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

[Grinder]

Meredith, from Croydon, South London, and her friends met the next day before going to bed early at 9pm when she walked home alone. Police believe she was stabbed with a penknife sometime after 10pm.

This is from the same time frame as the Mansey story also in the Mirror.

Tron do you think the police were lying about the time and the weapon. Isn't this more disturbing than Raf mixing up dates?

The police were looking for a pen knife but found a rather larger kitchen knife. They had the about same TOD that I have.

 

[anglolawyer]

OK straight off I am deducting marks for mixing irony with straight answers. One or the other please but not both in the same post! Turning to the detail ...

Leave the text to one side for a second and answer this: why does the content of the message disappear from her 5.45 version of events?

As you can clearly see, the content is still there at 5:45 recorded on paper in the earlier statement. If they were intent on getting rid of the message, leaving evidence of it in a printed statement that they typed up themselves is quite sloppy.

Yes, I do see that. My thinking was that the 1.45 version was going to be replaced with the 5.45 but that something happened (I don't know what but Kaosium has suggested it was the memoriale) which made them change plans and use both docs.

Can you try to answer again, but this time taking account of the fact she gave two completely different stories?

Notice that not only have the content of his message and the context of the exchange disappeared but so has Patrick's message itself. I assert this is because his message cut across the theory they had formed before the night began and had to go. What do you think?

I think the 5:45 statement is far too short for what was supposed to be a spontaneous statement that began at 3:30. But the, maybe Amanda was too busy sipping tea and munching on biscuits to do much talking.

Yellow card (that's a warning)

They 'lost' recordings of exculpatory telephone calls and CCTV footage along Corso Garibaldi has never emerged.

Now, that is outright wrong. The police did collect the CCTV footage and reviewed it and released a statement that nothing usefull could be discovered in the footage. They of course had already erased it by the very next day when Raffaele's defense team asked for copies.

What date was 'the very next day'? I didn't know this. Interesting.

There are many outs.

They are never reluctant to use their outs which usually involve bringing in an outside expert to write up a multi page document with pictures and all explaining how these things could happen and topping it off by completing the task of destroying the evedence that the ILE started. But they didn't do that this time. We,ll see though. There is nothing preventing Amanda from disclosing the truth in her book.

I used to think so too but now I am not so sure. She may not be able to remember. I have myself deleted texts from my phone but I cannot recall any single instance of doing so nor what was deleted. She may still be able to recall which message she meant in her call to Edda of 10 Nov.

But we know they did see it. It's faithfully recorded in the 1.45 document.

A statement by Amanda of what she claimed was the message does not constitute a faithfully recording. We don't even get that for her reply until the November 7th indictment.

'Indictment'? Was she sent before the Grand Jury? Never mind. Let me put things this way. A tape of the interrogation has reached me this afternoon and it turns out I'm wrong. She did delete the text after all. This is what it says:

Them: we know you exchanged messages with someone
Her: I don't remember
Them: give us your phone
Her: here
Them: OK - right here, it says 'see you later'
Her: No s * * t!
Them: who - sorry, to whom did you send it?
Her: no idea
Them: don't try that, you're covering for someone
Her: sorry, but I have no clue who
Them: we know who it was so there's no point lying
Her: can I see the message?
Them: here
Her: thanks - of now I remember, it was Patrick! He's bad! He's the one!
Them: Now we're getting somewhere. Where's his message?
Her: Oh that. I deleted that.
Them: no problem, what did it say?
Her: 'the bar is closed, no customers so no need to come to work tonight'
Them [anglo's doubters variation]: OK, fine we'll just write that down here right before the part where you lie to Raffaele, go out to meet Lumumba and murder Meredith, alrighty?

Them [anglo's version]: get outta here! You expect us to believe that? It said 'meet me now' didn't it? Didn't it?
Her: yes

Which version appeals to you more?

Here's another one for you (and anyone else): how did Patrick's name crop up in her interrogation? Who mentioned him first and how did that happen?

