Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The Nov 6th Il Sole article quotes from the press conference that the case is "substantially closed." I think this confirms the narrative that the police considered the investigation phase over and that the crime had three perpetrators and those three were in their custody, thanks to getting the truth from their interrogations.

What would be really helpful is if the conference was up on youtube. If you google for the Italian words for press conference and restrict the date to the relevant time, only a couple sites show up. I have a feeling many of the reports of the day are no longer online, or were on TV/newspapers.

Many of the early reports are gone. There was one tab that had a headline "Party girl found dead" but I think out of respect for John Kercher it was removed.

I'm sure the PLE said something like "caso chiusa". I think the media spin on this became "caso chiusa" or "case closed" for whatever reason.

I really wish Bill and other could see the Dateline Australia show with Pisa. Barbie, Vogt and the Italian reporter lady.

Also the early comments are often gone. I stumbled into these from The Stranger and they show how very early much of the memes were set.

Open Forum for the friends and family of Amanda Knox
If you feel like the media has portrayed Amanda unfairly and you want to defend her, Northwest Afternoon is offering a platform on Monday morning for Amanda’s friends and family to say whatever they’d like to defend her. If you’re interested please call or email right away. The segment will be taped from 9:30-11 AM.
Thank you,
Jillian Derpack
Northwest Afternoon
140 4th Avenue N.
Seattle, WA 98109
tel: 206.404.4309
[email protected]
Posted by Northwest Afternoon | November 8, 2007 1:42 PM
41
news coming in says the American bitch held Meredith down -fingerprints in blood were found on her wrists matching DNA.
The case is open and Knox is far from innocent.
Posted by rollocks | November 8, 2007 3:28 PM
42
RIP Meredith -a beautiful English Rose may all those responsible get their just deserves.
Posted by rollocks | November 8, 2007 3:37 PM
43
This makes me go cold every time I read about it or hear about it. I cant even imagine what this poor girl went through before she died, RIP Meredith. Rotten666 you are sick, this is turning you on?? I think maybe you should be arrested, it sounds like you are capable of something like this, freak!
Posted by gavman | November 9, 2007 6:31 AM
44
Heh Mac J,
Or anyone else on here for that matter.
Would your friend who dated Amanda consider speaking with a member of the British press about their experiences.
Anyone who would like to talk further please e-mail [email protected]
Posted by Steve | November 9, 2007 9:14 AM
45
more details are coming out -she took part in over a two hour torture and rape of Meredith.Stop defending Knox she has the hallmark of a Psychotic killer who takes sadistic joy in manipulation of other people.
Shame she will be tried in Italy -she deserves the chair.
Posted by rollocks | November 10, 2007 11:16 AM
46
I couldnt agree with you more rollocks. However, I feel the chair would be to good for her, it would be over and done with. Why not throw her in jail and throw away the key. Let her suffer each day reflecting on her evil actions.
Posted by Mary | November 10, 2007 2:33 PM
47
The presumption and misplaced self-importance of someone who feels qualified, based on facts presented by the media, to seriously condemn Amanda Knox as a killer utterly confuses me. I realize that this is an anonymous forum for criticism of news-related issues, but the passion and strange certainty with which some of the comments accredit this murder to Amanda Knox seems bizarre and reprehensible.
Posted by shame on you | November 10, 2007 9:12 PM
48
More pointedly to Mary:
There some glaring flaws in your reasoning in comment #39. There is a difference between finding long strands of hair at the scene of a crime, and having hard DNA evidence. Additionally, different countries have different laws. What counts as slander and defamation here in America does not necessarily apply internationally.
I realize that by going through the trouble of replying to you at all I am being a jerk. I feel a little sorry; maybe you don't realize that you are being a creep. I just want you to realize that the certainty you publicly place in your understanding of events that occurred across the world from you is, in fact, creepy.
Posted by shame on you | November 10, 2007 9:28 PM
49
burn in hell Amanda.
Posted by rollocks | November 11, 2007 6:14 AM​

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/the_realm_of_the_sensless

ETA - All these preceded Barbie's first story.

 

[bagels]

The early comments on the case are pretty interesting. Here's a websleuths thread from the day the story broke about the arrests.

When reports came out that she claimed her statements were coerced one poster responded:

"Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles. "

Something about Amanda stirred up an extremely visceral hatred in certain people which is probably why so many were able to shut off their brains when the actual facts started coming out, leaving them unaware that there was no case, while they soldiered on about 112 call timing and heroin bums.

