Questions About The Case

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Numbers » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:37 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Knox's interrogation started at 11:30 pm, and Donnino arrived at 12:30 am, an hour later. Donino testified that the interrogation was already in disarray when she got there, so she decided to act as a mediator, (her testimony). Machiavelli at ISF/JREF defends Donino acting as a mediator, indeed going so far as to help Amanda recover forgotten emories. He also said that Donino's role was really as a diplomat.

Make of that as you will.


Bill,
Question about the beginning time of Amanda's interrogation. You write 11:30 pm, but I have seen an estimate of several minutes after 10:30 pm. This estimate was based on the time stamps for her last cell phone call before the interrogation, which was with Filomena. Now that call was interrupted so she could answer some questions posed by SCO officer Ivano Rufo (and maybe others) in the hallway, and that probably went on for some minutes. But then in WTBH, she writes the Ficarra from the Perugia police asked her into an interrogation room, and Rufo followed. Is this your understanding of the timing of the beginning of the interrogation? Do I have some details incorrect?

There's a timeline floating around somewhere compiled from various sources, including WTBH. I'll have to find it, or recreate another one from the sources.

Acc. to John Follain Raffaele went into interrogation at 10:40 pm. Napoleoni and two detectives (Chiacchiera being one?) took him in. At 11 pm (acc. to Follain) Ficarra asked Amanda to make a list of the men in her cellphone "address book" (p.132). Follain is frustratingly Spartan in his description of the interrogations. For instance, on p. 134, the first interrogation for Amanda starts in earnest at 1:45 am (sic). Follain then has Amanda suffering an "emotional shock" simply by being shown the message she'd sent to Lumumba about not coming into work, which Follain renders, "Sure. See you later. Have a good evening."

Still, I think 11:30 is the start time (from memory) for Amanda's interrogation. Follain has them just sitting in silence for 2 1/4 hours!


Bill,
I looked at KayPea's Interrogation Timeline Thread again. She has a post from April 27, 2014 where she identifies the call from Amanda to Filomena, made from the police station, ending at 10:32 with Amanda saying that I have to go now, I need to answer some questions. This apparently was Ivano Ruffo asking questions.

So an estimate for Amanda being ushered into the interrogation room may be about 10:45 to 11:00 pm. The "interpreter" Anna Donnino was called at about 11:30 pm.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:00 pm

Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Knox's interrogation started at 11:30 pm, and Donnino arrived at 12:30 am, an hour later. Donino testified that the interrogation was already in disarray when she got there, so she decided to act as a mediator, (her testimony). Machiavelli at ISF/JREF defends Donino acting as a mediator, indeed going so far as to help Amanda recover forgotten emories. He also said that Donino's role was really as a diplomat.

Make of that as you will.


Bill,
Question about the beginning time of Amanda's interrogation. You write 11:30 pm, but I have seen an estimate of several minutes after 10:30 pm. This estimate was based on the time stamps for her last cell phone call before the interrogation, which was with Filomena. Now that call was interrupted so she could answer some questions posed by SCO officer Ivano Rufo (and maybe others) in the hallway, and that probably went on for some minutes. But then in WTBH, she writes the Ficarra from the Perugia police asked her into an interrogation room, and Rufo followed. Is this your understanding of the timing of the beginning of the interrogation? Do I have some details incorrect?

There's a timeline floating around somewhere compiled from various sources, including WTBH. I'll have to find it, or recreate another one from the sources.

Acc. to John Follain Raffaele went into interrogation at 10:40 pm. Napoleoni and two detectives (Chiacchiera being one?) took him in. At 11 pm (acc. to Follain) Ficarra asked Amanda to make a list of the men in her cellphone "address book" (p.132). Follain is frustratingly Spartan in his description of the interrogations. For instance, on p. 134, the first interrogation for Amanda starts in earnest at 1:45 am (sic). Follain then has Amanda suffering an "emotional shock" simply by being shown the message she'd sent to Lumumba about not coming into work, which Follain renders, "Sure. See you later. Have a good evening."

Still, I think 11:30 is the start time (from memory) for Amanda's interrogation. Follain has them just sitting in silence for 2 1/4 hours!


Bill,
I looked at KayPea's Interrogation Timeline Thread again. She has a post from April 27, 2014 where she identifies the call from Amanda to Filomena, made from the police station, ending at 10:32 with Amanda saying that I have to go now, I need to answer some questions. This apparently was Ivano Ruffo asking questions.

So an estimate for Amanda being ushered into the interrogation room may be about 10:45 to 11:00 pm. The "interpreter" Anna Donnino was called at about 11:30 pm.


Anna Doninno
I remember having received a telephone call from Assistant Lorena Zugarini, the precise hour exactly I’m not able to say, though roughly it would have had to have been before 11:30 pm because I was already in bed and at the latest I go to bed more or less a little before that time. I received this call and Assistant Zugarini told me that I had to come into the Station because my presence was required. And that’s what I did, I dressed myself and I went to the Station. You have to take into consideration that I don’t live in Perugia, I live outside, I’m about 40 km away, in the environs of Castiglione del Lago, so I didn't immediately turn up at the Station, I would have taken me around forty-five minutes, however I believe to have gotten there no later than half past midnight and at which point I started to carry out my work.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:01 pm

Had the media reported it was Filomena's room was the one with the broken window by November 19?

From the defense lawyers motions debate Oct 9, 2009:

p13

Rudy Guede al tempo il 19 di
novembre 2007 non sapeva molto probabilmente di essere sentito e
che la sua conversazione veniva poi registrata dall'arnico con
Skype e quindi Rudy Guede dice cose molto importanti, molto
importanti che possono essere ben comprese da voi Giudici per la
ricostruzione dell'evento. Ci parla dell'ora del delitto, ci
parla del tipo di approccio sessuale che ha avuto con Meredith,
l'approccio manuale, descrive dettagliatamente la finestra che
avrebbe avuto il vetro infranto pur naturalmente e questo è
evidente negando sempre qualsiasi coinvolgimento nell'omicidio
di Meredith, qualsiasi diretto coinvolgimento diretto
nell'omicidio e negando addirittura di aver.. . negando anche di
aver infranto la finestra. Ma questo è importante anche perché
come vedete anche negli allegati, nell'ultimo allegato W gli
articoli dei giornali Corriere della Sera, Repubblica del 10
novembre 2007 vedrete in questi articoli di giornale a tiratura
nazionale risulta la piantina della stanza.. . della casa di Via
della Pergola e viene considerata. .. viene indicata come
finestra infranta non la finestra della Romanelli che sappiamo
che è la finestra Romanelli ma la finestra della stanza di
Meredith, quindi già Rudy Guede era fuori, se come sicuramente
avrà avuto notizie dei fatti, delle circostanze tramite letture
di giornali all'Estero non può ... non si capisce come possa
parlare della finestra della stanza della Romanelli quando in
realtà tutti i giornali e le pubblicazioni che c'erano in quel
periodo parlavano di altre cose, quindi significa che lui era
bene a conoscenza di quello che era successo e del fatto che
quella finestra era stata rotta ed era stata lasciata con le
persiane aperte così come lui ci dice in questa chat. Racconta
anche ed è importante sentirlo di un furto perpetrato ai danni
di Meredith e di Amanda che non era mai emerso nel corso delle
indagini e che poteva conoscere solo cbiui che in realtà questo
furto aveva perpetrato, evidente quello che sempre noi abbiamo
detto Rudy Guede che entra per rubare e poi l'escalation
violenta e l'omicidio, ma queste sono le mie considerazioni.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dougm » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:54 pm

Does anyone remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? This would have happened after the acquittal in October, 2011.

Kaosium and I are looking for this, and I thought some of our researchers here might be able to uncover it. Thanks!
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Flipp » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:39 pm

Dougm wrote:Does anyone remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? This would have happened after the acquittal in October, 2011.

Kaosium and I are looking for this, and I thought some of our researchers here might be able to uncover it. Thanks!


It was Edoardo Mori who said something like that:
Comunque era sufficiente vedere i filmati in cui uno degli investigatori sventolava trionfante il reggiseno della povera vittima per capire che sulla scena del delitto era intervenuta la famigerata squadra distruzione prove


http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/e-giudice ... roppi.html
Flipp
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:56 am

To the set frame in which this case was progressing I first want to refer to an Italian judge Edoardo Mori.
Translated from the German book, Der Engel mit den Eisaugen, Mario Spezi, Douglas Preston, Knaur Verlag

From 1977 on Edoardo Mori was first examining magistrate, then investigating judge and then bankruptcy judge as well as President of the Court di Libertà, the Liberty Court of Bolzano. Edoardo Mori plaid major role in the trials against South Tyrolean terrorist and later judged gruesome serial killers like Marco Bergamo (who stabbed five prostitutes to death and really butchered them).
“I could have remained in office until 2014; I couldn’t go on any longer. I prefer to retire early.”
He said: “A judge can be wrong his entire life without anybody saying anything about it. The determination of eventual fault runs through three instances and with this subdivision the body corporate has displayed a bedeviled ability. The result is a renunciation to any accountability and responsibility. The judge of the trial court does not feel certain? Does not matter, he nevertheless condemns, in case of doubt his colleague of second instance will adjust it. For prosecutors you absolutely need legal requirements culpability and accountability. But hawks will not pick out hawks' eyes, not in Italy. In Germany this is a serious offence called “perversion of justice”, perversion of the course of justice perpetrated by the judge.
And the “repentant” continuous to denounce relentlessly further nuisances. “Meanwhile you cannot even rely anymore on DNA- investigations; you only have to look at the ridicules figure the investigators demonstrated in the murder case of Meredith Kercher.
The police system, the treatment of the accused and the relations between the Prosecution and the Judges are backward in 1930. The police forces consider all accused as criminals, the citizens are treated like doormats and often interrogations degenerate in violence. The Prosecutor plays police commissioner instead of ensuring the rights of the accused being respected. And the investigating judge feels the obligation to promote the action of the prosecutor.”
And Edoardo Mori added: “The consultants and experts provide the prosecutor the appointed answers and pieces of evidence. To confirm his preconceived theories. The prosecutors don’t tolerate questioning experts, they want them to blindly volunteer for supporting the charges. And because the experts know that they have to satisfy the prosecutors to have work they accommodate to themselves."