Didn't we cover that earlier, like in the original thread? Amanda broke down crying "He's bad, he's bad" or something like that. Then Amanda explains that "he", who is much older than her, is a black boy and proceeds to give the police his full legal name, address and phone number.

OK, that's a red card (means you're sent off).

 

[Bill Williams]

Tron, it would appear that L-haha got it wrong when he said Raf painted the cat on her face (we have solid proof that is not true because she had a identical cat painted on her face for Halloween when back, or was that a soccer player) so would that make guilty of major crime? I think it would.



Being misquoted when dealing with a reporter in your own language is not unusual. probably (sorry Bill) more so when both participants don't have the same first language.

Someone sent me a link to get the original story but as of yet I haven't registered at the site. If someone has that original and would send it by PM I'd be grateful. It works as I sent a few of Follians stories to people using that method.

Did she really write about correcting him in the story? How was she so sure of everything that had happened?

Read Follain, you then discover what is wrong with relying on contemporaneous newspaper articles..... newspaper is a double-edged sword....

Note to Tronic - you're actually destroying the police claim that when Raffaele was called in, he was not called in as a suspect. You're also destroying the claim that when Amanda just happened to come with him, when she was approached by Ficarra out in the hall for a second look at her phone, that Ficarra did that with the agenda that Knox was still only, "a person informed of the facts."

You see, the Perugian police probably read newspapers as well - even English language ones - and were most certainly aware of Raffaele's inability to distinguish between Wednesday and Thursday night, which is perhaps why they asked him to surrender his Nike's, even as they were still maintaining that he was only a person informed of the facts and not a suspect.

You see, the case you're making about Raffaele being confused with a Daily Mail reporter in the days' previous about Wednesday and Thursday, was not just part of the cops' belief that Amanda was involved, but that he, too, was involved. Or else why ask him to surrender his Nikes? (Mignini's warning to Ficarra et al. in Knox's interrogation room at 1:45 am, should have applied to Raffaele from the start at 11 pm on the 5th! That is, IF what you say is true.)

The only difference is - you assume guilt before assessing this evidence of Raffaele's memory. When you make that assumption as part of your confirmation bias, then everything Raffaele says is lies, and a constantly shifting story.

When looked at it through innocence - as Hellmann and the courts of Italy have confirmed, all save for the SC - it turns out that Raffaele is telling a consistent story, again all until he's in the hands of the police at interrogation - an interrogation which is not videotaped and in which no lawyer is present.

To the point though, it is YOUR scenario which puts the lie to what people like author John Follain writes: that the cops did not suspect them until "Raffaele withdrew his alibi." Because YOU are demonstrating that the cops were aware of Raffaele's memory problems - and his snotty attitude about being questioned about his memory - days before the interrogation!!!!

So who is lying? Page 134 "A Death in Italy", .... "... Napoleoni slipped out to speak to the Flying Squad chief Profazio. 'Listen, Raffaele isn't giving an alibi to Amanda any more'." This is the conversation, acc. to Follain (who wasn't there), which was the first indication to the police that they now had some proof that Amanda was up to something.

Maybe they suspected her before this, Follain sure seems to think so, but this, acc. to Follain, was the smoking gun. Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi. On page 130 Follain details Raffaele's accounting of Oct 31, which Follain acctually says is his accounting of Nov 1st, without the interference of the police - who acc. to Raffaele had refused him a calendar so that Raffaele could be clear about things.

The point being, though, you've actually demonstrated that the cops should have known and probably DID know about this days' earlier!

They then wake Mignini, because as they say, there's been a turn in the case. They now suspect Knox (acc. to the police, it was ONLY when Raffaele withdrew his alibi.) So when they went out into the hall to get Amanda, they went out to interrogate a suspect. Further - for what reason did they even think she'd gone out for a suspicious reason?

So who do you believe, Tronic?

