Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[kemo]

I have gone over this from so many sources and, as always, there is a certain amount of ambiguity and contradiction. Somebody from the Police should have determined the correct "error" with the CCTV time display. But they didn't.

Bongiorno's "theory" does seem plausible but we can never be certain which cars seen on the CCTV correspond to which police vehicles. Were both Puntos the Postal Police, was the carabiniere seen on the CCTV the one who called Raffaelle at 1:29?

The real problem with the theory, however, is the engaging of Meredith's UK phone at 1:00. Just too much is know to have happened; too many different people can document everything that happened between the time the Postal Police arrived (a time in dispute) and 1:00.

As for the contested translation of Raffaelle's statment, we need the analysis of a native speaker. Per Google Translate, "Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale" translates to: Mysister told me to call 112, which I did, but in the meantime the police arrived postal" Which really doesn't make any sense. That is the trouble with translation softwear.

In English, "in the meantime" would generally suggest something that is happening at the same time, that the subject is unaware. I don't think it is possible that the postal police were arriving at the same time Raffaele was making the call. One would not say "but in the meantime" to refer to something happening "soon after". If the translation is accurate, he seems to be engaging in double talk. Not admitting that he called after they arrived but not claiming "he called them and then they arrived", and sort of implying that they arrived, unbeknownst to him, while he was making the call. Now we need someone who knows Italian well, to explain what he really seems to mean.

 

[Kaly99]

I have gone over this from so many sources and, as always, there is a certain amount of ambiguity and contradiction. Somebody from the Police should have determined the correct "error" with the CCTV time display. But they didn't.

Bongiorno's "theory" does seem plausible but we can never be certain which cars seen on the CCTV correspond to which police vehicles. Were both Puntos the Postal Police, was the carabiniere seen on the CCTV the one who called Raffaelle at 1:29?

The real problem with the theory, however, is the engaging of Meredith's UK phone at 1:00. Just too much is know to have happened; too many different people can document everything that happened between the time the Postal Police arrived (a time in dispute) and 1:00.

In terms of which cars/people appeared on the CCTV, the postal police themselves accepted they were the ones seen at 12:48. We can also be pretty certain that when the carabinieri called at 13:29 and spoke to the postal police officer, no other carabinieri had arrived at the cottage at the time; if other carabinieri were there, Battistelli would certainly have testified to it in court. So the question is only whether the carabinieri seen on CCTV were the same ones who called. It's certainly possible they were not, but that would mean the first ones to arrive must have gotten there even earlier, making the CCTV even more than the estimated 8-12 minutes slow. The postal police would therefore have arrived well after 1, which is impossible.

Going back to the possible 12:56 arrival time, it would certainly mean a lot was happening, but the timing fits together:

12:47 - AK calls her mother.
12:50 - RS calls his sister.
12:51 - RS's first call to the carabinieri.
12:54 - RS's second call to the police; AK's voice is heard in the background, telling him the address.
12:56 - Postal police arrive while AK and RS are waiting in the garden.
12:56-13:01 - AK and RS tell the postal police about the odd things in the cottage; the postal police tell them about the phones, and ask AK to write down Meredith's numbers.
13:00 - MK's phone is activated after AK writes down her numbers.
13:01 - Filomena's friends arrive, and see AK, RS and the postal police standing around the table with the post-it and two phones on it.
13:03 - Filomena arrives.
13:24 - AK calls her mother to tell her a foot has been found in MK's room (per Miley's earlier post). This must have been shortly after the door was broken down, and before the carabinieri arrived.

Filomena and her friends said they arrived around 1, so this would be consistent with that (Filomena was actually around 10-15 minutes out in her estimation of when AK had called her, so she's certainly not super accurate with her timing). I can't see any alternative to the above timeline - can you see another way it could have played out?

Something else to consider is that the girl seen on CCTV and presumed to be Meredith (or AK, according to initial reports) is seen at 20:53 on 1 November. Neither AK nor MK could have been there at 20:43, if the clock were 10 minutes fast (AK was talking to RS's friend, MK was still with her friends). If the time were actually 21:03, that would be very consistent with MK's estimated arrival at the cottage around 9, and would thus support the idea that the CCTV clock was 8-12 minutes slow.

As for the contested translation of Raffaelle's statment, we need the analysis of a native speaker. Per Google Translate, "Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale" translates to: Mysister told me to call 112, which I did, but in the meantime the police arrived postal" Which really doesn't make any sense. That is the trouble with translation softwear.

In English, "in the meantime" would generally suggest something that is happening at the same time, that the subject is unaware. I don't think it is possible that the postal police were arriving at the same time Raffaele was making the call. One would not say "but in the meantime" to refer to something happening "soon after". If the translation is accurate, he seems to be engaging in double talk. Not admitting that he called after they arrived but not claiming "he called them and then they arrived", and sort of implying that they arrived, unbeknownst to him, while he was making the call. Now we need someone who knows Italian well, to explain what he really seems to mean.

I don't think it's a question of something being lost in translation here, more that 'in the meantime' can be interpreted in a number of ways. None of the fluent/native Italian speakers on PMF suggested that 'in the meantime' has any particular nuances in Italian that it doesn't have in English. (FWIW, I also called my fluent-in-Italian dad to ask what he thought, and he translated it as 'My sister told me to call 112, which I did, but in the meantime the postal police arrived'. So not much help, really...)

Since it's pretty ambiguous, it makes sense to look at the facts we know in terms of timing - the cell phone calls and CCTV records. My previous post was really just pointing out that there was certainly more to the sentence than RS admitting he'd called the carabinieri after the postal police arrived.

 

[missyjane77]

Maybe she did break. BUT that does not excuse giving the 'gift' to the prosecutor in writing that in fact what she had told before was true... NO chance she was hit for that one and it was many hours after her first interrogation. So in reality the idea that because of rough treatment she lied and accused an innocent man does not hold water.

You don't know under what conditions that was written though, so be careful how much weight you give it.

 

[Isabella]

You don't know under what conditions that was written though, so be careful how much weight you give it.

What we do know is there isnt a scrap of proof been provided that she was hit or anything else. Until anything IS proved to me its just rumour..or lies putting it simply of a convicted murderer and to be honest..working off of rumours really doesnt help one to make a informed decision IMO.

 

[dgfred]

How was that theory squashed? Certainly not in that person's post - she says towards the end of the post that in order to object to Bongiorno's (RS's lawyer's) analysis, you either have to believe that: (1) the carabinieri parked directly outside the cottage gate at 13:12 (if the CCTV were 10 minutes fast, as the prosecution claimed at first), only to drive away again and circle the area for a further 17 minutes, before finally calling RS's phone to ask for directions; or that the black Fiat Punto and the two men seen outside the house had nothing to do with the postal police, even though it was accepted by all sides that it was them. The poster says either theory is implausible.

No one on PMF was able to come up with a timeline that contradicted the theory either.

Your kidding right? Did you read the next 50 or so post where Bongiorno's theory was shown to be wrong... and also shown to be wrong in court?

 

[dgfred]

You don't know under what conditions that was written though, so be careful how much weight you give it.

Well if her lawyers were as good as most claimed, they would have probably
argued your point... since they did not we can assume it is reliable information don't ya think?

*What about the next TWO weeks where PL sat in jail? Are you saying she was still under duress and other 'conditions' for that amount of time?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Why did the police have to put PL in jail for TWO weeks? They couldn't do an investigation and get the info and run some forensics before arresting him? They HAD to throw him in jail ASAP? Why? He was a local businessman, with a thriving business, with family. Was he a flight risk? Did he have a prior criminal history? (answer: nope). Okay they arrest him. Why couldn't they have let him out, on bond, within 24 to 48 hrs?

Do you not hold the police responsible for ANY of PL's legal problems?

Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, but it is the legal responsibility of the police dept to get the true facts and evidence. Why did it take the police TWO WEEKS in such an important/high profile case to get enough facts & evidence to release PL?

 

[jjenny]

Why did the police have to put PL in jail for TWO weeks? They couldn't do an investigation and get the info and run some forensics before arresting him? They HAD to throw him in jail ASAP? Why? He was a local businessman, with a thriving business, with family. Was he a flight risk? Did he have a prior criminal history? (answer: nope). Okay they arrest him. Why couldn't they have let him out, on bond, within 24 to 48 hrs?

Do you not hold the police responsible for ANY of PL's legal problems?

Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, but it is the legal responsibility of the police dept to get the true facts and evidence. Why did it take the police TWO WEEKS in such an important/high profile case to get enough facts & evidence to release PL?

Oh right. Blame everyone else. He was accused of murder, why wouldn't they keep him in jail? By the way, does Italy even have the bond system similar to what US has?

 

[dgfred]

Why did the police have to put PL in jail for TWO weeks? They couldn't do an investigation and get the info and run some forensics before arresting him? They HAD to throw him in jail ASAP? Why? He was a local businessman, with a thriving business, with family. Was he a flight risk? Did he have a prior criminal history? (answer: nope). Okay they arrest him. Why couldn't they have let him out, on bond, within 24 to 48 hrs?

Do you not hold the police responsible for ANY of PL's legal problems?

Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, but it is the legal responsibility of the police dept to get the true facts and evidence. Why did it take the police TWO WEEKS in such an important/high profile case to get enough facts & evidence to release PL?

An eyewitness claims he murdered MK... they better have made sure he was NOT what AK had claimed... twice. It took that long to verify the dna was not his and his claims of being at the club at the time of the murder could be absolutely verified. There were also some problems with the receipts and what times the actual customers were there or leaving.

*WHY would AK lie about him being at the scene? That is the biggest question imo.

 

[SleuthyGal]

This scenario goes round and round and round.

Why did AK point the finger at PL?

Did the polizia tell AK that PL must have been involved because of the text msg that she "would see him later?" (according to various statements, yes the police did).

Why were the police so focused on PL in the first place? They were focused on him even before AK 'fingered' him as a suspect.

Who first brought up PL's name as being involved? The police? or AK?

Who first insisted that PL must be involved in the crime? (the police? or AK?)

NO ONE has answered the question: do you not hold the police at all responsible for arresting and holding PL for TWO WEEKS? Can you answer this question?

 

[dgfred]

This scenario goes round and round and round.

Why did AK point the finger at PL?

Did the polizia tell AK that PL must have been involved because of the text msg that she "would see him later?" (according to various statements, yes the police did).

Why were the police so focused on PL in the first place? They were focused on him even before AK 'fingered' him as a suspect.

Who first brought up PL's name as being involved? The police? or AK?

Who first insisted that PL must be involved in the crime? (the police? or AK?)

NO ONE has answered the question: do you not hold the police at all responsible for arresting and holding PL for TWO WEEKS? Can you answer this question?

*I believe she 'knew' a colored man was there, was already mad at PL and figured RG might not ever be found.

*So what if the police found the text message and said PL must have been there... AK can still deny it and there is absolutely no reason to accuse an innocent man (more than once for sure).

*They were focused because of the text to and from him... as they should have been because of her changing 'alibi'.

*The police more than likely brought up his name first because of the text on AK's phone... and when both RS and her are already under questioning I see no problem with bringing his name up.

*Why does it matter if the police insisted he was involved? What stopped AK from claiming it was ridiculous whether under duress or not? What reason would AK have for claiming her previous 'story' was true in her gift statement
to the prosecutor?

***NO. I do not hold the police responsible for holding a person accused by an eyewitness to murder until dna was returned and that person can show an ironclad alibi for the time in question. Next question please.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Logically AK could only deny it if she knew he wasn't there. And the only way she could know for sure he wasn't there is if she was there (at the time of the murder) to say PL wasn't there.

Her 'confession' is convoluted and sounds like something made up to appease someone (the polizia?). If she was going to finger someone black and claim she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears then why finger PL (who wasn't there) and not RG (who we know for sure WAS there)?

BTW, we know for sure AK was in the apt after the murder. We don't know for sure she was in the apt DURING the murder. The physical evidence doesn't tell us exactly WHEN she was there...only that she was there at some point before the police arrived and we know there is some co-mingled DNA. It also doesn't tell us WHAT she did or how her DNA came to be co-mingled. Could there be an innocent explanation? Perhaps, but I don't know.

The RS knife remains under suspicion so I can't call the results on that definitive.

The bra clasp also remains under suspicion and for good reason.

 

[Isabella]

Why did the police have to put PL in jail for TWO weeks? They couldn't do an investigation and get the info and run some forensics before arresting him? They HAD to throw him in jail ASAP? Why? He was a local businessman, with a thriving business, with family. Was he a flight risk? Did he have a prior criminal history? (answer: nope). Okay they arrest him. Why couldn't they have let him out, on bond, within 24 to 48 hrs?

Do you not hold the police responsible for ANY of PL's legal problems?

Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, but it is the legal responsibility of the police dept to get the true facts and evidence. Why did it take the police TWO WEEKS in such an important/high profile case to get enough facts & evidence to release PL?