These are the very telling statements of an experienced Italian Judge incontrovertibly debunking all the points of police and judicial misconduct and deep wrongs that are the basis of the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:09 pm

There is a question I would like to ask about the testimony of the prosecution. How much of the testimony of the prosecution in the three trials consisted of speculation and theories about what happened on the night of the murder rather than actual evidence. I feel this is an important issue becauses it raises the question if the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence and a strong case, why did they have to rely heavily on theory and speculation rather than evidence when testifying in court.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby kermit the frog » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:04 am

I wouldn't expect a prosecutor admitting before the court that he does NOT have a strong case against the defendant he is accusing. Remember his job is to convince the jury of the person's guilt - after he couldn't do a better job as investigator of course. The weaker the evidence, the more "strong" words are needed to accomplish this task - as also reflected by the longer and longer blabla "motivation" reports by the convicting judges.
Strong cases have short trials.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:33 am

Hi everybody, newbie here. Testing post one two three.
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:32 pm

testing 1 2 3
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Sarah » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:54 am

Holmes wrote:Hi everybody, newbie here. Testing post one two three.


Welcome Holmes!

The first 3 posts need to be approved. You should be able to post without delay now.

Sarah
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:14 am

Holmes wrote:Hi everybody, newbie here. Testing post one two three.

Jump in the deep end! No need to be shy here. Best part is the collection onf information in the www.AmandaKnoxCase.com side of Injustice Anywhere site.

I remember spending hours reading stuff collect here, before it was this well organized, and all the articles and videos on the internet.

The court testimony is the hardest, dry, tedious, and worse when it was a Google translation!
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomZ53 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:57 pm

Holmes wrote:testing 1 2 3


Holmes,

What would you like to know?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:01 am

Thanks Sarah, Grayhawker, TomZ53

I didn’t realize my first posts had to be vetted. But it makes sense. Sorry for being impatient.
I’ve been reading up on the case over the past year or so. On here, and yes, I paid numerous visits to the “fake wiki” as well.
I have no questions at the moment. But that may change.

Holmes
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:05 am

Having second thoughts. Does anyone know the exact content of the washing machine? Is there a laundry items list?
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:26 am

Holmes wrote:Having second thoughts. Does anyone know the exact content of the washing machine? Is there a laundry items list?

I do not remember seeing a list of contents, but it has always been described as Meredith's laundry, still damp.

The fact that she had not transferred it to the dryer after arriving home has been described as another of the strong circumstantial pieces of evidence to the attack happening shortly after her return to the cottage that night rather than hours later as Magnini claims. No repeat call to her mom was another. One shoe tied, one untied is another. Her still wearing her hoodie and clothes, rather than PJs is another. She had not checked her email either supposedly, not sure how that was proven with the HD damaged.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:32 am

Grayhawker wrote:
Holmes wrote:Having second thoughts. Does anyone know the exact content of the washing machine? Is there a laundry items list?

I do not remember seeing a list of contents, but it has always been described as Meredith's laundry, still damp.

The fact that she had not transferred it to the dryer after arriving home has been described as another of the strong circumstantial pieces of evidence to the attack happening shortly after her return to the cottage that night rather than hours later as Magnini claims. No repeat call to her mom was another. One shoe tied, one untied is another. Her still wearing her hoodie and clothes, rather than PJs is another. She had not checked her email either supposedly, not sure how that was proven with the HD damaged.



There wasn’t a cover on the duvet. That strikes me as odd. Where did it go? Washer?
They found a “top sheet” underneath Meredith’s body. To cut a long analysis short: it seems possible to me that Meredith was in the process of changing the duvet cover when someone burst into the door.
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:01 pm

Good question, Holmes, concerning a cover for the duvet. I don't recall any discussion about it.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:08 pm

Which of the following three events do you think happen on November 1, 2007?

1. Nara Capezzali hears a scream at 23:30 est.

2. Antonio Curatolo sees Amanda/Raffaele standing near the basketball court sometime between 21:30 and 23:30 est.

3. A tow truck arrives at 23:14 and leaves at 23:25 with a car that had broken down in front of the gate of 7 Via della Pergola at 22:30 est.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:12 pm

I believe Filomena's testimony contains a partial description of the laundry from the washer.

I'm with Holmes in that I think Meredith was in the process of changing the linens on her bed. Since there isn't a dryer (everything must be air dried), she must have a second set and I haven't seen those.

Looking at the blood splatter by the wall in front of the wardrobe, it looks like there was something squarish that was folded there. This could be the shadow of the clean sheets that then ended up under Meredith.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:28 pm

schmidt53 wrote:Which of the following three events do you think happen on November 1, 2007?

1. Nara Capezzali hears a "scream" at 23:30 est.

2. Antonio Curatolo sees Amanda/Raffaele standing near the basketball court sometime between 21:30 and 23:30 est.

3. A tow truck arrives at 23:14 and leaves at 23:25 with a car that had broken down in front of the gate of 7 Via della Pergola at 22:30 est.


BTW: Don't forget that the CCTV time stamp is off by 10-12 minutes.

Looking at the captured images of the "tow truck" (and also confirmed by the operators testimony) shows that it is the flat bed type where the bed of the truck is on hydraulics and can be deployed at an angle down to the street. Then a winch cable is attached to the car and the car is pulled onto the flat bed. The flat bed is then pulled back onto the truck and the truck drives away carrying the car, not towing it. Depending on the malfunction of the car and the condition of the truck, is is quite possible and not uncommon to get a loud screeching during this operation. Nobody in the presence of the truck would think twice about the noise or necessarily even remember it because it will be obvious at the time what it is.

ETA: I can also accept #2 as true if you aren't a stickler for the identity of the pair that Curatolo calls Amanda and Raffaele and that the event could have happened on a date other that November 1. On the next night for instance there would have been activity at the cottage late into the night and a couple that choose to sit there would have reason to occasionally look back to see what was happening. On the previous night, there was nothing to look at except a girl walking home in the dark and if you turned away for a few seconds you could have missed it; and much later there was the broken down car and toe truck.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:14 pm

Dan O. wrote:
schmidt53 wrote:Which of the following three events do you think happen on November 1, 2007?

1. Nara Capezzali hears a "scream" at 23:30 est.

2. Antonio Curatolo sees Amanda/Raffaele standing near the basketball court sometime between 21:30 and 23:30 est.

3. A tow truck arrives at 23:14 and leaves at 23:25 with a car that had broken down in front of the gate of 7 Via della Pergola at 22:30 est.


BTW: Don't forget that the CCTV time stamp is off by 10-12 minutes.
Looking at the captured images of the "tow truck" (and also confirmed by the operators testimony) shows that it is the flat bed type where the bed of the truck is on hydraulics and can be deployed at an angle down to the street. Then a winch cable is attached to the car and the car is pulled onto the flat bed. The flat bed is then pulled back onto the truck and the truck drives away carrying the car, not towing it. Depending on the malfunction of the car and the condition of the truck, is is quite possible and not uncommon to get a loud screeching during this operation. Nobody in the presence of the truck would think twice about the noise or necessarily even remember it because it will be obvious at the time what it is.


I factor this into the times I wrote here.

The next question would be Curatolo says he left the piazza after no longer seeing Amanda/Raffaele at the end of the basketball court so that should mean that Curatolo was certainly sitting in the piazza when the tow truck made that loud screeching noises. Since in his story they couldn't have gone to cottage until the tow truck as left. So why when choosing the event to set the time he leaves the piazza does he chooses the disco buses that turns out to be the night before. When there no doubt about the tow truck present that night. Does this have to do with the CCTV clock being 10 to 12 minutes slow? Which affects the timing of Raffaele's phone calls to the police if they admit the time on the CCTV is wrong.


Capezzali as the same issue of rather or not got the right night of Nov 1st or confuses it with Halloween the Oct 31st. So if the scream (if there really was one) was est. to be at 23:30 est. it happens about five minutes after the car is towed away? If Capezzali mentions hearing the a different noise before she heard the scream and then the footsteps on road and the metal stairs minutes later you might believe she got the right night. What if she confuses the tow truck noise for the scream? Or it just says her hearing is in question.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Holmes » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:23 am

Dan O. wrote:I believe Filomena's testimony contains a partial description of the laundry from the washer.

I'm with Holmes in that I think Meredith was in the process of changing the linens on her bed. Since there isn't a dryer (everything must be air dried), she must have a second set and I haven't seen those.

Looking at the blood splatter by the wall in front of the wardrobe, it looks like there was something squarish that was folded there. This could be the shadow of the clean sheets that then ended up under Meredith.


Are you the Dan O. that (by some reports) located Meredith’s downstairs key? If so, I would really like to know where you found it.
The contents of the washer may (or may not) shed some light on the origin of the (presumed) semen stain on the pillowcase.
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:16 am

To my knowledge, Meredith's keys have not bee found. My beliefe is that Rudy had to return to Meredith's room to find her keys in order to unlock the front door. Once outside, these keys have no value and are a liability linking him to the murder. He would dispose of them as soon as possible. One possibility is to toss them into the ravine behind the cottage.

ETA: ah, the downstairs keys. A set of Keyes were found inside the key rack on the wall in the upstairs entry hall. (see the initial scene of the Nov. 2 crime scene video). These were found as the investigators were leaving the cottage on November 6. The investigators had been in the cottage searching Amanda's room so the news account improperly listed the keys as being found in Amanda's room (Republica 2007-11-14). This was left uncorrected until the facts were revealed in the officers trial testimony. (sorry, I cannot remember that officers name and don't have my notes handy).
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:26 pm

In my "Strong case?" thread one of the points I made was that if the police had built up a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogation and asked to explain it. I have read Ron Hendry's book and in the section on the interrogation, it says Raffaele was accused of calling the police after the postal police arrived. I believe a similar claim was made on the fake wiki. When reading about this case, I have not seen this claim made before. Can someone clarify was Raffaele accused of calling the police after the arrival of the postal police in the interrogation and if this accusation was not made in the interrogation, when did the police/prosecution first make this claim.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:37 pm

welshman wrote:In my "Strong case?" thread one of the points I made was that if the police had built up a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogation and asked to explain it. I have read Ron Hendry's book and in the section on the interrogation, it says Raffaele was accused of calling the police after the postal police arrived. I believe a similar claim was made on the fake wiki. When reading about this case, I have not seen this claim made before. Can someone clarify was Raffaele accused of calling the police after the arrival of the postal police in the interrogation and if this accusation was not made in the interrogation, when did the police/prosecution first make this claim.




http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... 6-2007.pdf

There were never any accusations. Raffaele confessed to making this call after the postal police arrived. And of course there was no pressure in getting Raffaele to sign this statement. That's why they have two whole pages from an interrogation that began At 22:40 and was signed at 03:30.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:19 am

Interesting article (Google helped with this):
http://www.panorama.it/news/cronaca/ama ... -malafede/
Article written by Carmelo Abbate in Panorama wrote:There are many, too many mistakes in the investigation against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher. To the point that today, after the Supreme Court canceled with a sponge almost eight years of trials, one wonders if behind what at times appeared a fury against two boys who spent four years in prison for the innocent, there is only superficial or bad faith.

The murderess is Rudi Guede

If we know more will be announced when the reasons for the resounding judgment. In the meantime, perhaps it is useful to remember that the murder of British student does not remain unpunished: the murderess is Rudi Guede, this is the conclusion I have reached the judges of the supreme court. It was he who killed Meredith after he tried to rape her inside the house on Via della Pergola on the night of November 1, 2007. It was his the only trace found at the crime scene. If someone entered the house with him, as Guede claimed in a reconstruction unfounded and fanciful, it was not certain of Amanda and Raffaele.

After all the Ivorian has never explicitly their names. He spoke only of a young man who threatened him and a girl who accompanied him. Waiting for the reasons, today is more of a doubt, and one wonders if Guede has not played with the Italian justice to the point of being able to make fun and to give birth to the sentence to 16 years in competition.

Rudi Guede is not a poor black

Poor Guede, we read these days on social networks. Pay him for all, so black, why not rich, because they could not afford the likes of lawyers Giulia Bongiorno, unlike the other two who managed to get away. Comments that betray the total lack of legal culture and that, despite the joy and newfound freedom, they leave a bitter taste in Raffaele Sollecito, who has already warned everyone: "I will not accept more than be defined murderess, and are ready to protect my image in the appropriate forum. "

Four years in prison for innocent

One would remain horrified by the certainty that two guys have gone from university to prison, where he remained four years from innocent. One would cringe in front of the incompleteness and incompleteness of a circumstantial framework that held suspended for eight years, the lives of two people, before seeing recognized their reasons. There would be intimidated in reading the words of Claudio Patrillo Hellman, president of the Court of Appeals of Perugia in 2011 had acquitted Amanda and Raffaele. Interviewed by Meo Bridge Republic, the judge said: "For three and a half years I have suffered the fate of two boys I thought were innocent and that were likely to serve a sentence for a tough crime they did not commit."

A crime they did not commit, says Patrillo Hellmann, who continues: "I was pretty much forced to leave the judiciary after the judgment, in the bars of Perugia said that I had sold to the Americans, who had succumbed to the pressures of the CIA. Colleagues magistrates they took off the greeting, especially those who for various reasons had been involved in the affair. " Patrillo Hellmann takes off some pebble in the shoe, speaks investigation "flawed from the beginning" and "contamination of scientific evidence which appeared in all evidence."

Raffaele only to the police station without shoes

Already, the evidence. Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda are taken first to the police station late at night, in the dark, surrounded by police, at least forty counting those of Sco arrived from Rome. Two boys only, technically felt like people informed about the facts, in fact already suspects. In the dark, at night, when the defenses to lower. No phones, no shoes, that Raffaele are removed, without lawyers, without the ability to make a phone call. And without that long night remains clear pattern. In the end everything is summarized in a report of a page and a half, where it shows the questions, replaced by the initials Adr.

His sentences extrapolated

The blog Sollecito is presented as circumstantial evidence before the investigating judge called to validate the detention. Raffaele recounts his life as a university college in Perugia, where he says he feels protected, where they take care of him. The magistrates omit this and other parts to extrapolate only a few steps, such as the one in which he writes that within those walls had passed "dogs and pigs", and what he had gained his esteem largest was the "monster of Foligno". The description continues with a list of other guests "distinguished" as a mechanic of Ferrari, and with the note that it was unbalanced people, which gave a sense of irony to the script. But even this step was ignored. However, was reported to acts message Raffaele according to which "there comes a time in life when you feel the need of great emotions." The date was October 16, without the year, who was also in the original version. For judges was a clear sign that 15 days before the crime Sollecito felt the need of something strong. Too bad that it was 2006, the year before.

The call to the Police

Always in front of the investigating judge, the prosecutor brings the phone call as evidence of Sollecito to 112, made minus ten o'clock. But the postal police claimed to have arrived by way of the pergola at 12.35, which is why the call was a clear attempt to build coverage. Too bad it was then established that the police arrived around one o'clock. Meanwhile, the investigative and judicial machine had already left and proceeded to speed crazy.

Where was the bra clasp?

The trace of Raffaele found on Meredith's bra clasp, together with the impression of shoe that has proved fallacious, has been one of the most important scientific evidence brought by the prosecution. A story that has simply incredible. In the video shot by the police, documenting the acquisition of the items found at the crime scene, you see the bra while Meredith is packed. Missing the hook, which was found later under the body of the British student.

The video closes with the image of the hook on the floor while being photographed. But when the exhibits come to Rome for the scientific analysis, the hook there. What happened? Good question. Some 47 days later, with 35 people that have since come into the house during two visits, here's another video. You see a hand that slips under a mat bloodied, located next to the desk, and you will see the hook. On which, incidentally, are three blocks of DNA profiles, one attributed to Sollecito, the other remaining non-depth. The appeal process, the experts state that the profile of the judge is not to Sollecito. And the other two?

Whose was the sperm on the pillow?

Another mystery remained unsolved, the trace of semen found on the pillow of Meredith, the murderess had located under the basin of the victim. No one has ever thought to study and try to figure out who was to sperm, despite repeated requests for expertise on the part of the family Sollecito. And in a case of murder following a sexual assault.

The knife in the box of the police

It seems absurd, but it is. As it seems surreal that the knife seized at the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and indicated as the murder weapon, has been stuck in a yellow envelope left on a desk of the police station and then locked in a cardboard box together with an old agenda. The murder weapon where they said they had found the DNA of Meredith, not at the top on the blade, which in any case was not a trace of blood. Only to discover at the appeal hearing that the knife was only trace of starch potatoes.

Yes, someone will do away with

If anyone here got away, these are certainly not Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But those who have written one of the blackest pages of the criminal investigation in Italy.

© All rights reserved
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:24 am

Dan O. wrote:
welshman wrote:In my "Strong case?" thread one of the points I made was that if the police had built up a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogation and asked to explain it. I have read Ron Hendry's book and in the section on the interrogation, it says Raffaele was accused of calling the police after the postal police arrived. I believe a similar claim was made on the fake wiki. When reading about this case, I have not seen this claim made before. Can someone clarify was Raffaele accused of calling the police after the arrival of the postal police in the interrogation and if this accusation was not made in the interrogation, when did the police/prosecution first make this claim.


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... 6-2007.pdf

There were never any accusations. Raffaele confessed to making this call after the postal police arrived. And of course there was no pressure in getting Raffaele to sign this statement. That's why they have two whole pages from an interrogation that began At 22:40 and was signed at 03:30.

At that point, how would Raffaele remember any aspect of time concerning calls. He just wanted it to end. He was ready to sign anything.

It was proven in court though that he actually made the calls several minutes prior to the Postal Police arrival. That is as the guilters used to love to say, "a judicial fact".
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby jane » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:35 am

What were the specific charges against Rudy Guede?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:49 pm

jane wrote:What were the specific charges against Rudy Guede?


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

Guede was charged with murder (A) aggravated by sexual assault (C) and theft of money, Meredith Kercher’s credit cards and mobile phones. (D)
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Richard C » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:34 am

First-time poster. How many knife wounds were found on Meredith, and what was the testimony concerning this number?