 

[LondonJohn]

Minor correction: Mansey's piece was in the Mirror, not the Mail.

I think people may be missing another important element here: I think that Sollecito was very likely excited about a) having been caught up peripherally in a very high-profile murder, and b) having been interviewed by a newspaper reporter for a UK national title. I think Sollecito was trying to impress Mansey, and to make out that he played a bigger role in events than he actually did (e.g. the only partially-corrected suggestion that it was he and Knox who actually discovered the body). I think that in his efforts to impress and give quotable material to Mansey (probably coupled with some translation issues), he became thoroughly mistaken over what had happened on what night.

In any case, as others have already pointed out, what he said to Mansey in no way serves as any sort of evidence of his guilt. Even if he had lied to Mansey and told her that he had been playing five-a-side football with Berlusconi on the night of the murder, this would prove nothing more than that he had lied to a newspaper reporter in an effort to impress her and give her good copy.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Which version appeals to you more?

I prefer the version Amanda told herself. Why invent something else? You'll probably say she's lying about it, too.

Amanda said:

And they said "We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right." So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"​

Looks like she was the one that brought up the message first. And how do you convince a person she met someone by showing her a message saying "don't come"?

Amanda said:

Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him​

It does look like they found the reply first. So, did they or didn't they tell her they found the message from Patrick?

 

[Dan O.]

What date was 'the very next day'? I didn't know this. Interesting.

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE
[http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html]
(Google translation)

... Of little help instead 's examination of the frames of the cameras square Grimana.*

15 November 07 - Sollecito's lawyers have asked to purchase all the recordings of the cameras that are located between his house and the murder in order to prove the innocence of his client. [http://magazine.ciaopeople.com/News...ith:_niente_sangue_in_casa_di_Sollecito-1865]
:''(Gli avvocati di Sollecito hanno chiesto l'acquisizione di tutte le registrazioni delle telecamere che si trovano tra casa sua e quella dell'omicidio in modo da poter dimostrare l'innocenza del proprio assistito.)''

 

[Katody Matrass]

Dunno. Could be lots of things.

BTW, Tronic, does the crowd over there at PMF know about John Douglas's new book?

I got a signed copy and I'm in the index... page 359. Woot!

Douglas figured out what happened over there, of course. A beautiful young woman was slaughtered by a low-life burglar, and two innocent people went through hell because the cops screwed up the investigation.

If I can figure that out, John Douglas sure as hell can.

But not everyone can...

Ha ha, that's awesome! Congrats Charlie


It must be hard in the guilter camp. They're probably spinning it already as the 'supertanker', masons or mafia bought Mr. Douglas. What can they do when their 'experts' are all fake. All their pretend lawyers, a weekend course 'statement analysis' guy, misrepresented-as-a-psychologist what's her name and on top of it, running the show, a fake messiah quack who makes a living by exploiting parents of sick children...

 

[Bill Williams]

Ha ha, that's awesome! Congrats Charlie


It must be hard in the guilter camp. They're probably spinning it already as the 'supertanker', masons or mafia bought Mr. Douglas. What can they do when their 'experts' are all fake. All their pretend lawyers, a weekend course 'statement analysis' guy, misrepresented-as-a-psychologist what's her name and on top of it, running the show, a fake messiah quack who makes a living by exploiting parents of sick children...

Katody M - now THAT'S just cynical! You are making them sound like frauds!

Re: Statement Analysis - I have recently stumbled across that the RCMP do have a form of "Statement Analysis" in their investigative toolkit. But the RCMP put this into the same category as polygraphs, hypnosis, as well as perhaps hiring a psychic to develop a lead when all leads seem to have dried up.

Statement Analysis of any stripe, though, never ever leads to conclusions; at best it narrows investigative possibilities. That's all. If that. And it always takes a back seat (or is left at the side of the road) when solid forensics develops it's own leads.

 

[anglolawyer]

I prefer the version Amanda told herself. Why invent something else? You'll probably say she's lying about it, too.

