Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Well, if anyone knows how to see them, please pass them on to platonov. He is really keen to take a look for some reason.

Why doesn't platonov just contact Maresca? He'll show them publicly....

 

[Desert Fox]

I used the fan word and do agree that supporter is a better more accurate (at least for most) term.

The pictures of Meredith were shown in closed court during the first trial and then at the appeal Francesco Maresca made them public by showing them in open court.

This is not the first time that Francesco Maresca has displayed unprofessional behavior. During the 2011 appeal (that resulted in acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito), in an act absent of any decency or respect toward the clients that he represents, Maresca, without warning, displayed photographs of Meredith’s naked body in open court, simply for shock value. Retired FBI Agent Steve Moore was in court when the photos were presented and made these observations:

“without warning, without dignity, without any apparent concern for Meredith or her grieving family, without decency, an attorney began to display eight foot square, gruesome, lurid and obscene naked full-frontal photographs of Meredith Kercher’s blood-smeared body, lying on the floor next to her bed where she had been murdered and sexually assaulted. She lay in the very position that Rudy Guede left her after putting a pillow under her hips to assist in the sexual assault. The photos were, to say the least, explicit, and press cameras immediately began clicking, as the courtroom spectators stood and moved toward the huge screen where the large photos were being displayed. Meredith was shown from the tips of her toes all the way to her eyes, fixed in a glassy, gruesome stare above a gaping throat slash. The audience gasped. More grisly photos followed; close-ups of the deep slash to Meredith’s throat, showing the severed muscles and larynx. But still the photos continued; photos which showed graphically the sputum foam which was the result of her labored breathing as the blood from her neck drained into her lungs. The photos showed her empty eyes and her blood-caked hair.”

​

I have seen pictures of her slashed neck and that is enough for me.

Edit: I forget what I was looking for and I did not save the image either.

 

[Grinder]

How is any one person supposed to answer platonov's question anyway? Does he imagine everyone pro-innocence is in some kind of club and all know each other and who has which pictures?

I've never seen any of the explicit crime scene pics, apart from the one where you can see Meredith's foot from under the duvet. I don't know where people get the ones showing the corpse and wounds.

Actually there are secret societies here that communicate with each other in private, none of which has me for a member, but I have sources .

But I for one will come out and admit I've not scene any photos of the type P describes nor do I want to.

 

[acbytesla]

Respect ? I'm not looking for respect or disapprobrium.

I'm seeking an answer to a perfectly straightforward Q.

How widespread is the circulation of images of the naked corpse of a young woman who was sexually assaulted and murdered among fans of the woman who (with others) killed her.

It's not a difficult Q. The answer seems to be an issue apparently.

I've never seen these images. But I'm not a fan. But you are so wrong about everything. No woman killed or sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher. That was Rudy Guede who did that. And last I checked he is a male. He also probably killed Meredith alone.

But I don't think you're really interested in the facts of the case.

 

[kwill]

Chris in her email she indicates she was questioned on things hundreds of times. It is possible that the PLE never asked what they were doing the night Meredith was murdered, but I doubt it. The FOA used to claim that she was questioned over 50 hours and it appears she was with the police or in the station close to that many hours. She was question from the afternoon of the discovery.

It seemed to me at the time that she was embarrassed to recount accurately what they had done. She didn't want to discuss smoking pot or having sex. They may have done some drinking as well.

So when asked about the evening being innocent they didn't think what they said would matter. As time went by their accounts may have changed as they opened up about sex and drugs which looked like lies and changing accounts to the PLE.

First of all she wasn't interviewed by Mignini on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Secondly what in the world does it matter what Preston says vis-a-vis Amanda's Q&A on those first days. Thirdly, we weren't talking about the 5th at all.

She clearly was asked what she and Raf did the evening and night. The only question is how much detail and did they explore more over time. What was Raf referring to when he said the "pack of lies" remark?

What we're talking about is your assertion that AK was asked during her many interviews with the police about the details of her own activities on the night of Nov 1. You've also asserted that she may have been drinking, that she didn't want to talk about having sex, and that she didn't want to talk about smoking pot. I agree that she'd prefer not to discuss pot, given that it's illegal. No idea why you think she would try to hide that she and RS had sex, given that she told them she'd spent the night there. Alcohol seems to be your own invention.

I quoted from Preston's description of his Mignini interrogation because it matches so closely the way AK described the shift in how the police treated her and the changing nature of the questions they asked her on the night of Nov 5 as compared to the days just before. Polite and interested one minute, threatening and accusatory the next.

I don't know what RS meant by "pack of lies." My guess is that it was sarcasm, the kind a teenager would use when an authority figure had utterly failed to push him into saying what the authority figure wanted to hear. "Okay, you're right, have it your way, everything I just said is BS, happy now?" That sort of thing.

