Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[Katody]

There is nothing to back up anything that is being assumed in this post.

Unless you have seen this report.

It could simply say undetermined, we don't know.

We must use reason.

I gave my reasoned explanation for why the prosecution failed to provide evidence.

Your explanation is that the examiner took a photo but never wrote down anything. Right? That would explain why the prosecution didn't request his testimony. No point if he would be only exposed as incompetent.

ETA:
In fact the third possibility is that the defence got the report and it said no wounds or scratches and they filed it into evidence.
Reading the reports and appeals carefully I cannot find any claim made by the prosecution of any wound or scratch or abrasion.

 

[Amber29]

OK, I assume this is a yes. There was only one drop or smear.
Let's imagine for a moment that drop was there the day before but went unnoticed. What would the answer be for the question if the traceswere there the day before?

Actually I dug up a photo here.

I must say looking at it I find it quite plausible it went unnoticed.

But of course the idea that Amanda bled from her neck wound all over the place and then instead of cleaning up the traces pointed them out to Filomena and to the police, while parading her open wound in full view is ludicrous anyway. I think the prosecution really hit the rock bottom of absurd with this one.

Your opinion is that it went unnoticed.

Ill choose to go by Amanda's own testimony. Again she said NO, when her answer could've been its possible there was some already there but she did NOT say that. So ill choose to not read anymore into her own answer then what she said.

 

[Amber29]

We must use reason.

I gave my reasoned explanation for why the prosecution failed to provide evidence.

Your explanation is that the examiner took a photo but never wrote down anything. Right? That would explain why the prosecution didn't request his testimony. No point if he would be only exposed as incompetent.

No that's not what I said. I said he could've said it was undetermined.

I'm not going to argue over something that you are assuming must exist in your opinion, when the case could be that both sides have copies of this report.

 

[Katody]

No that's not what I said. I said he could've said it was undetermined.

I'm not going to argue over something that you are assuming must exist in your opinion, when the case could be that both sides have copies of this report.

In fact I cannot find any claim from the prosecution that there was a bleeding wound or abrasion on Amanda. Can you?
It doesn't seem to be a part of Massei's reconstruction and it doesn't seem to be a part of Galati's complain.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it seems they conceded the isolated blood drop on the faucet was unrelated.

 

[otto]

OK, I assume this is a yes. There was only one drop or smear.
Let's imagine for a moment that drop was there the day before but went unnoticed. What would the answer be for the question if the traceswere there the day before?

Actually I dug up a photo here.

I must say looking at it I find it quite plausible it went unnoticed.

But of course the idea that Amanda bled from her neck wound all over the place and then instead of cleaning up the traces pointed them out to Filomena and to the police, while parading her open wound in full view is ludicrous anyway. I think the prosecution really hit the rock bottom of absurd with this one.

So now we should believe that Knox lied and the blood was there the day before the murder? This time, it's advantageous to believe that she lied because it's the only way to excuse this evidence?

 

[sherlockh]

A lot of confusion here, let's do it point by point

The minutes are available on the internet:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Verbale_6_nov_01.45.pdf

If you please look at the top of the document there is written:
Transcript/minutes (Verbale) of summary information (sommarie informazioni) from person informed of facts (i.e. a witness)

These are the minutes of the witness interrogation (i.e. taking summary information) that Donnino is being asked about in the trial transcript. Ghirga notes that only opening time of the minutes is written down, unlike the minutes of Raffaele's interrogation that recorded both opening and closing.

This is the confusion I'm talking about.
a person informed of facts is a witness, not a suspect (l'indagato). Just look at the interview you linked:

Because it's written at the top of the document?

Let's say Mignini wasn't precise The document records the opening of the minutes at 1:45am.

Reading the transcript of Donnino's testimony it's all about this 'funny question'. The defence asks her when exactly had the accusation been made and she cannot answer. She only says it was after the 1:45 interrogation started.
There is no record of when the accusation had been made, we can only time it by Donnino's remark that after that there was only a brief pause and then Mignini took over. This time is on record in Amanda's "voluntary" declaration of 5:45am.

Of course inspector Giobbi also gives the time that confirms what Donnino revealed. The interrogation lasted from after 10 pm to around 5 am.