Amanda said:

And they said "We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right." So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"​

Looks like she was the one that brought up the message first. And how do you convince a person she met someone by showing her a message saying "don't come"?

Amanda said:

Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him​

It does look like they found the reply first. So, did they or didn't they tell her they found the message from Patrick?

Look, I realise it must have been embarrassing posting a section of video that helped me make my argument but you could at least give proper citations, stop cherry-picking the evidence and cut the sarcasm as well. I haven't accused Amanda of lying at any time. Her evidence is confused, at best. Here she is answering Pacelli:

they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing. That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn't trying to protect anyone, and so I didn't know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele's house, which wasn't true, which denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going "Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone". And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very, very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn't understand why.

She covers the same ground in this quote as she did in yours but gives different versions. In this one, for some reason, the cops have not matched her 'see you later' message with Patrick telling her not to come to work. She was going to meet 'someone', suggesting they did not know to whom she had sent her message. We know she is covering the same ground here because the handing over of the phone is in both versions.

Notice anything strange about the part you quoted? In that section she says they ask to see Patrick's message and she says: 'sure take it'. How come she doesn't say 'I deleted the message already as I generally do'? Are you going to say she's lying now? According to you, her recollection that she deleted the message, given 18 months after she did completely disposes of the question and is to be preferred over her apparent belief in the Questura that they would still find it on the phone. How come? Kindly explain. And where is her evidence of their reaction on finding it wasn't there? Explain that too. It should be interesting.

A little further on in the section from which you quote, which came from p. 143 (thanks for not bothering to cite it):

Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did, and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him.

So, she clearly had no recollection of her own message. Let's wind back to what she told Edda (remember, on 10 Nov 2007, not a year and a half later):

what happened was that everyone had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers had said: ‘I’m the only one that can save you, I’m the only one that can save you. Just give me a name.’ And I said: ‘I don’t know!’ And then they said, I said: ‘can you show me the message that I received from Patrick? Because I don’t remember having replied to him, and so they showed me the message and then I had said: ‘Patrick’. And then I thought of Patrick, of seeing Patrick, and so I thought that I had completely lost my mind, and I imagined him um of seeing him and

There is it again, the inability to recall replying. She needs to see Patrick's message in order to remember.

You are giving far too much weight to this testimony. It is confused, contradictory and just as unreliable as I would expect such a thing to be. Therefore, it cannot be used to decide the question by itself. It certainly does not displace the strong inference arising from De Felice's statement to the press, the call to mum, the content of the two confessions and the wider context of evidence manipulation.

 

[Grinder]

I prefer the version Amanda told herself. Why invent something else? You'll probably say she's lying about it, too.

Amanda said:

And they said "We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right." So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"​

Looks like she was the one that brought up the message first. And how do you convince a person she met someone by showing her a message saying "don't come"?

Amanda said:

Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him​

It does look like they found the reply first. So, did they or didn't they tell her they found the message from Patrick?

Solid post. Now why would they ask why she didn't go to work? They would have to know that she was supposed to go that night, which they could only know from earlier questioning.

It is curious that they would know she didn't go, but didn't know why.

The police couldn't be sure be sure that the texts weren't retained by the carrier. They just weren't that sharp.

 

[Grinder]

Notice anything strange about the part you quoted? In that section she says they ask to see Patrick's message and she says: 'sure take it'. How come she doesn't say 'I deleted the message already as I generally do'? Are you going to say she's lying now? According to you, her recollection that she deleted the message, given 18 months after she did completely disposes of the question and is to be preferred over her apparent belief in the Questura that they would still find it on the phone. How come? Kindly explain. And where is her evidence of their reaction on finding it wasn't there? Explain that too. It should be interesting.

She's a little sharper than Raf. She didn't say to the cops no you can't see it because I deleted it - Neener-neener.

