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

[kwill]

You snipped most of my short post - note the bolded part..

You mean this?

perhaps an overview or read through of the threads would answer many of the Q's you guys have.


Unfortunately I've been unable to find anyone willing to tell me what time they think A & R killed Meredith. That's my central question.

I don't think they killed her at all. I think Rudy did that all by himself, in an encounter that took place between 9:10 and 9:25 pm.

What do you think?

 

[Desert Fox]

Well if you can convince CW that 2007 precedes 2009, which might not be as easy as it sounds, he could ask Amanda directly why she forgot (and then remembered/invented and then forgot again)– straight from the horses mouth and all that.

Also if she or her mother remember the mind control episode from 2007 which caused the forgetfulness/ perplexity?

To be blunt:
Are you actually a skeptic? Do you know just how unreliable human memory is?There are people who honestly believe they we abducted by UFOs. You expect every person to remember every call down to the minute?

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O quoted from Massei on it:

And then went on to say this:

So, please help this noob understand. Doesn't that quote from Massei say that Spotlight found that Naruto had been opened at 9:26? Isn't that also what that last sentence in the quote from Dan O means?

Naruto comes from Raffaele's appeal. Stardust was brought up in Massei's court.

For example, it was explained, it has been positively confirmed that in the afternoon of 1-Nov-2007, the download completed for the multimedia file ‚Stardust‛ that the user had requested from the Internet using the P2P system. (Massei 331)

a "last access" occurred right on the night of 6-Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questuraa[Police Headquarters]. (Massei 332)

 

[AmyStrange]

Some GUMPers are just plain bullies and cowards...

-

To be blunt:
Are you actually a skeptic? Do you know just how unreliable human memory is?There are people who honestly believe they we abducted by UFOs. You expect every person to remember every call down to the minute?

-

Some of the GUMPers that come here aren't skeptics, but rather plain ole fashion bullies and most bullies are just cowards and stupidly self-centered.

Wanna stop being called a bully and coward (and a stupid yes person), then use REAL evidence, not speculative psychological crap, to prove two people committed murder.

I mean really, so what if you want to have sex with your mother, hating Amanda is not going to change that,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean this?

perhaps an overview or read through of the threads would answer many of the Q's you guys have.


Unfortunately I've been unable to find anyone willing to tell me what time they think A & R killed Meredith. That's my central question.

I don't think they killed her at all. I think Rudy did that all by himself, in an encounter that took place between 9:10 and 9:25 pm.

What do you think?

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher in the most brutal way possible. You've laid out a time for it, based on known time-waypoints. No one has shown how anyone else could have been involved in this.

At Guede's trial, it was in the interests of both prosecution and defence to mitigate Rudy's involvement. That's quite the trick, to mitigate involvement when he's the only one involved.

Yet with that bias built in and signed-off on by Cassazione, it now becomes law that someone else must have been involved.

Then Hellmann's court demonstrates that even if there were others involved it could not have been the two innocents.

Cassazione strikes that down because it doesn't fit "osmotically" with the evidence.

People like you, kwill, have been asking ever since, "what evidence?" What evidence is there that AK and RS had anything to do with this?

When they get an interviewer to interview Raffaele, all they ask him about is Amanda's behaviour. Raffaele's answer is always, "Ask Amanda, it's HER behaviour. But what's any of this got to do with me?" And Amanda has addressed it in her book.

And before anyone goes all "Daily Mail" on us, he also says, "She was with me all night, Nov 1 to 2." Because Raffaele is an honourable man, he is her alibi, as she is his.

And since there is no evidence putting either of them at the crime - anywhere NEAR a T.O.D, that's the case in a nutshell.

So ask away, kwill. What is the guilters' T.O.D.?

