Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[dgfred]

Hey SG,
I believe the emails might be the best example:

The email seems to include evidence as she knows is stacking up against her with what she thinks is a reasonable explanation for it. IMO it is invented to fit some of the evidence).

 

[otto]

Amanda said that she had dinner with Raffaele around 11 pm, not 9:30 as posted above

"One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time)."

Ref: Transcript of Amanda's note
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

 

[otto]

Hey SG,
I believe the emails might be the best example:

The email seems to include evidence as she knows is stacking up against her with what she thinks is a reasonable explanation for it. IMO it is invented to fit some of the evidence).

The email to 25 friends is most interesting. Not only is it a study in illiteracy, but the statements in the email are not supported by facts. For example, her statements about phoning Meredith and Filomina are entirely ficticious and self-serving.

 

[SleuthyGal]

How would there ever be a 'not guilty' without them being innocent anyway?

This is a primary legal foundation, and while no, it's not used outside of a courtroom, it is something I use to distinguish my beliefs from facts.

"Not Guilty" does not = "Innocent"

"Not Guilty" means guilt wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It means the accused could have (and may well have) done the crime, but there are remaining doubts about the evidence--enough doubt to not get past a 'reasonable' barrier. No defendant in the free world should ever be convicted on the basis of "well, they probably/likely did it." That is never good enough. Even in the most heinous of crimes.

"Innocent" means just that--the accused is factually innocent. The accused did not do the crime, no matter what anyone else thinks or believes or thinks they know.

I've never said AK and RS were innocent. I said I couldn't vote them guilty based on the existing holes in the case. I said I have 'reasonable doubt.'

Their statements (written or otherwise) haven't pushed me in either direction. I've enumerated why on many occasions. I'm sure they lied, but I don't know exactly about what and I don't know why and whether something is an out-and-out lie vs. a difference in memory I don't know. Can't tell. It doesn't prove murder, doesn't give any indication leading to a motive to kill, and is essentially useless because at this point there's more rumor than fact. Not good. Not good at all. I can't hang my hat on rumors and misstatements.

In addition, seeing twisted/incorrect statements attributed to them, taken out of context, when we actually do have something written and can refer to it, only makes me wonder what someone's agenda is, because accuracy is vital and there is precious little of it.

I look at the case objectively, not emotionally. I've gotten emotional in other cases, but this isn't one of those. To pretend there aren't issues swirling in this case that raise doubt would be disingenuous. There are issues.

 

[Nova]

BUT, only if the previous testing is found to be lacking in some way. If the previous testing is found valid there is STILL AK's dna and Meredith's dna on the knife. Only finding the child killer's brother's dna would even help IMO. Not likely.

What you say may be technically true according to appellate procedures.

All the same, the prosecution doesn't want any surprises that will make its case look weaker (even if only in the court of public opinion), so why not object to each new request for additional testing?

 

[iluvmua]

How many appeals does Amanda get? Is this like in the US where the convicted can get appeal after appeal after appeal?

How do you explain Raf's DNA on Meredith's Bra Clasp?

and was her bra cut like someone was trying to cut it off?

 

[dgfred]

I believe they did. In the prosecution's eyes the knife evidence has already been found valid at trial. So no need for further testing.

 

[dgfred]

How many appeals does Amanda get? Is this like in the US where the convicted can get appeal after appeal after appeal?

How do you explain Raf's DNA on Meredith's Bra Clasp?

and was her bra cut like someone was trying to cut it off?

I think :waitasec: ... they get this appeal, one other (2nd) and a last appeal to the Supreme Court in Italy.

 

[Nova]

So you are thinking maybe they ate pasta, and had a water spill, left the water there, and ate fish AFTER telling dad they had already eaten??? :waitasec: Not to mention telling LE they ate dinner (not an appetizer) at a much later time.

Almost everything AK has told, and to some extent RS too has to be treated to this type of twisting to explain away why it is so incriminating. Some things might be possible, but not just about everything IMO.

I find their excuses (aka lies) very suspect, AND very telling.

I"m saying I don't know. 3 and a half hours is certainly long enough to have a small meal and then eat again later. (Particularly with college-age people; I find them to have rather irregular eating habits.)

Did RS say to his father, "We have now eaten our entire dinner and will eat no more tonight"? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely RS said they had been cooking pasta and there was a leak. That would be a more believable conversation.

In the Court Report, the judge merely assumes the cooking mentioned at 8:30 pm represented all the cooking for the evening. It doesn't not quote RS or his father as saying so.

Lots of European countries eat dinner later than we do in the states. Dining out at 10 or 11 is not at all uncommon.

So I repeat: why is it assumed that cooking pasta at 8:30 means RS and AK couldn't have cooked and eaten a fish at 11?

 

[Nova]

Only both claim they needed the mop from the cottage to clean it up.

Neither claimed to have had to dodge the water spill while cooking later.

Making excuses for lies seem like it is a tuff job... :innocent:

Yes, it's much easier to just call any inconvenient or unexplained report a "lie."

Once again, if you believe the 11pm supper was a "lie," then the next question is why was it necessary to lie about that. AK and RS could have simply said they were together in his apartment. Why invent a lie about a fish?

 

[otto]

I think :waitasec: ... they get this appeal, one other (2nd) and a last appeal to the Supreme Court in Italy.

Didn't Rudy have one appeal, and then the Supreme Court appeal?

 

[otto]

How many appeals does Amanda get? Is this like in the US where the convicted can get appeal after appeal after appeal?

How do you explain Raf's DNA on Meredith's Bra Clasp?

and was her bra cut like someone was trying to cut it off?

It seems that the bra was cut or torn ... resulting in the clasp being bent.

 

[Nova]

Then again they might just like i do

I wipe off the mess as best as i can then i wipe it up properly with a mop, actually my children do now i just supervise

Not excuses a way of life for most normal people

I'm embarrassed to say we normally mop only when we are expecting compan. The rest of the time we just wipe up with paper towels.

 

[Nova]

As we all know the European culture is quite different from ours

They do eat in many countries normally much later than we do here, having visited many of these places i actually quite enjoyed their much more relaxed atmosphere, compared to the "eat on the fly" that so many of us do here. In the countries i have been to the approximate hour was 9:00 in my experience

Not excuses it is part of their daily lives over there

It's been a few years, but that was my experience in both Spain and Italy. In fact, having dinner eaten and cleaned up by 8:30 would be unusual (though not impossible, obviously).

 

[Nova]

Hey, guys, so many posts in such little time, so I'm going to try to sum up a few things as opposed to replying to each post.

It does appear that Amanda was wrong about what time they ate. Raf's father called at 20:42 and apparently he says they had already washed the dishes, whereas Amanda states in her testimony that they ate around 9:30. What I find hard to believe is why this is considered a lie. So she was off roughly an hour about what time they ate. Is there anyone here who possibly got wrong what time they did something by an hour? I would imagine all of us are guilty of this error at some point in our lives, if not somewhat commonly.

Secondly, regarding what Raf and Amanda wrote in their diaries concerning the knife. These are again regarded as lies. Yet, there is nothing in either that can be concluded to be a lie.

Third, Amanda did not lie about where she was when she received the text from Patrick. She said she "noticed" it when she was at Raffaele's, but concedes that her phone had actually received it earlier.

Fourth, a point of clarification: The text message from Amanda to Patrick saying "Ci vediamo piu tardi" would ONLY have been interpreted by the police as a definite rendez-vous between Amanda and Patrick. In Italian the phrase does not have the same ambiguity as in English when we say "See you later". I have confirmed this with several Italian speakers on a language forum. So, the interrogation was doubly confusing for Amanda I'm sure as she knew she had not written Patrick to meet her but what she had written did imply that and the police were cemented in their belief that she met up with him due to that mis-phrasing on her part. It was their insistence that her text could only mean that which led them down the rabbit hole that night.

This is surely one of the most valuable posts on the entire thread.

It seems to me that AK and RS are accused of so many lies, but very few of the alleged "lies" serve any purpose. As you point out, being off by an hour in your recollection of dinner time is hardly unusually and certain not a crime.

I think charges of lying should at least include some theory as to why the party lied, i.e., what s/he had to gain from telling a falsehood. Otherwise, we may chalk up the supposed "lie" to a mere mistake.

To wit, lying that PL was in the apartment when MK screamed: we know what AK stood to gain from that lie.

But lying about where she was standing when a test message arrived serves no purpose. Her explanation that she didn't read the message until she was back at RS' apartment makes more sense.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, it's much easier to just call any inconvenient or unexplained report a "lie."

Once again, if you believe the 11pm supper was a "lie," then the next question is why was it necessary to lie about that. AK and RS could have simply said they were together in his apartment. Why invent a lie about a fish?

Hey, don't blame me... it was RS's dad that DESTROYED that alibi. He said they had already eaten and there was a water spill. This was waaaaayy before 11pm.

If I (or anyone for that matter) could figure out the 'whys' of her multiple lies the case would be so much more simple to explain. They did say they were together in his apartment, the eating dinner part was another aspect to it. Why would she see 'blood on RS's hand from cooking fish'??? Why would she even mention that? Just from her stories, one COULD think she was trying to form an alibi for just about the time the murder happened... like around
11pm. :waitasec:

 

[Nova]

I think most people that followed this case gave Amanda and Raffaele the benefit of the doubt at the outset. This wasn't a case where one looked at the accused and assumed they were guilty. It's pretty much a situation where they dug their own grave ... and now they lie in it.

Maybe at the outset, but certainly no more. Now even their simplest word or deed is held up as a high crime and misdemeanor.

 

[otto]

I"m saying I don't know. 3 and a half hours is certainly long enough to have a small meal and then eat again later. (Particularly with college-age people; I find them to have rather irregular eating habits.)

Did RS say to his father, "We have now eaten our entire dinner and will eat no more tonight"? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely RS said they had been cooking pasta and there was a leak. That would be a more believable conversation.

In the Court Report, the judge merely assumes the cooking mentioned at 8:30 pm represented all the cooking for the evening. It doesn't not quote RS or his father as saying so.

Lots of European countries eat dinner later than we do in the states. Dining out at 10 or 11 is not at all uncommon.

So I repeat: why is it assumed that cooking pasta at 8:30 means RS and AK couldn't have cooked and eaten a fish at 11?

In the Judge's Motivation, he refers to Amanda's written statement to determine when Amanda claims they ate dinner

"She then wrote of having seen Meredith for the last time on November 1, 2007 in the afternoon, around 15:00 pm or 16:00 pm; they were at home at Via della Pergola, and Raffaele was also there. She and Raffaele stayed a little longer, and then, together they went back to his home (on Corso Garibaldi) to watch the movie Amelie. She then received a message from Patrick telling her it wasn’t necessary for her to go to work at the pub, since no one was there. Therefore, she stayed with Raffaele, with whom she smoked some marijuana. They had dinner together, but quite late, perhaps 23:00 pm."

It is believed that dinner was done at 8:40 because that is what Raffaele told his father, and neither Amanda nor Raffaele have said that they had a second dinner later in the evening.

This is what the judge extracted from Amanda's changing dinner time:

"She also maintains that, after 21:15 pm, she and Raffaele had dinner at the Corso [69] Garibaldi house.

In the course of her witness examination she indicated that they had dinner around 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm; then she put the time further out, at about 23:00 pm. But this claim is contradicted by the declarations made by Francesco Sollecito. He, as noted, stated that he spoke with his son on the phone at 20:42 pm (phone records corroborate his statement), who told him "he was with Amanda" (p. 16, hearing of June 19, 2009). Indeed, later on, around midnight of that "November 1", knowing that he was with this girl, he limited himself to just sending him a text message (p. 19, hearing cited above). Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink.

Therefore, the statements by Amanda Knox in which the hour of dinner is postponed until 10 pm or even 11 pm constitute an attempt to reduce insofar as possible the length of time devoid of activity that could be documented in some way, during the final hours of November 1, 2007, thus creating an alibi that could put her and Raffaele away from the Via della Pergola house where, precisely during that time, the murder of Meredith Kercher was being perpetrated."

Ref: pg 78 Motivation Report

 

[Nova]

The problem with Amanda being confused and not remembering when she ate is that she ate before she prepared to go to work. It seems a little bit of a stretch to believe that she ate before she left for work, and then forgot that she ate before she left for work. Certainly she knew when she left for work ... as that is a fixed time. Why couldn't she work backwards and figure out that if she left for work around 8:45 and she ate before she left, then she had dinner around 8:20?

How many people forget that they ate before they went to work?

She left for work, got the text from Patrick about not needing to go to work, then returned to Raffaele's? and then saw the text? Why did she go back to Raffaele's if she thought she had to work and was indeed on her way to work when the text came in?

Except you are the first to point to her diary and its tendency to ramble. Clearly AK is not by nature a linear thinker.

And there is more than one text message. Maybe she saw the "don't come in" text while she was out, but only saw the "see you later" text when she was back at RS' flat. Are we sure we (and the Perugia LE) are always talking about the same text in every instance?

 

[otto]

I'm embarrassed to say we normally mop only when we are expecting compan. The rest of the time we just wipe up with paper towels.

So you don't leave a flood of water sitting on the kitchen floor until the next day? Rhetorical ... of course ... everyone cleans up spilled water in the kitchen right away for obvious reasons ... and they use whatever is available at the time. That is why the story about leaving the water for more than 12 hours, and using a mop the following day, is so incredulous.