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

[RandyN]

I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole. RandyN thinks I'm into the NyQuil... so I guess we're even.

All the same, welcome back! (I think!)

You know if you go back to the original NyQuil post and reread your part you will see that I am either right or else I had too much NyQuil which I also stated...
I recall some screech typing...perhaps you will call it drunk reading. Not often ...but occasionally I imbibe. hick!%^

 

[acbytesla]

Well you're sure right that Amanda doing it would get far more play. If it was well produced and she wasn't allowed to be dramatic and write her own material it could work. No mask of an assassin or other poetic descriptions.

That's the point. The little Youtube videos could be very effective. I'd have professionals write the script. Surely Amanda would have a role in the wording, because she needs to be comfortable with the words, but I would do the little videos and preview them to internal media professionals (Marriott) and then post them week after week. Always giving the press something to write. Doing them in both Italian and English would be saying to the world that Amanda wants to tell her story to the Italian people and doing it this way she avoids the Italian judiciary.

 

[anglolawyer]

Is the idea behind ongoing coverage of the trial, under the guidance (and direction) of the JREF all-stars, to influence domestic opinion in advance of any extradition so as to pile the pressure on the poor soul who gets to decide? If so, we could not be less alike over here. Shrien Dewani is facing extradition to South Africa for murder and his appointment of a PR guru is itself seen as a sign of guilt by some.

Still, provided you guys are sure you know what you're doing I'm happy to play my part. I can prepare daily press releases throughout exploring some new facet of the lamp

 

[Bill Williams]

Is the idea behind ongoing coverage of the trial, under the guidance (and direction) of the JREF all-stars, to influence domestic opinion in advance of any extradition so as to pile the pressure on the poor soul who gets to decide? If so, we could not be less alike over here. Shrien Dewani is facing extradition to South Africa for murder and his appointment of a PR guru is itself seen as a sign of guilt by some.

Still, provided you guys are sure you know what you're doing I'm happy to play my part. I can prepare daily press releases throughout exploring some new facet of the lamp

Jesus, Mary and Joseph save us all.........

 

[acbytesla]

Is the idea behind ongoing coverage of the trial, under the guidance (and direction) of the JREF all-stars, to influence domestic opinion in advance of any extradition so as to pile the pressure on the poor soul who gets to decide? If so, we could not be less alike over here. Shrien Dewani is facing extradition to South Africa for murder and his appointment of a PR guru is itself seen as a sign of guilt by some.

Still, provided you guys are sure you know what you're doing I'm happy to play my part. I can prepare daily press releases throughout exploring some new facet of the lamp

Well, Amanda has been using Marriott since the beginning, but I don't think you use Marriott to actually publish the videos, but you do use their expertise in making sure the content and tone is right. I think it shouldn't be too slick. Do it well, but it should look amateurish...sounds like a contradiction I know. but I think you understand my point.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes and ? The dozens of experts are not real. I think Barbie is an idiot. She made up the story that the experts existed and what they said, but she didn't have fake quotes.

Dempsey says in her PR that she emulates Rule and she says that she wove a story beyond the facts of the trial. It was all in the quote I provided.

Huh? Not that I can see.

She also mentions in another recounting of how she was advised on how to write her novel that no footnotes should be included. The book isn't annotated.

True crime novels are based on the facts of the case with filler to make them more exciting and readable.

I don't think Candace needed any filler. Like Amanda, she had to whittle her original manuscript way, way down. If she had so much information to work with, why would she include stuff that wasn't true?

I've asked her a few questions about her book in the past, and she was always able to document the source of the information.

 

[Diocletus]

No Lumumba Search

For those who are quite reasonably wondering why the cops never searched for evidence at Lumumba's place, let me suggest a simple answer: they didn't do it because they knew that they wouldn't find anything.

Let me explain. There is no evidence of a search of Lumumba's residence, and they never analyzed any of his personal effects in the lab. There is just one Lumumba sample identified in the lab records and that is Lumumba's reference sample, no. 47232 (cheek swab, I assume). This was seized and processed on November 6, 2007. Also processed at this time were the vaginal swab (47081) and the feces sample (nos. 47220-222).

The lab identified the vaginal swab and feces sample results as belonging to an unknown man, who it designated "Uomo 2". By comparing the Lumumba reference profile and the Uomo 2 profiles, the prosecution knew almost immediately (probably the evening of November 6) that Lumumba was NOT the perpetrator.

Thus, we know that the cops did not search Lumumba's residence because (i) there is no record of or samples from such a search, and (ii) the cops would have had no reason to do such a search, since they knew that Lumumba wasn't the perp and therefore they would find nothing.

Now the questions become: why was Lumumba kept in jail? When and why did Mignini interview Patrick? When and why was he charged? What evidence was offered against him?