And remember, Rudy Guede is getting out on day release soon. To pursue the education he deprived Meredith Kercher of.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Environmental contamination from another perspective

"... ..the documentation regarding possible contamination of the item, both before and after recovery, is inadequate. The mere fact that the amplification control — which was not provided — was negative is not enough to rule out environmental contamination of the item previous to the extraction and amplification of the DNA. It would have been necessary to obtain the allele profiles present in the surrounding environment." link Peter Gill and Hinda Haned, "Evaluation of the evidence in the murder of Meredith Kercher (implications and recommendations for forensic laboratories)"

The lack of an amplification control is inexcusable.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've never really understood the whole guilty argument about the phone call to her mother - if Amanda was supposed to be up all night and the argument is that Amanda had to speak to her mother due to the stress of killing Meredith, wouldn't she have been more likely to call when she knew her mother would be awake - maybe at the same time she was supposedly buying the mythical bleach?

Oh, don't spoil it Nancy! Platonov was just thinking up a reason why, even if it were true (which it isn't) that Amanda called her mother 'before anything happened' would be incriminating.

What you both are missing is that this noon call to Edda, which never happened, is part of the osmostic case against AK and RS.

It is part of "all the other evidence". You see, when refusing to provide basic things, like a time line of the crime or a probable T.O.D., what becomes important to an "osmotic" case is detail like this phantom phone call.

From what I hear, Manuela Comodi, a partner in persecution with Mignini, knew darn well that the call to Edda was at 12:47 on the 2nd. Yet she tried to trip up Knox on the stand by asking about a noon-call, something Knox did not remember - perhaps because it never happened...

.... and Comodi knew it and dealt it from the bottom of the deck. Comodi had access to all time-logs.

But this factoid certainly works with "all the other evidence" which is like this - because when all these minor, obscure, and mostly downright false factoids are considered osmotically....

.... then even you have to admit the two students are guilty. In an osmotic sort of way.

Zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence = guilt. That's what the March 2013 Cassazione ruling ordered and Judge Nencini had to browbeat the Popular Judges to get a Jan 30 re-conviction. Nencini wasn't even subtle about it, and himself faces a hearing on March 11 because of it.

Yup, this is a process one can trust.

 

[Dan O.]

-


-

Maybe you should take your own advice and then you won't have to dumb anything up or down?

-

But then it is always good to reexamine your sources. I found this from 2008:

Giulia Bongiorno explained to have reconstructed with Raffaele all his movements the night of November first 2007. It's amazing how some months of jail may benefit your memory. A lot more effective than phosphorous. And anyway: it seems that for every spot he said he was a confirmation arrived from computer or cellphone.
In particular, from the computer expertise a new human interaction was found on his notebook. The help Amelie couldn't give comes by surprise from a Manga cartoon: Naruto. That night Raffaele, after having downloaded a Naruto cartoon, has opened it and then closed at 9.46 pm. If this is true he could hardly have been in time for the orgy at via della pergola (and if you miss preliminaries you miss everything).

The opening time we have known from Raffaele's appeal in 2010 was 9:26. There is no question that this is a user interaction because it comes from the the Spotlight metadata for the last time the file was opened from the Finder.

I looked up the runtime for "Naruto ep 101.avi" and found it to be 23:44. If the file is closed 20 minutes after opening (at least 2 minutes before it ends) that means the closing is also a human interaction. So we can add "Watching Naruto 21:26 - 21:46" to Raffaee's timeline for November 1, 2007.

ETA: I don't know how many times I read that 9:46 time and equated it to the 9:26 opening time and disregarded it.

 

[AmyStrange]

What?!

-

What you both are missing is that this noon call to Edda, which never happened, is part of the osmostic case against AK and RS.

It is part of "all the other evidence". You see, when refusing to provide basic things, like a time line of the crime or a probable T.O.D., what becomes important to an "osmotic" case is detail like this phantom phone call.

From what I hear, Manuela Comodi, a partner in persecution with Mignini, knew darn well that the call to Edda was at 12:47 on the 2nd. Yet she tried to trip up Knox on the stand by asking about a noon-call, something Knox did not remember - perhaps because it never happened...

.... and Comodi knew it and dealt it from the bottom of the deck. Comodi had access to all time-logs.

