed by Knox).

I think Mignini was convinced there was a lot of smoke - but not nearly the kind of fire that Harry Rag would later put together with his (bogus) list. But the "big lie" before him, was Knox suddenly saying she knew who did it. "Why didn't she say this the first day? She must be holding out on more than she's telling, even if the only thing she's letting on about is Patrick."

And thus the, "She knows more than she's telling," meme is born, and some PGP talk about that to this day, again without being terribly spefici as to why. Like the reluctance to list the lies.

Because still, the crux of the matter for what turns someone like me into a PGP or an innocentatii.... is what does one think about Knox's so-called "spontaneous" statement about Lumumba?

That was very much on the mind of Mignini, as the guy who was going to have to prosecute this. He knew that on the basis of Memorandum #1, he did not have a hope.

He was going to have to "begin again" hoping that Knox would (in his way of seeing it) make the same "spontaneous" statement, again. And make it BEFORE she needed a lawyer, even though by the letter of the law she needed one now... because "spontaneity" does not require the presence of a lawyer....

..... meaning, if I walk into a police station, and blurt out, "I just robbed a bank!" there is no judicial expectation that I needed to have been read my rights, or have a lawyer present. That's the very difference between "spontaneity" and "coersion".

So how does Mignini wangle this so that in this, the second interrogation, he can "by silence, and not asking questions, get her to, in effect, get her to walk in (again) and blurt it out?"

It is why Mignini in his CNN interview trots out the ******** about him, "acting as if a notary." The way I imagine it, based on Mignini's bogus account, is that they sat there in silence, mainly having Knox go, "What?" for a couple of hours.

Knox, for a couple of hours, sings a few verses of "Let it Be," does a few more cartwheels, because (Mignini would have us believe) no one is directing this other than Amanda. She blurts out random things ("All you need is love!") and wonders why no one is asking her questions (as Mignini told CNN he did not do - for 4 hours! he did not ask any questions).

At hour 2 1/2, Knox is supposed to have figured out, spontaneously, the reason for all this silence, with the interrogators standing around looking at their shoes, whistling with their hands in their pockets.

"Oh, I get it.... you need me to repeat what I told the bunch after they dragged me in from the hall. I get it, you can't ask, because I have to say it spontaneously....."

Mignini pinches his nose and points at her, like you do when playing charades....

"Why didn't you say so!" Knox asks, and then she repeats, this time equally as spontaneous as the last, her imaginings about Lumumba.

All the interrogators breathe a sigh of relief, because they've not been allowed to ask a single question or slap her on the back of the head, because you need a lawyer present for that, and you need to videotape such things.

But not spontaneous, blurtings - like walking into the cop shop and blurting out, "I robbed a bank!"

Ya, right. That's what Mignini says, Monty Pythonish, happened for four hours.

Where do "all the lies" fit into all this? I think the very nature of even the worst of the lie-claims made by the most serious of PGP (Harry Rag would certainly qualify!), is not enough, really, for Mignini or anyone else to pull Knox in - regardless of whether a stoned-out Raffaele in the next room seemed not to be supporting her "alibi".

Yes there is smoke, but smoke was coming from ALL the pre-Nov 5 participants in this soap opera. (Please note, I do not regard the actual murder to be part of the soap opera, but that I mean the keystone-cop way that Knox got into ANYONE's sights.)

If "all the lies" was the smoke.... then there was not much of a fire.

I think this shows how Mignini was actually, actively framing Knox for other reasons.... other than the so called "lies". I'll leave it to others better versed in the man than me to fill in this rather large blank.

But, no doubt about it. Knox was framed.