 

[Grinder]

Still, provided you guys are sure you know what you're doing I'm happy to play my part. I can prepare daily press releases throughout exploring some new facet of the lamp

I'm sure someone will be contacting you forthwith as one of the few here that can be reached at any time .

The idea for me doesn't need any help from here. I think that the defense should do something to assure that it is widely known what experts and what evidence are not being allowed by the courts.

Perhaps they could use experts in the videos themselves demonstrating what is wrong with the prosecution's case.

I wouldn't want the information that reaches the people to be controlled by reporters that covered the case to date.

 

[Grinder]

For those who are quite reasonably wondering why the cops never searched for evidence at Lumumba's place, let me suggest a simple answer: they didn't do it because they knew that they wouldn't find anything.

Let me explain. There is no evidence of a search of Lumumba's residence, and they never analyzed any of his personal effects in the lab. There is just one Lumumba sample identified in the lab records and that is Lumumba's reference sample, no. 47232 (cheek swab, I assume). This was seized and processed on November 6, 2007. Also processed at this time were the vaginal swab (47081) and the feces sample (nos. 47220-222).

The lab identified the vaginal swab and feces sample results as belonging to an unknown man, who it designated "Uomo 2". By comparing the Lumumba reference profile and the Uomo 2 profiles, the prosecution knew almost immediately (probably the evening of November 6) that Lumumba was NOT the perpetrator.

Thus, we know that the cops did not search Lumumba's residence because (i) there is no record of or samples from such a search, and (ii) the cops would have had no reason to do such a search, since they knew that Lumumba wasn't the perp and therefore they would find nothing.

Now the questions become: why was Lumumba kept in jail? When and why did Mignini interview Patrick? When and why was he charged? What evidence was offered against him?

I think you have detailed the reasons I'd want to focus on this aspect, except for some additional pointS. Why didn't they bring in Patrick's wife and child that morning? Why didn't they seal his apartment? Why didn't they test the knives to be sure?

If, in fact, they didn't do those things, then that would indicate they knew before they went to get Patrick that he had nothing to do with it.

 

[Diocletus]

I think you have detailed the reasons I'd want to focus on this aspect, except for some additional pointS. Why didn't they bring in Patrick's wife and child that morning? Why didn't they seal his apartment? Why didn't they test the knives to be sure?

If, in fact, they didn't do those things, then that would indicate they knew before they went to get Patrick that he had nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure that they would have or could have taken or arrested the wife and kid.

I'm also not sure what rights they had to seize evidence. In the US you would need a warrant for that--I'm not sure what the Perugian cops had or needed.

As to why they didn't seal the apartment immediately, I'm not sure. Perhaps they needed something more to accomplish that, too. Perhaps the wife left the premises and a cop was stationed there for a period of time. Not sure.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes and ? The dozens of experts are not real. I think Barbie is an idiot. She made up the story that the experts existed and what they said, but she didn't have fake quotes.

Dempsey says in her PR that she emulates Rule and she says that she wove a story beyond the facts of the trial. It was all in the quote I provided.

Huh? Not that I can see.

I don't think Candace needed any filler. Like Amanda, she had to whittle her original manuscript way, way down. If she had so much information to work with, why would she include stuff that wasn't true?

I've asked her a few questions about her book in the past, and she was always able to document the source of the information.

That's the issue isn't it. The quote provided doesn't support the allegation that what we're dealing with is total fiction....

I don't think I have met someone so fundamentalist about these marks - " ".

"Don't put anything in those marks that isn't an ironclad, word for word, er, ah, transcript of conversation, er, which of course is going to have to - ah - also keep track, um, of all the verbal pauses in natural, er, speech, or else I won't accept it."

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure that they would have or could have taken or arrested the wife and kid.

I'm also not sure what rights they had to seize evidence. In the US you would need a warrant for that--I'm not sure what the Perugian cops had or needed.

As to why they didn't seal the apartment immediately, I'm not sure. Perhaps they needed something more to accomplish that, too. Perhaps the wife left the premises and a cop was stationed there for a period of time. Not sure.

Fair caveats (Latin for you Bill). It would seem an oddity to allow an arrest and not allow the seizing of evidence. The police were able to have all the people at the cottage come in but they didn't force them as in being arrested.

My central point is to question how much they really believed the accusation and their behavior is the best measure.

If they believed Amanda, they had the murderer in their hands. It is not believable that they would leave the evidence (knives, clothes, phones, etc.) behind for the wife to dispose of or clean. At least they would leave a cop behind and get that search warrant forthwith.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fair caveats (Latin for you Bill). It would seem an oddity to allow an arrest and not allow the seizing of evidence. The police were able to have all the people at the cottage come in but they didn't force them as in being arrested.

