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

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, this one also works if you assume the message they found was the one Amanda sent to Patrick: they found her message, asked her if she'd replied (i.e. getting her to confirm or deny the fact she'd sent it, which they already knew she had), then when she denied it they thought they'd caught her in a lie and started accusing her of protecting someone, i.e. whoever she'd sent that message to. Before that point they'd been asking her what she did that evening, asking her to go through it hour by hour, so they probably had already got her to say she was supposed to work but that Patrick sent her a message saying she didn't have to (which is when they checked her phone and found the sent message, but not the incoming message which she'd suspiciously deleted…)

No. It doesn't work. And you are picking this one in isolation from the other two. Where in her account does she tell them Patrick's message was to the effect she should not come to work? I can help you there. Nowhere. I wonder why … And yet, there it is slap bang in the 1.45 confession! How did it get there given that the cops did not know what the message said (on your understanding)?

With your next reply, can you comment on all four instances I found, not just the one? Try to approach this osmotically.

Besides, if she remembered seeing Patrick's message in her phone during her trial testimony, a year and a half after the interrogation, wouldn't she also remember it now?

Yes, you would think so. But you and I aren't her and we have never been in her predicament either. It seems she has been persuaded to believe she deleted the message and that no one has sat her down and taken her through it. I don't think her lawyers ever got it. If you look closely at her trial testimony, you will see she gives a general answer about her practise of deleting messages (her questioner and she sharing a common, unproven, non-specific assumption, that she deleted messages routinely that happened to include Patricks') but, when left to ramble on her own without interruption, she once again calls forth this memory of being shown Patrick's message.

 

[anglolawyer]

Quote from Matteini...

Precisely Rose. See how this supposed discrepancy was used. Hey, if it was deleted why not get an expert to retrieve it from the SIM to find out what it said! That idea comes from Jackie by the way. Everybody in the game knows you can do this. So why didn't they want to see this crucial, supposedly deleted message, hmm?

 

[anglolawyer]

LOL.

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.b...sollecito.html

There were one or two other cites on this as well and I will try and track them down.

Er, thanks Rose, I think ...

 

[katy_did]

No. It doesn't work. And you are picking this one in isolation from the other two. Where in her account does she tell them Patrick's message was to the effect she should not come to work? I can help you there. Nowhere. I wonder why … And yet, there it is slap bang in the 1.45 confession! How did it get there given that the cops did not know what the message said (on your understanding)?

The bit you quoted is obviously a very condensed version of the interrogation, but even there she says they asked her to go through everything again like "what I did that night". In other accounts she's described how they were getting her to put everything into hourly segments. So in that context, she would obviously have told them how she was supposed to work, had received a message from Patrick telling her not to, which would then have led them to search for the message in her phone.

I think the information about Patrick's message would just have been something Amanda told them in the course of describing hour by hour what she did that night.

With your next reply, can you comment on all four instances I found, not just the one? Try to approach this osmotically.


Yes, you would think so. But you and I aren't her and we have never been in her predicament either. It seems she has been persuaded to believe she deleted the message and that no one has sat her down and taken her through it. I don't think her lawyers ever got it. If you look closely at her trial testimony, you will see she gives a general answer about her practise of deleting messages (her questioner and she sharing a common, unproven, non-specific assumption, that she deleted messages routinely that happened to include Patricks') but, when left to ramble on her own without interruption, she once again calls forth this memory of being shown Patrick's message.

LOL. Well, osmotically speaking, I think the message from Patrick and the message she sent to Patrick are referred to interchangeably when she's referring to the police's belief she met someone that night. But to answer this bit in particular - "‘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’" - this is from Amanda's Nov 9 letter to her lawyers:

I asked to see the message on my phone to see if I remembered sending that [an]d when I saw the message my mind thought of Patrik. It was all I could think of, Patrik.

So here she's obviously referring to the message she sent, not the message she received, which contradicts what she said a day later.

I think the quote from Malcolm Moore is meaningless, mostly because it's just a press report, but also because he's clearly wrong anyway, as he says it was the message from Lumumba which fixed a message between them that night when we know it was Amanda's message which the police believed fixed a meeting.

 

[RoseMontague]

The bit you quoted is obviously a very condensed version of the interrogation, but even there she says they asked her to go through everything again like "what I did that night". In other accounts she's described how they were getting her to put everything into hourly segments. So in that context, she would obviously have told them how she was supposed to work, had received a message from Patrick telling her not to, which would then have led them to search for the message in her phone.

I think the information about Patrick's message would just have been something Amanda told them in the course of describing hour by hour what she did that night.



