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

[redheadedgal]

Confirmed by Dempsey:

"Sollecito was interviewed without audio or videotaping, on 5 November 2007 from around 10 pm, while Knox waited in a side room."

Reference: Dempsey pgs 136, 144 (could someone that has C Dempsey's book handy check the pages)

so now dempsey is an acceptable source? i thought a different opinion was held about her?

Who is translating the report? The Innocence Project? Ms Dempsey? Mr Uknown Fisher? The Italian guy whose website was shut down by google? Which of the US experts, so vocal and knowledgeable about the case, is translating the report?

It seems to me that none of the US experts has a clue about what is going on with the case and that without someone translating court documents, they have nothing to work with. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the self-claimed experts are completely dependent on people from Perugiamurderfile for their information.

And she will again during the hearing at the end of the month. I guess Dempsey had it all wrong.

So ... Candace Dempsey was booted off the wikipedia site for wearing two hats, and now she's reduced her blog to gossiping about other websites?

The quote from Dempsey's blog is nothing more than her opinion.

Dempsey attempts to interpret evidence against Knox such that it appears silly. In this case, Dempsey suggests that wind blows exterior shutters open. How does that happen? If that were true, the wind would blow the exterior door in the same direction, meaning it would blow it closed, not open. Is she suggesting that the wind blew in one direction to blow the door open and simultaneously in the opposite direction to blow the exterior shutters open? She is a cooking blogger that lacks logic, catering to an audience that blindly believes rather than questions or thinks.

Dempsey also claimed that Meredith's bedroom was the size of an ironing board (something like that) suggestiing that it was impossible for four people to be in the same room at the same time? How many people are still running with that absurd claim?

The Wikipedia content was compromised when it was discovered that some people, like perhaps Dempsey, had several handles that they used to manipulate the facts.

 

[otto]

SBM

The bathmat print cannot be attributed to anyone. Period. It is not a full print and it is on an uneven surface. Thus it becomes non-evidence.

I'm assuming that it is your opinion that the bath mat print has not been attributed to anyone, and further that it is your opinion that Knox and Sollecito were tortured for five plus hours before Knox signed her statement on November 6?

Print A is the bloody bare footprint on the bath mat

 

[otto]

so now dempsey is an acceptable source? i thought a different opinion was held about her?

I read Dempsey because I wanted to understand her perspective of the case. I definitely have an opinion of her book. First and foremost, her information is from Knox's family and people connected with Knox. Unfortunately, you can take the cook out of the kitchen, but you can't take the kitchen out of the cook, as she adds a little of this and a little of that when it isn't helpful.

 

[Allusonz]

November 5

From Transcripts:

CP: For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?

AK: No, I wasn't called. I went with Raffaele because I didn't want to be alone.

...
CDV: It's only four lines. On this page, I see a number 83, probably from the dossier, there's a little drawing and a sun. I'm also reading the mistakes in Italian. "My mom is arriving tomorrow. I'm very happy about that. I actually ate dinner with friends" or "I prepared it", I don't know). "Raffaele's friends. But now I'm very tired. I don't want to stay." Can I show you this document and ask for confirmation that it was written by you, and again ask you where and when?

AK: So I wrote this--

CDV: First, do you recognize your handwriting?

AK: Yes, this is mine. I wrote it when I was at the Questura waiting for Raffaele. It was actually at the very beginning. I took this and started writing. Then the policemen...sorry, it was November 5, 2007.

Confirmed by Dempsey:

"Sollecito was interviewed without audio or videotaping, on 5 November 2007 from around 10 pm, while Knox waited in a side room."

Reference: Dempsey pgs 136, 144 (could someone that has C Dempsey's book handy check the pages)

Other sources confirm the time that the questioning of Sollecito as a witness began at 10:40 (haven't found link from six years ago yet)

Transcripts: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony; http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=80193

Statements from November 6 at 1:40 AM and 5 AM we excluded from the proceedings many years ago. Is there any particular reason why they are relevant today? I agree that it is important to stick to the facts, especially facts that are relevant to the case.

Then maybe taking the entire day in context with help those that are mistaken.