That is the 1:45am statement. Ok so she wasn't a suspect yet, but you can see it starts right away with the story about Patrick so why would you think this was hours later?

Donnino says she can't remember the time but says that the 1:45am statement was made up at the exact moment Knox had her outburst (which was the accusation) and the statement shows just that. Giobbi does not say 'interrogation', and nowhere even mentions the moment of the accusation.

The moment of the accusation is what is important, not when the minutes are closed or when the questioning ends. The whole discussion that the accusation was made at some other time is speculation based on a misinterpretation about what Giobbi said. Not one single quote has been shown that says anything about the accusation being made at a later time. JMO.

 

[Katody]

So now we should believe that Knox lied and the blood was there the day before the murder? This time, it's advantageous to believe that she lied because it's the only way to excuse this evidence?

No, why? She told the truth. The traces were not there.

 

[Sigh Sister]

So now we should believe that Knox lied and the blood was there the day before the murder? This time, it's advantageous to believe that she lied because it's the only way to excuse this evidence?

Never mind.

 

[Katody]

That is the 1:45am statement. Ok so she wasn't a suspect yet, but you can see it starts right away with the story about Patrick so why would you think this was hours later?

No, it starts with providing the phone numbers of various people. Clearly the cops are not interested because they don't write down any. They don't write down any questions asked either. There's also no mention of asking her if she wants a lawyer.

Donnino says she can't remember the time but says that the 1:45am statement was made up at the exact moment Knox had her outburst (which was the accusation) and the statement shows just that. Giobbi does not say 'interrogation', and nowhere even mentions the moment of the accusation.

No, Donnino only says the minutes were closed after the accusation was included in them. The lawyers ask her directly, when did the emotional breakdown happen? Before or after the opening of the 1:45am minutes? She's at loss here because she wasn't couched well enough and she says she doesn't remember! :facepalm:
Also she says the interrogation went non-stop, with a brief pause when she broke down and just after that Mignini took over. According to Donnino only after the "voluntary" statement Amanda was allowed to rest. She says she knows because she was with Amanda non-stop!
Very badly couched
If we were to believe the Perugian cops there is a 5 hour gap to explain away, but thankfully Donnino and Giobbi blew their lies out of the water.

Giobbi does say they halted after the confession. He says it was 5am or "little before 5am". Obviously they were not allowed to continue the interrogation after the confession. They handed her over to Mignini after "brief pause".

I've provided the links and page numbers to Giobbi's and Donino's testimony already before

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-13.doc


http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-29-Sbardella-Politi-Codispoti-Giobbi.pdf
p. 205-206 about the length of interrogation.

The moment of the accusation is what is important, not when the minutes are closed or when the questioning ends. The whole discussion that the accusation was made at some other time is speculation based on a misinterpretation about what Giobbi said. Not one single quote has been shown that says anything about the accusation being made at a later time. JMO.

It is clear from Giobbi and Donnino that the confession occurred after the opening of the minutes (supposedly at 1:45am according to the document).
The time can be only approximated to around or "just before" 5 am. After all it couldn't have taken 5 hours to redact the few sentences that constitute the "accusation" in the verbale. It took short while and then Mignini took over.

 

[sherlockh]

No, it starts with providing the phone numbers of various people. Clearly the cops are not interested because they don't write down any. They don't write down any questions asked either. There's also no mention of asking her if she wants a lawyer.

No, Donnino only says the minutes were closed after the accusation was included in them. The lawyers ask her directly, when did the emotional breakdown happen? Before or after the opening of the 1:45am minutes? She's at loss here because she wasn't couched well enough and she says she doesn't remember! :facepalm:
Also she says the interrogation went non-stop, with a brief pause when she broke down and just after that Mignini took over. According to Donnino only after the "voluntary" statement Amanda was allowed to rest. She says she knows because she was with Amanda non-stop!
Very badly couched
If we were to believe the Perugian cops there is a 5 hour gap to explain away, but thankfully Donnino and Giobbi blew their lies out of the water.

Giobbi does say they halted after the confession. He says it was 5am or "little before 5am". Obviously they were not allowed to continue the interrogation after the confession. They handed her over to Mignini after "brief pause".

I've provided the links and page numbers to Giobbi's and Donino's testimony already.