There is no evidence that they ever used a fake message from Patrick, It has always been the case that the message from Patrick was reported to say "don't need you for work tonight". If the initial courts were told that the message said "meet me at the plaza so you can let me in the cottage so I can do it with Meredith" then I'd believe they had deleted it and on purpose.

The reason the message wasn't part of the 5:45 is that it wasn't important, only the return message was.

ETA - taking these different quotes and making a big deal out of subtle differences when this whole thing was taking place in two languages seems weak.

I'm surprised the cops didn't fill in Follain with the details on the message. Why not asked him about it because he knows all.

 

[anglolawyer]

She's a little sharper than Raf. She didn't say to the cops no you can't see it because I deleted it - Neener-neener.

That's funny. And the serious answer would be, what?

There is no evidence that they ever used a fake message from Patrick, It has always been the case that the message from Patrick was reported to say "don't need you for work tonight". If the initial courts were told that the message said "meet me at the plaza so you can let me in the cottage so I can do it with Meredith" then I'd believe they had deleted it and on purpose.

The reason the message wasn't part of the 5:45 is that it wasn't important, only the return message was.

ETA - taking these different quotes and making a big deal out of subtle differences when this whole thing was taking place in two languages seems weak.

I'm surprised the cops didn't fill in Follain with the details on the message. Why not asked him about it because he knows all.

I think we're veering off track here. Previously, Amanda's evidence was given as the decisive answer to any claim that anyone but her deleted the post. All I am arguing is that her evidence is internally contradictory and confused and attempts to recall in detail an event of great complexity from long before. It is thus not capable of bearing any great weight. Now, you seem to have decided that because the text of the evidence KM quoted does not include a question from the cops about her working pattern, they must have known about it from earlier questioning. They might but we have no way of knowing. You are treating her testimony as a transcript of the interrogations, which it certainly is not.

I guess we disagree about the weight to be attached to various things. I assign weight to De Felice's statement at the press conference but you and KM put forward froth about it being mistranslated (having spoke to the Daily Telegraph journalist myself, I am quite sure it wasn't) while you, Grinder, scarcely get from one page to the next without bringing up the famous quote from De Felice from the same press conference.

The idea the text from Lumumba was not important is simply absurd. It was crucial. Read Matteini. It was a grave indication of guilt that helped get them locked up for a year. I assign great weight to the changes made between 1.45 and 5.45 too and note the studied avoidance of my questions about it on all sides.

 

[Grinder]

The quote from de Felice I use seemed IIRC to be widely reported. The guy you quote wasn't one that really followed the case and the only reference to messages not even Follain.

The text exchange was clearly important but you have never shown that the police used an alleged message from Patrick that varied from "no need to work tonight" so why would they erase what they then reported reasonably accurately. Matteini may have said something about closed versus slow but there is no way that was the basis for keeping them locked up.

And my part of the "froth" also says that if he said messages it could easily be a slip of the tongue. In fact, you are saying that it was a slip and an Ah-ha moment for you. Clearly as part of the message-gate conspiracy he should have known not to mention it.

He had been briefed by his men and they had told him that they had the tracking of the incoming message and the copy of the outgoing massage and he said messages, big deal. Funny that when the FOA said Amanda didn't even know Rudi that mistake is just fine but de Felice saying messages is chiseled in stone.

 

[Grinder]

deleted dupe

 

[Katody Matrass]

She covers the same ground in this quote as she did in yours but gives different versions. In this one, for some reason, the cops have not matched her 'see you later' message with Patrick telling her not to come to work.

Neither did they in the fragment I quoted above.

She was going to meet 'someone', suggesting they did not know to whom she had sent her message. We know she is covering the same ground here because the handing over of the phone is in both versions.

Yes, and there is no difference. All the time the message she talks about is the one they found, the same one she sent.

According to you, her recollection that she deleted the message, given 18 months after she did completely disposes of the question and is to be preferred over her apparent belief in the Questura that they would still find it on the phone.

According to me ? She never said she remembered deleting the message. Not in the court and obviously not at the police station. Why would she remember deleting it?