Monday November 5th

09:00 Amanda has Italian classes in morning
13:00 Amanda meets Patrick in front of Universita per Stranieri
15:00 Eating pizza with Raffaele and friends at a Café
17:00 Raffaele questioned, Amanda waits at station
22:00 Raffaele questioned again, Amanda in waiting room


One must look at the all the events, not chery pick ones to suit ones purpose.

 

[otto]

Then maybe taking the entire day in context with help those that are mistaken.

Monday November 5th

09:00 Amanda has Italian classes in morning
13:00 Amanda meets Patrick in front of Universita per Stranieri
15:00 Eating pizza with Raffaele and friends at a Café
17:00 Raffaele questioned, Amanda waits at station
22:00 Raffaele questioned again, Amanda in waiting room


One must look at the all the events, not chery pick ones to suit ones purpose.

And ... one must realize that they ate lunch and dinner that day ... to look at all the events, not omit one that messes with the "torture" story.

In the evening, Knox and Sollecito ate dinner with his friends at his friend's apartment. This is a different meal than what they may have eaten at a café at 3 PM.

 

[Allusonz]

Absolutely. It becomes problematic when Sollecito stated that he arrived at the police station after 10 and after having dinner with his friends, and then years later that has morphed into something completely different. Perhaps Knox and Sollecito should have words with Dempsey for recording the facts several years ago, before Knox and Sollecito had second thoughts about the truth versus their new truth.

Really? Did you listen to the interview? It is only one of many.....

 

[otto]

Really? Did you listen to the interview? It is only one of many.....

Sollecito is a known liar, is he not? Why would anyone care what a convicted murderer has to say when he rewrites history?

 

[redheadedgal]

I understand that the statement was in both Italian and English. I mentioned the English language version and signing of the document at the end of the evening. The Italian version was linked upthread - perhaps with the implication that there was no English version. Mention of the document was less important than the timeline of events that evening. Thanks for linking the Italian version of the document that was not in evidence from the beginning of the trial onward.

what is the documentation for AK signing an english statement? the link provided earlier does not show proof amanda signed an english copy as asserted last night... i however supplied a photo of the italian document signed by AK.

if an english signed copy existed, why was it not made public like the italian one? hmmm.

btw, both dempsey and burleigh say she signed an italian version:

dempsey, p. 146: the american girl spoke in english, which interpreter anna donnino translated into italian for rita ficarra, who wrote up the report in italian police parlance.
Murder in Italy: Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher, and the Murder Trial that Shocked the World: Candace Dempsey: 9780425230831: Books - Amazon.ca

burleigh, p. 196: at 1:45am, amanda signed the follwoing statement, written by the police in italian...
The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox: Nina Burleigh: 9780307588593: Books - Amazon.ca

 

[otto]

I've always understood that Knox, an educated University student, was aware of what she was signing. Is the suggestion that, even though she had an interpreter at her disposal, and she apparently had a functional ability with the Italian language, she actually signed a document at a police station with no knowledge of what she signed?

That can't be true.

I studied in Italy during graduate studies and I can't imagine that anyone would not take Italian police seriously ... from a distance, without even talking with them. What in the world could she have been thinking when she did her "yoga" and lied to police?

 

[Allusonz]

Sollecito is a known liar, is he not? Why would anyone care what a convicted murderer has to say when he rewrites history?

Back to the AK lying again. Except now RS is being accused of it.

This is a consistent pattern when presented with facts which are known.

Even when repeatedly I have shown things that have been posted to be false. If this is what one requires to fall back on to prove someones guilt, then I don't believe this case is being looked at objectively. It only tells me that some are cherry picking parts that support their theory, not the actual evidence.

MOO

 

[otto]

Back to the AK lying again. Except now RS is being accused of it.

This is a consistent pattern when presented with facts which are known.

Even when repeatedly I have shown things that have been posted to be false. If this is what one requires to fall back on to prove someones guilt, then I don't believe this case is being looked at objectively. It only tells me that some are cherry picking parts that support their theory, not the actual evidence.

MOO

There is no pattern. Knox and Sollecito are proven liars. That is a fact, just like the bloody print on the bath mat has in fact been attributed to Sollecito.

 

[Allusonz]

And quite some time after death, then? (this is the crux of the 'who returned to move Meredith' argument).

OK, my error then. Someone told me the issue had been dropped by Massei and Crini both. (of course neither side disputes that the bra was cut off).

Of course the opposing side has shown that she might have been moved minutes after death, not hours.

But I will grant you, then, that I was in error that the argument had been dropped by the prosecution.

ETA:
Apparently it was Micheli who was strong on this 'someone returned later that night and staged the body' motif.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...e_staged_scene_who_returned_to_move_meredith/

I think a logical assumption would be that any notable movement probably occurred when the Postal Officer went into the room. I believe he had to check to see what was under the duvet, and upon his discovery to check if she was deceased.

MOO

 

[Allusonz]

There is no pattern. Knox and Sollecito are proven liars. That is a fact, just like the bloody print on the bath mat has in fact been attributed to Sollecito.

So are a number of others involved in this case.


Some are proven to have lied in the past such as RG. Others were caught lying under oath. One simply has to look at the number of witnesses whose testimony was discredited.

Yet the misinformation continues to be spread.

 

[otto]

So are a number of others involved in this case.


Some are proven to have lied in the past such as RG. Others were caught lying under oath. One simply has to look at the number of witnesses whose testimony was discredited.

Yet the misinformation continues to be spread.

I believe that there has been an attempt to discredit Dr Stefanoni's work since the original trial. Wasn't she one of the first experts to be criticized, right after Dr Mignini?

 

[sherlockh]

Really?

Can you explain Stepanoni's being caught lying under oath while on the stand? The first one that comes to mind is lying over the TMB tests.

How about Comodi, trying to introduce false negative controls? The list goes on.....

I can't explain it because it never happened.

 

[sherlockh]

Then maybe taking the entire day in context with help those that are mistaken.

Monday November 5th

09:00 Amanda has Italian classes in morning
13:00 Amanda meets Patrick in front of Universita per Stranieri
15:00 Eating pizza with Raffaele and friends at a Café
17:00 Raffaele questioned, Amanda waits at station
22:00 Raffaele questioned again, Amanda in waiting room

One must look at the all the events, not chery pick ones to suit ones purpose.

Wow, we have a new timeline. Not reported anywhere ever before...lol.. Sollecito was called in at about 10pm. Questioning started around 10:30pm-10:40pm. When Sollecito says 5 hours he is referring to the period 10:30pm-3:30am.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...ny_(English)#Daniele_Moscatelli.27s_Testimony

 

[sherlockh]

10:29 call happened just after they arrived at the police station on November 5th. AK when discussing that 10:29 phone call:
<modsnip>
http://amandx-knox-interrogation.wikispaces.com/TelephoneCall5Nov

 

[Amber29]

Sollecito is a known liar, is he not? Why would anyone care what a convicted murderer has to say when he rewrites history?

So now we have AK inventing a phone call to her mother along with detailed conversation that there is absolutely no record of for her book.
Which is proved false based on her trial testimony and phone records

And RS reinventing the timeline of the last visist to the police station some years later.
Contrary to what has been being reported for years even by some pro innocence reporters.

Now it's being stated as "fact" because it's what RS claims in an interview.

IMO just because the defendant makes claims doesn't mean it's the truth and can't be stated as fact with only RS as a source.

 

[MichaelSmith]

So now we have AK inventing a phone call to her mother along with detailed conversation that there is absolutely no record of for her book.Which is proved false based on her trial testimony and phone records

And RS reinventing the timeline of the last visist to the police station some years later.
Contrary to what has been being reported for years even by some pro innocence reporters.

Now it's being stated as "fact" because it's what RS claims in an interview.

IMO just because the defendant makes claims doesn't mean it's the truth and can't be stated as fact with only RS as a source.

I see it differently. Comodi lied and mislead the court about a phone call that doesn't exist and Amanda has made a mistake in her book because of Comodi's lie.

 

[Amber29]

I see it differently. Comodi lied and mislead the court about a phone call that doesn't exist and Amanda has made a mistake in her book because of Comodi's lie.

Well in your opinion it's a mistake

IMO it's a lie , she's as capable as everyone of us at looking at the phone records. She's had years to get her "facts" straight but she's still inventing the best truth she can think of.

MC also thinks she committed murder does she believe her about that to?