It is clear from Giobbi and Donnino that the confession occurred after the opening of the minutes (supposedly at 1:45am according to the document).
The time can be only approximated to around or "just before" 5 am. After all it couldn't have taken 5 hours to redact the few sentences that constitute the "accusation" in the verbale. It took short while and then Mignini took over.

Donnino specifies the moment after she is asked the time. You are simply denying the quote where she said the moment when the 1:45am statements begins is the accusation. She never says the accusation was made after the 1:45am 'minutes'. Nowhere. We can talk about this for hours more, but you are simply denying the quote. What point is there then to further discuss this?

Giobbi is not talking about the time of the interrogation. No quote has been provided of this. All there is is a link to an Italian document with a misinterpretation. He is talking about everything starting with the moment they were called at 10pm. Arrival time is about 10:30pm as Knox says so herself. Further testimony says gymnastics at 11pm. Approached for questioning at 11:30pm. Interpreter called and she arrives at 12:30am. The questioning started before 1:45am and there is a reason why at 1:45am the statement is written down. The accusation happened.

Donnino says Knox is freakin out, and they are busy comforting Knox and the police guy is even holding her hand. It is disgusting how soft they treated her. IMO. After 1:45am the police is doing the paper works, comforting Knox, getting tea and cookies, and by 5am they are done. Short break, and Knox wants to make a voluntary statement. This happens at 5:45am. This takes half an hour and we are done. JMO.

 

[Katody]

Donnino specifies the moment after she is asked the time. You are simply denying the quote where she said the moment when the 1:45am statements begins is the accusation. She never says the accusation was made after the 1:45am 'minutes'. Nowhere.

She doesn't say it was before. She says she doesn't remember (yeah right ) when pressed for answer by Dalla Vedova.

Giobbi is not talking about the time of the interrogation. No quote has been provided of this. All there is is a link to an Italian document with a misinterpretation. He is talking about everything starting with the moment they were called at 10pm. Arrival time is about 10:30pm as Knox says so herself. Further testimony says gymnastics at 11pm. Approached for questioning at 11:30pm. Interpreter called and she arrives at 12:30am. The questioning started before 1:45am and there is a reason why at 1:45am the statement is written down. The accusation happened.

If you want to believe it you need to account for the next 5 hours. The cops couldn't.

Donnino says Knox is freakin out, and they are busy comforting Knox and the police guy is even holding her hand. It is disgusting how soft they treated her. IMO. After 1:45am the police is doing the paper works, comforting Knox, getting tea and cookies, and by 5am they are done. Short break, and Knox wants to make a voluntary statement. This happens at 5:45am. This takes half an hour and we are done. JMO.

Yes and they're just sitting there with tea and cookies for five hours looking at each other.
There are many things Donnino is trying not to say, but she says enough. She says the redacting the confession on paper and closing the minutes was quick after the confession and then Mig started the questioning. According to Donnino only later was Amanda allowed to rest on some chairs. It was already morning.

Also Donnino mentions the "good cop" but doesn't remember the "bad cop".
Understandable, she wants to keep her job.

Without the account Amanda wrote immediately the day after the picture of what really was going on during that allnighter is incomplete.

JMO

 

[sherlockh]

She doesn't say it was before. She says she doesn't remember (yeah right ) when pressed for answer by Dalla Vedova.

If you want to believe it you need to account for the next 5 hours. The cops couldn't.

Yes and they're just sitting there with tea and cookies for five hours looking at each other.
There are many things Donnino is trying not to say, but she says enough. She says the redacting the confession on paper and closing the minutes was quick after the confession and then Mig started the questioning. According to Donnino only later was Amanda allowed to rest on some chairs. It was already morning.

Also Donnino mentions the "good cop" but doesn't remember the "bad cop".
Understandable, she wants to keep her job.

Without the account Amanda wrote immediately the day after the picture of what really was going on during that allnighter is incomplete.

JMO

1:45am till 5am is not 5 hours. We know a few things from testimony what happened in those few hours, but it doesn't really matter to me as the accusation was already made. The rest is just speculation. IMO Knox is so vague about her accusation that it might have taken a long time till the statement was on paper. I can imagine they wanted her to clarify her accusation. Then there is all the emotional stuff going on with Knox hitting her head and what all not. It is fine if you don't believe the interpreter but in court they always spoke of the statement made at 1:45am and even her own lawyers do not speak of a statement made at 5am. JMO.