Er he had been put at the scene of a brutal murder by the "witness". Why the heck would be out on bond? The fact he had a business is irrelevant. Due to the evidence of Amanda who claims he killed Meredith he was seen as a dangerous person and so obviously shouldnt have been free to roam around..

 

[Isabella]

Oh right. Blame everyone else. He was accused of murder, why wouldn't they keep him in jail? By the way, does Italy even have the bond system similar to what US has?

To be honest i dont k now of any other country in the world that has a bond like your system. Here the prosecution just ask for the person to be kept in jail if need be and the judge will go with it if he sees fit.

 

[Isabella]

An eyewitness claims he murdered MK... they better have made sure he was NOT what AK had claimed... twice. It took that long to verify the dna was not his and his claims of being at the club at the time of the murder could be absolutely verified. There were also some problems with the receipts and what times the actual customers were there or leaving.

*WHY would AK lie about him being at the scene? That is the biggest question imo.

Dg i read that also there was problems verifying his wherabouts cos the receipts. I do wonder how well his business was doing before all this happened..and if he saw a way of making money by making the allegations he did about the police. Do you know at what point he made them at all?

 

[Isabella]

This scenario goes round and round and round.

Why did AK point the finger at PL?

Did the polizia tell AK that PL must have been involved because of the text msg that she "would see him later?" (according to various statements, yes the police did).

Why were the police so focused on PL in the first place? They were focused on him even before AK 'fingered' him as a suspect.

Who first brought up PL's name as being involved? The police? or AK?

Who first insisted that PL must be involved in the crime? (the police? or AK?)

NO ONE has answered the question: do you not hold the police at all responsible for arresting and holding PL for TWO WEEKS? Can you answer this question?

I dont blame the police at all. I blame Amanda Knox 100%. There is no proof whatsoever...that anyone but her was responsible.

JMO

 

[Isabella]

Logically AK could only deny it if she knew he wasn't there. And the only way she could know for sure he wasn't there is if she was there (at the time of the murder) to say PL wasn't there.

Her 'confession' is convoluted and sounds like something made up to appease someone (the polizia?). If she was going to finger someone black and claim she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears then why finger PL (who wasn't there) and not RG (who we know for sure WAS there)?

BTW, we know for sure AK was in the apt after the murder. We don't know for sure she was in the apt DURING the murder. The physical evidence doesn't tell us exactly WHEN she was there...only that she was there at some point before the police arrived and we know there is some co-mingled DNA. It also doesn't tell us WHAT she did or how her DNA came to be co-mingled. Could there be an innocent explanation? Perhaps, but I don't know.

The RS knife remains under suspicion so I can't call the results on that definitive.

The bra clasp also remains under suspicion and for good reason.

Maybe she didnt say about Guede because she was worried what he would say about her....

JMO

 

[dgfred]

Dg i read that also there was problems verifying his wherabouts cos the receipts. I do wonder how well his business was doing before all this happened..and if he saw a way of making money by making the allegations he did about the police. Do you know at what point he made them at all?

No I don't Isabella. The problem of the receipts was regarding whether the receipts were generated when the customers ordered or when they were leaving... I think it was the latter which is kind of strange anyway.

 

[Rosa Moline]

I've just finished the book Darkness Descending about this case. As interesting as it is, unfortunately it throws up more questions than answers and I'm still as undecided as I ever was.

The book is full of contradictions - for example - it states that Patrick sacked Amanda and had offered Meredith a job (another so-called motive) yet on the night of the murder he's sending her a text telling her not to worry about coming into work as it's not busy. But he'd sacked/fired her?! I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for this. Is it more police/Mignini spin i wonder?

Apparently if he had dismissed her, he said she could hand out flyers but not work behind the bar...now surely if that is what she'd actually been demoted to, surely he would have wanted her to come in - to drum up business!

 

[Isabella]

I've just finished the book Darkness Descending about this case. As interesting as it is, unfortunately it throws up more questions than answers and I'm still as undecided as I ever was.

The book is full of contradictions - for example - it states that Patrick sacked Amanda and had offered Meredith a job (another so-called motive) yet on the night of the murder he's sending her a text telling her not to worry about coming into work as it's not busy. But he'd sacked/fired her?! I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for this. Is it more police/Mignini spin i wonder?

Apparently if he had dismissed her, he said she could hand out flyers but not work behind the bar...now surely if that is what she'd actually been demoted to, surely he would have wanted her to come in - to drum up business!

As far as i know he had not fired her. IIRC he was talking about firing her.

Unless Migini wrote the book how is it spin by him?