Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

@ bolint

I see your point. This is a case which shows why defendants, even innocent ones, sometimes don't give evidence. It's possible they have ill-advisedly succumbed to the unreasonable expectations of others to have a minute-by-minute account from the two of them of their activity on 01-02 Nov and of the night of 05-06 Nov. Amanda's account of the interrogation leaves out all sorts of things that I would like to know about. For instance, at what point in her dealings with Patrick did she acquire this information:

One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi and I know that he lives in the area near the roundabout of Porta Pesa

She makes no mention of this in her book. Nor does she explain why she told the cops she lied to Raffaele after getting Lumumba's message before going out to meet him. Maybe she doesn't recall doing so or maybe it didn't happen and the cops themselves just 'inferred' it from what the two of them were saying in separate rooms. I don't recall anyone at trial, from either side, asking her about this lie, presumably because the jury were not supposed to know about what was in her confessions when addressing the murder charge and the lie was not relevant to the calunnnia against Patrick.

 

[bolint]

What about this so far unknown first call to her mother described in the book?
Is it a tale? A mistake?
Or was there indeed a call at around noon as Comodi asked it?

I have not seen the phone records of Amanda's US phone. No mention of it in Massei, either.
Was it used at all those days?

 

[anglolawyer]

What about this so far unknown first call to her mother described in the book?
Is it a tale? A mistake?
Or was there indeed a call at around noon as Comodi asked it?

I have not seen the phone records of Amanda's US phone. No mention of it in Massei, either.
Was it used at all those days?

Well worth pursuing. I agree. Are we absolutely sure it is 'so far unknown'? And again, is her memory of each call on a hectic and chaotic day likely to be reliable? You can answer back by asking what the heck she is putting in her book for if it ain't so and I have no reply to that.

 

[bolint]

Well worth pursuing. I agree. Are we absolutely sure it is 'so far unknown'?

It is definitely not in Massei who details all calls of the phones of Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith. Only the Italian SIM of Amanda appears in it starting with the call to Meredith.
Before that there is only the Lumumba text and reply and nothing else during the whole day of Nov 1.

And again, is her memory of each call on a hectic and chaotic day likely to be reliable? You can answer back by asking what the heck she is putting in her book for if it ain't so and I have no reply to that.

You betcha.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is definitely not in Massei who details all calls of the phones of Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith. Only the Italian SIM of Amanda appears in it starting with the call to Filomena.
Before that there is only the Lumumba text and reply and nothing else during the whole day of Nov 1.

If you're saying it's a settled fact she never made the call, why then would she make it up? What advantage does she get from doing so? Seems to me she loses whichever way you play it. Either she called her mother 'before anything had happened' (per Comodi) or she did not make any call at all and is now lying in order to, er, do what, make Comodi's idea work?

She has Filomena's door closed when she and Raffaele returned in the morning of 02 Nov. Raffaele has it slightly ajar (in his book) and there seem to be other variations floating around too. Guilty! OK, I agree, so long as you can tell me the precise state of each door in your house last Friday when you got home from work or the state of the doors of your friend's house the last time you visited. The bedroom door next to mine was wide open this morning when I passed it to brush my teeth. The bathroom door was open too. I now expect to find a body when I get home.

 

[bolint]

She has Filomena's door closed when she and Raffaele returned in the morning of 02 Nov. Raffaele has it slightly ajar (in his book) and there seem to be other variations floating around too.

"slightly ajar".
So after five years he tries to converge to Amanda's closed version.

Raffaele's diary:

I remember those moments well because I was agitated and alarmed. I think I saw Amanda take the mop bucket and carry it to another room (it cannot be inferred from the text, but the mop was apparently brought back to Meredith’s and Amanda’s house). The first thing I noticed was that Filomena’s (called Molli) room had the door wide open.

In his Nov 5 questioning it was also "wide open" ("spalancata" in Italian).

In another 10 years it will be closed.

 

[bolint]

If you're saying it's a settled fact she never made the call

I don't claim it is settled. I don't know if she had another phone (or SIM).
Sure it is, however, that on the SIM used for all other calls talked about here there is no such an early alarm record.