But this factoid certainly works with "all the other evidence" which is like this - because when all these minor, obscure, and mostly downright false factoids are considered osmotically....

.... then even you have to admit the two students are guilty. In an osmotic sort of way.
Zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence = guilt. That's what the March 2013 Cassazione ruling ordered and Judge Nencini had to browbeat the Popular Judges to get a Jan 30 re-conviction. Nencini wasn't even subtle about it, and himself faces a hearing on March 11 because of it.

Yup, this is a process one can trust.

-

What I don't understand is why osmotic evidence is better than REAL evidence? I mean, theoretically, you could prove everyone in Italy is osmotically guilty of Meredith's murder if you really wanted to, if REAL evidence doesn't prove anything,

d

ETA even people who have strong alibis, because (of course) everyone who gives them an alibi is guilty too. You might as well say Bigfoot is guilty of killing Meredith, and THAT proves OSMOTICALLY that Bigfoot exist... Damn, I wish it were that easy.
-

 

[LondonJohn]

To be blunt:
Are you actually a skeptic? Do you know just how unreliable human memory is?There are people who honestly believe they we abducted by UFOs. You expect every person to remember every call down to the minute?

Exactly. And not only that, one has also to ask two important questions:

1) Why would Knox have deliberately sought to deceive about the timing of phone calls, when she is/was certain to have known that there were unimpeachable timing records in public circulation?

And even if one could answer (1) with anything other than "There's clearly no reason why Knox would have even tried to deceive", one then has to ask:

2) What would Knox possibly have been seeking to accomplish by falsely (deliberately) claiming to have called her mother at 12pm Italian time? Why would a knowingly-false claim of such a call have "helped" Knox's cause in any way?


I'm afraid that this "phantom phone call" issue is one more very clear illustration of the absence of critical thinking, objectivity, neutrality and logic among many of the pro-guilt commentators. In short, they are ascribing motives to this mistake where - quite clearly - no such motives exist, if one stops even for a second to think about things such as the two questions above.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sure. I brought this to her attention - get the time of your phone call right. She just doesn't remember it correctly.

snip

Could someone tell Charlie she would not need to remember if she had a document recording her story from start to finish. It's called a statement. The time of the call is in the phone records anyway. There is, or should be, no need to 'remember' it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Could someone tell Charlie she would not need to remember if she had a document recording her story from start to finish. It's called a statement. The time of the call is in the phone records anyway. There is, or should be, no need to 'remember' it.

And don't get me started again on what I perceive as multiple, serious failings on the part of her defence lawyers. As you and others have also pointed out, they should have collated a firm timeline from 6pm on 1st November to 1.30pm on 2nd November, backed by evidence wherever possible. Clearly, the phone records were unequivocal timing points of reference, and in fact they should, as such (together with any confirmed computer-related timings) have been at the very heart of the timeline.

When Comodi put her misleading question (and I think there was intention to mislead, but even if it was an entirely honest mistake by Comodi....) to Knox about the "12pm" phone call to her mother, her defence team should have objected immediately. Quite simply, either Dalla Vedova or someone he delegated should have been intimately familiar with all these timings. I can forgive Knox herself getting confused about it on the stand: she would have been under huge stress, in unfamiliar circumstances and surroundings. Her lawyers had a duty to protect her and her interests. They signally failed to do so.

I know I've garnered a bit of a reputation for criticising the defence teams, and Knox's team in particular. However, I think that there were so many gross derelictions of duty - of which this is only one - that a) my criticisms carry demonstrable justification, and b) there's every chance that this issue had a materially adverse impact upon Knox's (and Sollecito's) chances in their trials.

As I've said before, I find Knox's representation particularly disgraceful because Dalla Vedova should never (in my view) even have agreed to take on the case in the first place. He most certainly should have known better - even though Knox and her parents did not. I don't doubt that he was/is a very nice guy, who is an excellent communicator and a source of moral support to Knox and her family. But in my view, none of that even begins to make up for the fact that he was incompetent and ineffectual as a criminal defence lawyer in a high-profile murder trial. And he ought to have known that, recognised it and remedied it (by turning down the case and perhaps recommending an appropriate lawyer) long before the first trial ever even started.

