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

[Diocletus]

We should look at the timeline for the morning of 2nd November. PIPs should expect to find nothing amiss. Briars should be interested since she has claimed Amanda spent two hours just taking a shower. I just looked again at Honor Bound and WTBH. Straight off there is a conflict: Amanda says Raf was sleeping when she left while he says he took a call around 9.30 from Pop and she left right after.

So did she leave at roughly 9:30-10:00? Or was he asleep and he doesn't really know when she left?

 

[platonov]

The chesire cat has claws

In an interview on Italian television, Raffaele apparently seems to distance himself from Amanda Knox...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ehavior-murder-denies-hes-distancing-her.html

Just a mild shot across the bows perhaps.

This looks far more to me like the mainstream media looking to work up a story where none really exists.

What Sollecito is saying is that the prosecution should NEVER have considered him and Knox as a "package deal" - in other words it was never the case that they either both did it or they both did not. And he's absolutely correct.

snip

What – he was her alibi according to her testimony.

He was curiously reticent on the matter during the 1st trial at any rate – and apparently his lawyer tried to split the case in the appeal.

If she wasn’t with him that night he should probably have said something to the court lest inferences be drawn.

But they are were a package deal. They are now both convicted.

 

[RoseMontague]

We should look at the timeline for the morning of 2nd November. PIPs should expect to find nothing amiss. Briars should be interested since she has claimed Amanda spent two hours just taking a shower. I just looked again at Honor Bound and WTBH. Straight off there is a conflict: Amanda says Raf was sleeping when she left while he says he took a call around 9.30 from Pop and she left right after.

Her account does not have her doing anything except taking the shower, getting dressed, finding the poop and leaving. Then she makes some calls, apparently while walking home. She says she called her mother - while walking back to Raf's. Then she called Filomena. Her text suggests she had not got there yet. She seems to gave arrived somewhere in the midst of calling Metedith's two phones.

Am I right in thinking the call to Mum was at 12.47 local time? If so, that's well over three hours after she set out. That seems a long time. Has anyone any thoughts, or corrections, to this timeline?

Her testimony indicates she left to go back to Raffaele's at 10:30 where they had breakfast and she told him about what she saw. She called Meredith's phones and Filomena shortly after 12 noon. The call to her mom was while they were at the cottage while Raffaele was waiting for his phone to charge just prior to calling the cops. Dan O. has a really good timeline on his wiki for the exact details.

 

[anglolawyer]

So did she leave at roughly 9:30-10:00? Or was he asleep and he doesn't really know when she left?

He says one thing, she says another. And no one should assume they know what I think about that.

 

[anglolawyer]

Her testimony indicates she left to go back to Raffaele's at 10:30 where they had breakfast and she told him about what she saw. She called Meredith's phones and Filomena shortly after 12 noon. The call to her mom was while they were at the cottage while Raffaele was waiting for his phone to charge just prior to calling the cops. Dan O. has a really good timeline on his wiki for the exact details.

The account in WTBH is very different.

 

[platonov]

Then why ask?

Why post?

Seems like Harry Rag has been axed from CNN.

Now that's a chap who can generate a big response to a petition.

Who does his PR - The foakers should sign them up

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

We should look at the timeline for the morning of 2nd November. PIPs should expect to find nothing amiss. Briars should be interested since she has claimed Amanda spent two hours just taking a shower. I just looked again at Honor Bound and WTBH. Straight off there is a conflict: Amanda says Raf was sleeping when she left while he says he took a call around 9.30 from Pop and she left right after.

Her account does not have her doing anything except taking the shower, getting dressed, finding the poop and leaving. Then she makes some calls, apparently while walking home. She says she called her mother - while walking back to Raf's. Then she called Filomena. Her text suggests she had not got there yet. She seems to gave arrived somewhere in the midst of calling Metedith's two phones.

Am I right in thinking the call to Mum was at 12.47 local time? If so, that's well over three hours after she set out. That seems a long time. Has anyone any thoughts, or corrections, to this timeline?

As far as I can tell, she is wrong about the phone call, which was indeed made at 12:47. She got this wrong in her book, and again in a recent comment on her blog.

This all started during her testimony in 2009. Comodi asked her why she called her mother at noon, before anything had happened. At that time Amanda was working from memory. Comodi was working from phone records, or she wouldn't have known about the call in the first place, so who is the goddamn liar?

Unfortunately, Amanda has (apparently) never checked the phone records, so now Comodi's lie is part of her story. And of course we know how this works in the evil mind of the guilter... the authorities can lie through their teeth about anything, and it doesn't matter, whereas if Amanda gets any fact wrong, it is proof that she is a lying murderer. So it would be good to clear this up.

 

[Bill Williams]

A man tweets that he thinks Amanda Knox is innocent, and then posted a link to an Andrew Gumbel piece.

Now, it's not that people disputed his point of view. He says that within minutes, the trolls arrived!

Amanda Knox Is Joffrey: Fighting The SVU-Obsessed Narcissistic Trolls Who Want To Live In Her World.

http://stephenrobertmorse.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/amanda1/

It started with an innocuous Tweet. I wrote “Solid piece on #AmandaKnox and #RaffaeleSollecito” and then linked to an opinion piece by Andrew Gumbel in The Guardian. Within seconds, the trolls arrived. By trolls, I mean people who sow “discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

There are an uncertain number of people who are so singularly obsessed with Amanda Knox’s case that they virtually slapped me around again and again for these six words and one link. Yes, Twitter is a public forum, and yes, everyone is entitled to his and her own opinions… but why are people so obsessed with a seven year old murder case?

Here’s the problem with these trolls, and I think that the person who inadvertently explained it to me best is my friend Rob, who works as a writer’s assistant and writer on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

 

[platonov]

Goin' back in time

As far as I can tell, she is wrong about the phone call, which was indeed made at 12:47. She got this wrong in her book, and again in a recent comment on her blog.

This all started during her testimony in 2009. Comodi asked her why she called her mother at noon, before anything had happened. At that time Amanda was working from memory. Comodi was working from phone records, or she wouldn't have known about the call in the first place, so who is the goddamn liar?

Unfortunately, Amanda has (apparently) never checked the phone records, so now Comodi's lie is part of her story. And of course we know how this works in the evil mind of the guilter... the authorities can lie through their teeth about anything, and it doesn't matter, whereas if Amanda gets any fact wrong, it is proof that she is a lying murderer. So it would be good to clear this up.

Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid - can the police mind wipes be far behind ?

 

[Bill Williams]

If I were him I would be pretty pissed at Knox as well..... I don't think if that would be right... but I would.

Every time Raffaele is asked that question he's clear. He's pissed at those who focus on Knox and relegate him to the sidelines (while he gets convicted), and says that he does not know what this has to do with him? Since Amanda Knox has never accused him....

..... why would Raffaele be pissed at her? Every interview I have ever seen, he is clear.... it is others who go Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, to his exclusion, and no one is terribly interested in his story.

So much so he's never called at court either.

 

[Bill Williams]

As far as I can tell, she is wrong about the phone call, which was indeed made at 12:47. She got this wrong in her book, and again in a recent comment on her blog.

This all started during her testimony in 2009. Comodi asked her why she called her mother at noon, before anything had happened. At that time Amanda was working from memory. Comodi was working from phone records, or she wouldn't have known about the call in the first place, so who is the goddamn liar?

Unfortunately, Amanda has (apparently) never checked the phone records, so now Comodi's lie is part of her story. And of course we know how this works in the evil mind of the guilter... the authorities can lie through their teeth about anything, and it doesn't matter, whereas if Amanda gets any fact wrong, it is proof that she is a lying murderer. So it would be good to clear this up.

Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid - can the police mind wipes be far behind ?

This is not an answer to CW. Comodi has the records available to her, Amanda is working from memory about something that had happened 18 months previous. "What time did you call your mother?"

And she's called a liar because she does not remember. But as CW points out, Comodi is the one lying when she says "noon" when she knows it is 12:47 pm.

People looking to solve crimes pay attention to this sort of detail. Others simply want to spread confusion.

 

[RoseMontague]

A man tweets that he thinks Amanda Knox is innocent, and then posted a link to an Andrew Gumbel piece.

Now, it's not that people disputed his point of view. He says that within minutes, the trolls arrived!

Amanda Knox Is Joffrey: Fighting The SVU-Obsessed Narcissistic Trolls Who Want To Live In Her World.

http://stephenrobertmorse.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/amanda1/

The "beauty" in the fatal gift of beauty quote is Italy, not Amanda or Meredith as some interpret it. It's a quote from Byron. Other than that it is a pretty good article.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Sollecito interview is very grave. How anyone can still think these two are innocent is beyond me. Now we learn she returned hours later???

Once again, please give a comprehensive theory of the crime which would indicate they are guilty. That would be a good starting point.

If I have missed it I apologize. Please let me know where it is, or key words on which I can search.

My bet there isn't one.

 

[Bill Williams]

The "beauty" in the fatal gift of beauty quote is Italy, not Amanda or Meredith as some interpret it. It's a quote from Byron. Other than that it is a pretty good article.

I did not know that! Please say more about why "Italy"?

 

[Samson]

Not sure how calunnia got into this.... but whatever. Knox was asked what pressure she was under. She said she was hit. So she cannot be charged with calunnia because, apparently, hitting someone at interrogation is not a crime.

This mini-thread needs to go back to how it started... Machiavelli claimed that defendants were allowed to lie, and a sign of this is that they are not "sworn" as others are who give testimony.

Yet when Knox gives unsworn testimony that she was hit, she's charged with a crime.

I am not sure what the issue is here, except that I requested a bona fide Italian lawyer to explain this. One can lie (acc. to Machiavelli) until they actually do lie.

So I get "perjury" vs. "defamation" vs. "calunnia".... what I don't get is which "lie" is a protected lie and which one is not. What's the point in Italian court procedure not to swear-in a witness because they are expected to lie, and then charge them with someone if they do it? Is it in the way they hold their mouth?

From thread 7 and RWVBWL's link. Let us imagine these are good renditions of the two, for example I think both produced these words in English.

"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…’."

In my opinion these reports are too close to each other, without collusion, to charge either with callunia on these matters, and Amanda should take this sort of original reporting directly to the ECHR, and by the way John Kerry should imagine if he would extradite his own daughter if she was subjected to this, and he had sole discretion.

 

[anglolawyer]

As far as I can tell, she is wrong about the phone call, which was indeed made at 12:47. She got this wrong in her book, and again in a recent comment on her blog.

This all started during her testimony in 2009. Comodi asked her why she called her mother at noon, before anything had happened. At that time Amanda was working from memory. Comodi was working from phone records, or she wouldn't have known about the call in the first place, so who is the goddamn liar?

Unfortunately, Amanda has (apparently) never checked the phone records, so now Comodi's lie is part of her story. And of course we know how this works in the evil mind of the guilter... the authorities can lie through their teeth about anything, and it doesn't matter, whereas if Amanda gets any fact wrong, it is proof that she is a lying murderer. So it would be good to clear this up.

Well, I am just a nobody posting on an internet forum but I can tell you, not with hindsight, but from knowledge acquired over more than 30 years, if she were my client this would have been nailed down long ago. I don't mean I would have coached her but just that I would have questioned her so closely that she could not still be throwing out improvised guesswork or approximations of what happened.

I got the strong feeling reading Raf's book of a lack of firm guidance and advice from his lawyers at the crucial early stages. There is nothing in her book to suggest she spent adequate time with her lawyers. These things take hours. Many, many hours. What the **** has been going on?

 

[toto]

Her testimony indicates she left to go back to Raffaele's at 10:30 where they had breakfast and she told him about what she saw. She called Meredith's phones and Filomena shortly after 12 noon. The call to her mom was while they were at the cottage while Raffaele was waiting for his phone to charge just prior to calling the cops. Dan O. has a really good timeline on his wiki for the exact details.

I am a bit confused by this. Massei states her testimony was leaving Raffaele's apartment at 10.30. In her book Amanda rings her mother first about "a block away from home" (i.e. Raffaele's apartment). Then she rings Filomena. Then she calls Meredith. "By that time, I was back at Raffaele's." Then they have a "quick breakfast" Then as they are almost finished drinking coffee Filomena rings back.

Massei gives the phone records as:

12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number belonging to Meredith Kercher.
12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena
12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated
12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number
12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox
Amanda receives the call still at Raffaele’s house
− 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto
12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7
12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number
(12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito makes call)
13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage
13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number
13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call]
13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother’s number
13:50:06 (350 seconds): Amanda calls the American number
14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty Craft
15:31:51 (1 second): Amanda receives an SMS
..the analyses of the [phone record] printouts highlight that the first phone call made by Amanda on the day of 2 November was to Meredith Kercher’s English number.
The American student called her English flatmate even before contacting Romanelli Filomena to whom she intended to express, as she testified in court, her fears about the strange things she had seen in the cottage, which she had returned to at about 11 o’clock in order to shower in preparation for the excursion to Gubbio which she and Raffaele had planned.​

So apparently she doesn't ring her mother first, or then Filomena. If she was at the cottage at 10.30 to 11.00 then according to Amanda's book she was at the cottage between say 10.30 and 12.00 , an hour and a half? is this about right? Why did Amanda write in her book a slightly different timeline?

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately, Amanda has (apparently) never checked the phone records, so now Comodi's lie is part of her story. And of course we know how this works in the evil mind of the guilter... the authorities can lie through their teeth about anything, and it doesn't matter, whereas if Amanda gets any fact wrong, it is proof that she is a lying murderer. So it would be good to clear this up.

I know I'll be pilloried, but how can she be this über smart woman and not know these details. I guess she's really smart but just still trusts authority figures like her attorneys. Not so smart to do that.

I would suggest Charlie that you help Amanda learn the case and have her use her position to acquire more information useful to make her case.

It appeared to me that she had someone help write that last post.

 

[toto]

I see anglolawyer has rather more concisely referred to Amanda's book. Is there a consensus on how long she was at the cottage? One and a half hours? Two? Or more? It does seem rather a long time.

 

[Matthew Best]

I see anglolawyer has rather more concisely referred to Amanda's book. Is there a consensus on how long she was at the cottage? One and a half hours? Two? Or more? It dose seem rather a long time.

You think that's a long time to spend in the shower and getting dressed?

You should meet my wife.