 

[Briars]

If you're saying it's a settled fact she never made the call, why then would she make it up? What advantage does she get from doing so? Seems to me she loses whichever way you play it. Either she called her mother 'before anything had happened' (per Comodi) or she did not make any call at all and is now lying in order to, er, do what, make Comodi's idea work?

She has Filomena's door closed when she and Raffaele returned in the morning of 02 Nov. Raffaele has it slightly ajar (in his book) and there seem to be other variations floating around too. Guilty! OK, I agree, so long as you can tell me the precise state of each door in your house last Friday when you got home from work or the state of the doors of your friend's house the last time you visited. The bedroom door next to mine was wide open this morning when I passed it to brush my teeth. The bathroom door was open too. I now expect to find a body when I get home.

Sorry I can't resist . It wasn't the state of the door it was what was in the room that shocked Sollecito on immediate arrival with the door wide open.'spalacata". You might not remember a closed door but a break-in ? The contents that AK needed to miss before fetching R, hence the door closed .Calling out to Meredith after her shower, growing concern about things in the cottage she doesn't open Filomena's door? Final resting place the door ajar. Honor Bound an evolving story.

 

[anglolawyer]

"slightly ajar".
So after five years he tries to converge to Amanda's closed version.

Raffaele's diary:


In his Nov 5 questioning it was also "wide open" ("spalancata" in Italian).

In another 10 years it will be closed.

But does it prove anything more than that he is unsure of his recollection? If the suggestion is that this is a tell-tale sign of guilt then I want it explained. What really happened? Were they there engaged in a cover up? What evidence of that is there? And what sense is there in the overall conduct if they were altering the crime scene? Why call the cops before they were ready and had their stories straight?

I guess the PGP argument is that if the door were wide open she could not have failed to notice the disorder in F's room when she returned for the shower. I am not sure that's true. If the shutter were closed the room would be without much light and the view through the doorway does not permit a full view of the room, especially if you're not looking closely.

It seems from the book that Amanda did not know anyone would be away that weekend, not her flat mates and not the boys downstairs, which I find surprising, but then she was wrapped up most of the preceding week with Raffaele and may not have been aware of this day of the dead holiday or whatever it was. If she didn't know Filomena was away she might just have assumed she was round about the house somewhere, what with the front door being open. The strangeness of everything crept up on her slowly and by the time she was discussing it with Raffaele it hardened into there being something wrong.

This is just about the high point of the PGP view - her behaviour that morning which it is easy to pick apart and at first sight looks odd. But, when it gets to looking closely at the crime scene we find no evidence of the clean up nor of anything she and Raffaele might supposedly have done in the hours they had available. The missing CCTV from Corso Garibaldi might have backed up her story 100% but the cops contrived to keep it out of the trial. Why? Quintavalle is clearly a phoney. How and why did he get into the picture with his manifestly false evidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

Sorry I can't resist . It wasn't the state of the door it was what was in the room that shocked Sollecito on immediate arrival with the door wide open.'spalacata". You might not remember a closed door but a break-in ? The contents that AK needed to miss before fetching R, hence the door closed .Calling out to Meredith after her shower, growing concern about things in the cottage she doesn't open Filomena's door? Final resting place the door ajar. Honor Bound an evolving story.

Was she cross examined about the state of the door at trial? I don't recall seeing anything but I might be wrong about that. Is this a point Massei discusses?

 

[bolint]

if the door were wide open she could not have failed to notice the disorder in F's room when she returned for the shower. I am not sure that's true. If the shutter were closed the room would be without much light and the view through the doorway does not permit a full view of the room, especially if you're not looking closely.

Not only noticing the disorder. In her narrative she specifically describes that the doors were all closed, so she could not tell if anybody was at home.
She was shouting, hair drying, freaking out, but no, she would not look into Filomena's open room to see is she is at home. Would this be credible to you?
She absolutely must have that door closed. And that was undermined by Raffaele.

It seems from the book that Amanda did not know anyone would be away that weekend, not her flat mates and not the boys downstairs, which I find surprising, but then she was wrapped up most of the preceding week with Raffaele and may not have been aware of this day of the dead holiday or whatever it was. If she didn't know Filomena was away she might just have assumed she was round about the house somewhere, what with the front door being open. The strangeness of everything crept up on her slowly and by the time she was discussing it with Raffaele it hardened into there being something wrong.

Yes, this is the standard excuse, I know. But it is not credible for me.

The missing CCTV from Corso Garibaldi might have backed up her story 100% but the cops contrived to keep it out of the trial. Why?

What is this mythical Corso Garibaldi CCTV?

Quintavalle is clearly a phoney. How and why did he get into the picture with his manifestly false evidence?

May be. But supposing her knowledge of the crime, it is much less risky to go to the cottage, for whatever reason, early in the morning than around 10 o'clock.

By the way, if she really went there at around 10 o'clock then she spent about two hours there. Don't you find it too much?

 

[bolint]

Another point in her book, which was debated here and there, if she knew about Raffaele's retracting her alibi and the panic caused her breakdown.

Now she herself says that at some point Monica Napoleoni entered the questioning room and said:

"Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”

So she was fully aware of that. And I think she had no plan B, hence the ad hoc accusing of Lumumba which the police was pleased to hear.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not only noticing the disorder. In her narrative she specifically describes that the doors were all closed, so she could not tell if anybody was at home.
She was shouting, hair drying, freaking out, but no, she would not look into Filomena's open room to see is she is at home. Would this be credible to you?
She absolutely must have that door closed. And that was undermined by Raffaele.

A silly characterisation. Let's keep the discussion on a sensible level. On her first visit, when she dried her hair, she was not freaking out.

What is this mythical Corso Garibaldi CCTV?

Don't think it's mythical Bolint. Somewhere upthread the particular cameras and their locations along CG were identified by DanO and acbytesla. In Honor Bound, Raffaele says, if I recall, his father offered to but the footage but was told the cops had already reviewed it and it showed nothing.

May be. But supposing her knowledge of the crime, it is much less risky to go to the cottage, for whatever reason, early in the morning than around 10 o'clock.

By the way, if she really went there at around 10 o'clock then she spent about two hours there. Don't you find it too much?

Seems a lot. If that's the timeline. But women are strange creatures.

I am looking at her evidence transcript:

So Raffaele and I went out and went to my house to look around and see how things were. This time we opened the doors, for example the door to Filomena's room, and I saw that her window was broken and there was a big mess. That's when I thought, oh gosh, it was a robbery. And I was running around everywhere.

I was with Raffaele at that moment, because it was the second time that I went back to the house. The first time I went back to the house, Filomena's door was closed, so I didn't look inside, I didn't think to. The first time I went into the house, I called "Is anybody home?" and there wasn't anybody, so I just went about my own affairs. Then, going back to the house, with Raffaele, I looked around a bit to see how things really were, and I discovered the broken window. That's when I thought "Mamma mia, a robbery," and I called Filomena to tell her, "Look, your window's broken and there's a mess in your room. But -- nothing's been touched."

So she is pretty clear that the door was closed on both visits and she opened Filomena's door. Isn't it possible, for instance, that they came in together, he headed off one way, perhaps to the bathroom Guede used, and she another and that when he returned to the kitchen Filomena's door had been opened by Amanda and that's the first he became aware of it?

 

[anglolawyer]

Another point in her book, which was debated here and there, if she knew about Raffaele's retracting her alibi and the panic caused her breakdown.

Now she herself says that at some point Monica Napoleoni entered the questioning room and said:

So she was fully aware of that. And I think she had no plan B, hence the ad hoc accusing of Lumumba which the police was pleased to hear.

I didn't realise there was any debate about whether the cops told her she lost her alibi.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't have it yet.

Ah, OK.

Of which there is no trace.

Because the data was destroyed when it was in police hands. Incidentally, there was a trace, some data was recovered, including screensaver and keyboard light info. It may just come up again...

What did he do on the computer according to your understanding?

It sounds like he listened to music mostly.

Anyway, even what you cited from his book deserves scrutiny.
He says:


So from the horse's mouth we hear that his phone was turned off.
In the trial an expert of his "proves" with special measurements that it did not receive the message because of the poor reception conditions. (Massei p.320-321)
Raffaele sitting there silently and now after five years he, honor bound, declares that it was turned off.
Even now in this thread it is being argued how his phone could not have received it while turned on.

So what? Mignini charged that the phone not receiving the message suggested Raffaele (and Amanda) turned their phones off so as not to be detected/disturbed while they raped and murdered Meredith, the defense came up with an alternative explanation.

It never struck me as unusual that two young lovers might turn off their phones in the first week of their meeting so as not to be disturbed. If they wanted to rape and murder someone they might leave their phones on so there'd be at least something indicating they were elsewhere.

Did you ever actually think whether the phones were turned off was evidence of anything? It's only evidence the prosecution had no case so he had to make the most mundane things sound incriminating. Did you like what he came up with regarding the lamp and the door not getting broken down (at first)?

Give me a break.

(I expect now some explanation that this "turned off" did not mean that it was turned off )

No, I'm guessing it meant he turned off his phone but later his lawyers decided to contest every point of the prosecution with an alternative explanation and he listened to them and sat there silently.

Incidentally, if that crack is regarding what I wrote about Mignini's stunt with Rudy and that letter in the appeal, remember that witnesses can only relate what they saw (heard/read/etc) and are prohibited from drawing conclusions. Thus Rudy cannot say Raffaele and Amanda murdered Meredith, (as it reads in the letter) as he (supposedly) didn't see the murder.

Do you wonder why he didn't say in (Amanda and Raffaele's) appeals court what he said in his own trial, or why Massei didn't even mention what Rudy said in the Michaeli court?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

As usual I offer no comment, other than interesting article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22351375

 

[bolint]

A silly characterisation. Let's keep the discussion on a sensible level. On her first visit, when she dried her hair, she was not freaking out.

She says in the Book:

I scrambled to push the key into the lock, making myself turn it before I ran up the driveway, my heart banging painfully.

Looks like fleeing.

So she is pretty clear that the door was closed on both visits and she opened Filomena's door.

She is absolutely clear. She must be, otherwise her story would sink.

Isn't it possible, for instance, that they came in together, he headed off one way, perhaps to the bathroom Guede used, and she another and that when he returned to the kitchen Filomena's door had been opened by Amanda and that's the first he became aware of it?

Again from the Book:

Raffaele held my free hand while I unlocked the door. I yelled, “Is anyone here?”At first nothing seemed amiss. The house was quiet, and the kitchen/living area was immaculate. I poked my head in Laura’s room. It looked fine, too. Then I opened Filomena’s door. I gasped. The window had been shattered and glass was everywhere. Clothes were heaped all over the bed and floor. The drawers and cabinets were open. All I could see was chaos. “Oh my God, someone broke in!” I shouted to Raffaele, who was right behind me.

 

[Supernaut]

I repeat, she did know her killer. She had attended at least one party with him and probably bumped into him more than once in the bar scene. The police from day one were of the mind it was consensual sex.

You misunderstand - "know" in the context of the stats in question means 'has a relationship with' - family member, friend (?), colleague, business relationship etc'.

 

[Grinder]

As usual I offer no comment, other than interesting article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22351375

What pray tell is interesting about the article in terms of guilt or innocence? For example is there some significance that she didn't report jail abuse to the State Department at the time but writes about it now? Let's say she has totally exaggerated the situation in her book to make it more interesting, does that make her look guilty of murder?

Vogt is the writer that referenced the moderator of PMF and the receptionist from a fashion house, Nikki, that was their DNA expert over there as experts on the case.

For all the complaining about Amanda having the audacity to write a book take a look at Vogt's pathetic list of stories she has written outside of one about Amanda. She is clearly trying to capitalize on Meredith's murder.

ETA - Vogt wrote: Other documents - including writings Knox penned in her own hand while incarcerated, case files and state department records - conjure up quite another impression of a very different Knox, one who was more sanguine about her experience.

"The prison staff are really nice," wrote Knox in her personal prison diary, which was eventually published in Italy under the title Amanda and the Others.

Did Amanda publish Amanda and Others? I don't think so. What would you write about your treatment in jail in your own hand if you knew that they had already taken those writings and leaked them to the press?

 

[Supernaut]

As usual I offer no comment, other than interesting article.

By Andrea Vogt. Lent credibilty by it's (unaccountable) appearence on the "fair and balanced" BBC's website.