And where is her evidence of their reaction on finding it wasn't there? Explain that too. It should be interesting.

Interesting? Mundane, rather. They found the message she sent and it became the topic of even more intense interrogation. It's all in her testimony, just read.

Amanda:

I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.​

A little further on in the section from which you quote, which came from p. 143 (thanks for not bothering to cite it):



So, she clearly had no recollection of her own message.

Do I argue otherwise? She said it many times. What's your point?

Let's wind back to what she told Edda (remember, on 10 Nov 2007, not a year and a half later):


There is it again, the inability to recall replying. She needs to see Patrick's message in order to remember.

So they shown her Patrick's message after all? Why there is no mention of any reaction of hers? They show her something that proves she was telling the truth and her memories are correct. No reaction at all?

And why does she say they couldn't find it? How do you explain it? She forgot? Really?

You are giving far too much weight to this testimony. It is confused, contradictory and just as unreliable as I would expect such a thing to be.

Seriously you believe the lawyers would allow her to take the stand and give a confusing and contradictory testimony? For real?
The only thing it contradicts is your theory. Her testimony couldn't have been more clear. You just don't like what is says and you want to hand wave it.

Therefore, it cannot be used to decide the question by itself. It certainly does not displace the strong inference arising from De Felice's statement to the press, the call to mum, the content of the two confessions and the wider context of evidence manipulation.

We've dealt with these already. Nothing to add here.

About the prison wiretap, for which you have only the translation of a translation of a translation, here's Amanda's testimony from December 2007:

The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.​

That's it.

 

[anglolawyer]

The quote from de Felice I use seemed IIRC to be widely reported. The guy you quote wasn't one that really followed the case and the only reference to messages not even Follain.

Oh, now things must be 'widely reported' huh? I have taken the trouble to speak to Malcolm Moore. He is satisfied that if he reported it De Felice said it. The Daily Telegraph is not the Daily Mail. Not a report of third hand, unsourced gossip but of a press conference. Good enough for me and any other reasonable observer.

The text exchange was clearly important but you have never shown that the police used an alleged message from Patrick that varied from "no need to work tonight" so why would they erase what they then reported reasonably accurately. Matteini may have said something about closed versus slow but there is no way that was the basis for keeping them locked up.

Before, you said it wasn't important. According to you, it wasn't important at 5.45 but it clearly had been important at 1.45. If you read her evidence you will see she says they got her to the point where she would sign whatever they wanted her to sign. Both docs are what the cops thought they wanted from her at different stages of the night.

You say 'keeping them locked up' but I would prefer the word 'getting'. The exchange of messages was absolutely critical. It formed the cops' crime theory and was direct evidence of a conspiracy. They should have been falling all over themselves to trace Lumumba's message as it could have provided decisive evidence. So, why didn't they hack the phones to see when his message was deleted? Was her message found on Patrick's phone? They played it very passively before Matteini, a hearing at which neither Amanda nor Patrick heard the other (they were produced sequentially) rather than freaking out about her deleting the message they just let the discrepancy speak for itself and Matteini did the rest.

And my part of the "froth" also says that if he said messages it could easily be a slip of the tongue. In fact, you are saying that it was a slip and an Ah-ha moment for you. Clearly as part of the message-gate conspiracy he should have known not to mention it.

It was also a slip to say she crumbled and told them what they already knew but that doesn't stop you believing he said it. But OK. We've covered this. I consider it a revealing moment, especially coupled with the transition from 1.45 to 5.45.

He had been briefed by his men and they had told him that they had the tracking of the incoming message and the copy of the outgoing massage and he said messages, big deal. Funny that when the FOA said Amanda didn't even know Rudi that mistake is just fine but de Felice saying messages is chiseled in stone.

He said they found messages from Lumumba setting up a meeting, not a message from Amanda agreeing to one. It is indeed a big deal.

 

[anglolawyer]

Neither did they in the fragment I quoted above.