My central point is to question how much they really believed the accusation and their behavior is the best measure.

If they believed Amanda, they had the murderer in their hands. It is not believable that they would leave the evidence (knives, clothes, phones, etc.) behind for the wife to dispose of or clean. At least they would leave a cop behind and get that search warrant forthwith.

You see, this is why I'm glad you're back!

 

[Dan O.]

The evidence used to hold Patrick as well as Amanda and Raffaele is all listed in the Matteini report of November 9.

As I recall, the key elements were: Patrick's friend Usi only had one name. The lack of bar receipts for the early evening. Gerardo said the bar was closed (contrary to all the patrons). Patrick changed phones. Amanda and Patrick didn't remember exactly the same words for the text Patrick sent. Anamda's text saying she would meet Patrick. A ping of Patrick's phone to a tower near the cottage. And the statement coerced from Amanda's interrogations.

 

[Grinder]

The evidence used to hold Patrick as well as Amanda and Raffaele is all listed in the Matteini report of November 9.

As I recall, the key elements were: Patrick's friend Usi only had one name. The lack of bar receipts for the early evening. Gerardo said the bar was closed (contrary to all the patrons). Patrick changed phones. Amanda and Patrick didn't remember exactly the same words for the text Patrick sent. Anamda's text saying she would meet Patrick. A ping of Patrick's phone to a tower near the cottage. And the statement coerced from Amanda's interrogations.

But none of the highlighted was known at 6 in the morning when they arrested Patrick.

 

[Grinder]

On the Youtube subject, perhaps they could put their experts on video explaining such things as the digestion, footprints and DNA. This could be complete with diagrams and even power points.

Imagine showing the digestive system on a slide and have the expert show where the chyme should have been by 3 to 4 hours after beginning a meal. Quotes from medical text books discussing the digestive process as images from the actual text book - in both Italian and English languages. (No Missouri State Patrol)

The productions could be done here and in Italy. The production could have Amanda briefly stating why what is to follow proves what she is saying and then go to the actual expert explaining at length what the evidence shows.

How about a computer experts demonstrating how easy cloning a hard drive is and then show three smoking laptops next to a bottle of Chianti.

At the end of each segment there could be a short snippet of the Mignini animation and say the equivalent of goose and gander.

 

[Diocletus]

The evidence used to hold Patrick as well as Amanda and Raffaele is all listed in the Matteini report of November 9.

As I recall, the key elements were: Patrick's friend Usi only had one name. The lack of bar receipts for the early evening. Gerardo said the bar was closed (contrary to all the patrons). Patrick changed phones. Amanda and Patrick didn't remember exactly the same words for the text Patrick sent. Anamda's text saying she would meet Patrick. A ping of Patrick's phone to a tower near the cottage. And the statement coerced from Amanda's interrogations.

And the DNA results showing that some other guy did it . . . not worth mentioning?

 

[acbytesla]

On the Youtube subject, perhaps they could put their experts on video explaining such things as the digestion, footprints and DNA. This could be complete with diagrams and even power points.

Imagine showing the digestive system on a slide and have the expert show where the chyme should have been by 3 to 4 hours after beginning a meal. Quotes from medical text books discussing the digestive process as images from the actual text book - in both Italian and English languages. (No Missouri State Patrol)

The productions could be done here and in Italy. The production could have Amanda briefly stating why what is to follow proves what she is saying and then go to the actual expert explaining at length what the evidence shows.

How about a computer experts demonstrating how easy cloning a hard drive is and then show three smoking laptops next to a bottle of Chianti.

At the end of each segment there could be a short snippet of the Mignini animation and say the equivalent of goose and gander.

Those would work.

 

[JREF2010]

I don't think Candace needed any filler. Like Amanda, she had to whittle her original manuscript way, way down. If she had so much information to work with, why would she include stuff that wasn't true?

I've asked her a few questions about her book in the past, and she was always able to document the source of the information.

I always found that the Guilt mongers were enraged with Candace and her "proof" yet, would believe someone like Toto the Junkie Dope Peddler, as if Toto was a saint...even more sickening defend Rudy Guede so often.

The Guilt Mongers,place credibility onto some and not others isnt the mystery, its who they choose.

Who is credible?
A) College kids with no criminal background, or a Journalist interested in the case due to being from Seattle and familiar with Perugia
or
B) Heroin Junkie dealer and a proven Burglar , Girl botherer , loser

the Guilt Mongers would choose B. so strange?

 

[Dan O.]

But none of the highlighted was known at 6 in the morning when they arrested Patrick.

Please do read what I said. What I listed was the evidence which was presented to the court as justification to hold Patrick for trial.

As for cause to arrest, you'll have to ask the idiot cops what they were thinking.