LOL. Well, osmotically speaking, I think the message from Patrick and the message she sent to Patrick are referred to interchangeably when she's referring to the police's belief she met someone that night. But to answer this bit in particular - "‘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’" - this is from Amanda's Nov 9 letter to her lawyers:



So here she's obviously referring to the message she sent, not the message she received, which contradicts what she said a day later.

I think the quote from Malcolm Moore is meaningless, mostly because it's just a press report, but also because he's clearly wrong anyway, as he says it was the message from Lumumba which fixed a message between them that night when we know it was Amanda's message which the police believed fixed a meeting.

I can see it either way. Not sure which is correct.

 

[anglolawyer]

The bit you quoted is obviously a very condensed version of the interrogation, but even there she says they asked her to go through everything again like "what I did that night". In other accounts she's described how they were getting her to put everything into hourly segments. So in that context, she would obviously have told them how she was supposed to work, had received a message from Patrick telling her not to, which would then have led them to search for the message in her phone.

I disagree. I believe she had completely forgotten about the whole thing. It was entirely inconsequential. The cops had not at any stage taken her over her own movements on the night of 1st Nov and she had not focused her mind on it. They had never mentioned Patrick before either, I think deliberately. They told her they knew she met someone, she was a blank, then, as she has said multiple times, they showed her Patrick's message and she broke and told them what they already knew.

I think the information about Patrick's message would just have been something Amanda told them in the course of describing hour by hour what she did that night.

Then find it in her evidence or theirs.

LOL. Well, osmotically speaking, I think the message from Patrick and the message she sent to Patrick are referred to interchangeably when she's referring to the police's belief she met someone that night. But to answer this bit in particular - "‘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’" - this is from Amanda's Nov 9 letter to her lawyers:

So here she's obviously referring to the message she sent, not the message she received, which contradicts what she said a day later.

Taken on its own, this goes your way, but only if you take it on its own and then the De Felice quote just knocks it over.

I think the quote from Malcolm Moore is meaningless, mostly because it's just a press report, but also because he's clearly wrong anyway, as he says it was the message from Lumumba which fixed a message between them that night when we know it was Amanda's message which the police believed fixed a meeting.

It is a verbatim account of a press conference. FWIW I have spoken to Malcolm Moore about it. He is quite sure of the accuracy of his report and the reliability of his Italian. It's not a scoop, or a dodgy leak just a report of a press conference.

The two statements do not say Amanda fixed a meeting. Their tenor is that she replied to Lumumba agreeing to meet him.

at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work.
I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately

Where is Patrick's reply to the reply, agreeing to this weird meeting?

. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”.

Your rejection of the De Felice statement is perverse, frankly. The case as presented to Matteini two days later was that Lumumba wanted to see Meredith and he texted amanda to fix that up:

Also as regards the text of the message that the suspect sent to the 20.30 to Amanda there are discrepancies between what is reported by the girl and what the predicted;
Indeed while the girl spoke of a message which was that the local sights would
remained closed and therefore should not have to go to work, Patrick say they have written that evening there was no need of its few customers collaborative absence.

This may seem like a fact of little importance when in reality it is not absence
a substantial difference between the two messages, it is likely that Patrick had intended actually not to open the room thinking that you can spend the night with Meritith, then, since the evolution of facts, has seen fit to open the pub for specially established an alibi.

Why lie about why Amanda would not know because there are logical explanations, while a more than substantial justification is found in respect of the suspect who with the opening of the enclosure created for himself an alibi for the evening.

These discrepancies raise doubts about the actual text of the message all the more when this
Compare with the answer that Amanda sent Patrick the standard "see you later", answer logical reference to a closure of the premises to have a night off and a subsequent appointment.

Thus suffering from the existing evidence at this time, so you can reconstruct what happened the evening of the first of November: Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox spent the whole afternoon smoking hashish the night around 20.30, while Knox was in the house
reminders, receive the Diya Lumumba that rather than simply warn not go to work to confirm the appointment for that evening, it was evident previously agreed on an aid that the girl offered to let him have a meeting with Meredith's friend

Just run it past me again - how is the second message sender supposed to be the one fixing the meeting?

First person: Let's meet
Second person (responder): Alright

THis I get

First person: don't come to work
Second person: let's meet
First person nothing - not where, what time, what for - nothing

But this, I don't get. Please explain.

 

[katy_did]

I disagree. I believe she had completely forgotten about the whole thing. It was entirely inconsequential. The cops had not at any stage taken her over her own movements on the night of 1st Nov and she had not focused her mind on it. They had never mentioned Patrick before either, I think deliberately. They told her they knew she met someone, she was a blank, then, as she has said multiple times, they showed her Patrick's message and she broke and told them what they already knew.