There is someone calling himself Publicus posting what I assume is the usual guilter nonsense (as recently as yesterday) on the Amazon reviews section for The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

Thanks.

--Richard
Richard C
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Jay » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:13 am

Did Meredith ever work at Le Chic?
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Jay
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Sarah » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:32 am

Richard C wrote:First-time poster. How many knife wounds were found on Meredith, and what was the testimony concerning this number?

There is someone calling himself Publicus posting what I assume is the usual guilter nonsense (as recently as yesterday) on the Amazon reviews section for The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

Thanks.

--Richard


There were 3 stab wounds to the neck. The last one was a stab and slash.

There were also a few very shallow knife cuts on her hand.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:57 am

Jay wrote:Did Meredith ever work at Le Chic?


No.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Jay » Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:13 am

MichaelB wrote:
Jay wrote:Did Meredith ever work at Le Chic?


No.


Thanks Michael. That's what I thought. Just confirming.
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Jay
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:50 pm

Sarah wrote:
Richard C wrote:First-time poster. How many knife wounds were found on Meredith, and what was the testimony concerning this number?

There is someone calling himself Publicus posting what I assume is the usual guilter nonsense (as recently as yesterday) on the Amazon reviews section for The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

Thanks.

--Richard


There were 3 stab wounds to the neck. The last one was a stab and slash.

There were also a few very shallow knife cuts on her hand.

The stab and slash neck wound was the only one that a larger knife could have made, assuming that the attacker could control his adrenaline and aggression enough not to plunge the longer blade all the way through Meredith's neck. A smaller/shorter blade could have made the same wound by an attacker that had no regard for restraint.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Alex_K » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:41 am

Richard C wrote:First-time poster. How many knife wounds were found on Meredith, and what was the testimony concerning this number?

There is someone calling himself Publicus posting what I assume is the usual guilter nonsense (as recently as yesterday) on the Amazon reviews section for The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

Thanks.

--Richard


The best source would the text of the autopsy Dr. Lalli performed after the murder. However it was not shared with the general public during the trial.

Massei's convicting report has long excerpts from Lalli's autopsy report and testimony as well as the testimony of other medical examiners.

There's a summary of the wounds in the supreme court's report on Guede (http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf), p. 3. Unfortunately it's in Italian and not machine-readable. Here's my translation:

On the corpse, there was a very large number of bruises and superficial wounds - around 43 [sic!], including those that resulted from the fall - some related to piercing and cutting weapons, others to strong pressure...


The judges go on to name some of the wounds but, unfortunately, this is only the beginning of a long sentence that is not quite internally consistent. It starts with the statement that there were 43 bruises and superficial wounds and ends by describing the deep, fatal wound.

I could translate the whole of it if you are interested.
Alex_K
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:37 pm

schmidt53 wrote:
Dan O. wrote:
schmidt53 wrote:Which of the following three events do you think happen on November 1, 2007?

1. Nara Capezzali hears a "scream" at 23:30 est.

2. Antonio Curatolo sees Amanda/Raffaele standing near the basketball court sometime between 21:30 and 23:30 est.

3. A tow truck arrives at 23:14 and leaves at 23:25 with a car that had broken down in front of the gate of 7 Via della Pergola at 22:30 est.


BTW: Don't forget that the CCTV time stamp is off by 10-12 minutes.
Looking at the captured images of the "tow truck" (and also confirmed by the operators testimony) shows that it is the flat bed type where the bed of the truck is on hydraulics and can be deployed at an angle down to the street. Then a winch cable is attached to the car and the car is pulled onto the flat bed. The flat bed is then pulled back onto the truck and the truck drives away carrying the car, not towing it. Depending on the malfunction of the car and the condition of the truck, is is quite possible and not uncommon to get a loud screeching during this operation. Nobody in the presence of the truck would think twice about the noise or necessarily even remember it because it will be obvious at the time what it is.


I factor this into the times I wrote here.

The next question would be Curatolo says he left the piazza after no longer seeing Amanda/Raffaele at the end of the basketball court so that should mean that Curatolo was certainly sitting in the piazza when the tow truck made that loud screeching noises. Since in his story they couldn't have gone to cottage until the tow truck as left. So why when choosing the event to set the time he leaves the piazza does he chooses the disco buses that turns out to be the night before. When there no doubt about the tow truck present that night. Does this have to do with the CCTV clock being 10 to 12 minutes slow? Which affects the timing of Raffaele's phone calls to the police if they admit the time on the CCTV is wrong.


Capezzali as the same issue of rather or not got the right night of Nov 1st or confuses it with Halloween the Oct 31st. So if the scream (if there really was one) was est. to be at 23:30 est. it happens about five minutes after the car is towed away? If Capezzali mentions hearing the a different noise before she heard the scream and then the footsteps on road and the metal stairs minutes later you might believe she got the right night. What if she confuses the tow truck noise for the scream? Or it just says her hearing is in question.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:08 am

What Nara heard could have been the tow truck loading the broken down car. She had been sleeping and would only hear part of the noise filtered through the double pane windows. She may have been bothered by the noise, not knowing exactly what it was. But she was not bothered enough to call the police. Nara also gets her days confused. She associates the scream with November 1 because the next morning she sees the billboards about the murder at the news kiosk. Remember, morning is before noon, before anything happened, well before the body was discovered.

Curatolo also mentions seeing the men in the white suits the morning after he claims to have seen Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. The white suits cannot be seen from the basketball court except in the papers printed in the following days.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:08 pm

Dan O. wrote:What Nara heard could have been the tow truck loading the broken down car. She had been sleeping and would only hear part of the noise filtered through the double pane windows. She may have been bothered by the noise, not knowing exactly what it was. But she was not bothered enough to call the police. Nara also gets her days confused. She associates the scream with November 1 because the next morning she sees the billboards about the murder at the news kiosk. Remember, morning is before noon, before anything happened, well before the body was discovered.

Curatolo also mentions seeing the men in the white suits the morning after he claims to have seen Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. The white suits cannot be seen from the basketball court except in the papers printed in the following days.


It is important to remember that both witnesses did not show by themselves to make statements to the Police. Both witnesses had been discovered by a journalist weeks and months after the crime had occured. I am quite sure that the journalist showed them photos about the day(s) after the murder and asked them to remember what they might have seen or heard that evening. Manipulation and false memories through associative thinking made the rest to prepare them to the make their respective statements and/or finally produce the scoop for the newspaper.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:41 am

One could say the case was staged by the media for the media - using numerous voluntary as well as some involuntary actors.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Jay » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:43 am

I remember reading somewhere that Amanda wasn't the only person in their circle that didn't go to the candlelight vigil; that Laura and Filomena didn't go either. Can someone confirm or deny this? I can't seem to find the information again.

Thanks!
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Jay
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kohntarkosz » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:29 am

I also remember Laura and Filomena did not go to the vigil either (but nobody paid attention to this).
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
User avatar
Kohntarkosz
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:12 am
Location: France

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:44 am

pmop57 wrote:
Dan O. wrote:What Nara heard could have been the tow truck loading the broken down car. She had been sleeping and would only hear part of the noise filtered through the double pane windows. She may have been bothered by the noise, not knowing exactly what it was. But she was not bothered enough to call the police. Nara also gets her days confused. She associates the scream with November 1 because the next morning she sees the billboards about the murder at the news kiosk. Remember, morning is before noon, before anything happened, well before the body was discovered.

Curatolo also mentions seeing the men in the white suits the morning after he claims to have seen Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. The white suits cannot be seen from the basketball court except in the papers printed in the following days.


It is important to remember that both witnesses did not show by themselves to make statements to the Police. Both witnesses had been discovered by a journalist weeks and months after the crime had occured. I am quite sure that the journalist showed them photos about the day(s) after the murder and asked them to remember what they might have seen or heard that evening. Manipulation and false memories through associative thinking made the rest to prepare them to the make their respective statements and/or finally produce the scoop for the newspaper.



What if Curtatolo gave us a different scenario then leaving the same time as the disco buses? Instead he says he was tired and decide to get up and go to sleep in the park when he hears a noise coming from below the piazza. So he walks over to the railings and looks down toward the gate leading to the cottage where he sees a tow truck loading a car. He also checks to his right where he sees the young couple also watching this event with interest. He then watched the tow truck drive away and the couple depart and head down towards the gate? This would mean Curatolo since the tow truck is caught on the CCTV is he has the right night and even though the clock on the CCTV is slow it does nail the time this occurred. A witness identifies two of the three suspects arriving at the cottage around 11:30 pm. problem is where is the third suspect? Where Rudy? What is his story?
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:45 am

pmop57 wrote:
Dan O. wrote:What Nara heard could have been the tow truck loading the broken down car. She had been sleeping and would only hear part of the noise filtered through the double pane windows. She may have been bothered by the noise, not knowing exactly what it was. But she was not bothered enough to call the police. Nara also gets her days confused. She associates the scream with November 1 because the next morning she sees the billboards about the murder at the news kiosk. Remember, morning is before noon, before anything happened, well before the body was discovered.

Curatolo also mentions seeing the men in the white suits the morning after he claims to have seen Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. The white suits cannot be seen from the basketball court except in the papers printed in the following days.


It is important to remember that both witnesses did not show by themselves to make statements to the Police. Both witnesses had been discovered by a journalist weeks and months after the crime had occured. I am quite sure that the journalist showed them photos about the day(s) after the murder and asked them to remember what they might have seen or heard that evening. Manipulation and false memories through associative thinking made the rest to prepare them to the make their respective statements and/or finally produce the scoop for the newspaper.



