Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Salem]

~Respectfully snipped~

What we know is that during questioning as a witness between 11:30 PM and 1:45 AM, Knox told a pack of lies (or "rubbish" per Sollecito) to police.

Otto - what does it mean that Sollecito called AK's answers "rubbish"? How did this come about? Did ILE give/tell Sollecito what AK said, and RS responded that AK was lying?

And does RS still contend that he can not remember if AK slept at his apt that night?

Thanks - I know you guys have discussed all this and while I try to keep up, I can't always keep it all straight

Salem

 

[otto]

about the blood on the window, Nova,

I'm looking for a backup for what this article states, but so far, I have just this picture:

Someone claiming that this could be blood on the left, smudges scuffs, and a place where ANOTHER nail actually did fall out during RG's climb. Honestly I just see the blood looking smudge on the left. you tell me.I suppose if RG cut himself, he cou;d have touched the wall right there. It's just below the sill. I have to check which one of his hands was cut, but actually, the blood could have transferred from the right hand to the left. I don't know. This stuff, I dno't know about. Just looking for whatever proves or disproves that statement in the earlier article about blood on the window.

"The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window. This circumstance, as confirmed also by the consultant Pasquali, tends to exclude the possibility that the rock was thrown from outside the house to create access to the house through the window after the breaking of the pane. The climber, in leaning his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, would have caused at least some piece of glass to fall, or at least would have been obliged to shift some pieces of glass in order to avoid being wounded by them. Instead, no piece of glass was found under the window, and no sign of any wound was seen on the pieces of glass found in Romanelli's room."

pg 51, Massei Report

"In Filomena Romanelli's room a few items were tested: a hairlike fibre [formazione pilifera] on the lower part of the window frame, and a presumed haematological substance on the wooden part of the window which held the broken pane. Both of these items yielded negative results on analysis."

pg 193

 

[Salem]

That article is racially offensive. I'm not inclined to thank anyone posting something that assumes black people are "dark skinned savages."

I have read the article here: http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/
which is the one I believe you are referring too. If this is the incorrect article, please let me know ASAP. As a moderator for WS, I disagree with your take on the article and I'm going to let the article stand. However, I am going to ask that Admin review the article, also.

WS has zero tolerance for prejuidice, racial or otherwise and if Admin determines that the article is racist, the article will be removed and the site will probably be blocked for further linking.

In the future, if you see something that you believe is racially offensive, WS respectfully asks that you alert the post so that it can be dealt with immediately and it is not left for the viewing public or other members to read.

Thanks!

Salem

 

[Malkmus]

~Respectfully snipped~

Otto - what does it mean that Sollecito called AK's answers "rubbish"? How did this come about? Did ILE give/tell Sollecito what AK said, and RS responded that AK was lying?

And does RS still contend that he can not remember if AK slept at his apt that night?

Thanks - I know you guys have discussed all this and while I try to keep up, I can't always keep it all straight

Salem

Like Amanda, after the interrogation of November 5th Rafaelle went back to claiming that Amanda and he were at his place all night - that she never left.

 

[Allusonz]

The article discusses all of the false preconceptions about Guede and tries to set the record straight. Surely you've seen the references to Guede as a street , Ivorian Coast drifter and drug dealer, and etc. The author suggests that people be prepared for an articulate, intelligent, former basketball star who speaks Italian like a Perugian.

For the record, he does not assume that black people are as you describe.

In all the testimony I have not seen the racial factor never played a role. The fact that he had been caught as a burgler did but not race

 

[wasnt_me]

it would be these sentences here:

He is, therefore, a natural candidate for stereotyping. But less so once you hear him speak: this is no dark-skinned savage. He is articulate and intelligent and delivers his words in a well-spoken local accent. In fact, although his birth certificate might suggest otherwise, he will come across as being as Italian as anyone else in the room.

Why is he a natural candidate for stereotyping? because he's black?

Once you hear him speak, he's no "dark-skinned savage..." As opposed to what? regular black people?

As a black person, this is highly offensive to me. I deal with this often in my life and I'm not even "dark-skinned," so yes, this offends me greatly.

I don't see why this writer would say such things about RG. If RG was white, this writer would not have said any of that; therefore, it's racist. Surely, we have never heard the term "white-skinned savage."

 

[Allusonz]

I have read the article here: http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/
which is the one I believe you are referring too. If this is the incorrect article, please let me know ASAP. As a moderator for WS, I disagree with your take on the article and I'm going to let the article stand. However, I am going to ask that Admin review the article, also.

WS has zero tolerance for prejuidice, racial or otherwise and if Admin determines that the article is racist, the article will be removed and the site will probably be blocked for further linking.

In the future, if you see something that you believe is racially offensive, WS respectfully asks that you alert the post so that it can be dealt with immediately and it is not left for the viewing public or other members to read.

Thanks!

Salem

wrong quote sorry

 

[Allusonz]

~Respectfully snipped~

Otto - what does it mean that Sollecito called AK's answers "rubbish"? How did this come about? Did ILE give/tell Sollecito what AK said, and RS responded that AK was lying?

And does RS still contend that he can not remember if AK slept at his apt that night?

Thanks - I know you guys have discussed all this and while I try to keep up, I can't always keep it all straight

Salem

First Magistrate’ hearing in front of Matteini (8 November 2007), p. 210, Darkness Descending

“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?

Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’

 

[wasnt_me]

In all the testimony I have not seen the racial factor never played a role. The fact that he had been caught as a burgler did but not race

exactly, but now we are supposed to be surprised that he's not a "dark-skinned savage." What does his skin color have to do with it and why are "dark-skinned" people suddenly "savage."

 

[wasnt_me]

Questions for RG:

1. You say that, while you were on the toilet, you could hear Amanda in a nearby room, squabbling with Meredith about her missing rent money. How can you be sure that was Amanda’s voice? When did you learn to speak English? How did you know the rent money was missing before the investigators did? Why is your DNA on Meredith’s purse. Did you know that prosecutor Mignini told Oggi that you “rummaged through” Meredith’s purse.

2. You say you saw “Amanda’s silhouette” fleeing the scene, meaning she was outside on a dark street and you were inside. fleeing down a dark hallway and sneaking a peek into a room that you didn’t enter, which had a window onto the street. Let’s say you could see a woman’s silhouette under these circumstances, even though she had her back to you and the street was dark. How do you know it was Amanda?

3. You claim Raffaele is the guy you fought with after you got off the toilet, the one who really stabbed Kercher. Raffaele is tall and right-handed. Why did you say the killer was of shorter than you and left-handed?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/06/26/amanda-knox-accuser-rudy-guede-will-testify-in-court/

 

[Allusonz]

If Guede hadn't left so much of himself in the murder room, I'm sure he'd still be hopping rides on trains all over Europe.

And let's remember ILE arrested somebody ELSE for two weeks before finally getting around to RG.

Not only kept him in jail for 2 weeks, questioned the person related to his alibi for 7 hours then kept him in jail for another week, and proceeded NOT to allow him reopen his business. This cannot be blamed on AK period

 

[wasnt_me]

They planned to keep PL for a year, just like RS and AK.

 

[Malkmus]

Dishonest eye-witness testimony resulted in the arrest of an innocent man - that had nothing to do with the collection and analysis of evidence. Evidence that was collected and analyzed at the scene resulted in the conviction of all three suspects however ... supposedly ... in the collection of evidence implicating Guede, all was well, and in the collection of evidence implicating Knox and Sollecito, the claim is that everything was done wrong. How is that possible - especially since the investigators did not know at the time of collection which samples they should imcompetently collect and which they should competently collect?

Because Guede required only the most rudimentary of police work to apprehend, and because once apprehended he had a clear motive and was additionally already on file for previous criminal activity. They matched a fingerprint and voila, they had their man, who subsequently confessed to being at the scene of the crime.
The police work used to nail AK and RS was the opposite of rudimentary. It involved controversial forensics techniques such as LCN DNA analysis, equally shaky "intuition" based on Amanda swiveling her hips and judging a knife looked too clean, and a multitude of results derived from methods that can best be described as dubious - which we've listed a million times already.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, some would prefer to interpret the several lies she told police as 'confused', 'quirky Knox', 'mistaken', "misstated" and so on, but Knox was known for being on time for class, so she is aware of time commitments. On the night of the murder, she had a time commitment to be at work, and she should have been aware of the fact that she ate dinner prior to going to work. She was on her way to work when Patrick said she was not needed. That time commitment enabled her to pinpoint the time of dinner.

During questioning regarding a murder, I'm sure that an innocent person would understand the importance of accuracy and think back to the night of the murder, pinpoint the time in relation to other commitments and provide investigators with accurate information.

What did Knox do? She lied several times, never once giving the correct time. Who gave the correct time: Dr Sollecito.

Soooooooooo ... Knox is in Italy, she's being questioned by police, she can't deal with the Italian language, she is provided with someone that can question her in her native language and ... how is this a problem?

No oopsie ... witness statements are not video taped.

<modsnip>. She didn't have to be at work until ten o' clock. She could have been planning on eating dinner as late as 9:30. Patrick told her she didn't have to work at 8:18. So after 8:18 she could have planned to eat dinner even later than 9:30. Her start time at work and the text from Patrick mean she could have planned on eating any time that night, basically.

 

[otto]

~Respectfully snipped~

Otto - what does it mean that Sollecito called AK's answers "rubbish"? How did this come about? Did ILE give/tell Sollecito what AK said, and RS responded that AK was lying?

And does RS still contend that he can not remember if AK slept at his apt that night?

Thanks - I know you guys have discussed all this and while I try to keep up, I can't always keep it all straight

Salem

As far as I can recall, on the night that he and Knox were detained Sollecito said that he had told investigators a "load of rubbish". He said that he was misled by Knox into lying for her. Knox did not admit to deliberately lying, instead she claimed that after 2 hours of questioning she was forced to accuse an innocent man of murder. She was found guilty of lying about the investigators. Her parent's trial for repeating those false statements in the UK is set for July 4, 2011.

Sollecito has never changed his statement about being unable to confirm that Knox was at his apartment during the night of the murder.

 

[otto]

Because Guede required only the most rudimentary of police work to apprehend, and because once apprehended he had a clear motive and was additionally already on file for previous criminal activity. They matched a fingerprint and voila, they had their man, who subsequently confessed to being at the scene of the crime.
The police work used to nail AK and RS was the opposite of rudimentary. It involved controversial forensics techniques such as LCN DNA analysis, equally shaky "intuition" based on Amanda swiveling her hips and judging a knife looked too clean, and a multitude of results derived from methods that can best be described as dubious - which we've listed a million times already.

Good point! Guede and Knox both confessed to being at the scene. Evidence supported their confessions. By Sollecito placing himself with Knox, he also placed himself at the scene. Evidence supports this as well.

 

[wasnt_me]

I do think that since RG is now coming there as a witness, it is crucial to question him as the ONLY witness to the murder. So I additionally want to ask him:

1. What kind of knife was it? How many knives did you see in the assailant's hand?

2. Was the assailant bloody? Did he leave with the knife?

3. How did he get the money? Did you see him go in the drawer or the purse for the money? (why would RS, whose family is well off, steal 250 from MK? I know, Objection, calls for speculation.) Well, the money was already gone from the drawer according to you, so I guess you saw him go in the purse and leave your bloody fingerprints?

4. Did the assailant run off or get in a car?

5. Did you see the tow truck on the street?

6. How long do you think you were in the cottage before you left MK without bothering to call for help? Did you see the assailants also run off with her phones?

7. Who locked MK in her room?

8. How exactly did the argument escalate to the point of murder while you listened to three songs on the ipod?

9. What time did all this occur? was it 920 to 930pm as you previously stated?

10. Did you go to the other bathroom to rinse your hands after assisting MK?

11. How did a bloody barefoot print get on the bathroom rug if the assailants stabbed her and ran out?

12. You say you saw AK fleeing? did she have the mop bucket? or just the mop?

13. Who opened LM's underwear drawer to go through her stuff?

14. Did you search AK's room and just happened to close all the drawers so we don't know you actually went in there?

15. Did you have some mushrooms on you that night?

 

[otto]

You are mistaken. SV went to great lengths to explain the process to everyone. It is not limited to these 3 pieces of evidence. You are simply beating a dead horse with this argument and it might help to read SV's explanation with respect to this process

It's my understanding that the original decison specified that additional evidence may be considered, and indeed we have seen additional evidence that will be considered: specifically the five prisoners. I don't think I have a misunderstanding regarding the process.

 

[Malkmus]

I think this is where Edda was mistaken shortly before the original verdict as well. I believe that she expected the appeal process to reflect the US appeal process - basically a retrial. Not so. The appeal process began months ago where defense lawyers presented their arguments regarding what they believed should be re-considered during appeal. It more or less looks like they listed all the evidence. The judge ruled on what evidence would be reconsidered during appeal, and the result was many "denied" and three "accepted". The three points are the two DNA samples and the one witness. Regarding the DNA samples, they would be retested if they could be retested and, barring that, the analysis would be reviewed. There was a provision such that the judge could consider other evidence as it arose - and that is where we see the 5 lying prisoners and Guede's testimony being considered during appeal.

Otto, Judge Hellman has stated that the review of the DNA evidence is needed to remove an reasonable doubt. That means that if the DNA evidence fails there is still reasonable doubt in this case. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[wasnt_me]

<modsnip>. She didn't have to be at work until ten o' clock. She could have been planning on eating dinner as late as 9:30. Patrick told her she didn't have to work at 8:18. So after 8:18 she could have planned to eat dinner even later than 9:30. Her start time at work and the text from Patrick mean she could have planned on eating any time that night, basically.

OR

She might not have planned to eat at all. I skipped meals a lot when I was younger or I grabbed fast food, or I even ate at the restaurant where I worked. RS could have said to her, hey, now we have time to make dinner instead of you grabbing something at the bar while you're working.