Then find it in her evidence or theirs.

OK. This again from Amanda's November 9 letter to her lawyers:

We talked about the message I received from Patrik [and] I told them yes, I received a message from Patrik, he told me [not] to go into work that night because there was no one there. I [did]n't remember if I had sent a message back, so I said no, but they [had] taken my phone and showed me the message I forgot I sent: [ending?] with the words, "Ci vediamo. Buona serata." They called me a [stu]pid lier. They said I was protecting someone, who was it?!

So she did tell them what the message from Patrick said during the first interrogation (and why would she have needed to, if they could read it for themselves?).

Taken on its own, this goes your way, but only if you take it on its own and then the De Felice quote just knocks it over.

I think it just shows that Amanda isn't always strictly accurate when she's talking about "the text message" in terms of who sent it and who received it, so we can't read too much into it. Even in your quote she follows up the statement about asking to see Patrick's message by saying "Because I don't remember having replied to him". If she doesn't remember the reply, why wouldn't she be asking to see that rather than the message he sent her, which she presumably does remember reading?

It is a verbatim account of a press conference. FWIW I have spoken to Malcolm Moore about it. He is quite sure of the accuracy of his report and the reliability of his Italian. It's not a scoop, or a dodgy leak just a report of a press conference.

No it isn't, because only the first part of the report is attributed to de Felice in quotation marks. The bit about Patrick's message isn't attributed to him, it reads more like a report of what happened. Moore could easily have misunderstood or simply assumed the police had some evidence for what they were saying, rather than pulling the theory out of thin air.

The two statements do not say Amanda fixed a meeting. Their tenor is that she replied to Lumumba agreeing to meet him.

Where is Patrick's reply to the reply, agreeing to this weird meeting?

Your rejection of the De Felice statement is perverse, frankly. The case as presented to Matteini two days later was that Lumumba wanted to see Meredith and he texted amanda to fix that up:

Just run it past me again - how is the second message sender supposed to be the one fixing the meeting?

First person: Let's meet
Second person (responder): Alright

THis I get

First person: don't come to work
Second person: let's meet
First person nothing - not where, what time, what for - nothing

But this, I don't get. Please explain.

The police may very well have assumed Patrick had sent a message to Amanda arranging a meeting, and that Amanda's 'see you later' text was agreeing to that meeting. That may be the case they presented to the media, and it may well be why Moore was confused into thinking they had actual evidence to support the theory. But it doesn't follow of course that they deliberately deleted a text to hide the fact that there wasn't a meeting...

 

[anglolawyer]

OK. This again from Amanda's November 9 letter to her lawyers:


So she did tell them what the message from Patrick said during the first interrogation (and why would she have needed to, if they could read it for themselves?).

I think it just shows that Amanda isn't always strictly accurate when she's talking about "the text message" in terms of who sent it and who received it, so we can't read too much into it. Even in your quote she follows up the statement about asking to see Patrick's message by saying "Because I don't remember having replied to him". If she doesn't remember the reply, why wouldn't she be asking to see that rather than the message he sent her, which she presumably does remember reading?

The whole thing makes no sense. You quote from the letter to the lawyer:

We talked about the message I received from Patrik [and] I told them yes, I received a message from Patrik, he told me [not] to go into work that night because there was no one there. I [did]n't remember if I had sent a message back, so I said no, but they [had] taken my phone and showed me the message I forgot I sent: [ending?] with the words, "Ci vediamo. Buona serata." They called me a [stu]pid lier. They said I was protecting someone, who was it?!

The police are told she got a message from Patrick. They want to know about her reply. Therefore they knew who she was replying to, right? Patrick. She does not remember replying, though, so they confront her with her reply. All good. But why then would they suggest she was protecting 'someone - who was it?'. They knew it was Patrick! She is conflating things and she is also writing this after the Matteini hearing when her recollection has been influenced by what must have seemed very confusing to her - the fact that Patrick's message to her was said to be not available.

If I am wrong it means that on three separate occasions she expressed herself in terms suggesting she was shown Patrick's message and that De Felice (or somebody else at the press conference if not him) said they found messages from Patrick fixing a meeting, when nothing of the kind had ever happened.

No it isn't, because only the first part of the report is attributed to de Felice in quotation marks. The bit about Patrick's message isn't attributed to him, it reads more like a report of what happened. Moore could easily have misunderstood or simply assumed the police had some evidence for what they were saying, rather than pulling the theory out of thin air.

