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

[GWCarver]

Here is a Canadian CBC Radio interview with Amanda by Anna Maria Tremonti:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2382869212

 

[Grinder]

You can take 'I don't recall' too far. It's best to be innocent and say what you remember.

Yes. What percentage of confessions are false? I have no doubt that the PLE questioned Amanda until she buckled and told them what they wanted to hear. I always thought guilty of murder or not, that the results of that night of interrogation shouldn't have been held against her. Meaning to any clear thinking individual the accusation came from the police not Amanda.

Interrogations are to get confessions or other information that someone is holding back. They do result in bad information but not always and probably not the majority of the time. Even those freed by the Innocence Project had 25% with false confession so 75% didn't confess even after being interrogated.

So she possibly made a mistake about the actual time she phoned her mom, no big deal, Toto made a mistake about the buses as well, he saw them so often, not a big deal either, our memory just doesn't work like that, when we all become cyborg it will be different.

Others have covered this, but it's not even related to Amanda's memory. He was talking about another night, not getting the time wrong by minutes. The buses didn't run every night of the week and since he didn't remember anything the week of the murder, wasn't under any unusual stress and didn't come forward until months later; his testimony was worthless. And that's before he stated he was on heroin that night and every night.

There is more that is problematic in Curatolo's testimony than the buses. Moreover, the comparison just doesn't work for me. The supposed lies people keep finding in Amanda's or Raffaele's statements are not things a guilty person would lie about to shore up an alibi.

Whereas Curatolo did need to lie to provide his third time testimony and be rewarded by the PLE. He wasn't taken to court for his 2003 heroin dealing until just before the appeal trial. That made it impossible for him to be interviewed during the appeal. I wonder why?

 

[anglolawyer]

There is more that is problematic in Curatolo's testimony than the buses. Moreover, the comparison just doesn't work for me. The supposed lies people keep finding in Amanda's or Raffaele's statements are not things a guilty person would lie about to shore up an alibi.

Curataolo creates as many problems as he solves.

I was reading a case today at IA involving a murder of a female in her apartment by a single male attacker. He stabbec her 12 times and leapt from her 26 foot balcony. He was seen by a neighbour, watching from a distance of 88 feet at night. The neighbour could only tell the police he was tall and thin. Two years later the neighbour was shown a photograph of the suspect and positively IDd him with great certainty. There was no trace of forensic evidence against the guy at the scene and he had showed up at work not long after in fine form, with no injuries from his leap. Guilty.

The case was eventually sent back for re-trial but the state has never bothered to pursue it. ID evidence sucks, we know it sucks but we still routinely lock people up on the flimsiest forms of it.

It would be interesting to have particulars of these other murder trials Curatolo testified in. Someone recently said the prosecutor was Mignini in all three. Is that true? What did Curatolo claim to have seen?

 

[acbytesla]

Curataolo creates as many problems as he solves.

I was reading a case today at IA involving a murder of a female in her apartment by a single male attacker. He stabbec her 12 times and leapt from her 26 foot balcony. He was seen by a neighbour, watching from a distance of 88 feet at night. The neighbour could only tell the police he was tall and thin. Two years later the neighbour was shown a photograph of the suspect and positively IDd him with great certainty. There was no trace of forensic evidence against the guy at the scene and he had showed up at work not long after in fine form, with no injuries from his leap. Guilty.

The case was eventually sent back for re-trial but the state has never bothered to pursue it. ID evidence sucks, we know it sucks but we still routinely lock people up on the flimsiest forms of it.

It would be interesting to have particulars of these other murder trials Curatolo testified in. Someone recently said the prosecutor was Mignini in all three. Is that true? What did Curatolo claim to have seen?

Amanda says in her book when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, Amanda's lawyer whispered to Amanda that the guy was "Mignini's personal pet witness".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Amanda says in her book when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, Amanda's lawyer whispered to Amanda that the guy was "Mignini's personal pet witness".

Really, he said that to her, then why, when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, did Amanda mouth the words (to Ralf) ' Were SCREWed'?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three times a murder witness

Really, he said that to her, then why, when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, did Amanda mouth the words (to Ralf) ' Were SCREWed'?

Assuming the veracity of both statements, the two together make perfect sense, actually.

 

[Grinder]

Really, he said that to her, then why, when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, did Amanda mouth the words (to Ralf) ' Were SCREWed'?

Well let's think about it. The prosecutor has a guy he has used in several trials and now he is going to testify against you. It would seem the prosecutor is using everything he can, legal or not.

Where do you get the we're screwed and would Raf have any idea what it meant?

Assuming the veracity of both statements, the two together make perfect sense, actually.

 

[acbytesla]

Really, he said that to her, then why, when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, did Amanda mouth the words (to Ralf) ' Were SCREWed'?

Want to make some more bs up Sherlock? Why not? What's the harm of piling on more misinformation? Where is your evidence of this? Do you have any? Of course not.

Let's say you're correct that Amanda "mouthed" something to Raffaele. Do you think it is possible that she mouthed something else? like "Who is this?" Just imagine a trial where one nicely dressed officer after another is called to the stand and then all of a sudden some smelly old bum with a scraggly beard looking like Walt Whitman was called? Wouldn't you be really surprised? I can just imagine Amanda and Raffaele's reaction when this guy was called ..."like who the hell is this"??

More non-evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

What do you suggest? That oral evidence should only be accorded due weight, and not be treated as trumping everything else? That is already the case. I don't see any question of principle behind your post, just one instance in which evidence may not have been assessed correctly.

Outside the criminal sphere, I do happen to think far too much litigation involves lawyers on their hind legs trying to do everything orally when it would be cheaper and less error-prone to consult documents. Is that what you mean?

 

[anglolawyer]

Kokomani

Location 3473 Waiting to be Heard

She puts the olive-throwing incident on Hallowe'en. I thought it was the night of the murder. Which one of us has not been paying attention?

 

[Grinder]

Location 3473 Waiting to be Heard

She puts the olive-throwing incident on Hallowe'en. I thought it was the night of the murder. Which one of us has not been paying attention?

It's in the text , didn't you see it?

IIRC there was some issue about him saying it wasn't raining or was raining and that conflicted with the facts. But really why does anybody need to address a guy that saw a bag that turned into two people and one threatened him with a knife while the third wanted to rent his car and he threw olives and phones. All at a time that the tow ntruck and car people should have been there not to mention the ever vigilant Curatolo.

 

[Dan O.]

Location 3473 Waiting to be Heard

She puts the olive-throwing incident on Hallowe'en. I thought it was the night of the murder. Which one of us has not been paying attention?

Why do you people bother discussing this case. Or any case for that matter? Your memories are not that much better than everyone else's yet you act as if you can remember it all. This is why I created the wiki. Computers are no good at the analysis but what they can do is remember things. The wiki is an exceptionally good tool for organizing information that you want to remember and be able to retrieve later.

Here is part of what I have recorded for Hekuran Kokomani:

January 24, 2008 - New witness says he saw Meredith suspects together on night before her murder
The new witness, an Albanian who lives in Perugia, told police that about 8 o’clock on the night before Ms Kercher was killed he parked his car near the cottage, but in doing so scraped the rubbish bins at the gates. He told investigators: “It was dark and pouring with rain, but I stopped the car, put the hazard lights on and got out to see if I had damaged the car. Suddenly two young people came out. It was them, Raffaele and Amanda. They seemed as if they were looking for a quarrel, they were shouting.
“We began arguing and at a certain point Amanda pulled out a knife and started waving it around in an aggressive way. She was shouting and pointing the knife at me.
“I’m quite certain it was her, and the guy with her was Raffaele Sollecito.”
Feb. 15, 2009 - Police arrested after caught with eight grams of cocaine Hekuran Kokomani.
​

This information was retrieved by searching only for the word "olive".

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda says in her book when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, Amanda's lawyer whispered to Amanda that the guy was "Mignini's personal pet witness".

Really, he said that to her, then why, when Curatolo was getting on the witness stand, did Amanda mouth the words (to Ralf) ' Were SCREWed'?

Sorry Sherlock, your comment is confirmation bias in action.

You see, even if Knox's words were, "we're screwed," there are also other meanings to them.... which are very consistent with what BOTH Knox and Sollecito write about in their books.

The prosecution was simply going to invent witnesses and invent evidence and keep it coming until a conviction was obtained. As Knox writes, she was very slow on the uptake that this was a evil man prosecuting her who would stop at nothing. In her incredible naivety she believed that an obvious innocence would free her.

So how's this for an obvious alternative explanation for, "we're screwed"? Putting both what the lawyer said together with what you claim Knox 'mouthed', I'd put it to you the penny finally drops that they are going to be convicted no matter their innocence.

 

[Mary_H]

You can take 'I don't recall' too far. It's best to be innocent and say what you remember.

"I don't recall" is very popular in legal cases in the United States. It's a legal term that means, "I recall, but if I tell the truth, I will incriminate myself. Rather than incriminate myself, I have chosen to pretend that saying 'I don't recall' is not a lie. Pretend along with me, if you will."

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele's book, "Honor Bound," has an 80% five-star rating on 111 reviews on Amazon. Our local big-book outlet has "Waiting to be heard" as #7, and Raffaele's book sold out.

 

[Grinder]

To these five points one can now add, thanks to postings of guilters I have seen, but have checked with Massei's report:

6) There is no prior relationship between Knox and Rudy Guede, other than a single meeting in the company of others

I need to go all The Machine on you and get this on cut and paste.

​

Massei did have a motive.

Answering a specific question on the matter, she stated that she did not have a relationship with Rudy Guede; she remembered that someone had introduced him to her and she had seen him around on a few occasions​

 

[Mary_H]

Today someone sent me a joke I had not heard before, although it is very old. I think it sums up the pro-guilt crowd brilliantly. This is a version from a blog:

So, there's a little boy who's completely freaked out by kreplach. Every time a nice bowl of soup with kreplach is put in front of him, he takes one look and shrieks,

"AAAHHHHH!! KREPLACH!!"

The kid's parents love kreplach so it presents a problem.

His mother is concerned and goes to consult the shrink, who advises her the child has a typical case of fear of the unknown. Show him exactly what goes into the kreplach, explain slowly and clearly that it's nothing to be afraid of, and he'll be fine. After all, he is not fearful of any of the components, so why should he be scared of the final product.

So one day, one of the boy's parents takes him into the kitchen, puts him on a high stool, and, with lots of smiles and calm reassurances, begins to deconstruct the dreaded dumpling. First the parent rolls out a piece of dough. Holds it up.

"Just like a pancake, You love pancakes."

"Just like a pancake," said the little boy.

Then the parent chops up meat and gathers it into a ball.

"Just like a meatball!"

"Just like a meatball," says the little boy, and smiles.

The parent then places the meat on the dough and folds the dough over. Holds it up:

"Just like a little hat."

"Just like a little hat," the kid says, comfortably.

The parent cooks it up: just like a dumpling, like in the Chinese restaurant? Just like a dumpling, o.k., o.k.

The parent now pours some soup into a bowl and offers it to the little boy, who responds eagerly. Sure, soup; he loves soup.

Just before putting the bowl in front of her son, the parent drops the kreplach in the soup.

Kid takes one look at it and screams,

"AAAAHHHH!! KREPLACH!!"

http://divinityisinthedetails.blogspot.com/2006_08_04_archive.html

The author of the blog wrote, "So what do I make of this? Well, no amount of rationality can assuage us of concerns which are not based in the realm of rationality."

 

[Bob001]

...It has always baffled me that Raf's dad didn't reject the advice of his attorney friend and insist he get counsel.....

What does this mean? Raffaele's dad wanted to hire a lawyer, and dad's lawyer-friend said he didn't need one? Or Raffaele's dad wanted to hire a lawyer, and a lawyer-friend of Raffaele said he didn't need one? Or something else? It's pretty clear that Amanda didn't get a lawyer because she thought everybody was her friend, but Raffaele and his father must surely have been more worldly. Who wanted Raffaele to get a lawyer, and who prevented it?

Also, does Italy have anything like Legal Aid or public defenders or university legal clinics? If Amanda had decided that she didn't want to spend money for a lawyer, was there anyplace she could at least have gotten some basic advice about her situation?

Also, accepting that Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated and arrested without lawyers, could more aggressive lawyers have won the case at the first trial? Did the lawyers they ended up with fail to make motions, challenge evidence, interrogate witnesses, demand documents etc. that might have been made by someone else? Where's "Giovanni Cochranelli" and "F. Luigi Baileyetto" when you need them?

 

[Grinder]

Why do you people bother discussing this case. Or any case for that matter? Your memories are not that much better than everyone else's yet you act as if you can remember it all. This is why I created the wiki. Computers are no good at the analysis but what they can do is remember things. The wiki is an exceptionally good tool for organizing information that you want to remember and be able to retrieve later.

Here is part of what I have recorded for Hekuran Kokomani:

January 24, 2008 - New witness says he saw Meredith suspects together on night before her murder
The new witness, an Albanian who lives in Perugia, told police that about 8 o’clock on the night before Ms Kercher was killed he parked his car near the cottage, but in doing so scraped the rubbish bins at the gates. He told investigators: “It was dark and pouring with rain, but I stopped the car, put the hazard lights on and got out to see if I had damaged the car. Suddenly two young people came out. It was them, Raffaele and Amanda. They seemed as if they were looking for a quarrel, they were shouting.
“We began arguing and at a certain point Amanda pulled out a knife and started waving it around in an aggressive way. She was shouting and pointing the knife at me.
“I’m quite certain it was her, and the guy with her was Raffaele Sollecito.”
Feb. 15, 2009 - Police arrested after caught with eight grams of cocaine Hekuran Kokomani.
​

This information was retrieved by searching only for the word "olive".

The defining event of the day was the presence of the so-called "super witness," Albanian native Hekuran Kokomani, who is the only material witness in the case so far and who says he saw the three suspects outside the house on Via della Pergola late on the night Kercher was murdered. Over the weekend, Kokomani told Italian TV station Canale 5 that he would testify that while parking his car nearby, he heard horrific screams and then encountered the trio now charged with the crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei did have a motive.

Answering a specific question on the matter, she stated that she did not have a relationship with Rudy Guede; she remembered that someone had introduced him to her and she had seen him around on a few occasions

Motive was Guede's acc. to Massei. We've been around this 100s of times.

Yup, she had seen him around on a few occasions, and was in his company with others (in the most meaningful definition of "in his company") all of once. Acc. to Massei.

It was interesting - because I think that Dr. Mull is now still writing, this time using a pseudonym. The reason why I say this is because of other things he has written. One of which is that he now, "respectfully" disagrees with Massei on the timing of Raffaele calling the carabinieri.

It's interesting what common themes come up.