Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[otto]

I don't think your understanding of court findings is correct. JMO

Likewise.



Massei Report page 38

 

[Katody]

OK, got it. All understood. And it's all good

But Battistelli (first officer of Postal Police who entered the cottage on Nov 2) did say in his court testimony that when they entered the cottage, he thought/ believed he heard a washing machine finishing its cycle.

Did he? What page of his testimony, if you please?

 

[SMK]

Did he? What page of his testimony, if you please?

Oh, please, my Welsh Corgi is barking for ice cream---i will have to find it later :blushing::seeya:

 

[otto]

Did he? What page of his testimony, if you please?

I don't read/speak Italian, so I rely on solid media sources for trial updates.

8 February 2009
The Guardian - which is a respected news source:

"Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

 

[Katody]

Knox stated that she knew that Meredith's door was locked during her first visit to the cottage on Nov 2. I have provided a reference. If this is not true, then perhaps you have a reference that contradicts the Massei Report. If so, please provide the link. Barring that, the information in the Massei Report remains as the authority on the subject.

No she didn't, she said the exact opposite. It's in her testimony.
Filomena's testimony corroborates Amanda's version.

The testimony of the witness you're so hesitant to name is falsified by the testimony of other British girls, is contradicted by Filomena's testimony and finally is ignored by Massei in his findings, by Hellmann, by Galati and by Crini. In other words, nobody significant found it worthwhile or trustworthy and it's not a part of the prosecution's case.

A red herring.

 

[Katody]

8 February 2009
The Guardian - which is a respected news source:

"Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

LOL, you do know that Battistelli's and Filomena's testimony is online and it constradicts your claim? :facepalm:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/

 

[Amber29]

No she didn't, she said the exact opposite. It's in her testimony.
Filomena's testimony corroborates Amanda's version.

The testimony of the witness you're so hesitant to name is falsified by the testimony of other British girls, is contradicted by Filomena's testimony and finally is ignored by Massei in his findings, by Hellmann, by Galati and by Crini. In other words, nobody significant found it worthwhile or trustworthy and it's not a part of the prosecution's case.

A red herring.

Amanda's testimony is not the only evidence Massei used.

Otto has provided you the Massei report to back up his statement. None of us have seen the entire case file of 10,000 pages. Massei was relying on something in making his statement.

 

[Amber29]

LOL, you do know that Battistelli's and Filomena's testimony is online and it constradicts your claim? :facepalm:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/

It's not "his" claim. It was media outlets that wrote the misleading articles.

Another thing that happens a lot in situations. The media will run with any little bit of information they want. I learned this first hand while watching the Newtown school shooting coverage live as it was happening. They put nothing but bad information out because they all wanted the "first breaking" reports.

 

[Katody]

I must say that reading this forum it seems that the prosecution is doing a horrible job so far.

They failed to bring up the hickey, the story of the witness that cannot be named for a very serious reason , they failed to bring up the washing machine, no mention of all the "lies" in Amanda's and Raffaele's books.

Finally the prosecution did a horrible mistake of not suing the British TV for the fake Hollywood special effects climb that undoubtedly poisoned the minds of the jury and the public

Really I'm beginning to fear for the outcome. Will the terrible witch go free again?

 

[otto]

LOL, you do know that Battistelli's and Filomena's testimony is online and it constradicts your claim? :facepalm:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/

Why would anyone go to Knox for the facts of the case? That's like going to Jodi Arias for the facts of the Travis Alexander case.

 

[Katody]

It's not "his" claim. It was media outlets that wrote the misleading articles.

Another thing that happens a lot in situations. The media will run with any little bit of information they want. I learned this first hand while watching the Newtown school shooting coverage live as it was happening. They put nothing but bad information out because they all wanted the "first breaking" reports.

You're correct. We all need to keep some common sense and not believe anything the media writes uncritically.

 

[redheadedgal]

katody: So far it's just another falsehood, like the washing machine lie you've brought from some website.

-- like MK had her pick of rooms, not knox
-- like "all MK's friends and family attended her memorial"
-- like the "6 weeks is optimal" for luminol application (again w/ no link provided after a request)

 

[otto]

-- like MK had her pick of rooms, not knox
-- like "all MK's friends and family attended her memorial"
-- like the "6 weeks is optimal" for luminol application (again w/ no link provided after a request)

all completely irrelevant ... but let's not forget "and Knox is not a convicted murderer"

 

[Katody]

Why would anyone go to Knox for the facts of the case? That's like going to Jodi Arias for the facts of the Travis Alexander case.

Because she posts original courtroom transcripts, unlike some mendacious websites.

Of course some may chose to believe she busily spends her days and nights faking the transcripts in original Italian as well as some may chose to believe British TV stations produce fake climbing footage with Hollywood tricks on orders from omnipotent PR supertankers...

 

[sherlockh]

No she didn't, she said the exact opposite. It's in her testimony.
Filomena's testimony corroborates Amanda's version.

The testimony of the witness you're so hesitant to name is falsified by the testimony of other British girls, is contradicted by Filomena's testimony and finally is ignored by Massei in his findings, by Hellmann, by Galati and by Crini. In other words, nobody significant found it worthwhile or trustworthy and it's not a part of the prosecution's case.

A red herring.

It is not the witnesses that are contradicting each other. It is Knox who is contradicting herself. Tell the truth and you will only tell one version. Simple.

 

[Katody]

Here's a nice photo for everyone to cool down

It's good that Amanda cares for the injustice that others suffered despite her own hellish ordeal. It's good she has trusted and faithful friends by her side.

JMO

source:
http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/11/14/welcome-home-ryan-ferguson/

 

[redheadedgal]

all completely irrelevant ...

then why bring it all up?

 

[SMK]

I must say that reading this forum it seems that the prosecution is doing a horrible job so far.

They failed to bring up the hickey, the story of the witness that cannot be named for a very serious reason , they failed to bring up the washing machine, no mention of all the "lies" in Amanda's and Raffaele's books.

Finally the prosecution did a horrible mistake of not suing the British TV for the fake Hollywood special effects climb that undoubtedly poisoned the minds of the jury and the public

Really I'm beginning to fear for the outcome. Will the terrible witch go free again?

I do not view Knox as "a terrible witch" and have no fear of her going free. I just want to understand both sides of the case, and get at the truth.

 

[Katody]

It is not the witnesses that are contradicting each other. It is Knox who is contradicting herself. Tell the truth and you will only tell one version. Simple.

No she's not. Her story is consistent and unchanging.

 

[aa9511]

I had pondered at one point in my various reflections, about Filomena's room, and the discovery of the alleged break in.

I had wondered if the door had been left opened, and as the cottage is quite small,

• why the break-in hadn't been noticed from the outset. (as from the living room area the doors are so obvious)
• Or why the door had not been tried if closed.
• and who would have closed it? Would Guede as lone wolf have really done so?
• And when? what about footprints?

But then I put the whole aside as unimportant.

But now Crini himself chooses to focus on just this,

and so I find that interesting; and although

this post is quite lengthy it seemed relevant or at least worth looking into:

(@Otto, have you read it, and what are your thoughts if so?):seeya:

*follow link to post, and go above comments section

or use this link:

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

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...cutor_crini_so_very_very_interested/#comments

I have written quite a few posts in the last thread regarding this elusive broken window. Her and Raffaele's changing stories regarding this is a BIG RED FLAG to me.

Her stories regarding when she saw the window makes no sense to me.

In her Version 1.0: "first" morning trip to the cottage, she completely leaves out the window. She didn't tell Filomena about it on the phone. She didn't say it in her recounts of the first trip (shower trip).

The why is very obvious to me: if she told everyone that she saw the broken window on her first trip to the cottage, of course then it makes no sense why she was "unsure" about the things she saw in the cottage, it also makes no sense why she would not call someone immediately, it also makes no sense why she would wait more than 2 hours to call police, it also makes no sense why she would saunter back to Raffaele's for lunch before they ever seemed to take the obvious burglarly seriously, and on and on, etc., etc..

I would be very interested to know if any of the supporters of her innocence would change their minds if they knew she lied about when she saw the broken window. But I think I already know the answer.