Agreed, not verbatim, but paraphrase and, as I have said, I have put it to him he could have got this wrong and he is quite sure he didn't. He is trained journalist, fluent in Italian and was taking a contemporaneous note of the conference. Maybe there is an Italian source backing this up.

The police may very well have assumed Patrick had sent a message to Amanda arranging a meeting, and that Amanda's 'see you later' text was agreeing to that meeting. That may be the case they presented to the media, and it may well be why Moore was confused into thinking they had actual evidence to support the theory. But it doesn't follow of course that they deliberately deleted a text to hide the fact that there wasn't a meeting...

So you concede now that Amanda did not fix this meeting. Thank you. That was one of your weird reasons for rejecting the De Felice statement and I see it has now gone. All you have now is you don't believe the accuracy of Moore's reporting. Well, I do and I bet someone can turn up footage of that press conference to settle the point.

By the way, where is the full text of that letter to the lawyers please? I should appreciate a link.

 

[RWVBWL]

phenomena of “editing”.

Editing the Right Way

One moment, there are also phenomena of “editing”. I’m trying to read them as mistakes but it’s hard there..

The message was saying “Ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata”.
But they told the judge that it was only “Ci vediamo più tardi”.
Can it be a mistake?

“13 October 2006″, Raffaele writes on his blog that he was having strong emotions (his mother was just dead, etc.). But they gave to judge Matteini a copy of the page without the year, only “13 Ottobre”. So Matteini thought that Raffaele was having strong emotions right on those days before the murder. Also this editing was by mistake?

Are we still sure that the translator who translated Foxy Knoxy with Volpe Cattiva (Evil Fox) was just a bad translator? Or someone told him to translate that way?

Are we still sure that the DNA came from a contamination? And twice!


The above is from Perugia Shock,
written just days before AK + RS were released in Oct. 2011...

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110930...olice-are-nice-only-some-cops-are-criminals”/

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What was wrong with that program in terms of accuracy?

Clearly the BBC 3 programme presented the prosecution’s case, given the producers I doubt that was a surprise to any of the regular posters at JREF. I think there will be the predictable reactions from PIP and PGP perspective but this programme like the Ch 5 programme will not have an impact on the remaining process in Italy, it is a shame that there are no translations or subtitles available for some of the TV programme’s in Italy that have covered the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Editing the Right Way

One moment, there are also phenomena of “editing”. I’m trying to read them as mistakes but it’s hard there..

The message was saying “Ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata”.
But they told the judge that it was only “Ci vediamo più tardi”.
Can it be a mistake?

“13 October 2006″, Raffaele writes on his blog that he was having strong emotions (his mother was just dead, etc.). But they gave to judge Matteini a copy of the page without the year, only “13 Ottobre”. So Matteini thought that Raffaele was having strong emotions right on those days before the murder. Also this editing was by mistake?

Are we still sure that the translator who translated Foxy Knoxy with Volpe Cattiva (Evil Fox) was just a bad translator? Or someone told him to translate that way?

Are we still sure that the DNA came from a contamination? And twice!


The above is from Perugia Shock,
written just days before AK + RS were released in Oct. 2011...

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110930...olice-are-nice-only-some-cops-are-criminals”/

The elision of the words 'buona serata' offers further support for the theory that Patrick's message was deleted by the cops. It clearly did not fit the script so the judge was not told about it. Nor did it make its way into her 'confessions'. So there was editing going on with that message, which could not be destroyed of course.

Randy, do you know the story of how and when the full text of her message came out? I know it was some time later, long after Lumumba was replaced by Rudy.

 

[Dan O.]

May I see the warrant? They did not run this deletion point before Matteini. That would have been risky as either Amanda or Patrick might have piped up to object that they had not deleted anything.

Matteini would have to be an idiot beyond being Italian not to know that the text from Patrick had been deleted. She writes of the differences in the content of that message as reported by Amanda and Patrick and knows that the response text "See you later" was found in Amanda's phone.

 

[anglolawyer]

Matteini would have to be an idiot beyond being Italian not to know that the text from Patrick had been deleted. She writes of the differences in the content of that message as reported by Amanda and Patrick and knows that the response text "See you later" was found in Amanda's phone.

True enough. I think, though, that the deletion point referred to is the notion that Amanda deliberately deleted the message in order to conceal what happened. That deletion point was not run. As for the less extreme point, merely that the text was gone and their recollections of what passed between them was differed remember that each of the accused was heard separately and did not get to hear or see what passed with the others. Remember also the lawyers did not have a proper chance to consult their clients before this crucial hearing.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I have a question for anyone posting from the UK, can you find anyone who actually watched the programme last night, I mean anyone, co-worker your local convenience store owner, anyone who actually watched it?

I have asked about 15 people so far today, no one saw it, with further prompting people either didn’t know about the case or thought it was all over.

 

[RWVBWL]

He didn't?

If it's of any importance, Patrick says quite clearly in the BBC doc that he told Amanda not to come to work.

Incidentally, he speaks in French, the official language of Congo. More reason to believe he never gave that interview to Lady Antonia Whatsername.

Hi Mary H,
But Amanda, early on, and while in prison, had always been complaining of the same treatment that Lumumba stated in his Daily Mail interview, that he was paid $70,000E for, with Antonia Hoyle!

WHAT AMANDA AND PATRICK TOLD US

Amanda’s told us: ‘They hit me over the head and yelled stupid liar….I didn’t know what to do… I was terrified… They told me that if I didn’t confess I’d go to jail for 30 years’.

Patrick Lumumba told the Daily Mail: ‘They hit me over the head and yelled ‘dirty black’… I didn’t know what I had done… I was terrified… I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me … They forced me on my knees against the wall… I was scared and humiliated… After a ten-hour interrogation still handcuffed and unfed, I was shown the evidence against me, a statement from Amanda… They told me that if I confessed I’d only get half the 30-year sentence…’.

Who was telling the lies, they or Amanda-Patrick, became pretty clear after the latest testimonies in court.

Link
http://web.archive.org/web/20110910...nox-and-raffaele-sollecito-there-was-nothing/



Surely, in prison, Amanda Knox did not read that Nov. 25, 2007 Daily Mail interview,
and match Lumumba's story with her own, or did she?



Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

 

[Dan O.]

Novelli has been the director of a university master school in DNA forensics. But let's compare them to Vecchiotti. And take Stefanoni in comparison to Vecchiotti.
Vecchiotti is a coroner, she does not even perform DNA analysis routinely, it's not her job. Even less forensics. She is not a member of ENFSI; her laboratory has no kind of certification.
What Vecchiotti did on cases where she was involved, such as the Olgiata case, belogs to historical records.
She is capable of pasting what Budowle sends her, though.

What kind of certification did der Stefie's lab have when the analysis for this case was performed?

 

[RoseMontague]

I have a question for anyone posting from the UK, can you find anyone who actually watched the programme last night, I mean anyone, co-worker your local convenience store owner, anyone who actually watched it?

I have asked about 15 people so far today, no one saw it, with further prompting people either didn’t know about the case or thought it was all over.

The other person that saw it is probably looking around for somebody else that saw it as well. Maybe the two of you will meet and compare notes. You will probably find them near the water cooler. Just a suggestion.

 

[anglolawyer]

What kind of certification did der Stefie's lab have when the analysis for this case was performed?

I think 'none' is the answer isn't it? Do I win something? I saw something the other day suggesting they were applying for some kind of accreditation which they did not get for another few years. Can't fault them for lack of effort, can you?

 

[Matthew Best]

I have a question for anyone posting from the UK, can you find anyone who actually watched the programme last night, I mean anyone, co-worker your local convenience store owner, anyone who actually watched it?

I have asked about 15 people so far today, no one saw it, with further prompting people either didn’t know about the case or thought it was all over.

BBC3 only gets a 1.4% share of the audience so you might have to ask quite a few people before finding one who watched it. I'm not about to start quizzing random people I'm afraid. I don't really know how this matters, unless you're suggesting that as long as your audience share is sufficiently low it's OK to say whatever you like in a supposed "documentary".

 

[Skind]

I have a question for anyone posting from the UK, can you find anyone who actually watched the programme last night, I mean anyone, co-worker your local convenience store owner, anyone who actually watched it?

I have asked about 15 people so far today, no one saw it, with further prompting people either didn’t know about the case or thought it was all over.

I've yet to find a single other person who has any interest in the case at all, never mind watched a particular programme about it. Of all the people who expressed passing comments about the case (as it was in the news at the time), only one expressed a belief that she was guilty. That includes the half dozen of so ex-pat Italians and Scillians that I know.

I know of one who used to be interested, but he switched entirely from "she's obviously guilty" to "well the police framed her then" in under 5 seconds as soon as he was informed that Knox was claiming that the police were suggesting Patrick to her. Needless to say, his lifestyle brings him into repeated contact with the police.

That was the last conversation I've ever had about the case with anyone. This was before the Hellmann verdict.