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

[Ampulla of Vater]

Careful it is the duodenum not the stomach. Don't worry about them because they are all deaf or not paying attention or the car windows were too thick.

As has been pointed out about a million times, the PGP can't put together a reasonable time line that fits with the witnesses they defend.

There was nothing in her duodenum.

ETA: I did word that strangely though so I do see your point.

 

[Briars]

Briars I just heard that a woman has come forward saying that on the night O.J.'s ex-wife was killed she thinks she heard a scream but doesn't know what time it was and didn't see anybody. Think that would have changed the verdict?

Curatolo was a heroin addict on heroin every day including that night. when asked if he had seen anything at the time he said no. He was too far away from the edge of the court to see them clearly in mid day much less at night.

He originally said that he arrive at 9:30 (later he said 9:27) and that they were there until just before midnight. The time was adjusted because Massei said the disco buses were said to be gone by 11:30 so it must have been 11:30.

He said he saw them when he looked up but never said that they were gone at any time when he looked up.

He never identified them except in court when they were the only ones sitting at the defense table.

Nara didn't see anything. She didn't come forward the next day when the police were all over the cottage. She must have heard them talking about the murder as we know she could hear anything said outside. She got the day wrong. She never saw a clock even though she woke up (most people look at a bedside clock), heard the worst scream of her life and then made tea which takes time and usually there is a clock or clocks in the kitchen.

Whether it is possible she could hear a scream and Curatolo is a red herring. It doesn't matter.

He never said he watched them non stop he said he was reading and he looked up a few times and saw them!! So they came and went and the rail is close enough to the bench to see on the same side of the court BTW! Amanda had dinner at least 2 hours earlier she stretched that time to after 10 up to 11 for some strange reason. You want Nara to look at the clock but have no problem with Amanda lying when she ate or what time they slept to. She made no mention of being woken up by Mr Sollecito's earlier morning call because she was already out the door.

 

[acbytesla]

.
One thing I am certain of, if they themselves, or their kids, were treated the way Raffaele and Amanda have been treated, they would be screaming about the unfairness of it.

I have known, and know many people, that have one set of rules for themselves, and another completely different set of rules for everybody else. In my opinion most of the guilters are like that.
.

Of course cody. Most bullies are cowards at heart.

 

[Grinder]

I think your opinion is overly harsh Grinder, while I agree that her performances in her interview can improve, I see her getting better and better.

I do however like the idea of Amanda doing YouTube videos but not necessarily for the reason you are describing.

It would allow Amanda to be able control the content of the message and not have it edited so it makes great television. I think she should review all of her interviews and pick out the important questions about the case and address them. I think she should create her videos about her life now in Seattle with her family, friends and school, portraying herself as the normal girl next door we all know her to be. I also think she should do these videos in both English and Italian..

Quick look there's the elephant.

I don't think her happy life in Seattle will convince people she didn't have a role in killing Meredith.

We all know her to be? I know no such thing and I doubt you do.

The defense case needs to be made publicly. As you know I suggested from the beginning that they be in both languages or was that Anglo. The details of the case need to be put forward. People here could do a job of explaining why the DNA is bunk, etc.

Perhaps i'm "overly harsh" but I see myself as seeing her with unjaded eyes. I think many here can't see that she is not well spoken and appears to be being overly dramatic. Before the flood of attacks about her suffering and having PTSD, that may be the case and make my case even stronger that she needs to give the stage to Grinder someone else.

 

[Briars]

Why, because you think Meredith died around 11PM? So what was in her stomach 5 hours after eating? What about the people waiting for the tow truck?

No I think it happened around 10:15

 

[acbytesla]

Reading your post I can understand your sentiments. However, my thoughts always drift to the Kercher family; Meredith just like Amanda was studying abroad and just like Amanda had been in Italy only a few weeks. Yes you and others will state Guede is responsible, but for me that doesn’t change my focus on the Kercher family and their life sentence.