Yes, and there is no difference. All the time the message she talks about is the one they found, the same one she sent.


According to me ? She never said she remembered deleting the message. Not in the court and obviously not at the police station. Why would she remember deleting it?

Interesting? Mundane, rather. They found the message she sent and it became the topic of even more intense interrogation. It's all in her testimony, just read.

Amanda:

I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.​

Do I argue otherwise? She said it many times. What's your point?




So they shown her Patrick's message after all? Why there is no mention of any reaction of hers? They show her something that proves she was telling the truth and her memories are correct. No reaction at all?

And why does she say they couldn't find it? How do you explain it? She forgot? Really?





Seriously you believe the lawyers would allow her to take the stand and give a confusing and contradictory testimony? For real?
The only thing it contradicts is your theory. Her testimony couldn't have been more clear. You just don't like what is says and you want to hand wave it.


We've dealt with these already. Nothing to add here.

About the prison wiretap, for which you have only the translation of a translation of a translation, here's Amanda's testimony from December 2007:

The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.​

That's it.

If you expect a reply to this then source the quotes properly with links.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Anglo the source is the same as yours, all the time. You can do a text search to find exact places.

 

[Grinder]

And my part of the "froth" also says that if he said messages it could easily be a slip of the tongue. In fact, you are saying that it was a slip and an Ah-ha moment for you. Clearly as part of the message-gate conspiracy he should have known not to mention it.

It was also a slip to say she crumbled and told them what they already knew but that doesn't stop you believing he said it. But OK. We've covered this. I consider it a revealing moment, especially coupled with the transition from 1.45 to 5.45.

No it wasn't a slip it was the absolute truth as de Felice saw it that moment. They had cracked the case and they had the murderer and his little helpers. It was never a slip. His statement that was reported by all at the time was proudly given and undoubtedly scripted.

Had the police for some unexplained reason deleted the incoming text then if he said they had it would be a slip up, a mistake and screw up.

He had been briefed by his men and they had told him that they had the tracking of the incoming message and the copy of the outgoing massage and he said messages, big deal. Funny that when the FOA said Amanda didn't even know Rudi that mistake is just fine but de Felice saying messages is chiseled in stone.

He said they found messages from Lumumba setting up a meeting, not a message from Amanda agreeing to one. It is indeed a big deal.

This is where he made a minot error if the reporter that said this was correct. They had tracked the text activity and they had a theory that whatever he sent was setting up the meeting.

Please tell us how the deletion was used to change Patrick's message which is the only reason to delete it. They didn't, so they deleted it just because they could?

 

[Grinder]

Tron - I found this posted on the web. Is this an accurate copy of her story?

Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007

A friend of murdered British student Meredith Kercher told last night how he discovered her body in her blood-spattered bedroom.
Raffaele Sollecito, 23, relived the horror of finding the body of the pretty brunette who died when her killer broke into her home and cut her throat as she lay in her bed.
"It is something I never hope to see again," he said. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in.
"My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'"
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 citywith 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 [sic B] she could tell there was something terribly wrong.
Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.
"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.
"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."
Their panic grew as they desperately banged on her door.
Raffaele said: "I tried to knock it down. I thought maybe she was ill... I made a dent, but I wasn't strong enough on my own so I called the police."
When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway andRaffaele followed them into the room.
"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming. I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible.
"It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal."
Raffaele, a computer science student, said Meredith had recently started seeing an Italian neighbour called Giacamo [sic B] who lived in the apartment beneath the girls. He said: "Meredith was always smiling and happy. She was really popular and it's horrible that someone would want to hurt her."
Police hunting for the killer found two mobile phones in nearby Parco Saint Angelo, a favourite hang out for heroin addicts.

I don't see where Mansey corrects him, which as I said earlier would be odd in a story. Also the date of Nov. 4 makes it hard to believe she knew what they had done in order to correct him as she would have interviewed him latest that morning.