 

[anglolawyer]

What you both are missing is that this noon call to Edda, which never happened, is part of the osmostic case against AK and RS.

It is part of "all the other evidence". You see, when refusing to provide basic things, like a time line of the crime or a probable T.O.D., what becomes important to an "osmotic" case is detail like this phantom phone call.

From what I hear, Manuela Comodi, a partner in persecution with Mignini, knew darn well that the call to Edda was at 12:47 on the 2nd. Yet she tried to trip up Knox on the stand by asking about a noon-call, something Knox did not remember - perhaps because it never happened...

.... and Comodi knew it and dealt it from the bottom of the deck. Comodi had access to all time-logs.

But this factoid certainly works with "all the other evidence" which is like this - because when all these minor, obscure, and mostly downright false factoids are considered osmotically....

.... then even you have to admit the two students are guilty. In an osmotic sort of way.

Zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence + zero evidence = guilt. That's what the March 2013 Cassazione ruling ordered and Judge Nencini had to browbeat the Popular Judges to get a Jan 30 re-conviction. Nencini wasn't even subtle about it, and himself faces a hearing on March 11 because of it.
Yup, this is a process one can trust.

Can you say more about this hearing please?

It was all very fast, the Nencini appeal. Just a couple of months, a few speeches and that was it. He even delivered the verdict as if he were in a hurry to get through it. Funny.

 

[Dan O.]

From what I hear, Manuela Comodi, a partner in persecution with Mignini, knew darn well that the call to Edda was at 12:47 on the 2nd. Yet she tried to trip up Knox on the stand by asking about a noon-call, something Knox did not remember - perhaps because it never happened...

To keep the facts straight, Amanda didn't remember the 12:47 call either.

GCM: If the pubblico ministero has no more questions, then the other parties
who have not already examined may question. Please, go ahead.

MC: You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.

AK: Yes.

GM: When did you call her for the first time?

AK: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I
was like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called
my mother.

On a scale of important events, even the poo in the toilet is insignificant once the door is kicked in and Meredith is discovered dead.

But for Ms. Comfortable, the phone call to mom at midday is the most important thing. She goes on and on and on about it (gee, is she related to platonov?) until Massei intervenes and continues questioning Amanda about this forgotten call. Fimally, the questioning is passed to the civil plaintiffs where we get:

FM: Yes. Good day. Avvocato Maresca, for the Kercher family. The first
question I want to ask you. I'm going back to finish the subject of the
telephone call to your mother on the morning of Nov 2, about which you just
spoke to the pubblico ministero.

This guy gives snakes a bad reputation.

 

[anglolawyer]

And don't get me started again on what I perceive as multiple, serious failings on the part of her defence lawyers. As you and others have also pointed out, they should have collated a firm timeline from 6pm on 1st November to 1.30pm on 2nd November, backed by evidence wherever possible. Clearly, the phone records were unequivocal timing points of reference, and in fact they should, as such (together with any confirmed computer-related timings) have been at the very heart of the timeline.

When Comodi put her misleading question (and I think there was intention to mislead, but even if it was an entirely honest mistake by Comodi....) to Knox about the "12pm" phone call to her mother, her defence team should have objected immediately. Quite simply, either Dalla Vedova or someone he delegated should have been intimately familiar with all these timings. I can forgive Knox herself getting confused about it on the stand: she would have been under huge stress, in unfamiliar circumstances and surroundings. Her lawyers had a duty to protect her and her interests. They signally failed to do so.

I know I've garnered a bit of a reputation for criticising the defence teams, and Knox's team in particular. However, I think that there were so many gross derelictions of duty - of which this is only one - that a) my criticisms carry demonstrable justification, and b) there's every chance that this issue had a materially adverse impact upon Knox's (and Sollecito's) chances in their trials.

As I've said before, I find Knox's representation particularly disgraceful because Dalla Vedova should never (in my view) even have agreed to take on the case in the first place. He most certainly should have known better - even though Knox and her parents did not. I don't doubt that he was/is a very nice guy, who is an excellent communicator and a source of moral support to Knox and her family. But in my view, none of that even begins to make up for the fact that he was incompetent and ineffectual as a criminal defence lawyer in a high-profile murder trial. And he ought to have known that, recognised it and remedied it (by turning down the case and perhaps recommending an appropriate lawyer) long before the first trial ever even started.

What would you rate as their most egregious blunders?

 

[kwill]

But then it is always good to reexamine your sources. I found this from 2008:

​

The opening time we have known from Raffaele's appeal in 2010 was 9:26. There is no question that this is a user interaction because it comes from the the Spotlight metadata for the last time the file was opened from the Finder.

I looked up the runtime for "Naruto ep 101.avi" and found it to be 23:44. If the file is closed 20 minutes after opening (at least 2 minutes before it ends) that means the closing is also a human interaction. So we can add "Watching Naruto 21:26 - 21:46" to Raffaee's timeline for November 1, 2007.

ETA: I don't know how many times I read that 9:46 time and equated it to the 9:26 opening time and disregarded it.

Thanks. Revised the graphic again, here it is.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Uh oh. Even more evidence against twice convicted murderer Amanda Knox - http://www.extratv.com/2014/02/25/amanda-knox-s-ex-raffaele-sollecito-haunted-by-her-behavior-around-murder/

Sorry CTers.

 

[Strozzi]

Naruto comes from Raffaele's appeal. Stardust was brought up in Massei's court.

Quote:
a "last access" occurred right on the night of 6-Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questuraa[Police Headquarters]. (Massei 332)
Kwill, I'm not sure if you or Dan O posted the above. Is it referring to 2:47 am on the night of Nov 5/6 which is around the time or just after Finzi and other police took Raffaele barefoot to his flat to look for items (computer, knife?)? Or is this 2:47 am on night on the following night, Nov 6/7?

Raffaele wrote in his book that during his interrogation on the night of Nov 5/6 he told his interrogators that he will show them his computer to prove that he was at home using it the evening/night of the murder. His interrogators took him to his flat as he asked, ostensibly for that purpose. That is when Finzi seized Raffaele's knife.

When did the police collect this computer? Did Finzi and police seize it in the night trip when they seized Raffaele's kitchen knife? If they seized it then, did they (Finzi, et al) examine it first before turning it over to the police techs? Did they delete anything before turning it over to the police techs?

This event with a time that should go in the timeline for events that took place on the night of Nov 5 through morning of Nov 6 and through that day and night/early morning of Nov 7.

 

[Bill Williams]

Uh oh. Even more evidence against twice convicted murderer Amanda Knox - http://www.extratv.com/2014/02/25/amanda-knox-s-ex-raffaele-sollecito-haunted-by-her-behavior-around-murder/

Sorry CTers.

Really? It would have been useful to read Raffaele's book. Raffaele has always been upfront with his feelings about Amanda's behaviour.

He's also always been clear that she is innocent. What this is about is he's always asked about HER behaviour when whoever it is who is asking should be asking him what this case has to do with HIM!

As Amanda herself said in her blog, Raffaele is collateral damage to this ridiculous pursuit of that grotesque caricature of "Foxy Knoxy", which does not exist.

Raffaele is haunted by always being asked about her behaviour; when that has nothing to do with him. It also doesn't change that he regards her as innocent, and spent 4 years in jail because he refused to lie about that.

Read his book. It's all there.

 

[Desert Fox]

Uh oh. Even more evidence against twice convicted murderer Amanda Knox - http://www.extratv.com/2014/02/25/amanda-knox-s-ex-raffaele-sollecito-haunted-by-her-behavior-around-murder/

Sorry CTers.

Why is there never any physical evidence of her being involved in the crime?
Look, you have been around longer than the case has been.
You just seem unable to apply skepticism to this case