 

[aa9511]

OK, you may be right. You make some very good points.

I guess there would have probably come a point where she would have blurted out the truth - or at least ask for the advisement of her attorney.

I just find it hard to believe - if they acted with Guede - that the evidence would not be both more ample and more clear.

If she didn't "blurt out" the truth, if that truth was the hypothetical situation we are discussing, then not only does it not make sense to me why she would go on trial for murder, but that also would mean that the interrogation wasn't "tough" enough. And so that would negate the other claim in the other hypothetical situation of her innocence. Because if the interrogation wasn't tough enough, then why would she make the Patrick L. statement (if innocent)?

So that kind of knocks out two birds with one stone, IYKWIM.

I understand your hesitance though, and point regarding the evidence, and I understand what your point is.

 

[aa9511]

No, the idea of my argument is that the prosecution didn't present the medical opinion about the nature of the thing that the medic photographed.

One explanation is that the medic wrote it is a bruise aka hickey, so the prosecution couldn't give it because it confirmed Amanda's words and not giving it at least left the waters muddy.

Your explanation? If you have some we can argue, if you have none, I rest my case

Bruise aka hickey? I didn't know the two were always equivalent? Couldn't a bruise have occured during the murder?

 

[redheadedgal]

Bruise aka hickey? I didn't know the two were always equivalent? Couldn't a bruise have occured during the murder?

what, during a stabbing, would create a bruise that looks like the mark on amanda's neck?

Not to long to be a bruise. A hickey is a bruise. If a person has thin lips, comes from the side, that is what the hickey will look like. Again I see no abrasion on the surface of the skin.

yes... and the hickey the blogger makes on her arm looks exactly like the mark on amanda... just like the plethora of similar photos i posted in the previous thread:

http://connect.everythingzoomer.com/profiles/blogs/do-hickey-s-cause-cancer-and-hickey-make-up

 

[redheadedgal]

Ill choose to go by Amanda's own testimony. Again she said NO, when her answer could've been its possible there was some already there but she did NOT say that. So ill choose to not read anymore into her own answer then what she said.

Amanda testified it's a hickey. The prosecution didn't present the post arrest medical examination report to contradict it. I take it as a proof.

Again defendants aren't the best source.

so, sometimes the defendant's testimony should be viewed as accurate and reliable w/ meaning easily comprehended, but other times not?

 

[redheadedgal]

Knox claims that Meredith was her friend. When Meredith was murdered, Knox avoided the memorial. Is that what friends do?

reporters covered the event, correct? and it was on the nightly news?

maybe the couple chose not to attend b/c they wanted to avoid the media and the public spectacle that would arise with their presence ??

(and yet some would rather they attend regardless of the circus their presence would cause? one would think this would be appreciated, as the class, dignity and somber mood of the event would remain intact and unblemished)

 

[Amber29]

so, sometimes the defendant's testimony should be viewed as accurate and reliable w/ meaning easily comprehended, but other times not?

I think a simple NO is just that simple.

When I say they aren't the best source, I was thinking about the start time of the interrogation where amanda testified to getting to the station between 10:30 and 11. RS claims now years later that they were there for hours before that time. A new timeline was even created here and a RS interview was the source.

A self serving "truth" can not be trusted

Amanda testified it was a hickey while 2 other witnesses testified saying it wasn't. I get to decide who I believe.

Again I stand by my statement.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Amanda testified it was a hickey while 2 other witnesses testified saying it wasn't. I get to decide who I believe.

This can be determined only by an expert. The other two witnesses are irrelevant. They have no knowledge!

 

[aa9511]

what, during a stabbing, would create a bruise that looks like the mark on amanda's neck?




yes... and the hickey the blogger makes on her arm looks exactly like the mark on amanda... just like the plethora of similar photos i posted in the previous thread:

http://connect.everythingzoomer.com/profiles/blogs/do-hickey-s-cause-cancer-and-hickey-make-up

I don't know, I've never been a part of a stabbing before. But I find it very possible, as there must have been some movement going on, obviously.

It could have been, Rudy or Raffaelo thrusting his arm/hand, and their knuckles hit Amanda's neck. Something like that? Maybe Meredith managed to get one of her arms up and her knuckles hit Amanda's neck?