 

[acbytesla]

The early comments on the case are pretty interesting. Here's a websleuths thread from the day the story broke about the arrests.

When reports came out that she claimed her statements were coerced one poster responded:

"Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles. "

Something about Amanda stirred up an extremely visceral hatred in certain people which is probably why so many were able to shut off their brains when the actual facts started coming out, leaving them unaware that there was no case, while they soldiered on about 112 call timing and heroin bums.

Hell, they spoofed Amanda on SNL Portrayed her as nice girl with a homicidal side.

 

[Desert Fox]

The early comments on the case are pretty interesting. Here's a websleuths thread from the day the story broke about the arrests.

When reports came out that she claimed her statements were coerced one poster responded:

"Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles. "

Something about Amanda stirred up an extremely visceral hatred in certain people which is probably why so many were able to shut off their brains when the actual facts started coming out, leaving them unaware that there was no case, while they soldiered on about 112 call timing and heroin bums.

I remember hearing about it peripherally and had not looked into it. My thoughts were that two girls got into a fight over a boyfriend and one died. I also thought that at least she could not be the death penalty.

When I actually looked into the case, it was "Hold On!"

 

[acbytesla]

The early comments on the case are pretty interesting. Here's a websleuths thread from the day the story broke about the arrests.

When reports came out that she claimed her statements were coerced one poster responded:

"Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles. "

Something about Amanda stirred up an extremely visceral hatred in certain people which is probably why so many were able to shut off their brains when the actual facts started coming out, leaving them unaware that there was no case, while they soldiered on about 112 call timing and heroin bums.

It's fascinating to go back and read these comments. Makes you realize how quickly and easily people jumped to the wrong conclusions and just how much disinformation was being spread. It's like the press were trying to write as salacious a story as humanly possible and the public just ate it up.

It really saddens me.

 

[Planigale]

To change the subject.......

Here's an interesting thing: the head honcho of another website which discusses the Kercher case has posted that certain CCTV footage from the night of the murder has "come into his possession". The footage is apparently from cameras which capture the iron staircase up the side of the car park. This is the staircase that Capezzali claimed she'd heard people running up in the aftermath of the murder, at something later than 11pm.

Now for the curious thing Part 1: the head honcho of this website claims that the footage shows that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm.

If this is really the case, then at a stroke it renders Capezzali's testimony unreliable at best, and a complete concoction at worst. Of course, many objective commentators have long concluded that Capezzali's testimony was hugely flawed and probably of no probative value (it was either an honest misremembering/hallucination or a flat-out lie), but the existence of this CCTV evidence would have been a vivid demonstration of the fundamental unreliability and incredibility of Capezzali's account.

So to curious thing Part 2: If this CCTV evidence exists, and if it really does show that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm, then why wasn't it used as evidence in the Massei trial and/or the subsequent trials (including appeals)?

Now, the police would have been in charge of recovering and analysing CCTV footage of this sort, under the direction of the PM (Mignini). The police and PM would have had total control over what was recovered, what was analysed, what was deemed probative, what was passed to the defence in discovery, and what was entered into evidence at trial. So what happened in respect of this alleged CCTV footage, which clearly would have been of very significant value in the Massei trial and beyond? When was this CCTV footage obtained by police? Was it obtained before, say, mid-2008? By definition, it must have been in existence from the night of the murder onwards. So did the police have it in their possession within months (maximum) of the murder? If not, why not? This would have been a hugely obvious thing for the police to have investigated. And if the police did have the footage within months, did they look at it properly? After all, if they had looked at it properly, they can't fail to have realised how important and relevant it was to the case. Certainly the defence teams do not seem to have ever been informed of the existence of this footage and the importance of what it showed (or, more accurately, what it didn't show). And to the best of my knowledge, it never showed up as evidence in any of the trials.

So what happened here?

And as a slight side note, curious thing Part 3: How did this important CCTV footage end up in the hands of the people who run a website discussing the case? One must provisionally conclude that the footage was released to them by either the police or the prosecutors' office, or by the lawyer for the victim's family. So how and why did the footage get handed over. Who exactly was holding (and sitting on) this footage? And for how long had they been sitting on it? And what was their motivation and expected outcome for releasing it to effectively nobody more than a private citizen who comments on the case on the internet?

I think there might be some very interesting questions to address and answer about this CCTV footage - if it really does prove that nobody ran up that staircase after 11pm. Who among the authorities had it? When did they obtain it? Why was it not given to the defence? Why was it not used as evidence in trial? Why has it (apparently) only extremely recently been handed over to a private citizen with no legal/familial connection to the case whatsoever? Who handed it over and/or authorised its handover?

In defence of the police, it is easy to miss the significance of something that is not there. They would have gone through CCTV looking for Knox, Sollecito, Lumuba, Guede, Kercher et al. It is a very different thing to be Sherlock Holmes and realise the significance of the dog in the night-time.

 

[Planigale]

Impossible to know for sure. But the people at this website appear in the past to have had strangely close levels of contact with (and cooperation from) certain figures associated with the prosecution and the victim's family's lawyer. One might almost call it improper.....

On top of that, one has to bear in mind that this footage would almost without doubt have been in the possession of the police (and, by extension, the PM) at a primary level. I cannot, for example, believe that the owner of the CCTV camera and footage (whether the Perugia municipal authorities or a private enterprise) bypassed the police and supplied the footage to anyone else. And since, to the best of my understanding, this footage (and its implications) has never been seen by the defence teams - let alone used in court - my money would have to be firmly on it having been in the possession of the police and PM's office.

If that's the case, then it would appear that either the police or PM gave the footage to the website, or the police/PM gave the footage to the victim's family's lawyer, who then gave it to the website. I also find it extremely hard to believe that the police/PM only very recently came across this footage. I would have to believe that either a) they had collected the footage way back in 2007/2008, but for some reason had neglected to analyse it properly and thus discover its worth to the case; or b) they had collected the footage way back in 2007/2008, had analysed it and knew exactly what it showed (and didn't show), and made some sort of decision not to release it to the defence or to introduce it as evidence.

I have a funny feeling we might hear more about this CCTV footage. Especially as the Massei motivations report made specific reference to Capezzali's evidence being reliable and credible, and used it as one of its primary sources for establishing its (entirely bogus and horrifically wrong) timeline for the murder, in the course of finding Knox and Sollecito guilty.

Mach said that the Kercher family lawyer has been providing it.

 

[Vixen]

CNN is covering the tragic Ashley Olsen situation in Italy (Florence), which the police are treating as a homicide.

However, it's stunning hearing Barbie Nadeau saying that she hopes it doesn't turn into another debacle which formerly afflicted Knox and Sollecito. Sh's been particularly hard on the lead detective in the Olsen case, who coincidentally was the one who announced "Cased Closed" 8 years ago... "We'll see if he's learned anything at all from the Amanda Knox case," says Barbie.

Also, when Nencini convicted in 2014, Paul Callan of CNN crossed swords with Steve Moore on Erin Burrnett's segment, telling both Burnett and Moore that as far as he was concerned, there was enough to convict.

However in commenting on the developing Olson case - he has obviously read the Marasca/Bruno report, saying that a bungled police investigation led to years of vilifying Knox.

Barbie and Callan are tabloid whores: it's their livelihood. Anyway, establishment media always accepts whatever a court rules.

Barbie did lie outright when she said "Amanda was fully exonerated" and both of them lied about Amanda being "refused a lawyer whilst interrogated" and "she wrongly spent four years in prison".

Gutter press.

 

[Vixen]

Capezzali first came forward to the police a few weeks after the murder (and thus well over a year before the Massei trial started). It has to be assumed that Capezzali's story was broadly similar all along, and that from the start she claimed to have a) been woken/alerted by this "scream of death", b) heard the sounds of people running up the iron staircase shortly after that scream, and c) put the timeframe for all of this as follows: she'd gone to bed at around 9.00-9.30pm ("as usual"), and had woken around 2 hours later (she stated that the medication she was on always made her wake to use the bathroom some two hours after going to bed), thus placing the time of the scream and the people running up the iron staircase firmly at some time later than 11pm.

So the police/PM MUST have had, from late 2007, a clear understanding that this fairly important "earwitness" was placing the timing of the things she said she'd heard at some time later than 11pm. And we also know that the police/PM MUST have decided that Capezzali's account was of probative value and was relevant to the murder trial of Knox and Sollecito - since she was used as a prosecution witness in the Massei trial. So we can easily deduce that the police/PM were using Capezzali as part of their case, and were going to claim (as they did in Massei's court) that what Capezzali had heard was the sound of Kercher screaming as she was attacked, followed by the sound of more than one attacker running up the iron staircase.