What if Curtatolo gave us a different scenario then leaving the same time as the disco buses? Instead he says he was tired and decide to get up and go to sleep in the park when he hears a noise coming from below the piazza. So he walks over to the railings and looks down toward the gate leading to the cottage where he sees a tow truck loading a car. He also checks to his right where he sees the young couple also watching this event with interest. He then watched the tow truck drive away and the couple depart and head down towards the gate? This would mean Curatolo since the tow truck is caught on the CCTV is he has the right night and even though the clock on the CCTV is slow it does nail the time this occurred. A witness identifies two of the three suspects arriving at the cottage around 11:30 pm. problem is where is the third suspect? Where Rudy? What is his story?
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Jay » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:18 am

Kohntarkosz wrote:I also remember Laura and Filomena did not go to the vigil either (but nobody paid attention to this).


Thanks, Kohntarkosz. I appreciate the reply. I wish I could remember where I read about it.
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Jay
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kohntarkosz » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:51 am

You're welcome. Actually, I remembered an old post by Bruce himself :winks:
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
User avatar
Kohntarkosz
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:12 am
Location: France

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Jay » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:53 am

Kohntarkosz wrote:You're welcome. Actually, I remembered an old post by Bruce himself :winks:


You wouldn't happen to be able to point me to it, would you?
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Jay
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kohntarkosz » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:32 am

This is archaeology… :)

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/v ... 9&p=102634 I think I read something else but cannot find it.

And :

« None of the cottage flatmates were pictured in the photographs. They were trying to stay away from the media, it was said, and whished to avoid any public spectacle » (Candace Dempsey Murder in Italy p 134/316)
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
User avatar
Kohntarkosz
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:12 am
Location: France

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:16 pm

When it was shown Raffaele's knife did not match the wounds on Meredith's, the prosecution tried to explain this by saying two knives were used. When did the prosecution come up with the two knife theory. Am I right in saying the prosecution did not come up with this theory until late in the Massei trial.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby RoseMontague » Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:34 pm

welshman wrote:When it was shown Raffaele's knife did not match the wounds on Meredith's, the prosecution tried to explain this by saying two knives were used. When did the prosecution come up with the two knife theory. Am I right in saying the prosecution did not come up with this theory until late in the Massei trial.


I believe this was covered in Raffaele's first appeal. The prosecution did not bring it up, Massei came up with this theory in his motivation report. Raffaele's lawyers argued they did not have a chance to refute this as it was not covered in the trial.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:59 pm

RoseMontague wrote:
welshman wrote:When it was shown Raffaele's knife did not match the wounds on Meredith's, the prosecution tried to explain this by saying two knives were used. When did the prosecution come up with the two knife theory. Am I right in saying the prosecution did not come up with this theory until late in the Massei trial.


I believe this was covered in Raffaele's first appeal. The prosecution did not bring it up, Massei came up with this theory in his motivation report. Raffaele's lawyers argued they did not have a chance to refute this as it was not covered in the trial.

That problem you describe was endemic.

The problem with both Massei's motivations report, as well as Nencini's, was they both contained material not introduced by the prosecution at trial. Therefore, the defence had no chance to comment at all.

I do not know this one for sure, but did the prosecution in the 2009 trial EVER bring up, or lead evidence supporting a clean-up in the short space in the hall between Meredith's room and the bathmat in the bathroom?

If not, then the defence had NO chance to comment or bring their own expert testimony. In the Massei motivations, this is the ONLY discussion of the kind of thorough clean-up which was meant (acc. to Massei) to mask AK and RS's participation in this crime. Massei reasoned this in the negative, name;y, that if a clean-up had not been done in that short space, then he was at a complete loss to explain how that lone bathmat foottrack got there wth no intervening tracks.

Thank God the ISC annulled both Massei and Nencini's verdict. Both those courts deprived the defence of a fair trial on that point alone.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby LarryK » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:58 am

Was there supposed to be a Motivation Report by now for the March 27 ruling? I thought it was due in 90 days. Anybody know what's happening? :confused:
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby european neighbour » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:40 am

I don't know "what's happening" but I know "it's Italy".
european neighbour
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby roteoctober » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:21 am

Judges take the 90 days deadline as "best effort" ...
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:07 pm

Was anything ever revealed about Meredith's computer hard drive? Any photos with Amanda or other roommates? Any emails about Amanda? I had thought the HD was destroyed but they made a recovery, at least in part, apparently but I have not found a report on what was found?

Apparently, as for other electronic evidence, no one among her friends or her family had a negative email or text to present to the court about Amanda?
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby RoseMontague » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:34 pm

Grayhawker wrote:Was anything ever revealed about Meredith's computer hard drive? Any photos with Amanda or other roommates? Any emails about Amanda? I had thought the HD was destroyed but they made a recovery, at least in part, apparently but I have not found a report on what was found?

Apparently, as for other electronic evidence, no one among her friends or her family had a negative email or text to present to the court about Amanda?


The court refused to let the defense send it off to the manufacturer to attempt recovery. Now that the final ruling has been given my understanding is that Amanda has the right to reclaim her property including the computer and camera that was taken. I hope she has and I hope she gets it tested.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:51 pm

RoseMontague wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:Was anything ever revealed about Meredith's computer hard drive? Any photos with Amanda or other roommates? Any emails about Amanda? I had thought the HD was destroyed but they made a recovery, at least in part, apparently but I have not found a report on what was found?

Apparently, as for other electronic evidence, no one among her friends or her family had a negative email or text to present to the court about Amanda?


The court refused to let the defense send it off to the manufacturer to attempt recovery. Now that the final ruling has been given my understanding is that Amanda has the right to reclaim her property including the computer and camera that was taken. I hope she has and I hope she gets it tested.


That was for Amanda's hard drive. Meredith's was recovered and there was a report that it contained only files related to school work. What I don't know is if this was just the prosecutions claim or if the defense was permitted to examine the files.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby RoseMontague » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:04 pm

Dan O. wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:Was anything ever revealed about Meredith's computer hard drive? Any photos with Amanda or other roommates? Any emails about Amanda? I had thought the HD was destroyed but they made a recovery, at least in part, apparently but I have not found a report on what was found?

Apparently, as for other electronic evidence, no one among her friends or her family had a negative email or text to present to the court about Amanda?


The court refused to let the defense send it off to the manufacturer to attempt recovery. Now that the final ruling has been given my understanding is that Amanda has the right to reclaim her property including the computer and camera that was taken. I hope she has and I hope she gets it tested.


That was for Amanda's hard drive. Meredith's was recovered and there was a report that it contained only files related to school work. What I don't know is if this was just the prosecutions claim or if the defense was permitted to examine the files.


Yes, thank you Dan O.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:36 am

Dan O. wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:Was anything ever revealed about Meredith's computer hard drive? Any photos with Amanda or other roommates? Any emails about Amanda? I had thought the HD was destroyed but they made a recovery, at least in part, apparently but I have not found a report on what was found?

Apparently, as for other electronic evidence, no one among her friends or her family had a negative email or text to present to the court about Amanda?


The court refused to let the defense send it off to the manufacturer to attempt recovery. Now that the final ruling has been given my understanding is that Amanda has the right to reclaim her property including the computer and camera that was taken. I hope she has and I hope she gets it tested.


That was for Amanda's hard drive. Meredith's was recovered and there was a report that it contained only files related to school work. What I don't know is if this was just the prosecutions claim or if the defense was permitted to examine the files.


Thanks, DanO. The defense's expert only focused on Raffaele's computer in their report. I find nothing from the defense on Meredith's.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby RoseMontague » Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:36 pm

How many student's computers contain only files related to school work? Too funny.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kestrel » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:24 pm

RoseMontague wrote:How many student's computers contain only files related to school work? Too funny.


It sounds as if they only counted word processing documents and spreadsheets as files. It's hard to imagine any student not having photos, email messages, video clips and other non school related files on their laptop.
Kestrel
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:48 pm

Photos taken while traveling to school in a foreign country, emails composed while in class, vidio clips viewed in lue of studying, music played while studying. Sounds like it could all be school related.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:33 am

The police took a knife from Raffaele's apartment and claimed the knife was used to stab Meredith. There is one aspect I find odd. During the interrogations, neither Amanda and Raffaele were accused of stabbing Meredith and the statements prepared by the police made no mention of Amanda and Raffaele stabbing Meredith. Prior to the collection of the knife, were Amanda and Raffaele accused of stabbing Meredith? This raises the question if Amanda or Raffaele had stabbed Meredith, why were they initially not accused of this?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby LondonSupporter » Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:20 pm

welshman wrote:The police took a knife from Raffaele's apartment and claimed the knife was used to stab Meredith. There is one aspect I find odd. During the interrogations, neither Amanda and Raffaele were accused of stabbing Meredith and the statements prepared by the police made no mention of Amanda and Raffaele stabbing Meredith. Prior to the collection of the knife, were Amanda and Raffaele accused of stabbing Meredith? This raises the question if Amanda or Raffaele had stabbed Meredith, why were they initially not accused of this?


Raffaele was the alibi. They needed something from his place to tie him to the crime. When they tested the knife they found Amanda's DNA on the handle, not Raff's. The sample on the blade that was claimed to be Meredith's was bogus. They claimed that his shoe print was in Meredith's room but his family was able to prove it was Guede's print. As soon as this was revealed (46 days after the murder), the cops went back to the villa and picked up the bra clasp and 'found' Raff's DNA on it to bring him back into the crime. Otherwise they would have had nothing on him.
"Life lived somehow for love is life never wasted." - Amanda Knox
User avatar
LondonSupporter
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:31 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby mjlaris » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:56 pm

This is a question I have had for sometime. Mignini has long advanced the theory of a staged break-in. Was the glass ever examined to determine if it was broken from inside the room or from outside the room? The fracture pattern should tell from which side the window was broken.

Mark
mjlaris
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:08 pm

mjlaris wrote:This is a question I have had for sometime. Mignini has long advanced the theory of a staged break-in. Was the glass ever examined to determine if it was broken from inside the room or from outside the room? The fracture pattern should tell from which side the window was broken.

Mark


Nope. Nothing was tested. They just declared it staged and that was the end of it.

Defense consultant Pasquali was translated if you want to read his opinion.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... squali.rtf
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomG » Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:18 am

Do we have any more information from the ECHR about Amanda’s human rights violations? I don’t think there is even any official confirmation that the case is to be heard.

Also can a case be submitted to the ECHR for human rights violations against her in the main trial? The time that both Amanda and Raffaele spent in prison before facing charges could be just a start.

Hoots!
Who punched the downstairs cat in the ear? That I'd like to know!
User avatar
TomG
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Numbers » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:21 am

TomG wrote:Do we have any more information from the ECHR about Amanda’s human rights violations? I don’t think there is even any official confirmation that the case is to be heard.

Also can a case be submitted to the ECHR for human rights violations against her in the main trial? The time that both Amanda and Raffaele spent in prison before facing charges could be just a start.

Hoots!


TomG,

AFAIK, based upon searching the ECHR's HUDOC database, Amanda's case against Italy for human rights violations in their convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba has not been officially communicated to Italy.

The ECHR apparently takes vacation for the month of August. I hope that there will be an initial communication to Italy on Amanda's claim against Italy this fall, but apparently there is no way to know with certainty when this important initial step will occur.

Of course, the interested public as well as Amanda and Raffaele are awaiting the release of the motivation report by the Marasca CSC panel, which will detail the reasoning for their well-deserved acquittal.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomG » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:38 am

Is there a time-bar on how soon an individual can submit a violation of human rights case to the ECHR after the event? As I understand it Amanda’s lawyers are working on compensation for wrongful imprisonment so she may stand to gain a substantial amount if successful. It may be that she could still even win a potential ECHR case after she has been awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. My only concern would be that if she submitted a human rights case for her treatment during the main trial it may affect the amount she would get for wrongful imprisonment if she were to lose a potential ECHR case.

Hoots
Who punched the downstairs cat in the ear? That I'd like to know!
User avatar
TomG
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Numbers » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:48 am

TomG wrote:Is there a time-bar on how soon an individual can submit a violation of human rights case to the ECHR after the event? As I understand it Amanda’s lawyers are working on compensation for wrongful imprisonment so she may stand to gain a substantial amount if successful. It may be that she could still even win a potential ECHR case after she has been awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. My only concern would be that if she submitted a human rights case for her treatment during the main trial it may affect the amount she would get for wrongful imprisonment if she were to lose a potential ECHR case.

Hoots


TomG,

The short answer is that the time limit to submitting an ECHR application is within 6 months of a final decision by a responsible State body, such as a judicial system. But some circumstances, such as continuing ongoing alleged violations, allow for other limits - that is, an application may be lodged at any time during the continuing circumstances.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomG » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:33 am

Hi Numbers

Thanks for the info. I would just like to see Amanda and her lawyers maximaze all possibilities to gain as much as financially possible out of this situation, both through the ECHR and from the Italian government for what she's been through.

It seems as though Mignini will tip-toe through the tulips in this case with his reputation in ruins but there's no doubt that he will be protected by the establishment. In hindsight I think that the only reason the original aquittal was reversed by the Gallati-Constagliola appeal was to protect those whose careers looked set to be blasted out of the water by the Hellman-Zanetti report. I also think that Hellmans big mistake was that he failed to protect the reputations of these people.

Hoots
Who punched the downstairs cat in the ear? That I'd like to know!
User avatar
TomG
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomG » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:32 am

Can someone put me straight on this one. Charge (E) which was the simulated break-in was considered by the Hellman Court that the act did not take place, however the Marasca-Bruno reports states an annulment because the appellants did not commit the act. This seems to imply that the staged break-in was real just that Amanda and Raffaele did not commit it?

Hoots!
Who punched the downstairs cat in the ear? That I'd like to know!
User avatar
TomG
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Samson » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:43 am

TomG wrote:Can someone put me straight on this one. Charge (E) which was the simulated break-in was considered by the Hellman Court that the act did not take place, however the Marasca-Bruno reports states an annulment because the appellants did not commit the act. This seems to imply that the staged break-in was real just that Amanda and Raffaele did not commit it?

Hoots!

More finessing of course. The lighter coloured mark on the upper surround of the lower window is powerful testimony to recent human footfall, but I reckon the judges worked out pretty quickly that they could pick and choose from the near infinite data points that prove innocence, and ignore a few that could help a modicum of face saving.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:13 am

The "staged break-in" is due to the desire of the Italian Court of Cassation to harmonise and/or coordinate different Court of Cassation rulings. In this case to make it fit the decisions against RG not contested by the Court of Cassation against him. My opinion is that assuring the sentencing of RG was one reason to maintain these assertions. The attempt to link different trials against different defendants was one of the central flaws of the proceeding of this case on the level of the Judiciary (Judges and the respective Courts) up to the Court of Cassation.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:20 pm

I'm not sure if a statement "did not commit the act" affirms the existence of "the act" in a legal sense. Cassation just avoids openly contradicting their colleagues, as Hellmann predicted. However if AK+RS did not commit it it's pretty clear that nobody committed it. :D
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:23 pm

In my "A Strong Case" thread I made a series of points which were designed to demolish the notion the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele. One of the points I made in my thread was if the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence with no credibility. I feel the fact the prosecution had to resort to using evidence with no credibility is very important because this indicates the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence which made the prosecution desperate. The prosecution were so desperate they had to rely on evidence with no credibility as they had nothing else they could use.

Among the evidence with no credibility was a CCTV which was released around the time of Nencini court of someone who was clearly not Amanda. This raises the question if the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to bringing in new evidence with no credibility six years after Meredith's murder. In response to my thread on Amanda's blog a hater argued how do we know the prosecution were behind the CCTV. There is a Ground Report article entitled "Amanda Knox the Vendetta Continues". The article says the CCTV was released by an Italian crime show called Quarto Grado. Do we know where the makers of the show received the CCTV from? Did they receive the CCTV from the police/prosecution? Has the CCTV been released before?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:17 pm

welshman wrote:In my "A Strong Case" thread I made a series of points which were designed to demolish the notion the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele. One of the points I made in my thread was if the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence with no credibility. I feel the fact the prosecution had to resort to using evidence with no credibility is very important because this indicates the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence which made the prosecution desperate. The prosecution were so desperate they had to rely on evidence with no credibility as they had nothing else they could use.

I'm with you on that. It's interesting that the prosecution didn't start with the forensic i.e. hard evidence and the witnesses for it at the first trial. Instead they brought in all those witnesses who had to say something bad about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, their behaviour, her cleaning habits, her toy, and so on. To me it looks like they chose this tactic to make the judges and jurors dislike the defendants so that they won't pay much attention later, when they had to present the "real" evidence... :twocents:

welshman wrote:Among the evidence with no credibility was a CCTV which was released around the time of Nencini court of someone who was clearly not Amanda. This raises the question if the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to bringing in new evidence with no credibility six years after Meredith's murder. In response to my thread on Amanda's blog a hater argued how do we know the prosecution were behind the CCTV. There is a Ground Report article entitled "Amanda Knox the Vendetta Continues". The article says the CCTV was released by an Italian crime show called Quarto Grado. Do we know where the makers of the show received the CCTV from? Did they receive the CCTV from the police/prosecution? Has the CCTV been released before?

That video and the pictures were published during the summer of 2014 IIRC, the same time the "Cocaine dealer" story re-surfaced and the PGP claim that the footage was published by supporters of Raffaele Sollecito in a bid to "throw Amanda under the bus...". Despite that claim it isn't clear "where" the footage came from and, no, to my knowledge it hasn't been released before...

IMO the release of that footage (and the cocaine dealer story) were made to re-focus the "jurors of the court of the public opinion's" attention back onto Amanda Knox. It is in line with the prosecution's tactic to instead of presenting reliable evidence, to soften up the judges and jurors with character-assassination... :twocents:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby kermit the frog » Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:33 am

welshman wrote:The article says the CCTV was released by an Italian crime show called Quarto Grado. Do we know where the makers of the show received the CCTV from? Did they receive the CCTV from the police/prosecution? Has the CCTV been released before?

Last year I traced back single frames from this video, already labeled "quarto grado", to a swiss magazine back in 2011. It is possible that the complete video was "published" at a later date however. Worthless stuff discarded from the beginning obviously.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:06 pm

Still on the subject of evidence with no credibility. When did the defense found out Raffaele's knife did not match the wounds?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:30 pm

welshman wrote:Still on the subject of evidence with no credibility. When did the defense found out Raffaele's knife did not match the wounds?


From Rafaele's diary:
Nov 16 2007 Last night I saw on television that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent) ... my heart jumped in my throat and I was in total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or had helped someone in the enterprise. But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing ... I live in a reality show nightmare, the 'nightmare reality show'. Unbelievable!
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Francisco » Tue Nov 17, 2015 2:16 pm

Good thing Quennell still has a sense of humor;

Fast Pete @ PMF wrote:Marasca/Bruno: the final "conclusions" post goes live in James Raper's excellent series.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _report_5/

That makes three analyses, along with Machiavelli's (partial) and Catnip's and they will all be posted also in Italian.

Oliesnep is also considering a series, comparing the few evidence points Marasca/Bruno addressed with this massive list.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... ence_list/

Maybe we can find some answers in these fine 'publications' ?? :::thumbs up:::
Francisco
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Thu May 26, 2016 3:08 am

My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Thu May 26, 2016 10:38 am

There is no truth.

It begins with the interview with Kate Mansey
Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007 wrote: Sunday Mirror
*:He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends

Kate had gotten the dates confused and mixed Halloween night with the night of the murder. The Perugia police had picked up on this and continued the confusion into the interrogation where Raffaele complains that they wouldn't let him see a calendar.

The police then use this to scare and confuse Amanda in her interrogation.

In the Interrogation, Raffaele may have admitted that Amanda could have snuck out while he was asleep.

Here is what Raffaele wrote on November 7 about the evening of the Murder:
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

He later writes that he knows she didn't go out that night because she didn't have a key and would have had to ring to be let back in.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sat May 28, 2016 1:02 pm

welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since. The facts are in the files (all quotes are lifted from files at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statement ... ntercepts/):

11-2-2007 witness deposition:
Around 16:00 Meredith went out without saying where she was going, while we stayed at the house until about 17:30. After that time, Amanda and I went for a quick walk in the centre and then went to my house where we stayed until this morning.

11-6-2007 deposition:
A.D.R. We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
A.D.R. We stayed in the center from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
A.D.R. At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, went on the computer and smoked a joint. I’m certain I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
A.D.R. I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00

11-8-2007 Matteini hearing:
At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda. I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

Entry prison diary dated Nov 7 2007 (misdated, should be Nov 8):
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

A bit further down, same entry:
The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem?


I can see “the big problem” with Raffaele’s statements. Can the people at this forum see it too?
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sat May 28, 2016 2:59 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since. The facts are in the files (all quotes are lifted from files at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statement ... ntercepts/):

11-2-2007 witness deposition:
Around 16:00 Meredith went out without saying where she was going, while we stayed at the house until about 17:30. After that time, Amanda and I went for a quick walk in the centre and then went to my house where we stayed until this morning.

11-6-2007 deposition:
A.D.R. We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
A.D.R. We stayed in the center from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
A.D.R. At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, went on the computer and smoked a joint. I’m certain I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
A.D.R. I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00

11-8-2007 Matteini hearing:
At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda. I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

Entry prison diary dated Nov 7 2007 (misdated, should be Nov 8):
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

A bit further down, same entry:
The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem?


I can see “the big problem” with Raffaele’s statements. Can the people at this forum see it too?


Hello fkaHolmes, Welcome aboard.

fkaHolmes wrote:Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement.

I'll give you that one. Changing the narrative is suspicious. The problem is that it is quite clear that in his Nov 2nd deposition he's talking about the night of the murder and it's obvious that in his Nov 6th statement he's talking about the night of Halloween, which he somehow substituted for the night of the murder even until the Matteini hearing.
I wonder if he had made the statements in front of judge Matteini, if he had been able to consult with his lawyer ahead of that hearing to sort it out? The ramblings in his "prison diary" are not official statements, to me they are only a record of his confusion.
So we only have his change of story on Nov 6th (or better Nov 5th in the light of the latest motivations report) which made him and with him Amanda "suspects". The problem I (and apparently the latest judge) see here is the question: "Why would a mere witness need an alibi?"
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Sat May 28, 2016 3:28 pm

One thing I noticed when I went back to the early depositions and interviews is that the police never seemed to care what Amanda and Raffaele were doing that night until the interrogations on the night of the 5th. In their initial interviews it's brought up only in passing related to the last time they saw Meredith.

I believe Raffaele allowed himself to believe the memory had gone fuzzy enough for the story the police were strongly insisting (under threat of violence) to be true or at least possible. From his point of view he was taking the easy route, after all the police were making an incredible amount of trouble for him over a girl he just met connected to another girl he barely knew. He was cutting his losses, which turned out to be a bad decision he should have had a lawyer make for him.

One thing that has never made sense is, assuming Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, why Raffaele would instantly give up his female accomplice who would immediately say she was scared and put up to it and can even show them where Raffaele keeps the murder weapon he killed Meredith with and threatened her with to keep silent about it.

Common sense could go a long way with helping the guilters figure out what happened during those interrogations, and what ultimately happened (or didn't happen) to Meredith.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kauffer » Sat May 28, 2016 3:41 pm

Hans wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since. The facts are in the files (all quotes are lifted from files at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statement ... ntercepts/):

11-2-2007 witness deposition:
Around 16:00 Meredith went out without saying where she was going, while we stayed at the house until about 17:30. After that time, Amanda and I went for a quick walk in the centre and then went to my house where we stayed until this morning.

11-6-2007 deposition:
A.D.R. We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
A.D.R. We stayed in the center from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
A.D.R. At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, went on the computer and smoked a joint. I’m certain I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
A.D.R. I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00

11-8-2007 Matteini hearing:
At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda. I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

Entry prison diary dated Nov 7 2007 (misdated, should be Nov 8):
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

A bit further down, same entry:
The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem?


I can see “the big problem” with Raffaele’s statements. Can the people at this forum see it too?


Hello fkaHolmes, Welcome aboard.

fkaHolmes wrote:Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement.

I'll give you that one. Changing the narrative is suspicious. The problem is that it is quite clear that in his Nov 2nd deposition he's talking about the night of the murder and it's obvious that in his Nov 6th statement he's talking about the night of Halloween, which he somehow substituted for the night of the murder even until the Matteini hearing.
I wonder if he had made the statements in front of judge Matteini, if he had been able to consult with his lawyer ahead of that hearing to sort it out? The ramblings in his "prison diary" are not official statements, to me they are only a record of his confusion.
So we only have his change of story on Nov 6th (or better Nov 5th in the light of the latest motivations report) which made him and with him Amanda "suspects". The problem I (and apparently the latest judge) see here is the question: "Why would a mere witness need an alibi?"


Yes, yes. The Profazio/Mignini 11:30 pm phone call puts the whole issue of witnes, suspect, spontaneous statements and notaries entirely to bed. The treatment of Knox post this call is pretty close to proof of misconduct.
Kauffer
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sat May 28, 2016 3:48 pm

Kauffer wrote:Yes, yes. The Profazio/Mignini 11:30 pm phone call puts the whole issue of witnes, suspect, spontaneous statements and notaries entirely to bed. The treatment of Knox post this call is pretty close to proof of misconduct.

Yes, the latest judge "sinks" the Mignini narrative that she "only became a suspect, because she named Lumumba...." :)
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sat May 28, 2016 3:56 pm

I wonder if the ECHR will be using the latest calunnia verdict in favour of Amanda?
Looking at their questions:
INFORMATION REQUEST

1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding his conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was attacked or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The applicant has she exhausted the domestic remedies available to him to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?


To me it looks like they are considering the calunnia -bis trial as "domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention", she complained about it and got slapped with another trial, the trial went in her favour, the judgement is final, so we can mark the "exhausted domestic remedies" as checked... :winks:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Numbers » Sat May 28, 2016 7:06 pm

Hans wrote:I wonder if the ECHR will be using the latest calunnia verdict in favour of Amanda?
Looking at their questions:
INFORMATION REQUEST

1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding his conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was attacked or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The applicant has she exhausted the domestic remedies available to him to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?


To me it looks like they are considering the calunnia -bis trial as "domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention", she complained about it and got slapped with another trial, the trial went in her favour, the judgement is final, so we can mark the "exhausted domestic remedies" as checked... :winks:


I don't think that the calunnia against the police can at all be regarded as a part of a domestic remedy for Amanda's wrongful conviction of calunnia against Lumumba. It was not instituted by her, and it is not able, under Italian procedural law, to overturn (by itself) the wrongful conviction. It's a separate case that is actually evidence of retaliation and intimidation by Mignini and the police for Amanda complaining about their mistreatment of her in Massei's court and her appeals.

Now, if the Boninsegna motivation report and verdict are indeed final, because there was no appeal from the prosecution within the time limit, Amanda may need to pursue a revision trial at this time to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by the ECHR.

The Italian procedural law on when a revision trial may be requested is codified in CPP Article 630, paragraph 1a: Revision may be requested if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment issued by the ordinary judge or a special judge.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sun May 29, 2016 6:18 am

All I can see is that there is a whole lot of stupid going down in other forums. It would be a shame if that were allowed to infiltrate this site.

Take that November 6 declaration and line it up with a timeline of known events from phone records and other witness statements. Does anything match? The calls to Raffaele's fixed line are noted by Massei on page 343. Jovanna stopped by Raffaele's place on the way to and from her class which fixes the time of her visits. The computer logs show the times of certain events.

Reality matches the story that Raffaele and Amanda presented together on November 2. What the police wrote in the November 6 deposition and forced Raffaele to sign doesn't match the reality of November 1.

Why would Raffaele change the story that he and Amanda had been giving together days before and then change it back? I submit that he didn't. I submit that it was the police that constructed what is written in the November 6 memorandum and Raffaele at most took the path of least resistance and didn't object.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 8:58 am

Hans wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since. The facts are in the files (all quotes are lifted from files at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statement ... ntercepts/):

11-2-2007 witness deposition:
Around 16:00 Meredith went out without saying where she was going, while we stayed at the house until about 17:30. After that time, Amanda and I went for a quick walk in the centre and then went to my house where we stayed until this morning.