You can't help but to feel for the Kercher's and their loss.

That said, I think their obsession with Amanda and Raffaele may be sort of a torturous way to keep their daughter alive, granted on life support This ongoing charade and sham persecution, I mean prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele is probably more detrimental to them than anyone outside of Amanda and Raffaele and their families. It doesn't allow them to bury their daughter metaphorically speaking and move on with their lives.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No I think it happened around 10:15

But you wrote:

Nara would be used to street noise every of couple hours there might be a car leaving the underground or parking lot above. The two lane road has cars passing, in between it is pretty quiet and yes you can hear the tenants talking in front of the cottage. The Piazza has far more traffic noise right next to it. Curatolo said he saw them behind the court near the wall when he arrived after 9:30. Clearly he testifies he didn't watch them continously but observed them later and then noted they were gone sometime after 11:30. His bench is to the right of the kiosk next to the lamp post, The railing is further to the right and back a few feet impossible for someone in the kiosk to observe. As far as times not being noticed exactly by Curatolo. Amanda tried to push her dinner hour to 11pm which should be of interest to you.

So Curatoto saw them when he arrived after 9:30, observed them later and then they were gone sometime after 11:30? Sounds like he is their alibi to me.

Also, if your life is not regimented, as Amanda's was not during those days, how do you know what happened when? I absolutely couldn't tell you what I ate and/or when last Tuesday night. Every night is dull and humdrum at my house. Sometimes I eat dinner, sometimes I do not. Sometimes I eat a late lunch instead. I work from home, alone. Nope, I couldn't tell you one bit what I ate or when, even on Wednesday night. Raff wanted to see a calendar and they wouldn't let him. Why not? When one day turns into the next you just don't know exact details. It is ridiculous to fault one for that or to imply some kind of guilt for that.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does this apply to the defendants as well as the witnesses? You suggest judges are eager to accept witness testimony unless there is good reason to rule it out. Why have some judges been less eager to accept defendant testimony by the same standard?

1. A defendant is not hold at the same standard of a witnes because legally his testimony does not have the same standard. A defendant has a right to lie, and bears no responsability for testimony (unless he accuses other people not previously indicted: in that case he becomes a witness). (we are not talking about rule out testimonies: testimonies are just believed or not believed, not ruled out).
2. Also witnesses closely related to the defendant don't have the same standard of unrelated witnesses. Being related to a witness is itself a reason for making the testimony become dubious. The reliability of a close relative will be hold as close to zero for most defensive purposes.

* Sorry, I don't have the time to answer further posts for today

 

[acbytesla]

Quick look there's the elephant.

I don't think her happy life in Seattle will convince people she didn't have a role in killing Meredith.

I agree, but what it does do is allow people to see her as a normal person and not some caricature or the devil. People are more likely to look as give her the benefit of the doubt.

The defense case needs to be made publicly. As you know I suggested from the beginning that they be in both languages or was that Anglo. The details of the case need to be put forward. People here could do a job of explaining why the DNA is bunk, etc.

I think we all have been suggest this for a long time. I thought I was first, but great minds think a like Personally I think it's obvious so you may have very well have posted it first.

Perhaps i'm "overly harsh" but I see myself as seeing her with unjaded eyes. I think many here can't see that she is not well spoken and appears to be being overly dramatic. Before the flood of attacks about her suffering and having PTSD, that may be the case and make my case even stronger that she needs to give the stage to Grinder someone else.

I think Amanda is well spoken, but I do think she is overly dramatic, I think she is genuinely scared and traumatized and fears for her and Raffaele's liberty. I think that is very genuine, but I dont' think people have the tolerance for those feelings. I think Amanda has to navigate a fine line between being perceived as what some have called her before "ice queen" and "drama queen". It's almost a no win situation. Raffaele has actually done a better job of doing this than Amanda. He has come off warm, articulate and persuasive. I think that is what Amanda should try and emulate.

btw, its fine that we disagree somewhat on this.

 

[Machiavelli]

The truth is Amanda and Raffaelle are innocent. If your precious judges can't arrive at that conclusion through a process that will eventually take them close to a decade it will show how bad this system is. Just my opinion, btw.

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

 

[Briars]

But you wrote:


So Curatoto saw them when he arrived after 9:30, observed them later and then they were gone sometime after 11:30? Sounds like he is their alibi to me.

Also, if your life is not regimented, as Amanda's was not during those days, how do you know what happened when? I absolutely couldn't tell you what I ate and/or when last Tuesday night. Every night is dull and humdrum at my house. Sometimes I eat dinner, sometimes I do not. Sometimes I eat a late lunch instead. I work from home, alone. Nope, I couldn't tell you one bit what I ate or when, even on Wednesday night. Raff wanted to see a calendar and they wouldn't let him. Why not? When one day turns into the next you just don't know exact details. It is ridiculous to fault one for that or to imply some kind of guilt for that.

Life wasn't routine for them yet surely. What is difficult to understand that Curatolo could have observed them before the first visit to the cottage at 9:30? They run or leave the cottage by 10:30 and are seen later anxiously watching for the tow truck to leave before returning to cleanup after 11:30 Even if you don't believe they were involved there is nothing wrong with that time frame which fits with when Curatolo said he saw them.

 

[acbytesla]

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

No the truth is there is one murderer and one murderer only. Rudy Guede

The vast majority of people who see the evidence come to the same conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele had NOTHING to do with this murder. I think it is very significant that John Douglass, one of if the not the best investigator of violent crimes in the US has called this "the railroad job from hell".

 

[acbytesla]

Life wasn't routine for them yet surely. What is difficult to understand that Curatolo could have observed them before the first visit to the cottage at 9:30? They run or leave the cottage by 10:30 and are seen later anxiously watching for the tow truck to leave before returning to cleanup after 11:30 Even if you don't believe they were involved there is nothing wrong with that time frame which fits with when Curatolo said he saw them.

C',mon, everything about the drug addled junkie doesn't wash. How many people do you know who have been witnesses in three murder trials outside of gangsters? A homeless bum who was not coherent. Whose testimony both contradicts the facts like the difference between Halloween and the day after as well as the logic of this couple in the middle of some kind of murder standing outside for hours watching a gate?

Toto's testimony should have been buried with the old bum.

 

[Bill Williams]

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

No the truth is there is one murderer and one murderer only. Rudy Guede

The vast majority of people who see the evidence come to the same conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele had NOTHING to do with this murder. I think it is very significant that John Douglass, one of if the not the best investigator of violent crimes in the US has called this "the railroad job from hell".

The difference between these two opinions?

It is the contortions that Machiavelli has to go through to somehow, using probablies and global assessments of marginal and/or non-existent "evidence" shoehorn two innocents into this.

It's why his defence of Andrea Vogt is so telling. There is actually a straightforward, plaintext meaning for what Amanda Knox said, "I was there." It is validated by the context in which those three words were.... She meant she was at Raffaele's all night.

For Machiavelli.... and more importantly for someone who claims the status of a neutral, objective reporter, Andrea Vogt, they use contrived substitute meanings as well as invented dialogue that isn't there to suggest that this was some sort of code between mother and daughter that Amanda may have been signally to her mother she'd been at the cottage afterall.

What Machiavelli, and Andrea Vogt, lack is evidence. In Vogt's favour she is simply passing on the hystrionics in the courtroom when this is presented as-if Amanda meant she'd bee at the cottage....

But what Andrea does not do is this - when the very first fact finding judge, Judge Massei - the convicting judge - makes reference to it, he quotes Knox's interpretation of it then drops the matter. It turns out to be completely imaterial to the case; however, if it HAD been a confession, it would have played big, esp at the trial which convicted her......

.... what Vogt doesn't do is correct the record. She just remains silent.

And then on her blog recommends McCall's Wiki as the pre-eminent site to understand this case.

The truth is not that the two students are murderers.... but if you go into the conversation assuming that they are you end up actually having to mangle the evidence....

1) Like Vogt does in her reporting
2) Like Machiavelli does when he also tries to argue that Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation
3) Like Briars tries to do when he argues that Nara and Curatolo are legitimate witnesses.​

 

[Diocletus]

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

'round here we call folks like that "slow". You folks seems to be real slow.

 

[RandyN]

I am only a casual participant in this thread and have far less knowledge of the case than most of the participants. I suspect that any of them could provide a more substantive answer to your question than I can.

But quite awhile ago when I was following this thread the issue of how the tabloids got the murder pictures came up. As I recall the pictures didn't seem to match any of the pictures that were taken by the official photographer. I recall a photograph of Mignini walking around the crime scene with a point and shoot camera. The probable situation is that Mignini provided some of his pictures to the tabloids. Would that be a crime by itself? If he sold pictures to the tabloids while he was being paid in his official role as a prosecutor for pictures that presumably he didn't hold the copyright to would that be a crime? If he released pictures before it was legally allowed to release those pictures would that have been a crime?

Of course, numerous details about the crime were leaked to the press that turned out to be false and it appears that they were known to be false that were extremely damaging to Knox and Sollecito. That sounds like a crime was committed against Knox and Solecito to me. If those leaks could be tied to Mignini would Mignini be guilty of a crime for that?

A lot of the problem with pinning down criminal acts by Mignini is that it appears the Italian justice system reeks of good old boy syndrome to a bizarre level and the notion that anybody could investigate Mignini for issues like these looks like a non-starter. When Mignini can prosecute people including reporters and Knox family members for criticizing him it looks pretty obvious that something is seriously rotten in the part of the Italian justice system that Mignini is part of.

Its a shame you didn't stick closer to the case Dave. This point about Mignini and his own camera was always something I felt highly suspect about. It never dawned on me that his pics could be the leaked pics? Be nice if we could show that.

Mignini would certainly be breaking the law since he is charged with protecting all evidence...and especially evidence that can help the defendant show their innocence.

This seems to be one of those laws ignored by the whole Italian judiciary...just like the one that requires lawyers be provided and present during questioning. It is a fact that AK, RS and PL were not just denied lawyers but that a special order was signed by Mignini that kept lawyers away from the defendants until the first hearing ...RS lawyer tried to break down the prison door in order to see him but was turned away until the hearing before Mignini lunch mate Mattini.

Corrupt bunch of rotten bass...oh that's right this site has rules...;-)

Nice catch of the Mignini in bunny suit pretending to be a photographer deal.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, it was all in my post.

Thank you.

I read those links but I was looking for some legal documentation giving specifics of the laws broken by Mignini.

 

[acbytesla]

The difference between these two opinions?

It is the contortions that Machiavelli has to go through to somehow, using probablies and global assessments of marginal and/or non-existent "evidence" shoehorn two innocents into this.

It's why his defence of Andrea Vogt is so telling. There is actually a straightforward, plaintext meaning for what Amanda Knox said, "I was there." It is validated by the context in which those three words were.... She meant she was at Raffaele's all night.

For Machiavelli.... and more importantly for someone who claims the status of a neutral, objective reporter, Andrea Vogt, they use contrived substitute meanings as well as invented dialogue that isn't there to suggest that this was some sort of code between mother and daughter that Amanda may have been signally to her mother she'd been at the cottage afterall.

What Machiavelli, and Andrea Vogt, lack is evidence. In Vogt's favour she is simply passing on the hystrionics in the courtroom when this is presented as-if Amanda meant she'd bee at the cottage....

But what Andrea does not do is this - when the very first fact finding judge, Judge Massei - the convicting judge - makes reference to it, he quotes Knox's interpretation of it then drops the matter. It turns out to be completely imaterial to the case; however, if it HAD been a confession, it would have played big, esp at the trial which convicted her......

.... what Vogt doesn't do is correct the record. She just remains silent.

And then on her blog recommends McCall's Wiki as the pre-eminent site to understand this case.

The truth is not that the two students are murderers.... but if you go into the conversation assuming that they are you end up actually having to mangle the evidence....

1) Like Vogt does in her reporting
2) Like Machiavelli does when he also tries to argue that Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation
3) Like Briars tries to do when he argues that Nara and Curatolo are legitimate witnesses.​

C'mon Bill. It's clear that Mach's arguments aren't even marginally intellectually honest. If they were, he wouldn't support Nara, or Toto, but he definitely wouldn't want to see his name on a post keeping alive this silly "I was there" meme. What little of the transcript that is available makes it clear, it is not code as he is trying to suggest.

This particular meme makes me mad as hell as it is deliberately duplicitous. Frankly, I would be ashamed to make this type of argument.

 

[christianahannah]

I am only a casual participant in this thread and have far less knowledge of the case than most of the participants. I suspect that any of them could provide a more substantive answer to your question than I can.

But quite awhile ago when I was following this thread the issue of how the tabloids got the murder pictures came up. As I recall the pictures didn't seem to match any of the pictures that were taken by the official photographer. I recall a photograph of Mignini walking around the crime scene with a point and shoot camera. The probable situation is that Mignini provided some of his pictures to the tabloids. Would that be a crime by itself? If he sold pictures to the tabloids while he was being paid in his official role as a prosecutor for pictures that presumably he didn't hold the copyright to would that be a crime? If he released pictures before it was legally allowed to release those pictures would that have been a crime?

Of course, numerous details about the crime were leaked to the press that turned out to be false and it appears that they were known to be false that were extremely damaging to Knox and Sollecito. That sounds like a crime was committed against Knox and Solecito to me. If those leaks could be tied to Mignini would Mignini be guilty of a crime for that?

A lot of the problem with pinning down criminal acts by Mignini is that it appears the Italian justice system reeks of good old boy syndrome to a bizarre level and the notion that anybody could investigate Mignini for issues like these looks like a non-starter. When Mignini can prosecute people including reporters and Knox family members for criticizing him it looks pretty obvious that something is seriously rotten in the part of the Italian justice system that Mignini is part of.

I think the person with the camera was not Mignini and I thought there was discussion confirming this (if I am thinking of the same time and memory you are - during the December entry into the cottage). If it was Mignini and he provided photos to the papers, if it is not against the law, I would imagine it would be at the very least not ethical. The same would apply to leaks.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by the good old boy syndrome as it applies to Italy. I think most involved in the justice system want it to be a good system and work to make it so. Is it perfect? No but I think it is striving and evolving to be so.

As to investigation of Mignini being a non-starter I don't believe that to be true. He has been investigated as have members of the Perugia Police (not for this case specifically but for other instances). So investigation is and can be done against those in the justice system in Italy.

 

[codyjuneau]

But you wrote:


So Curatoto saw them when he arrived after 9:30, observed them later and then they were gone sometime after 11:30? Sounds like he is their alibi to me.

Also, if your life is not regimented, as Amanda's was not during those days, how do you know what happened when? I absolutely couldn't tell you what I ate and/or when last Tuesday night. Every night is dull and humdrum at my house. Sometimes I eat dinner, sometimes I do not. Sometimes I eat a late lunch instead. I work from home, alone. Nope, I couldn't tell you one bit what I ate or when, even on Wednesday night. Raff wanted to see a calendar and they wouldn't let him. Why not? When one day turns into the next you just don't know exact details. It is ridiculous to fault one for that or to imply some kind of guilt for that.

.
Yes. Many people think that because Meredith was murdered, Raffaele and Amanda should therefore have a better, or even perfect, recollection of what they did that night.

It sounds reasonable but ....

I think it is more reasonable to conclude, that if one finds out their friend was murdered the night before, one's own activities that night, become instantly insignificant and forgettable.
.