As I say, in the light of when Capezzali presented herself to the police, and given the very large amount of time (over a year) between that and the start of the Massei trial, I find it literally unbelievable that a) the police hadn't also obtained the CCTV footage showing the iron staircase many, many moths before the start of the Massei trial (and thus had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession for many months before the start of Massei), and that therefore b) the police didn't go through the following general thought process:

1) We believe Capezzali when she says she heard a scream and the sound of people escaping up the iron staircase;

2) We believe that what Capezzali heard was the sound of Kercher being attacked, followed by the sound of more than one of her attackers escaping the scene by running up the iron staircase (and we plan to use Capezzali at trial accordingly);

3) Capezzali is pretty firm and confident in her belief that all of this occurred at some point later than 11pm;

4) We also have in our possession CCTV footage showing the iron staircase throughout that evening;

5) So let's look at that CCTV footage carefully, since it will be able to prove whether or not anyone ran up that staircase after 11pm (or even at any time between 9pm and 11pm), and it also might well help identify who - if anyone - ran up that staircase.


Frankly, if the police (or the PM instructing the police) had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession and didn't go through this form of thought process at some point between late-2007 and late-2008 (at the latest), then the police/PM were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they didn't realise they had that CCTV footage in their possession, then they were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they knew they had that CCTV footage in their possession but somehow didn't realise its significance in supporting or disproving Capezzali's testimonly, then they were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they hadn't even tried to obtain that CCTV footage well before the Massei trial (or hadn't even realised it existed), then they were grossly incompetent and negligent.

And if the police/PM had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession and did go through this form of thought process at some point between late-2007 and late-2008 (at the latest) - and I find it somewhat difficult to believe that they didn't - then we're potentially looking at something much, much worse than gross incompetence or negligence. We're potentially looking at the police/PM realising that the CCTV footage in their possession discredited the entire testimony of one of their pretty important prosecution witnesses, and neither a) disclosing this information to the court, nor b) providing this evidence and information to the defence teams.

Capezzali's timeframe is only an estimate of what time she got up to go to the loo.

 

[Vixen]

I've looked for the name of the policeman that said "case closed" but I can't find it anywhere. The PI reported a policeman at the gate said it and elsewhere it was reported it was said at the press conference.

It was Profazio IIRC.

 

[Bill Williams]

Barbie and Callan are tabloid whores: it's their livelihood. Anyway, establishment media always accepts whatever a court rules.

Barbie did lie outright when she said "Amanda was fully exonerated" and both of them lied about Amanda being "refused a lawyer whilst interrogated" and "she wrongly spent four years in prison".

Gutter press.

Welcome back, Vixen! Out of all the explanations, are you sure "lied" fits?

 

[Vixen]

Welcome back, Vixen! Out of all the explanations, are you sure "lied" fits?

Why, thanks! Maybe "sold out" is a better word: i.e.,whoring. Changing their opinion to wherever the money is.

Perhaps Michael Winterbottom got it right

 

[Grinder]

It was Profazio IIRC.

Any report from Owen or anyone at the time?

 

[Bill Williams]

Why, thanks! Maybe "sold out" is a better word: i.e.,whoring. Changing their opinion to wherever the money is.

Perhaps Michael Winterbottom got it right

Is there anyone left in the guilt camp? It's been almost a year since the exonerations and the Italian news media is fairly quiet about a Masonic conspiracy.

 

[LondonJohn]

In defence of the police, it is easy to miss the significance of something that is not there. They would have gone through CCTV looking for Knox, Sollecito, Lumuba, Guede, Kercher et al. It is a very different thing to be Sherlock Holmes and realise the significance of the dog in the night-time.

Well I can't help but disagree.

You say the police would have gone through the CCTV looking for Knox, Sollecito, Guede, Lumumba, Kercher et al. I totally agree. But wouldn't you say that NOT seeing any of those people on the CCTV footage where/when you would expect to see them if your narrative of the case was accurate would be.... rather significant? I would.

In this instance, the police/PM had a witness who stated she had heard a loud scream of terror, followed shortly afterwards by the sound of people running up the iron staircase by the car park. And the witness put the timing of these noises at around 11.00-11.45pm. The police had CCTV footage covering the iron staircase. Don't you think that it's a total slam-dunk that the police would/should have examined the CCTV footage to see whether they could a) corroborate Capezzali's account and b) potentially identify who - if anyone - was running up those iron stairs? I do.

And I also think that the police could/would have checked the CCTV footage for that entire evening. From 9pm to midnight. To see exactly who had (and who hadn't) gone up those stairs, who (if anyone) had run up those stairs, whether people had run up the stairs but outside Capezzali's timeline (at which point they could have at least tried to decide whether these were the people Capezzali must have heard, and that she must have been mistaken on the timing), and to try to identify all the people they saw going up those stairs.

And if the police did that - as I cannot believe they didn't do - then (if the brief allegation on the other website is accurate) they would have found that nobody ran up those steps later than 11pm that night. And that immediately calls into question Capezzali's timings and her credibility in general. I also had a working presumption that nobody was on that footage running up the stairs anywhere near 11pm (e.g. 10.45pm or even 10.15pm), since I can't believe the police wouldn't have pounced on that and altered Capezzali's timings accordingly.

I see what you say about it being easy to miss the significance of something that isn't there. But in this case, the police were using the account of Capezzali as part of their case. The police were effectively telling the court that Capezzali heard Kercher scream as she was murdered, and then heard more than one of her attackers run up the iron staircase. Capezzali's evidence was used to support the multiple-attacker theory, and the timing of the murder. So I contend that the police HAD to know that not seeing anyone running on that iron staircase later than 11pm that night was of extreme relevance.

To take the issue to extremes: imagine that there had been a CCTV camera covering the front door of the cottage, and that the police had the footage covering 10.30pm to midnight on the night of the murder. Imagine the police were saying (as they did indeed say) that Knox and Sollecito had arrived at the cottage at around 10.30pm, that they'd teamed up with Guede to kill Kercher, and that they'd left the cottage some time around 11.40pm. Would you suggest, in those circumstances, that it would be understandable for the police to "miss the significance of something that's not there" if they had examined the CCTV footage and had seen nobody enter or leave the cottage between 10.30pm and midnight?

The example is of course more extreme than that in respect of the iron staircase CCTV and Capezzali's account. But the underlying principle is exactly the same.

 

[Vixen]

Any report from Owen or anyone at the time?

It was Perugia's Chief of Police Arturo de Felice "made a grandstand appearance before the press", according to Gary C King (not the most accurate writer).

"He praised the work of his detectives as 'magnificent', and that the case was now closed after barely five days worth of work..."

So, looks like it was De Felice.

 

[Vixen]

Is there anyone left in the guilt camp? It's been almost a year since the exonerations and the Italian news media is fairly quiet about a Masonic conspiracy.

For now. For now. As you know, the Italian law machine is extremely slow moving.

Is there a guilt camp?

 

[LondonJohn]

Mach said that the Kercher family lawyer has been providing it.

That's my suspicion too. But it's also my suspicion that this may not be the whole story. This CCTV footage (assuming it really exists etc) had to have originated with the police/PM, since only they had the power to seize it. It cannot have originated with the Kercher family lawyer.

So if it was the Kerchers' lawyer who supplied the footage to the website, then either:

a) The police/PM placed the footage into the case file as evidence entered into court, then the Kerchers' lawyer obtained the footage from the case file and passed it on to the website; or

b) The police/PM passed the footage directly to the Kerchers' lawyer, who then passed it on to the website.

If (a), then one must ask why the prosecutors didn't draw attention to this footage (given that 1) it contradicted one of their important witnesses, 2) pretty much by definition they must have examined the footage before placing it into evidence, and 3) if they deemed it worthy of entering into evidence, they must have reasoned that it had probative value), and why the defence teams never figured this out.

If (b), then I would suggest that serious questions need to be asked about how/why this footage was never entered as evidence, and how it subsequently made its way to the Kerchers' lawyers and then on to the website.

And as a separate matter, I'd also be interested to know why the Kerchers' lawyer might be giving so much cooperation, time and material to that website. What is his motive for doing so? Is he acting on the instructions of the family? If so, what is their motive? Who is paying him for all this? Or is he doing it pro bono for some reason (and if so, why?)? All very intriguing......

 

[Bill Williams]

For now. For now. As you know, the Italian law machine is extremely slow moving.

Is there a guilt camp?

Apparently not any more. If Barbie Nadeau has stuck a finger in the air to see the direction of the prevailing wind, you can be assured that the, "For now, for now" camp is very small. That camp probably consults Machiavelli for legal advice because even Maresca has moved on.... acc. to Andrea Vogt.

Who's left?

 

[Grinder]

It was Perugia's Chief of Police Arturo de Felice "made a grandstand appearance before the press", according to Gary C King (not the most accurate writer).

"He praised the work of his detectives as 'magnificent', and that the case was now closed after barely five days worth of work..."

So, looks like it was De Felice.

The question is did anyone use the exact words "caso chiusa". Many reported De Felice said the case was solved by his stellar crew blah, blah, blah