11-6-2007 deposition:
A.D.R. We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
A.D.R. We stayed in the center from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
A.D.R. At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, went on the computer and smoked a joint. I’m certain I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
A.D.R. I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00

11-8-2007 Matteini hearing:
At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda. I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

Entry prison diary dated Nov 7 2007 (misdated, should be Nov 8):
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

A bit further down, same entry:
The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem?


I can see “the big problem” with Raffaele’s statements. Can the people at this forum see it too?


Hello fkaHolmes, Welcome aboard.

fkaHolmes wrote:Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement.

I'll give you that one. Changing the narrative is suspicious. The problem is that it is quite clear that in his Nov 2nd deposition he's talking about the night of the murder and it's obvious that in his Nov 6th statement he's talking about the night of Halloween, which he somehow substituted for the night of the murder even until the Matteini hearing.
I wonder if he had made the statements in front of judge Matteini, if he had been able to consult with his lawyer ahead of that hearing to sort it out? The ramblings in his "prison diary" are not official statements, to me they are only a record of his confusion.
So we only have his change of story on Nov 6th (or better Nov 5th in the light of the latest motivations report) which made him and with him Amanda "suspects". The problem I (and apparently the latest judge) see here is the question: "Why would a mere witness need an alibi?"



Hi Hans,

Thank you for responding.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened. And one of the things that really happened imho is that Raffaele lied, deliberately, desperately, on that fateful evening, Nov 5. And he’s been haunted by it ever since.

Why do I think he lied?

1] Raffaele’s Nov 2 deposition is basically true. It may not be the whole truth but his and Amanda’s whereabouts (until 9 pm) are confirmed by Jovana Popovic, dad’s phone call and the computer logs. On Nov 2 he doesn’t show any signs of confusion or memory loss. He remembers what happened the previous night and that’s what he tells the police.

2] ]It’s very unlikely that just three days later (Nov 5) his memory is gone and a] he gets his days mixed up, and b] he doesn’t remember his previous statement. In fact, he does remember his earlier statement:
A.D.R. In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies.
This proves to me that he knows what he’s doing. He is substituting a basically true story with a lie.

3] He confirms this in his prison diary/letter to his father: he’s “talking crap” in his second version (his Nov 5/6 deposition). I refuse to dismiss this statement just because it isn’t an official one. On the contrary. It is an uncensored cri de coeur directed at his father. He knows he’s in big trouble. If he’d made an honest mistake he would’ve told dad. He doesn’t. Instead he blames Amanda. She made him lie. That is of course a whole lot of crapola. Amanda never asked him to tank her alibi.

4] The same goes for his statement at the Matteini hearing. If he’d made an honest mistake that would have been the time to fess up: “I’m sorry Your Honor. I got my days mixed up.” He doesn’t say that, even though she confronts him with his changing alibi.

Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 10:50 am

fkaHolmes wrote:
Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.


What deposition? Raffaele didn't volunteer to make any deposition. He signed a statement typed by the police in the absence of an attorney, audio recording, or police notes. The statement could not be used in any legal proceedings due to the irregular circumstances.

Any reference to this statement as a basis for accusing Raffaele of lying indicates bad faith. The statement is a product of the police, just like Amanda's statements.

fkaHolmes, you obviously post about the case elsewhere, or perhaps have posted here before. What names have you used? Have you been banned here before under another name?
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 11:17 am

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.


What deposition? Raffaele didn't volunteer to make any deposition. He signed a statement typed by the police in the absence of an attorney, audio recording, or police notes. The statement could not be used in any legal proceedings due to the irregular circumstances.

Any reference to this statement as a basis for accusing Raffaele of lying indicates bad faith. The statement is a product of the police, just like Amanda's statements.


Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 11:41 am

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.


What deposition? Raffaele didn't volunteer to make any deposition. He signed a statement typed by the police in the absence of an attorney, audio recording, or police notes. The statement could not be used in any legal proceedings due to the irregular circumstances.

Any reference to this statement as a basis for accusing Raffaele of lying indicates bad faith. The statement is a product of the police, just like Amanda's statements.

fkaHolmes, you obviously post about the case elsewhere, or perhaps have posted here before. What names have you used? Have you been banned here before under another name?


I posted on here before, as Holmes. I wasn't banned. I just lost my log-in data. I'm not a troll. I have a genuine interest in this case.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 12:12 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
I posted on here before, as Holmes. I wasn't banned. I just lost my log-in data. I'm not a troll. I have a genuine interest in this case.


That's fine. Your views seem far removed from any sensible analysis of what happened in the police station that night. Giving any responsibilty to the unfortunate and vulnerable young people who signed the police statements seems ludicrous to me.

Whatever the police wrote they would have signed them.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 12:19 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.


The police typed it, Raffeale signed it. We have no idea what was actually said by both sides during the interrogation, because no records of any kind were kept and no lawyer was present.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 1:13 pm

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.


The police typed it, Raffeale signed it. We have no idea what was actually said by both sides during the interrogation, because no records of any kind were kept and no lawyer was present.


So we're in agreement then? Whether he volunteered it or signed his statement under duress Raffaele's Nov 6 statement is a pile of dung? I'm happy with that.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sun May 29, 2016 1:23 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Hans wrote:
Hello fkaHolmes, Welcome aboard.

fkaHolmes wrote:Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement.

I'll give you that one. Changing the narrative is suspicious. The problem is that it is quite clear that in his Nov 2nd deposition he's talking about the night of the murder and it's obvious that in his Nov 6th statement he's talking about the night of Halloween, which he somehow substituted for the night of the murder even until the Matteini hearing.
I wonder if he had made the statements in front of judge Matteini, if he had been able to consult with his lawyer ahead of that hearing to sort it out? The ramblings in his "prison diary" are not official statements, to me they are only a record of his confusion.
So we only have his change of story on Nov 6th (or better Nov 5th in the light of the latest motivations report) which made him and with him Amanda "suspects". The problem I (and apparently the latest judge) see here is the question: "Why would a mere witness need an alibi?"



Hi Hans,

Thank you for responding.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened. And one of the things that really happened imho is that Raffaele lied, deliberately, desperately, on that fateful evening, Nov 5. And he’s been haunted by it ever since.

Why do I think he lied?

1] Raffaele’s Nov 2 deposition is basically true. It may not be the whole truth but his and Amanda’s whereabouts (until 9 pm) are confirmed by Jovana Popovic, dad’s phone call and the computer logs. On Nov 2 he doesn’t show any signs of confusion or memory loss. He remembers what happened the previous night and that’s what he tells the police.

2] ]It’s very unlikely that just three days later (Nov 5) his memory is gone and a] he gets his days mixed up, and b] he doesn’t remember his previous statement. In fact, he does remember his earlier statement:
A.D.R. In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies.
This proves to me that he knows what he’s doing. He is substituting a basically true story with a lie.

3] He confirms this in his prison diary/letter to his father: he’s “talking crap” in his second version (his Nov 5/6 deposition). I refuse to dismiss this statement just because it isn’t an official one. On the contrary. It is an uncensored cri de coeur directed at his father. He knows he’s in big trouble. If he’d made an honest mistake he would’ve told dad. He doesn’t. Instead he blames Amanda. She made him lie. That is of course a whole lot of crapola. Amanda never asked him to tank her alibi.

4] The same goes for his statement at the Matteini hearing. If he’d made an honest mistake that would have been the time to fess up: “I’m sorry Your Honor. I got my days mixed up.” He doesn’t say that, even though she confronts him with his changing alibi.

Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.

Hi Holmes, check your private messages, let's see what we can do to get your old account back...
“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway.

The thing is, that IMO both of them were suspects when they entered the questura that evening, not official of course, the investigators' goal that evening was to make them "official" suspects and they succeeded.
In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder.

Ok, I can agree with that. If the investigators hadn't suspected them at the time tey called them in (as per Giobbi), "Raffaele changing his story" (this once, not a couple of times) certainly would draw the attention of the investigators.

As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.
You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time.

Here I have to disagree, it is quite clear, that in the Nov 5th statement given to him to sign on Nov 6th, he is describing what happened on Halloween, as he did in the Mansey interview, Dan O mentioned above. I'm just waiting for something proving that the investigators had that one translated to confront him with that night.
My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened. And one of the things that really happened imho is that Raffaele lied, deliberately, desperately, on that fateful evening, Nov 5. And he’s been haunted by it ever since.

Then you are on the right adress here. :)
Raffaele lied. I'm not sure if it could be called "lying" (but I'm the wrong person to play the dictionary game with. Deliberately? No. Desperately? Yes, but perhaps not for the reason you think. (Have you read his take on that night in his book?) Being haunted by it? Surely.

On 2]: Have you read his take on that night? He mentions how that statement got into the record. As B_Real said: "Whatever the police wrote they would have signed them."
On 3]: I'm not sure about that, I wonder what I would do in his situation left in a cell only with a pen and some paper as company...
On 4]: This is perhaps the biggest mistake he made: speaking at the Matteini hearing, but as I said, it shouldn't have happened this way...

Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.

I don't think that he was distancing himself from Amanda "deliberately". The problem with that night is that there are no recordings and for Amanda conflicting versions of her and the investigators and for Raffaele we only have his account and call me naive, but I believe him...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron