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

[Dan O.]

Wait a minute! This latter "B." is not Stefano. It's the black "friend" of Rudy who was dropped as a witness because of discussing money with journalists for his story.

Thanks, that makes more sense. I was including the last bit because there might be some that question why Stefano was called to two hearings. This leaves open then the date of Stefano's hearing. Is there another source that might provide this?

Also, do we have the full name of this B character?

But she knew him.
And her bugged conversation with her father suggests that she did know his name before it became knews.

Amanda says in her own testimony that she was introduced by name

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together. ​

But when did she learn that the police were looking for Rudy? We should look into this claim. What is the date and time of this bugged conversation, where is the transcript? When did the police first report that they were looking for a 4th suspect? When did the police identify the name of the 4th suspect? And when and where was this information reported?

 

[Dan O.]

We don't know if they knew that the phone number was Lumumba's.

We know that they should have known. But there is always the possibility that they are totally incompetent.

 

[Dan O.]

So they can't talk to each other?

I thought they did talk on the phone at least once. But I have no intention of keeping tabs on their personal lives.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We don't know if they knew that the phone number was Lumumba's.

I realise that those guys were a bit like the Keystone Kops, and it would indeed be hilarious if it did turn out that they hadn't even bothered to look up the number before they started interrogating their suspect about the message, but that seems extraordinarily incompetent even for the Perugian police.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for reposting Yummi's work. Those, indeed, are the 43 points on the PGP merry-go-round, and is actually a very good summary of what the PGP mean by, "All the other evidence."

When I dove into this in Oct 2011, that kind of list was bewildering. It certainly fell into the category of "where's there's smoke, there's fire."

...

I am not the author of the list. I am the author of only the first paragraph which appears as introduction within quotes. The paragraph has been copied and used as introduction by the author of the list.

 

[Antony]

It works the other way around, too. Innocentists here initially predicted that he would surely fly over to the US, etc..
Of late they say how natural it is that he does not fly.

My stance is that it is very strange of two "absolutely innocent and unjustly jailed" people that they did not talk a single time since their release.

That's absolutely pathetic. If there was the slightest genuine evidence that they were involved in any way then you wouldn't need to be dredging up a tenuous talking point like this.

 

[Grinder]

I am not the author of the list. I am the author of only the first paragraph which appears as introduction within quotes. The paragraph has been copied and used as introduction by the author of the list.

You've been missing for most of the time between the Hellmann verdict and the filing of the prosecution's appeal. Will you now have time until the Corte Suprema di Cassazione decides whether to hear the appeal or not?

There have been statements made that an independent expert can not be brought in for the appeal trial. If this is true, can you explain how that aids the seeking of truth? Also, why did the prosecution request yet another expert be brought in if it is not legal?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I am not the author of the list. I am the author of only the first paragraph which appears as introduction within quotes. The paragraph has been copied and used as introduction by the author of the list.

Oh, OK, I understand. Do you agree with the points enumerated there?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

More DNA forensic resources on touch DNA

Link here. Mehul Anjaria has previously written two articles on the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

 

[Malkmus]

Thanks, that makes more sense. I was including the last bit because there might be some that question why Stefano was called to two hearings. This leaves open then the date of Stefano's hearing. Is there another source that might provide this?

Also, do we have the full name of this B character?





Amanda says in her own testimony that she was introduced by name

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together. ​

But when did she learn that the police were looking for Rudy? We should look into this claim. What is the date and time of this bugged conversation, where is the transcript? When did the police first report that they were looking for a 4th suspect? When did the police identify the name of the 4th suspect? And when and where was this information reported?

In that same conversation she tells her father that she had just had a meeting with Ghirga who wanted to know the extent to which she knew Rudy. I highly doubt that conversation took place without mentioning him by name. And as you point out, it wasn't a new name to her. Had she forgotten it between meeting him and the interrogation of the 5th? Likely.

 

[Rolfe]

That's absolutely pathetic. If there was the slightest genuine evidence that they were involved in any way then you wouldn't need to be dredging up a tenuous talking point like this.

That's exactly why I'm bored senseless by most of this, and why I made the homoeopathy comparison. It's all "well this looks a bit suspicious", and "would an innocent person have said that?"

Someone remarked that there was actually nothing Knox and Sollecito could have done that would not be interpreted as indicating guilt. Look at the pictures - don't look at the pictures. Go visit each other - stay away from each other. And so on. Same with homoeopathy. No matter what happens to the patient, it's always because the remedy is having some effect! That, and trawling back through long-discredited papers using faulty methodology or bad statistics.

There's nothing that can't be explained by the students having spent the night at Sollecito's flat, and Rudy Guede, surprised in the cottage by Meredith's unexpected return, having killed her all by himself. Protestations to the contrary are now on a par with "But Kleijnen 1991! But Linde et al 1997! But Spence 2005!" Yes. We've read them. They've been debunked all over the internet, by experts. They are trash.

Give it up, why don't you guys?

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

A poster at Websleuths has quoted PMF as a rebuttal to those who believe the prosecution's appeal of Hellmann is flimsy, and it is dismaying indeed to see these same old thread-bare assertions dragged out from their mothballs once more:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159603&page=6
__________________

Most of this is just noise and a good bit of it wrong. That's all they have, repeating tired, worn out, disputed, and shown to be incorrect information, some of it is just rumor without any proof behind it and one would have to have been blind to still believe most of this junk.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Basically, everything is back where it started from:

Weighing The Ten Points On Which The Umbria Chief Prosecutor’s Supreme Court Appeal Is Based

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Murdoch]

Thanks, that makes more sense. I was including the last bit because there might be some that question why Stefano was called to two hearings. This leaves open then the date of Stefano's hearing. Is there another source that might provide this?

Also, do we have the full name of this B character?





Amanda says in her own testimony that she was introduced by name

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together. ​

But when did she learn that the police were looking for Rudy? We should look into this claim. What is the date and time of this bugged conversation, where is the transcript? When did the police first report that they were looking for a 4th suspect? When did the police identify the name of the 4th suspect? And when and where was this information reported?

It comes from pages 189/190 where he reveals the conversation Amanda had with Curt after finding out it's Rudy the police are looking for.

She first says "Ohh my God. I mean, just the idea of knowing who might have done it..... I mean I know him, I saw him before, I spoke with him a bit before.... Ohh my God!"

"Ohh my God! What a bastard!"

There's more to the conversation where imo she appears to be expressing disbelief at it all. Follain dates this conversation Nov 20.

There is something I'm troubled by. Follain seems to have had access to conversations between Raffaele and his lawyers on Page 161 when they first meet him and what was said.

He also quotes from a letter Amanda sent her lawyers on page 160.

This begs the question, were they illegally taping conversations between lawyer and client???

Here is what Follain says:

Brusco decided to be frank with him: "Listen Raffaele, as I see it there are three possabilites. One you killed Meredith. Two, you didn't do anything. And three, perhaps you arrived on the scene at a later stage to help Amanda and others clean up. Whichever one it is, you should tell us. And if it's number three, you'd better tell us immediately because we're going to have to move fast."

Raffaele listened in silence, his gaze fixed (were they video recording this???) steadily on his lawyer. He replied without hesitation: "No, I wasn't there that evening. And i didn't get involved afterwards"

"And Amanda? Look, let's be frank; she's in it, isn't she?" Brusco asked

"I'm interested only in my position but I dont think Amanda has anything to do with it either," Raffaele said calmly.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've been missing for most of the time between the Hellmann verdict and the filing of the prosecution's appeal. Will you now have time until the Corte Suprema di Cassazione decides whether to hear the appeal or not?

There have been statements made that an independent expert can not be brought in for the appeal trial. If this is true, can you explain how that aids the seeking of truth? Also, why did the prosecution request yet another expert be brought in if it is not legal?

I am not missing. I continue to exist. But I don't live to discuss this case on boards.
There is no such thing as an "independent" expert. You better cancel the concept of "independent expert" from your mind because it does not belong to the law.
The law does not prevent the admission of new evidence on appeal in the absolute, but requires the filing of specific motivations for the admission (motivations that Hellmann's court failed to provide). Motivations that must have some requirements. New evidence can be introduced only if a specific requirement is acknowledged.
The evidence introduced is not called "call an independent expert", it is called "introducing new evidence", which implies that whatever the evidence is - might well be a new expert's opinion - this will not be considered like anything "independent", it will be instead be just new evidence taking the shape of a point on some of the parties, and it cannot just be allowed to be there as a "third" thing, a conclusive opinion on others opinions to solve the issues. Instead if introduction of new evidence is opened, the evidence must be of symmetrical kind. Means any party has a right to "reply" presenting their own evidence and this means the evidence must be introduced simmetrically, as an opportunity for all the parties to reply. So if the defence demands new evidence on item X and Y, and this evidence is deemed necessary with legitimate motivations, then the accusation parties will have to be allowed to introduce evidence on points X and Y as well.

To me it is obvious that the C&V does not serve at all purposes of seeking the truth, since does not add absolutely anything to the altready known facts. All findings and opinions of C&V report were already known and had already been submitted by the defense in the first trial. Just for this it's obvious the appointing of new experts was illegitimate.

No, I will not discuss on this board.

 

[Dan O.]

In that same conversation she tells her father that she had just had a meeting with Ghirga who wanted to know the extent to which she knew Rudy. I highly doubt that conversation took place without mentioning him by name. And as you point out, it wasn't a new name to her. Had she forgotten it between meeting him and the interrogation of the 5th? Likely.

Was this the November 17th visit by Amanda's parents then? I haven't seen that full transcript yet. Rudy was positively identified by the police on November 16th so the timing would fit.

A portion of that transcript can be found here. A sample of what the papers were quoting what the police claimed was said can be found here. A skeptic should look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

 

[Malkmus]

Was this the November 17th visit by Amanda's parents then? I haven't seen that full transcript yet. Rudy was positively identified by the police on November 16th so the timing would fit.

A portion of that transcript can be found here. A sample of what the papers were quoting what the police claimed was said can be found here. A skeptic should look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

No, I'm referring to the Nov. 20th conversation which is what Bolint was referring to, between Curt and Amanda.

 

[Bill Williams]

It comes from pages 189/190 where he reveals the conversation Amanda had with Curt after finding out it's Rudy the police are looking for.

She first says "Ohh my God. I mean, just the idea of knowing who might have done it..... I mean I know him, I saw him before, I spoke with him a bit before.... Ohh my God!"

"Ohh my God! What a bastard!"

There's more to the conversation where imo she appears to be expressing disbelief at it all. Follain dates this conversation Nov 20.

There is something I'm troubled by. Follain seems to have had access to conversations between Raffaele and his lawyers on Page 161 when they first meet him and what was said.

He also quotes from a letter Amanda sent her lawyers on page 160.

This begs the question, were they illegally taping conversations between lawyer and client???

Here is what Follain says:

Brusco decided to be frank with him: "Listen Raffaele, as I see it there are three possabilites. One you killed Meredith. Two, you didn't do anything. And three, perhaps you arrived on the scene at a later stage to help Amanda and others clean up. Whichever one it is, you should tell us. And if it's number three, you'd better tell us immediately because we're going to have to move fast."

Raffaele listened in silence, his gaze fixed (were they video recording this???) steadily on his lawyer. He replied without hesitation: "No, I wasn't there that evening. And i didn't get involved afterwards"

"And Amanda? Look, let's be frank; she's in it, isn't she?" Brusco asked

"I'm interested only in my position but I dont think Amanda has anything to do with it either," Raffaele said calmly.

If Follain is at all on to something, and if Follain is the PGP go to book on this, how can ANY PGP maintain the lie-told-about-Knox-and-Sollecito that they were lying? Changing their stories to suit the eivdence?

They only had TWO stories. And with TWO changes to their stories that means, by definition, that the second change was a change BACK to their first story which theymaintain to this day. "We were together at Raffaele's all evening."

I cannot understand for the life of me why PGP maintain "all the lies" as their reason for thinking Sollecito and Knox guilty. There are none. Ok, maybe one, but it looks like the reason for THAT one was as Knox said!

I don't get it. I really don't get it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Wait a minute! This latter "B." is not Stefano. It's the black "friend" of Rudy who was dropped as a witness because of discussing money with journalists for his story.

Thanks, that makes more sense. I was including the last bit because there might be some that question why Stefano was called to two hearings. This leaves open then the date of Stefano's hearing. Is there another source that might provide this?

Also, do we have the full name of this B character?<snip>

Hey Dan O.,
I believe the guys name is Abukar Mohamed Barrow.

I had this article saved:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-trial-Rudy-Guede-was-violent-to-women.html

A coupla quotes from it:
"Judge Paolo Micheli admitted several new pieces of evidence, including the testimony of a young Somali man who used to play basketball with Guede on a court near the rented house that Miss Kercher shared with Knox."

"In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.

“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press."

See ya,
RW

 

[RandyN]

Follain always seems to have more information then anyone should really have.

Yet how did this reporter tell the story about Mignini charging Knoxs parents for things said in an interview he was conducting? This was a clear attack on a free press by a prosecutor already charged for abuse of office.

Did Follain ever tell that story?