Again, it never dawned on him that they were seriously thinking of him as a murder suspect. He was just a privileged guy showing his annoyance at having to deal with people he thought had no right to talk to him.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually there are secret societies here that communicate with each other in private, none of which has me for a member, but I have sources .

But I for one will come out and admit I've not scene any photos of the type P describes nor do I want to.

Then again all members of these secret societies say that, don't they. Nice try.

My sources say that you are the membership secretary and that you handle the banking of monthly dues.... but you did not hear that from me.

 

[acbytesla]

Then again all members of these secret societies say that, don't they. Nice try.

My sources say that you are the membership secretary and that you handle the banking of monthly dues.... but you did not hear that from me.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to belong to any society that would have me as a member.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Actually there are secret societies here that communicate with each other in private, none of which has me for a member, but I have sources .

But I for one will come out and admit I've not scene any photos of the type P describes nor do I want to.

-

This reminds me of an old saying Groucho Marx used to banty about now and again (at least I think it was Groucho, please correct me if I'm wrong here. And also, I'm paraphrasing) "I do not want to be a member of any group that would have me as a member,"

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Respect ? I'm not looking for respect or disapprobrium.

I'm seeking an answer to a perfectly straightforward Q.

How widespread is the circulation of images of the naked corpse of a young woman who was sexually assaulted and murdered among fans of the woman who (with others) killed her.

It's not a difficult Q. The answer seems to be an issue apparently.

-

Maresca must be a member of that same fan club (as others here have commented on also), while also being a member of the Rudy fan club, which I think a lot of Gumpers belong to also, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

This reminds me of an old saying Groucho Marx used to banty about now and again (at least I think it was Groucho, please correct me if I'm wrong here. And also, I'm paraphrasing) "I do not want to be a member of any group that would have me as a member,"

d

-

It figures that it would be Groucho. I stole it from the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall. Since you mentioned it. I looked it up online. The vast majority of books and sites attribute it to Groucho. But there are some that suggest that it actually is a quote from Sigmund Freud. Any way you look at it, it's a funny line.

 

[AmyStrange]

Didn't Siggy also smoke a cigar?

-

It figures that it would be Groucho. I stole it from the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall. Since you mentioned it. I looked it up online. The vast majority of books and sites attribute it to Groucho. But there are some that suggest that it actually is a quote from Sigmund Freud. Any way you look at it, it's a funny line.

-

and the way Groucho talked would have made it even funnier, although Siggy (I think) could have made an awesome stand-up comedian, especially since his whole schtick was that sex and how your parents raised you were the root cause of almost all psychological problems and that cocaine was a cure-all for all of that... at least in the beginning.

Siggy would have simply killed at any Rudy fan club meeting,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

and the way Groucho talked would have made it even funnier, although Siggy (I think) could have made an awesome stand-up comedian, especially since his whole schtick was that sex and how your parents raised you were the root cause of almost all psychological problems and that cocaine was a cure-all for all of that... at least in the beginning.

Siggy would have simply killed at any Rudy fan club meeting,

d

-

Well, Siggy wasn't a persona acquaintance so I wouldn't know what he smoked. I didn't know that Freud was a comedian.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well, if anyone knows how to see them, please pass them on to platonov. He is really keen to take a look for some reason.

Years ago, Amanda's family gave me all of the evidence that was released to the defense, and they asked me to handle requests from the media and other interested parties.

We realized that the more diligently reporters drilled into the evidence itself, the better for Amanda and Raffaele. The policy we arrived at was to make everything available, except images of Meredith's body.

I take my obligation seriously in this regard. I keep the most sensitive material in an encrypted file, in case my laptop is ever stolen. I have provided Bruce Fischer with a single photo showing Meredith's exposed back, because he came to me with a specific and credible need for this information, and I trust him not to distribute the image further. Otherwise, the only people who have ever obtained any of these images, at least through me, are professional investigators like John Douglas.

 

[codyjuneau]

[snip ..]
Doug Preston described the technique very clearly in an article about The Monster of Florence, published in the Atlantic Monthly in July of 2006 long before Amanda had ever heard of Perugia. If she'd read this then, she might have been better prepared for what happened to her.

Mignini was a small man of indeterminate middle age, well groomed, with a fleshy face and thinning hair. His voice was calm and pleasant and he addressed me with elaborate courtesy, bestowing the honorific of dottore, which, in Italy, denotes the highest respect. He explained that I had the right to an interpreter, but finding one might take many hours, during which time I would be unpleasantly detained. In his opinion, I spoke Italian fluently. I asked if I needed a lawyer, and he said that, although it was of course my right, it wasn’t necessary; he merely wanted to ask a few questions of a routine nature.

His questions were gentle, posed almost apologetically. The stenographer typed the questions, and my answers, into her computer. Sometimes Mignini rephrased my answers in better Italian, checking solicitously to see if that was what I had meant to say. He asked me about Spezi’s lawyer, Alessandro Traversi, and wanted to know what I could say about Spezi’s legal strategy. He named many names and asked if Spezi had ever mentioned them. Most were unfamiliar. The questions went on like this for an hour, and I was starting to feel reassured. I even had a glimmer of hope that I might get out in time to join my wife and children for lunch at a nearby restaurant, which came highly recommended in the guidebooks.

At this point the conversation turned to our visit to the villa. Why did we go? What did we do there? Where exactly did we walk? Was there talk of a gun? Of iron boxes? Was my back ever to Spezi? Did we see anyone there? Who? What was said?

I answered truthfully, trying to suppress a damnable habit of over-explanation, but I could see that Mignini was not happy. He repeated the same questions, in different forms. It began to dawn on me that the previous line of inquiry had been nothing more than a few balls lobbed in the bullpen. Now, the game had begun.

Mignini’s face flushed as his frustration mounted. He frequently instructed the stenographer to read back my earlier answers. “You said that, and now you say this. Which is true, Dottor Preston? Which is true?”
I began to stumble over my words (as I’ve noted, I am not fluent in Italian, especially legal and criminological terms). With a growing sense of dismay, I could hear from my own stammering, hesitant voice that I was sounding like a liar.

source

That's pretty much how Amanda described her own interrogation on the night of Nov 5. But it's not how she was treated in the days before that.

.
I suspect that Preston is describing a typical interrogation where the stenographer is a fundamental player used to recall precisely what the person being interrogated has said previously so that any inconsistencies can be used against him or her.

Did Amanda mention a stenographer? If so, was the transcription made available to the defense?

Cody
.

 

[anglolawyer]

We don't know but we do know that she was quizzed for hours and it started with what were you doing the night before. I'm sure the first set of questions wasn't you're detailed ones but they slipped questions in over the days.

I don't recall saying they started with a minute by minute account but I do recall someone saying that they didn't ask at all or at best what she wrote in her email.

I wonder if she admitted smoking at Raf's after having to lie for Laura about smoking in the cottage.

They would have couched it all about solving the case and "are you sure you didn't stop by to get things? " "We're just hoping something you remember will help." "So you went to Raf's and stayed in all night."

The idea that this group of bungling Keystone Kops could keep from asking anything except were you home is laughable.

Laugh all you want. It's what happened - per the Book of Anglo, which means it is a prediction made by my theory, just as my theory correctly predicted that she was never asked about Patrick, which netted me one yacht.

 

[Samson]

Judge Masipa says

"Human beings are fallible," Masipa said in reference to witnesses, adding that the court would instead rely on technology, including phone records, to establish what happened.

I hope this high profile case will encourage believers in guilt here to re-examine the eye witness evidence that is relied on to convict.

My impression is that the Pistorius case divides along these lines.
All people that think A and R are guilty believe Oscar deliberately killed Reeva.
Many that believe they are innocent, including me, conclude it was a case of paranoia and mistaken identity.

 

[js202]

Judge Masipa says

"Human beings are fallible," Masipa said in reference to witnesses, adding that the court would instead rely on technology, including phone records, to establish what happened.

I hope this high profile case will encourage believers in guilt here to re-examine the eye witness evidence that is relied on to convict.

My impression is that the Pistorius case divides along these lines.
All people that think A and R are guilty believe Oscar deliberately killed Reeva.
Many that believe they are innocent, including me, conclude it was a case of paranoia and mistaken identity.

Fair enough, but with the caveat that there is a considerably higher probability that Pistorius intentionally committed the murder of Steenkamp than that AK and RS participated with RG in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

And the guilt-believers here are far beyond such petty stuff as evidence. At this point, they will sustain at least their protestations of guilt to the grave, if nothing else out of stubborn pride (and the sheer pleasure the more perverse ones gain from the insults and arguments).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Judge Masipa says

"Human beings are fallible," Masipa said in reference to witnesses, adding that the court would instead rely on technology, including phone records, to establish what happened.

I hope this high profile case will encourage believers in guilt here to re-examine the eye witness evidence that is relied on to convict.

My impression is that the Pistorius case divides along these lines.
All people that think A and R are guilty believe Oscar deliberately killed Reeva.
Many that believe they are innocent, including me, conclude it was a case of paranoia and mistaken identity.

Interesting post.

Do you believe verdicts in this case would have been different if a jury were not included such as in the Pistorius case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

trial by jury

Interesting post.

Do you believe verdicts in this case would have been different if a jury were not included such as in the Pistorius case?

CoulsdonUK,

I think that either the 2009 verdict or the 2014 verdict might have gone differently if the judge were not part of the decision itself. In other words, if there were a jury that was entirely made up of individuals without any connection to law enforcement.

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK,

I think that either the 2009 verdict or the 2014 verdict might have gone differently if the judge were not part of the decision itself. In other words, if there were a jury that was entirely made up of individuals without any connection to law enforcement.

Good point.