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

[Nova]

Murder is probably a very sobering experience.

I'm sure you know that "sobering" in that context means "to become serious." It doesn't mean one's faculties are magically restored.

 

[Nova]

It's absolutely unbelievable that two seemingly intelligent adults would cook dinner, have water leak all over the kitchen floor, and then leave it there until the following day ... approximately 12-16 hours later. It's an obvious safety hazard, and it can damage property. Yet, this is the story ... and the mop is something that both Amanda and Raffaele wanted to talk about ... that Amanda brought the mop to Raffaele's apt. after having her shower ... and Iguess that explained why it was wet when police arrived.

The water was leaking from a kitchen drain, yes? So it may be presumed to have contained food particles in addition to clear water.

I see nothing unusual in their wiping up the water with paper towels at night, but still feeling they needed to mop the floor for the sake of sanitation in the morning.

 

[otto]

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?

We have Amanda clearly trying to reset the time when she and Raffaele had dinner. Why do you want to make an excuse for the lies and suggest that they ate dinner twice, even though they have not said this?

The cell phone records show that Amanda received the text from Patrick when she was in the square away from Raffaele's apartment. There is no getting around this. Following receipt of the text learning that she did not have to go to work, she and Raffaele got together again and turned off their phones. If she had not read the text on her way to work, she would have continued on her way to work, not returned to hang out with Raffaele.

 

[otto]

The water was leaking from a kitchen drain, yes? So it may be presumed to have contained food particles in addition to clear water.

I see nothing unusual in their wiping up the water with paper towels at night, but still feeling they needed to mop the floor for the sake of sanitation in the morning.

They have not said that the wiped up the spill and decided to mop the following day, they have said that they left the spill until the following day.

 

[Nova]

I remain amazed that anyone can tell with any accuracy what statements (beyond what AK or RS wrote) were actually made. In fact, I think accuracy is not intact at all. I read different versions of what AK or RS allegedly said and each differs slightly, enough of a difference that I'm sure the real statements, esp. with context, is something different than what is being restated as if it is the gospel.

Knowing how bad many (if not most) people are at remembering exact words, phrases, statements without some kind of word-for-word transcript or recording, I'm now 99% sure that what I've been told AK and RS said before, during, and after the investigation is not actually what they said and certainly not what they meant, because important context is missing.

Reading the debate back 'n forth on the threads is now pushing me more towards the innocent line. Not merely just 'not guilty,' where I was treading, but I'm actually now considering the possibility that RS and AK were falsely accused and there was a conspiracy to convict them.

I'm right there with you, SG. I was first attracted to this case by the 48 Hours (or Dateline) doc after the verdicts that focussed on charges of anti-Americanism. I thought, "Oh, it can't be that simple." (And I still don't think it was.) So I came here.

But with each element of key evidence, the more one looks, the less there appears to be. This is beginnng to seem a case where the conviction was based on quantity of evidence (much of it appearing in the press) rather than the quality of evidence.

 

[Nova]

The press didn't create false information. Amanda is a known liar, and her lies are what resulted in police looking at her more closely. The evidence is what convicted her.

Of course some of the false info was created by the press. You've repeated some of it here yourself, as has been pointed out to you.

So the press lied and we know the prosecutor lied.

RG lied and got his sentence cut in half.

Why is AK the only one held to a perfect standard of truth?

 

[Nova]

Well, just take the written statements of the 'gift', emails home, and each one's diary. That should give enough examples of lying/bending/deflecting/twisting and their context at the time.

We have seen which side you were on all along. How would there ever be a 'not guilty' without them being innocent anyway? If AK was there, she is just as guilty of murder... if she was not there, she would be innocent. Not much room for any in between IMO.

BBM: so now all bystanders are equally guilty when a crime is committed. Is this just Italian law or some new law you've decreed for all jurisdictions?

 

[Nova]

What I actually said is that I have based my opinion on court documents, not blogs, sciencespheres, opinions from DNA people in foreign countries, disgruntled authors, or PR machines.

Yesterday, in order to make a point about Amanda's ever changing alibi, I quoted a news source that summarized her ever changing alibi. I understand that you objected to Amanda's story about Raffaele pressing her fingerprints onto the knife while she slept. I believe that I also mentioned that each of the alibis had is own circumstances and explanations ... but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it happened, it merely gives context. There is context for her original alibi, the one that has Patrick murdering Meredith, the one where Patrick doesn't murder Meredith, and the funny explanation for having her prints on the knife ... all have an explanation.

Amanda's alibi changed, and none of them - not even the "we stayed at Raffaele's all night" - hold water.

This is ridiculous. AK's diary entry regarding the knife is clearly facetious. She says that what the police are claiming is possible ONLY if RS did something that is clearly IMpossible.

It is not an "additional alibi" by any definition, except those of the tabloid press.

 

[Nova]

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)."....

Right. Nothing equivocal about that writing.

I see where the account of the pipes breaking SEEMS to imply the spillage occurred after dinner, but that isn't what it actually says.

 

[Malkmus]

Giving a false time for the dinner is perceived as trying to create an alibi for later in the evening ... a time which is now unaccounted for.

Raffaele's father did call again ... and again ... except Raffaele had turned off his phone.

His father was calling the landline. The landline was not unplugged. Saying they had dinner later is not creating an alibi. An alibi has to be corroborated by someone outside of the accused. If his father said he had called them when the murder was supposed to have occurred that would be establishing an alibi. Raf and Amanda could say they were making papier mache hats instead of eating dinner, it doesn't matter. Saying they ate later means nothing unless it was corroborated by someone else.

 

[otto]

Of course some of the false info was created by the press. You've repeated some of it here yourself, as has been pointed out to you.

So the press lied and we know the prosecutor lied.

RG lied and got his sentence cut in half.

Why is AK the only one held to a perfect standard of truth?

Amanda came up with the story about Raffaele pressing her fingerprints onto the knife while she slept ... that isn't false information created by the press at all.

Raffaele's sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast track trial, not because he lied.

 

[Nova]

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 don't think U.S. prisoners get that many appeals, unless some problem with their trial is newly discovered. You're thinking of death penalty cases, where appeals are automatic because there is no remedy once the punishment is carried out.

MK bra clasp was allowed to sit for over a month and then passed around between techs who had touched God-knows-what. There are any number of ways the DNA could have been left on the clasp; most of them do not require RS' presence.

 

[Nova]

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

EXACTLY! The judge assumes: (a) AK and RS ate only once that evening; (b) they ate all in one, relatively short sitting; (c) the dishes RS was washing when his dad called were the dishes from that one meal (and not say, the breakfast dishes which would be needed for the later dinner); and (d) the "water spill" was a one time event and not a persistent leak (the latter being more typical of how water behaves).

AK didn't need to "make up" a dinner time unless she was actually at her house murdering MK. But as with so much of this case, the guilt is assumed and then the evidence is reasoned backwards.

 

[Malkmus]

*I must be thinking of where you claimed he was not lying. That is a mistranslation if there ever was one.

Then please explain what the lie was and please back it up with proof.

I said 'nobody with any smarts'. I didn't say anyone that does mental gymnastics to explain away/against evidence.

I can't understand your point. I stated that people thought Amanda showered in a blood-spattered bathroom from looking at the Luminol-doused bathroom pics, and you're telling me that only dumb people would think that. It doesn't change the fact that for many people that photo helped them decide that Amanda is guilty quite early on. Are you saying it's okay to print such misleading information as long as only smart people aren't fooled by it?

What the press 'puts out' is not relevant to what the Judges/jurors decided IMO.

Why do you think certain high profile trials sequester their juries?

Here's three:
*Shoe prints were not RS.
*CCTV was not AK, or can not be seen who.
*That is not blood in the picture, but a form of luminal.

A retraction would be an apology in the press by those who are responsible for the misinformation in the first place. I have seen no admission on behalf of the press or police for the abundance of misinformation printed. Retractions are a very common practice in the press, at least in the US.

 

[Nova]

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:

Please see my previous response to otto. That AK and RS ate only once and that the water spill was a finite event are both assumptions. (And the latter may be a translation problem. Read all the testimony again, substituting water "leak" for water "spill." It reads quite differently.)

 

[Malkmus]

Well, just take the written statements of the 'gift', emails home, and each one's diary. That should give enough examples of lying/bending/deflecting/twisting and their context at the time.

What are the lies in the "gift" letter, emails and diary entries?

 

[Nova]

Amanda came up with the story about Raffaele pressing her fingerprints onto the knife while she slept ... that isn't false information created by the press at all.

Raffaele's sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast track trial, not because he lied.

Malkmus gave you the exact quote from AK's diary yesterday. In context, it is clearly facetious, saying, in essense, "what LE says can be true only if this impossible thing happened."

That it has been turned into an additional "confession" by AK is ridiculous and a prime example of how this case has been mis-tried in the press.

 

[Malkmus]

What I actually said is that I have based my opinion on court documents, not blogs, sciencespheres, opinions from DNA people in foreign countries, disgruntled authors, or PR machines.

Yesterday, in order to make a point about Amanda's ever changing alibi, I quoted a news source that summarized her ever changing alibi. I understand that you objected to Amanda's story about Raffaele pressing her fingerprints onto the knife while she slept. I believe that I also mentioned that each of the alibis had is own circumstances and explanations ... but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it happened, it merely gives context. There is context for her original alibi, the one that has Patrick murdering Meredith, the one where Patrick doesn't murder Meredith, and the funny explanation for having her prints on the knife ... all have an explanation.

Amanda's alibi changed, and none of them - not even the "we stayed at Raffaele's all night" - hold water.

Otto, you seem to believe still that the original diary entry you posted is the correct one. You need to read the real one and see that the wording and intent is completely different. If you believe she wrote things like that then I can see why you believe she is guilty. However, she did not write what you posted.

 

[otto]

What are the lies in the "gift" letter, emails and diary entries?

An obvious lie in the "gift" letter is that she says "One of the things I am sure that definitely happened" is that they ate late, around 11 pm. That's simply not true; nothing more than a selfserving lie offered to place herself somewhere other than the cottage at the time of the murder.

 

[dgfred]

Then please explain what the lie was and please back it up with proof.

I can't understand your point. I stated that people thought Amanda showered in a blood-spattered bathroom from looking at the Luminol-doused bathroom pics, and you're telling me that only dumb people would think that. It doesn't change the fact that for many people that photo helped them decide that Amanda is guilty quite early on. Are you saying it's okay to print such misleading information as long as only smart people aren't fooled by it?

Why do you think certain high profile trials sequester their juries?

A retraction would be an apology in the press by those who are responsible for the misinformation in the first place. I have seen no admission on behalf of the press or police for the abundance of misinformation printed. Retractions are a very common practice in the press, at least in the US.

HE NEVER COOKED DINNER WITH/FOR MEREDITH! Not riding this merry-go-round of excuses regarding this any further.

Nobody with any sense would believe that was luminal IMO. Note IMO.
If someone thinks from that picture that AK is guilty... that is their problem.
If someone believes everything they see or hear from the media I feel sorry for them.

Jurors are SWORN to look over nothing but the evidence. They did IMO.

If the press is so in a hurry to get something out, why should there be a retraction when it wasn't verified in the first place?

Surely you are not TRYING to claim that AK and RS were convicted by what was in the press... that horse has left the stable. :seeya: