Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case - Page 47

Bill Williams · 18th February 2012, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Amanda Knox is a criminal, a liar convicted for calunnia.
They are actually two liars and two murderers.

Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective.

Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito.

You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive.

I would appreciate it if you could:

1) PM me with such a list, or
2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's.

My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime.

I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this."

Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth.

I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously.

Charlie Wilkes · 18th February 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm a little disappointed that JHunter hasn't returned to the thread to continue discussing the points he raised.

Rolfe.

I'm not. What's the point?

Most people believe, on the basis of intuition about how they think they would handle an interrogation, that innocent suspects seldom or never incriminate themselves or confess under any circumstances short of physical torture.

US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know.

I knew, before Amanda Knox was ever arrested, that false confessions are disturbingly common and have resulted in many wrongful convictions. Equipped with this knowledge, I could see that her statements were in no way indicators of her guilt. In fact, the more I learned about her statements, the more I saw them as an obvious indication that she was being railroaded.

But people who formed a strong opinion without this knowledge, and are just now catching up to it, find some reason to believe it doesn't apply to this case - that even though Amanda's statements are demonstrably false and do not conform to the forensic facts of the crime, or even to the prosecution's theory of what happened, they somehow constitute a viable admission of guilt.

From what I have seen, nothing will ever convince such people otherwise.

Machiavelli · 18th February 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

I asked Frank about this in December, (fourth comment) and he assured me they would pick it up in Turin. Are you saying Frank Sfarzo is wrong? You've said that before and he turned out to be right, what makes this time different?

First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment.

Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his ensurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying?

Quote:

That's how it should have been for the appeal, but he wormed his way into that somehow,

He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice.
However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome.

Quote:

That is until Mignini was muzzled, or so we heard, after the Bob Graham interview debacle. Do you have any juicy inside details about that?

I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the origina, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle.

Quote:

It was also his case prosecuted again in court, complete with nuggets debunked even by Massei like the 'mixed blood'

The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression.

Quote:

As you pointed out repeatedly between the trial and the appeal, Costagliola could have made an entirely different case, instead it was just a rehash of the original trash--including some things too far-fetched for Massei.

No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General.

You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him?

Machiavelli · 18th February 2012, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective.

Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito.

You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive.

I would appreciate it if you could:

1) PM me with such a list, or
2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's.

My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime.

I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this."

Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth.

I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously.

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

Dan O. · 18th February 2012, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Grinder

$361 would be about 250 Euro. You need to multiply the dollar number by the .69895 number. The Euro was worth more than a dollar at 1.45 dollars for one Euro. You conversion number is reversed - it was .69895 Euro equals one dollar.

Thanks, I thought I checked that with Google Calculator but still got it wrong (probably my inflated estimate of self worth won't accept that another currency could be more valuable than the US$).

A quick search for [perugia atm withdrawal limit] revealed that 250 euro is the typical daily limit. This could be raised by the bank but a student would probably have the lower limit.

Originally Posted by Amanda's testimony

I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar.

Someone posted earlier that Meredith had withdrawn 250 euro from her account 2 days before her death. I don't believe that had been verified.

Kaosium · 18th February 2012, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Let's see what happens when the tapes hit YouTube.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This will happen sooner than you think.

What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this:

Originally Posted by Frank Sfarzo Perugia Shock 2/12/12

I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…

However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else?

Dan O. · 18th February 2012, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

this

Originally Posted by Ann Wise ABC News

According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day.

I wonder if that part of the story might be true? The rest with the olive-throwing and the proven falsehoods certainly makes anything he says dubious, but it is interesting that 400 matches the amount that might have been Meredith's rent money. Of course the next day Rudy was planning his departure from the country and might want to 'borrow' a car....

The record is all over the place on this story:

ABC News

Quote:

According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day. Then he said he saw Sollecito in his rear-view mirror approaching the car with a knife. Kokomani said that at that point he drove away.

Two+Two forum

Quote:

Kokomani claims to have had a confrontation with Amanda and Raffaele by rubbish bins. Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives but he defended himself from inside his car and drove away. He then saw Rudy in the driveway of the cottage. He claims that Rudy who he knows in the driveway of the cottage. Rudy offered him 50 Euros to borrow his car for the night and Kokomani declined so Rudy offered 250 Euros. There was a load noise from the cottage and Kokomani claims Rudy told him there was a birthday party at the cottage. Kokomani claims to have seen Raffaele coming up behind him with the knife out in his side mirror so he took off up the street. That is when he almost hit the tow-truck that was tending to the broken down car.

Sky News

Quote:

"Then he started asking if he could borrow my car to move some furniture he offered me 100 euro, then 200 and then 250. I said no because I needed it and I didn't trust him.

This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him.

Bill Williams · 18th February 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point.

Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position?

Malkmus · 18th February 2012, 08:49 PM

If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion.

Bill Williams · 18th February 2012, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

For the sake of transparency of my position, Machiavelli, I regard the way you've phrased the above as representative of the evasion I've received when asking for a list. (I believe I also read a post of yours about the murder acquital not being final until the SC has ruled, and now the claim is made that Knox is a "liar" because Hellmann sustained the Massei conviction. But I'll leave that point for now - but it is evidence for me of the application of differing standards.)

Also for the sake of transparency of my position, the "inconsistencies" I have seen (esp. Harry Rag's list) relate mainly to the nature of the interrogation - and the nature of that will not be in dispute forever. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

This is the difficulty I am having in trying to inderstand why the alleged "lies" or "inconsistencies" are central to the PGP position here. It's the common theme regardless of whether a PGP things this a crime of opportunity, a crime of jealously, or a crime of premeditated psychopathology.

It's why I ask, and I remain puzzled why I get no direct answer.

"Demonstration" is exactly what I am asking for - for example, Mignini, Massei, AND Hellmann disagree about the motive for the "confused inconsistency" regarding Knox's interrogation statements about Lumumba. When you read what they say, they "demonstrably" find differing motives for inconsistencies. Most of the PGP points I read on other boards bring in even wider divergence as to the nature of the statements made at interrogation.

And, of course, innocentatii have another version of which you are well aware, and which you do not subscribe to. Therefore, for me a listing from someone who is articulate and as informed as you would be helpful, because I regard the inconsistencies and mistruths claimed about Knox to be at best exaggerations of what she had said, and at worst outright fabrications.

So, it would be helpful to see a list - so that if I am being unfair to various PGP positions, it can be evaluated.

Otherwise I will remain with my bias that really PGP regard Knox to be a liar, "just because". I can fathom no other rationale for either the reluctance or the outright refusal to deal in specifics.

Can you not see my position?

Bill Williams · 18th February 2012, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Malkmus

If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion.

The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not.

There is a full discussion on IIP.

I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean.

Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6.

In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from.....

... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am.

There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after.

What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really.

Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation.

AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second.

Then again, all of this will be moot.

Kaosium · 18th February 2012, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment.

Everyone is aware of Mignini's attempt to silence Frank, however what 'falsehoods' is he under indictment for? Here's a description of the charges from your very favorite reporter on the case:

Originally Posted by Candace Dempsey 5/13/11

I’ve read Judge Paola Belsito’s one-page court order, which names Mignini as the “injured party” and complainant in a defamation lawsuit. A “Decree of Preventative Seizure,” it evokes Article 321 of the Italian criminal code and gives a two-graph explanation.

The first graph claims Perugia Shock must be seized because Frank has defamed PM Mignini “widely” by “evaluating” the prosecutor’s work during an ongoing trial, specifically by linking him to “drug dealers” and “vagrants.” As proof, Frank’s blog post “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” is attached to the court order. I’ve reproduced it below.

In the second graph, the order claims Perugia Shock must be seized because of the “well-founded danger” that Frank will repeat his criminal act (e.g., write) and that others will “exacerbate or extend the consequences of the crime” by spreading Frank’s “evaluations” across the Internet.

“The accessibility of the site to third parties allows an indeterminate number of people to inspect its contents, and then to spread any defamatory evaluations,” the order reads.

Those are the only explanations offered. Neither the court nor Google contacted Frank to get his side of the story. Mignini made the seizure request, faxed “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” to the court at some point, and Judge Belsito rubber-stamped his request.

That was enough for Google to silence Perugia Shock.

So how did Frank link Mignini to ”vagrants and drug dealers?” The court order lists no other defamations. Indeed, it consists merely of the cover sheet (see end of blog), the decree of seizure (containing the two graphs explained above) and a photocopy of Frank’s post.

Rather than link Mignini to lowlifes, Frank says the exact opposite. He describes the prosecutor’s dismay when super-witness/vagrant Antonio “Toto” Curatolo turns out to be a heroin dealer/user:

Frank wrote: “I remember the prosecutor was quite surprised, at the time when Toto came out, in hearing he was into drugs.”

So where are the 'falsehoods' for which he is under indictment? Curatolo and Kokomeni were drug-culture denizens of Perugia, they both ended up in prison as the result of drug charges.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his insurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying?

Frank, like you, is an Italian interested in the case who is familiar (now more than he wanted!) with the Italian legal system. His track record regarding developments in the case has been pretty damn good. You too have been right about some things, I did notice by the way that the insertion of Naruto at 9:26 wasn't included in the Hellmann report, which you told me would happen months ago, so your input is not valueless. I bring his opinion to your attention and wonder why you think he will not be indicted in Turin and he thinks it's assured. I know you don't like Frank, however that doesn't have much to do with whether Mignini will get indicted in Turin or not, nor does Mignini's trumped up charges which I've never quite understood the details on. Does Candace Dempsey have it right in that article? That it's about his referring to Mignini's embrace of Kokomani and Curatolo as ill-advised is what Frank is being 'charged' with?

As far as Mignini's case in Turin, being as it was only dismissed on the jurisdiction technicality it wouldn't surprise me if it was pressed in Turin. They did get a conviction in the first trial and a prison sentence, thus it ought to be replicable or at least an attempt made. However I would be willing to listen to your input as well as to why he won't be facing the charges again.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice.

I find that a particularly unlikely tale.

Yes, I did read that Mignini said he was asked to 'assist' on the case, but being as he (and Comodi) basically took it over and Costagliola was almost invisible throughout the appeal, that suggests to me they wanted to be on it, or Costagliola was trying to distance himself from it--or both.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome.

From what I've read the 112 page prosecution appeal is wide in latitude, so much so that some say it far oversteps what the Supreme Court has purview over. That sounds like Mignini at work! It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he was 'asked to assist' on that as well. Just speculation on my part however.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the original, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle.

I was referring to the part where it was given to Costagliola and shortly thereafter Mignini stopped being quoted in the press, yet one story actually 'sourced' a quote to an 'anonymous person not allowed to speak for the prosecution.' That quote sounded like Mignini and Comodi was taking his place with the press openly so I doubt it was her.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression.

No, it wasn't Amanda's blood and Meredith's blood mixed together, not even Massei thought so¹. It was Meredith's blood that Rudy got in Amanda's bathroom when he washed up there. Finding Amanda's DNA in Amanda's sink is expected (and virtually impossible to avoid considering the curious 'collection methods') and Massei is generous when he allows for his 'vigorous scrubbing theory,' but not even he will pretend there was actually mixed blood from both of them there. There's also the fact Amanda had no wounds, nor is there any explanation for how she got the blood on her from the murder room as there's no trace of her there. The reality is there's no reason to even think the DNA mixed because of the 'inappropriate methods' as Hellmann laid out quite definitively.²

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General.

You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him?

Not quite, because he is the impetus. They all got sucked down into his whirlpool, but he's at the center of it. It's his theory and his case. If Costagliola can 'ask him to assist' on the appeal, Galati can ask for input on the Supreme Court appeal. The amount of 'support' he receives from others (outside Comodi) could also be mere formality for the benefit of the institution, not as much support of Mignini because in the end it doesn't amount to much more than the pretty words they say.

It's kinda like at the end of the original trial where Amanda 'thanks' Mignini for ~~destroying her life~~ prosecuting her, or Hellmann saying nice things about Mignini at the end of the appeal. It's words they have to say because they're part of the script and the way the scene is blocked, not because they mean them.

Have you read the prosecution appeal? Who do you think is the legal mind behind it?

¹

Originally Posted by Massei PMF 278-281

TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM

The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed.
Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items:

On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood.

Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim.

In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.

Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.

On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.

On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.

On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.

The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.

On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.

Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.

It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.

The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.

²

Originally Posted by Hellmann-Zanetti Report: Traces of Blood in the Small Bathroom (pp. 110 - 114)

Footage of this procedure was shown in Court: Officer Brocci is clearly seen to run the same swab of blotting paper again and again several times, with a dragging motion, from the rim of the sink down to the drain and back, and on both sides [of the sink]. The same procedure for the bidet, where the swab – presumably a different one – is used to accurately clean the drain area.

About this procedure, Dr Stefanoni observed “that apparently this might not seem appropriate for collection” but that in that specific context it was, “because of the typology of traces that were collected” which “were clearly pinkish, hence they appeared as traces definitely mixed with water and they were seemingly all of the same origin because they were seepages…a rivulet of sorts starting from above and ending in the drain”.

In her judgement it was improbable that this was a case of two DNA [samples] that were separate at the origin and which then combined in a single trace; as can be read in the ruling on page 212, this was “because of both the single location concerned and the same appearance of very diluted blood”. A statement whose generality and inconsistency need hardly be stressed, all the more so since it is in stark contrast with another statement, much more logical and convincing, made by Stefanoni herself and quoted below.

Now, it is not possible to agree with what Dr. Stefanoni claimed about the correctness of the sampling procedure of the traces on the sink and on the bidet.

It is obvious even to a layperson that the two bathroom fixtures concerned, intended for personal hygiene, are a natural repository of DNA, that is released easily when washing: epithelial cells, organic fluids (sweat, saliva), hair and body hair flow swept by the water and, at least partially, remain on the ceramic surface, particularly in the area around the drain, and there they reside, short of a frequent and accurate cleaning.

It must be remembered that Lead Officer Brocci had occasion to state that she had also collected (ruling, p. 100) a sample of hair on the sink, of whose genetic analysis, however, there is no mention, if it was ever performed. And on the faucet, blood was found belonging only to Knox.

The small bathroom at issue was used by the two girls, Meredith and Amanda, while the other two (Mezzetti and Romanelli) used the larger bathroom.

It seems, then, wholly believable that the DNA of the two girls could be found on the fixtures of the small bathroom.

In such a situation, evidence collection by means of repeatedly rubbing from rim to drain and back, on both sides with the same swab of blotting paper, is, contrary to what Dr. Stefanoni claimed, manifestly the least appropriate way to obtain a reassuring result. Surely in this manner all of the DNA present on the path was collected, creating a mixture that probably did not exist originally.

We must remember what was stated in a general sense by Stefanoni herself and written on page 221 of the ruling: it is not possible to date a trace nor establish whether one was left before another.

More precisely, with specific reference to the traces on the sink and on the bidet, she stated, as can be read in the ruling on page 228 “that they were dry and it was impossible to date them or to determine if the trace attributable to Knox was left first and then that attributable to the victim, or the other way around”.

Thus it seems totally irrelevant, for purposes of a decision unfavorable to Knox, that her DNA was found mixed with the victim’s DNA on the bathroom fixtures.

If, indeed, the mixture had been pre-existent at the moment of application [apposizione], it should also have been detected on the toilet lid, on the light switch and on the door framework: this did not happen, no doubt because the person who put the victim’s blood in that precise spot did not find any DNA previously deposited.

Even more questionable are the genetic results from the samples taken from the cotton-swab container: according to Stefanoni (ruling p. 223) a third person could even be present, also of female sex. And this is because the alleles where very homogeneous in height, and one could think of pairings different from those attributed to Knox and Kercher, so involving other people besides those already present. An opinion shared by Dr. Torricelli, consultant for the Kercher family (ruling, page 243).

Which leads one to think of the superposition of traces at different times — from the jar [barattolo] having passed through several hands — rather than a single contact by the murderer.

So we cannot agree with the relevant conclusions reached in the ruling, on page 405 et seq..

According to the first-level Court, the two defendants, stained with Meredith’s blood, are supposed to have gone into the adjacent small bathroom and washed themselves there (it will be remembered that according to the first judges the footprint on the mat had been left by Sollecito’s right foot).

But if it had been so, one cannot explain why the smallest genetic trace of Sollecito was not found in the small bathroom, despite the fact that the scrubbing due to the cleansing should involve the loss of flaking cells (as we read again in the ruling).

The fact that only Amanda’s DNA was found together with Meredith’s leads us to believe that the mixture was created by the Police during an inappropriate collection operation.

(bolding emphasis mine)

Kaosium · 18th February 2012, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

The record is all over the place on this story:

ABC News

Two+Two forum

Sky News

This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him.

Thank you Dan-O!

I didn't realize there was more to this. It occurs to me that at those exchange rates $400 would equal about 250 Euros, wouldn't it?

By the time I first got interested Kokomani was so badly discredited not even the bunnies would bring him up, thus I never spent much time studying anything he said. It would not surprise me to find out he dealt with Rudy after the crime, and the one thing that is consistent is he was offered good money for the use of his car and he didn't trust him enough, outright saying that in one story.

Machiavelli · 19th February 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point.

It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann.

Quote:

Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position?

No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me.

I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event.

The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years).

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events.

Grinder · 19th February 2012, 07:25 AM

Bill the lies meme has been the center point of the PR Kon-Tiki since very early on in their guilt campaign. Even the police chief's comment the day Amanda was arrested said that the kids had told them many untruths.

It was always clear that most of these "lies" were not really lies and most cases made no sense for them if they were guilty. I speculated in the past that if one of the kids was involved it was Raffaele based on the things he said.

The Mansey article demonstrates that Raffaele was not articulate in communications about events. If he were guilty with or without Amanda, there is no reason he would say they went to a party that night. It was clearly the night before and wouldn't stand up.

The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1.

RoseMontague · 19th February 2012, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

From Amanda's testimony:

Quote:

GB: You saw -- you were shown the written statement, and underneath it thereis a signature. This statement which was written on a computer, was itwritten at your dictation? Did you dictate the words that were written in the statement?

AK: No. They wrote; they asked me: "Okay, what do you imagine?" And I said "Maybe I imagine this," and they said "Okay, let's write this, and thenyou tell us if it's all right or not. So they were writing, saying "Okay, you met Patrick at Piazza Grimana, for example, you saw this, you covered your ears." "Okay, fine, fine.

"GB: Okay. But when they made you sign the statement, you didn't explicitly ask to reread it or to change anything? AK: They gave it to me to read, but...well, I did like this and then I just signed.

Bruce Fisher · 19th February 2012, 08:21 AM

I will forever be amazed at the love the guilters have for Rudy Guede. Their group claims to exist in order to preserving the memory of Meredith Kercher. So why do they feel the need to constantly coddle the man that murdered her?

Guilters have recently done everything possible to prove that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money. Of course there is absolutely no proof of this so they must speculate. Each guilter has his or her own story of how it might have happened. All fiction.

Hellmann described Guede's proven history of criminal activity and the guilters are appalled. They just can't believe that a judge would possibly insinuate that his recent past had anything at all to do with Meredith's murder.

This protection of Guede has always exposed the guilters true intentions. There is absolutely no way to convince them that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. When it comes to judging Knox and Sollecito, speculation is perfectly fine. When it comes to judging Guede, proven facts are ignored.

Dan O. · 19th February 2012, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Grinder

The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1.

I had read somewhere that it was from reading the interview in the paper that caused Giobbi to call for Raffaele to be interviewed again on the 5th. Whether this was speculation or something Giobbi had said seems impossible to find now. Does Giobbi read English or would that interview have to have been translated to Italian for him?

anglolawyer · 19th February 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann.

No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me.

I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event.

The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years).

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events.

Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she:
1 was screaming (suggesting distress)
2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period
3 was deprived of refreshment
4 was not afforded legal assistance and
5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators

If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now.

anglolawyer · 19th February 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this:

However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else?

Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance).

Bob001 · 19th February 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

.... US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know......

I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Innoc...-93143179.html
http://www.billywaynecope.net/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060491...ery-rock-hill/

Perhaps not surprisingly, the prosecutor's office (or someone connected with it) has created a web site contending that he's guilty.
http://www.billywaynecope.com/

So does this guy have any chance of getting out of prison? Or at least getting a new trial?

Machiavelli · 19th February 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

From Amanda's testimony:

The little problem is that Knox's testimony takes place two years later, questioned by her friendly lawyers, and still is vague, contradictory, changing and elusive. When I mean "claim" I mean a position expressed at a close time to the fact, like the hand written note, or like her December 17. interrogation. Even in her statement at the preliminary hearing she lacked any factual claim.
In fact, even in her testimony of 2009 she lacks factual consistence: she contradicts the sequence she had described previously about the text message, she asserts that the police treated her unkindly only as long as she did not make the name of Lumumba (which happened before 01:45) and then, after that she was consoled and "treated like a person".
Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person.

Machiavelli · 19th February 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she:
1 was screaming (suggesting distress)
2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period
3 was deprived of refreshment
4 was not afforded legal assistance and
5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators

If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now.

I am not talking about "criticism".
I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation.

What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof.

Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions.

The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence.

The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation.

anglolawyer · 19th February 2012, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

Maybe someone went to a mental hospital and commissioned a forgery... but more likely Quennell posted it on his website and this is a screen shot.

Michael is now claiming it's a forgery created by YOU.

Kaosium · 19th February 2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance).

Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen.

If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen.

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

anglolawyer · 19th February 2012, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I am not talking about "criticism".
I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation.

What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof.

Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions.

The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence.

The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation.

I expect we shall hear Amanda's account in her slander trial ( which arises from one of the writs flung out like confetti by Mignini.
1 I don't see why, if she were guilty, she would be screaming. I have sat in on police interviews and never heard the accused scream. Anyway, we agree she was screaming, suggesting distress.
2 she had already spent many hours at the Questura since 02/11/2007 and was exhausted. The police counted on taking advantage of this exhaustion by scheduling a 12 man tag-team to be on hand throughout the night.
3 let's see the custody record, which ought to detail refreshments provided, including breaks for rest, themselves including comfort breaks
4 I disagree. To suggest, in effect, that it makes no difference to the outcome whether a person entilted to a lawyer is provided with one is to denude the relevant law of any meaning. A lawyer would have advised against co-operating with police suggestions that she should try to 'imagine' what happened, would have insisted on rest and refreshment and on proper recording. Had that happened, Mignini would have had no case at all. Your own supreme court ruled the statements unusable for breach of the important right to legal counsel and I am shocked that, as a lawyer yourself (if I understand correctly) you would argue otherwise.
5 I refer you to my comparison of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements upthread. I would be interested on your comments on the evolution of what she said in those four hours. For instance, how came it about that at 1.45 Lumumba was a frequent and welcome visitor to the apartment but by 5.45 all reference to these visits has gone and now Amanda is afraid of him. Neither is true, of course, but what do you think prompted Amanda to advance these inconsistent accounts?

Of course, until we hear (or see) the tapes, we cannot know what they show. We have to content ourselves, for the time being, with drawing reasonable inferences from their suppression by those responsible for making and preserving the evidence they contain.

And others probably have greater knowledge than me, but Mignini certainly seems to be more than trigger-happy with proceedings against those who dare to criticise this corrupt prosecution, including The West Seattle Herald, Frank Sfarzo, Amanda herself and her parents.

halides1 · 19th February 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene:

Bob001,

Some of my friends and I have discussed this case as one that should be pursued by grass-roots activism. Here is a blog that is generally pro-prosecution, but in this instance even they have real problems with Mr. Cope's situation. ETA, As I have said previously, I think that the conspiracy alleged between Cope and the man whom I believe is the true assailant is on par with the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution in this case: neither one makes a lick of sense.

anglolawyer · 19th February 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen.

If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen.

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

If the recordings are digital, copying them would be easy. A good cop might have preserved a copy.

I agree completely about the inferences you draw from the non-production of these recordings, in precisely the same way that deductions could be made about the non-production of Stefanoni's data files, before they actually showed up and confirmed them, and many many other points of a similar kind.

Dan O. · 19th February 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

Malkmus · 19th February 2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not.

There is a full discussion on IIP.

I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean.

Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6.

In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from.....

... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am.

There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after.

What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really.

Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation.

AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second.

Then again, all of this will be moot.

Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain.
And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think:

Originally Posted by Malkmus

I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes

Bill Williams · 19th February 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person.

Machiavelli - out of all the libels you fling at Knox, this is one of them. Have you read the Hellmann-Zanetti motivation's report on why they upheld the calunnia conviction?

Hellmann is saying that Knox caved into the interrogator's suggestions that Lumumba was there. Hellmann specficially REJECTS the prosecution claim that:

Quote:

According to the prosecution theory, Amanda Knox, at this point exhausted by the long interrogation and especially demoralized after having learned from her interrogators that Raffaele Sollecito had (so to speak) abandoned her to her fate, denying [her] the alibi that she had offered up until then (having spent the whole night together at Sollecito’s house), launched a final attempt at defense, by reporting more or less what really happened in the residence on Via Della Pergola, but substituting Patrick Lumumba for Rudy Guede: “black man for black man”, in the Public Minister’s words.

In other words, it is the prosecution who said Knox lied. As do you.

Hellmann, in positing another "motive" for caluunia, which is not "lying, says it best:

Quote:

To determine the real significance [per valutare la reale portata] of the “spontaneous” statements and the note written practically right afterward, we must take into account the context in which the former were given and the latter was written.

To make it "lying" Knox's statements needed to be seen as "spontaneous", and note how Hellmann puts the word "Spontaneous" in quotes, and also further shows translator Anna Donnino to have been less than helpful in this process. Donnino may have been an honest person and a reliable witness, but at the interrogation she is unprofessional and introduces stuff unfair prejudical. I full suspect Donnino was trying to be helpful, but if I ever see her coming my way to help me, I will run in the other direction.

Quote:

The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later.

Hellmann goes on further to use Donnino's tesitmony to destroy any sense that Knox's admissions could not be regarded as spontaneous, and therefore not in and of themselves lies:

Quote:

Beyond the formal aspect, the context in which those statements were made was clearly characterized by a psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden: witness Donnino reports that an outright emotional shock on the part of Amanda Knox occurred when the matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised.

"The matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised." Who raised them? Knox? Donnino? No. Donnino herself, testifies that Lumumba was brought into the room by someone else.

At the end of the day, though, Hellmann concludes that while "understandable", Knox is convictable of calunnia while maintaining that "lying" was not her agenda....

Quote:

In that context, it is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer.

Also.......

Quote:

(all this) makes it seem like the confused narration of a dream, albeit a macabre one, and not the description of events that actually happened — which confirms the state that Amanda Knox was in at the time she made the spontaneous statements and wrote the note, and rules out the possibility that the purpose of either could have been to conceal [tacere, lit. "keep quiet"] the name of the actual perpetrator, Rudy Guede, [even] on the assumption that it was known to her, as a co-conspirator [concorrente].

Once again, I need a list of lies. This is not one of them, and demonstrably not one of them.

That you continue to do the two things below makes me suspect that simply, irrational hatred is running this show,

1) continuing to make bald aseertions like, "she's a convicted liar"
2) unwilling to actually list the specifics of any lies claimed

I write this now abandoning the hope that even as a courtesy I can be provided with such a list, but in the hope that a lurker out there will not be taken it by the bald faced, hateful assertions.

That's about where I am right now.

Bill Williams · 19th February 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain.
And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think:

The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told."

How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word.

Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster.

If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point.

So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts".

I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia.

But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear.

That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed.

Bill Williams · 19th February 2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

I am becoming very frustrated with PGP who are invited to assert their case, by drawing up a list of lies, who never actually do it.... but they reserve to right to call someone a liar, perhaps hoping that by sheer repetition someone else might believe it.

It is also very plain that the main reason why Frank's face has not been rearranged over the tapes is that these "safe hands" in possession are outside of the control of the Italian judiciary and police forces. Once it becomes known who these "safe hands" belong to, it will be plain why they are not being released today.

Like many things in life, timing is important and there will not be many posts from folk like Machiavelli once the fullness of time arrives. Other folks with similar views and similar websites will be paying for consultations with their own lawyers, too.

RoseMontague · 19th February 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

If nothing else the existence of the tape points to the cops and Mignini as being the liars. My guess is that it will also show his personal interrogation of Amanda after the 1:45AM statement and effectively end his career.

Malkmus · 19th February 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told."

How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word.

Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster.

If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point.

So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts".

I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia.

But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear.

That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed.

Not sure I understand what the disagreement is here. I too believe that the tapes would support fully what Amanda stated happened during the interrogation. I think the only disagreement is over what is the "backbone" of the PGP belief system. To me, if the tapes come out it would show unequivocally that Amanda was innocent of this crime - the interrogation is, after all, what got her into the whole mess and without the statements she supposedly wrote during it none of us would be here discussing this case. Therefore, any "list of lies" thereafter would be fruitless.

Kaosium · 19th February 2012, 03:57 PM

Just to make the distinction here: PMF is not just thousands of posts decrying the existence of the JREF threads, 'outing' posters in the thread with pictures and work histories, and 'importing' their posts to piss on daily, it's also this which is the largest repository of materials on the case available to the public. That's just one section, which includes the videos of Amanda testifying, the tapes of it and translations, as well as translations of Raffaele's diary. At the top you can download the 400 page Massei Report. Other sections include translations of the ~20 page Matteini Report (their first court appearance) foreign articles, and links to dozens of newspaper accounts of the proceedings.

That archive afforded them to some a stature in the case far beyond their analytic ability, which they included (free of charge!) to the eventual embarrassment of the ones they influenced. Here's¹ Andrea Vogt, one of the only two American reporters following the case regularly, quoting their 'forensics moderator' to refute expert opinion on the forensics in the case. Laura Wray works in the fashion industry. Her 'analysis' of the DNA evidence was divorced² from³ reality.⁴ That she could affect coverage of the case on a crucial issue like this because of the existence of PMF is astounding--and that sort of thing ought to be up for skeptical inquiry. They're just a bunch of people that started posting about a case and built a website with an archive, their 'analysis' is deliberately skewed by bias, their ability to affect coverage on the issue is a phenomena that shouldn't go unnoticed.

¹

Originally Posted by Andrea Vogt Seattle PI 1/15/09

But Laura Wray, an American molecular biologist living in Milan, Italy, who works regularly with DNA samples, said she believes many of the defense claims of contamination or poor match are "groundless."

Concerns about contamination aside, investigators have definitively matched DNA found on the bra clasp to Sollecito, said Wray, who has followed the case closely.

²

Originally Posted by New Scientist 11/30/09

In the final stages of the high-profile trial in Perugia, Italy, in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are charged with the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, DNA evidence brought by the prosecution is being questioned by nine US specialists in DNA forensics.

A verdict is expected on 7 December. Knox and Sollecito are pleading not guilty. In an open letter, the US specialists outline their concerns with two pieces of DNA evidence that are central to the case against Knox and Sollecito.

The defence has already suggested that the amount of DNA allegedly linking the pair to the crime is too small to be definitive. The letter raises the possibility that this DNA was introduced through contamination of the evidence and concludes that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred".

³

Originally Posted by Conti-Vecchiotti Report

ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

THE EXPERTS

Prof. Carla Vecchiotti

Prof. Stefano Conti

⁴

Originally Posted by Hellmann-Zanetti Report

Therefore, leaving aside the ambiguous interpretation of the graphs, which has already been discussed, this Court holds it can accept the theory of a probable contamination: because when the item was collected, none of the necessary precautions were taken to guarantee its integrity; because it seems very improbable that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was left only on the hook, and not on the parts of the bra material which were easier to grasp, and [indeed] necessary to grasp when trying to cut or tear it from the young woman’s body; because it is not likely that Raffaele Sollecito (as well as Amanda Knox), hypothetically protagonists on a par with Rudy Guede, took part in the attack inside a room which was certainly not large, without also leaving DNA and their own prints on other parts of the body or on objects and clothing, where in contrast Rudy Guede, who is certainly guilty, left DNA and prints inside the room on several parts of the body of the attacked woman (in particular in her vagina) and on her clothing (sweatshirt, material from the bra) and on objects present there.

Machiavelli · 19th February 2012, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I expect we shall hear Amanda's account in her slander trial ( which arises from one of the writs flung out like confetti by Mignini.
1 I don't see why, if she were guilty, she would be screaming. I have sat in on police interviews and never heard the accused scream. Anyway, we agree she was screaming, suggesting distress.

You don't see it while I see it perfectly. It belongs to Amanda's account she made herself, she said she had a sort of hysterical breakdown.
I probably don't agree quite with the word "scream", because we are more likely talking about "wailing", a person crying loudly and theatrically.
But it is also a scene vividly described by Anna Donnino: the scene is clear, there is no mystery about it. The fact is, that Knox is what Lumumba says: an actress. The purpose of a "screaming" is to stage an emotional loss of control, play a state of alteration and confusion, in order to appear credible as she is about to change completely tune and script.
Staging an emotional or physical altered condition is something people who feel under intense threat sometimes do. Guilty people do it under interrogation. A few days ago guy did it while he and his family were threatned and kidnapped during a robbery. Is a desperate attempt to manipulate the ones who are cornering them.

Quote:

2 she had already spent many hours at the Questura since 02/11/2007 and was exhausted. The police counted on taking advantage of this exhaustion by scheduling a 12 man tag-team to be on hand throughout the night.

Inconsistent and unsupported claim. Knox had attended classes and was doing her homework that night, shich she described as "very difficult", still at around 10:00 pm. Then she was making cartwheels and stretches.
A person who is exhausted does not do homework, and is not still studying at 10:00 pm; and doesn't relax doing cartwheels and physical exercise. An exhausted person doesn't take classes at all (which don't even belong to her university course).
In fact Amanda had not been summoned to the police station, she had no need to be there, an exhaused person, who is not forced to do so, does not walk to the police station and stay there hours with no need. An exhausted person deprived of sleep would stay at home and go to sleep.
Any claim of deprivation of sleep and exhaustion requires some evidence, and the facts as you see are just evidence of the opposite.

Quote:

3 let's see the custody record, which ought to detail refreshments provided, including breaks for rest, themselves including comfort breaks

This is again absurd. There is nobody who "oughts" anything. There is nothing more to prove. The witness accounts are clear and her own account was not disproving them. Breaks for rest, confort rests? (?!) What are you talking about? Knox's interrogation was over at 01:45.
Again, to make any claim of denial of foor or brakes, it is those who make this claim who have a burden of proof, or at least bring evidence. Here we didn't even have a claim!

Quote:

4 I disagree. To suggest, in effect, that it makes no difference to the outcome whether a person entilted to a lawyer is provided with one is to denude the relevant law of any meaning. A lawyer would have advised against co-operating with police suggestions that she should try to 'imagine' what happened, would have insisted on rest and refreshment and on proper recording...

But you are mixing up things.
Knox was not just "entitled to a lawyer". She became entitled to a lawyer at 01:45, but the lawyer shoudl protect her as a suspect, not as a witness. After thet, she was not asked at all to "imagine" what happened (even before, she was asked about information she knew).
She released a stetement that might be inadmissible against her as a suspect. But this does not allow her to be shielded if she tells the false as a witness. She did not accuse herself alone, she accused another person. She acted as a witness. And this is a point.
She released a false witness report and there is no claim about the lack of lawyer that can change or nullify this. This will remain, cannot be explain by poin 4 in terms of legitimacy, this is something different and requires its own explanation.

Quote:

5 I refer you to my comparison of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements upthread. I would be interested on your comments on the evolution of what she said in those four hours. For instance, how came it about that at 1.45 Lumumba was a frequent and welcome visitor to the apartment but by 5.45 all reference to these visits has gone and now Amanda is afraid of him. Neither is true, of course, but what do you think prompted Amanda to advance these inconsistent accounts?

In 01:45 Lumumba is not referred to as a "frequent" visitor.
What I think is Knox changed her strategy with her "crisis" during the 01:45 interrogation, and consequently she adjusted her scenario building it in steps. She realizes the police thinks she was protecting the murderer; she realizes that, since now her goal is to be believed playing the part of a witness, since she witnessed the murder they would need an explanation for why she didn't talk before. Her account can't stand without providin this and other explanations. This is why she decides to release a further spontatìneous statement. So why didn't she talk before? Because she is very afraid of Patrick. It's a new element, functional to repair the holes and bolster her new version.

Quote:

Of course, until we hear (or see) the tapes, we cannot know what they show. We have to content ourselves, for the time being, with drawing reasonable inferences from their suppression by those responsible for making and preserving the evidence they contain.

Actually, you first should prove they existed and that there was any suppression, and you also shall know what legally "evidence" means: police tapes of this kind are not admissible in court.

In fact, in my limited experince with police interrogation videos, I realized that they are often not conclusive at all. I recall two videos, one was a police video in which the confession appeared sincere and uncoerced, but it was coerced. Another one was a prosecution interrogation in which the witness appeared coerced, the prosecutor was blackmailing and threatning, but the testimony was not coerced. It is often not possible to infer coercion by a video, for multiple reasons, among them that coercion is a subjective condition.
It is not the event but subsequent the claims and accounts of the witnesses, what allows to see the diference. In these two cases, their subsequent claims were the determinant thing to understand what was coerced and what was not. The consistence and credibility of claims makes the difference.

TomPaine · 19th February 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Not sure I understand what the disagreement is here...To me, if the tapes come out it would show unequivocally that Amanda was innocent of this crime - the interrogation is, after all, what got her into the whole mess and without the statements she supposedly wrote during it none of us would be here discussing this case. Therefore, any "list of lies" thereafter would be fruitless.

Amanda Knox does not, and should not need to prove that she is innocent of the crime. She only needs to show that the state, using all the powers at its disposal, cannot show her guilty of the crime. My understanding of the case is that she is, in fact, innocent, but her innocence or guilt is a secondary issue. The question that interests me is on what grounds a state (in this case, the Italian state) attempts to prove someone's guilt. In this respect, the Italian state, in the person of Mignigni, failed miserably. As bad as the murder of a promising young woman at the cusp of her life, is the incarceration of another--for most of her life--to salve the vanity of highly placed state officials who accused someone too early and had little real evidence on which to base their accusations.

Machiavelli · 19th February 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

To make it "lying" Knox's statements needed to be seen as "spontaneous", and note how Hellmann puts the word "Spontaneous" in quotes, and also further shows translator Anna Donnino to have been less than helpful in this process. Donnino may have been an honest person and a reliable witness, but at the interrogation she is unprofessional and introduces stuff unfair prejudical. I full suspect Donnino was trying to be helpful, but if I ever see her coming my way to help me, I will run in the other direction

.

Sorry but this makes no sense. Hellmann sentenced Amanda Knox to three years imprisonment for lying. She ws found guilty of calunnia. To be guilty of calunnia one has to provide false information voluntarily.
The fact that Hellmann is unable to motivate his conclusion logically, it's not my fault. He asserts or implies somehow a lack of spontaneity, but he convicts her for lying out of her free will. This is inconsistent (like the rest of what Hellmann says) but he did found her guilty of telling lies voluntarily.
Because, legally the term "spontaneous" does not mean emotionally spontaneous in the common sense, but just voluntarily released without an interrogation, her statement is classified as spontaneous. Because she released it on her own decision while she was capable to will and understand (so assumes Hellmann to convict her), she is lying.

Quote:

Hellmann goes on further to use Donnino's tesitmony to destroy any sense that Knox's admissions could not be regarded as spontaneous, and therefore not in and of themselves lies:

Hellmann convicted her for lying, you shall divert your complaints towards his office.
If he asserts that her declarations are coerced, and few lines after that they were voluntary and she accused Lumumba on her own choice, and convicts her, this means he has a serious problem in writing motivation reports (we already knew that).

Quote:

Once again, I need a list of lies. This is not one of them, and demonstrably not one of them.

Amanda Knox's false accusation is definitely a further stockpile of lies, that are demonstrated to be so, and acknowledged as such by Hellmann's conviction. However, when I think at her lies I mean lies that she told even before her false accusation.

Quote:

That you continue to do the two things below makes me suspect that simply, irrational hatred is running this show,

1) continuing to make bald aseertions like, "she's a convicted liar"

There are people here who make bald and false assertions of the kind: Mignini is corrupt, Mignini is a liar, Stefanoni is a liar, and worse. With no proof, no evidence, no rational element.
I can pick up a legal paper signed by Hellmann that declares that Knox is a convicted liar, and state this with full backing.

Quote:

2) unwilling to actually list the specifics of any lies claimed

It's you who asked specifically about Knox's lies. It is not that I came here to specifically to claim and explain that point. I consider this point of evidence still as sentisive material, thus not to be "given to the enemy".
But you claim that - this is your belief - that the guilters are clinging to Knox's lies as if it was the main evidence. This is not correct for what concerns myself. Lies are one point in the evidence. But for example, the autopsy report and the physical scene, to me is another damning piece of evidence. The evidence contains many points, is long and articulate, and crushing.
Hatred possibly is not a correct word. I don't think my "hatred" against Knox is any different than the feeling of anyone for an individul whom they know to be a murderer. If you know someone committed a crime, there is an intrinsic sense of justice that leads you to stigmatize such individual.
I don't think I feel more hatred towards Knox than against other criminals; in fact, there are people in Italy against whom my feelings are much worse than those against Knox. Even within this case. If I had to chose a person as a target for a vendetta I would never chose Knox; within this case in my "list of people to hate" I would chose Vecchiotti and Hellmann, then a number of others, long before Amanda Knox.
Actually I feel almost nothing for Amanda Knox. No sympathy, but no strong feeling of any kind. Knox to me is no interesting charachter.

TomPaine · 19th February 2012, 05:49 PM

[quote=Machiavelli;8039646]
But it is also a scene vividly described by Anna Donnino: the scene is clear, there is no mystery about it. The fact is, that Knox is what Lumumba says: an actress."

This is not a fact, but your interpretation based on speculation of what actually happened.

Unfortunately, although the Perugian police kept copious records of tapped telephone conversations before and after this interrogation (for which they had sufficient funds, and which never provided any incriminating evidence), although they had sufficient funds to finance a fanciful video recreation of the crime (some $150,000.00!), they claim they lacked the funds to record this particular, crucial interview.

18th February 2012, 06:55 PM	#1845
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	Originally Posted by Grinder $361 would be about 250 Euro. You need to multiply the dollar number by the .69895 number. The Euro was worth more than a dollar at 1.45 dollars for one Euro. You conversion number is reversed - it was .69895 Euro equals one dollar. Thanks, I thought I checked that with Google Calculator but still got it wrong (probably my inflated estimate of self worth won't accept that another currency could be more valuable than the US$). A quick search for [perugia atm withdrawal limit] revealed that 250 euro is the typical daily limit. This could be raised by the bank but a student would probably have the lower limit. Originally Posted by Amanda's testimony I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar. Someone posted earlier that Meredith had withdrawn 250 euro from her account 2 days before her death. I don't believe that had been verified.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

18th February 2012, 07:30 PM	#1846
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Let's see what happens when the tapes hit YouTube. Originally Posted by Bill Williams This will happen sooner than you think. What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this: Originally Posted by Frank Sfarzo Perugia Shock 2/12/12 I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out… However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

18th February 2012, 07:43 PM	#1847
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	Originally Posted by Kaosium this Originally Posted by Ann Wise ABC News According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day. I wonder if that part of the story might be true? The rest with the olive-throwing and the proven falsehoods certainly makes anything he says dubious, but it is interesting that 400 matches the amount that might have been Meredith's rent money. Of course the next day Rudy was planning his departure from the country and might want to 'borrow' a car.... The record is all over the place on this story: ABC News Quote: According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day. Then he said he saw Sollecito in his rear-view mirror approaching the car with a knife. Kokomani said that at that point he drove away. Two+Two forum Quote: Kokomani claims to have had a confrontation with Amanda and Raffaele by rubbish bins. Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives but he defended himself from inside his car and drove away. He then saw Rudy in the driveway of the cottage. He claims that Rudy who he knows in the driveway of the cottage. Rudy offered him 50 Euros to borrow his car for the night and Kokomani declined so Rudy offered 250 Euros. There was a load noise from the cottage and Kokomani claims Rudy told him there was a birthday party at the cottage. Kokomani claims to have seen Raffaele coming up behind him with the knife out in his side mirror so he took off up the street. That is when he almost hit the tow-truck that was tending to the broken down car. Sky News Quote: "Then he started asking if he could borrow my car to move some furniture he offered me 100 euro, then 200 and then 250. I said no because I needed it and I didn't trust him. This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

18th February 2012, 08:49 PM	#1849
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822	If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion.
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822

18th February 2012, 09:56 PM	#1852
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Machiavelli First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment. Everyone is aware of Mignini's attempt to silence Frank, however what 'falsehoods' is he under indictment for? Here's a description of the charges from your very favorite reporter on the case: Originally Posted by Candace Dempsey 5/13/11 I’ve read Judge Paola Belsito’s one-page court order, which names Mignini as the “injured party” and complainant in a defamation lawsuit. A “Decree of Preventative Seizure,” it evokes Article 321 of the Italian criminal code and gives a two-graph explanation. The first graph claims Perugia Shock must be seized because Frank has defamed PM Mignini “widely” by “evaluating” the prosecutor’s work during an ongoing trial, specifically by linking him to “drug dealers” and “vagrants.” As proof, Frank’s blog post “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” is attached to the court order. I’ve reproduced it below. In the second graph, the order claims Perugia Shock must be seized because of the “well-founded danger” that Frank will repeat his criminal act (e.g., write) and that others will “exacerbate or extend the consequences of the crime” by spreading Frank’s “evaluations” across the Internet. “The accessibility of the site to third parties allows an indeterminate number of people to inspect its contents, and then to spread any defamatory evaluations,” the order reads. Those are the only explanations offered. Neither the court nor Google contacted Frank to get his side of the story. Mignini made the seizure request, faxed “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” to the court at some point, and Judge Belsito rubber-stamped his request. That was enough for Google to silence Perugia Shock. So how did Frank link Mignini to ”vagrants and drug dealers?” The court order lists no other defamations. Indeed, it consists merely of the cover sheet (see end of blog), the decree of seizure (containing the two graphs explained above) and a photocopy of Frank’s post. Rather than link Mignini to lowlifes, Frank says the exact opposite. He describes the prosecutor’s dismay when super-witness/vagrant Antonio “Toto” Curatolo turns out to be a heroin dealer/user: Frank wrote: “I remember the prosecutor was quite surprised, at the time when Toto came out, in hearing he was into drugs.” So where are the 'falsehoods' for which he is under indictment? Curatolo and Kokomeni were drug-culture denizens of Perugia, they both ended up in prison as the result of drug charges. Originally Posted by Machiavelli Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his insurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying? Frank, like you, is an Italian interested in the case who is familiar (now more than he wanted!) with the Italian legal system. His track record regarding developments in the case has been pretty damn good. You too have been right about some things, I did notice by the way that the insertion of Naruto at 9:26 wasn't included in the Hellmann report, which you told me would happen months ago, so your input is not valueless. I bring his opinion to your attention and wonder why you think he will not be indicted in Turin and he thinks it's assured. I know you don't like Frank, however that doesn't have much to do with whether Mignini will get indicted in Turin or not, nor does Mignini's trumped up charges which I've never quite understood the details on. Does Candace Dempsey have it right in that article? That it's about his referring to Mignini's embrace of Kokomani and Curatolo as ill-advised is what Frank is being 'charged' with? As far as Mignini's case in Turin, being as it was only dismissed on the jurisdiction technicality it wouldn't surprise me if it was pressed in Turin. They did get a conviction in the first trial and a prison sentence, thus it ought to be replicable or at least an attempt made. However I would be willing to listen to your input as well as to why he won't be facing the charges again. Originally Posted by Machiavelli He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice. I find that a particularly unlikely tale. Yes, I did read that Mignini said he was asked to 'assist' on the case, but being as he (and Comodi) basically took it over and Costagliola was almost invisible throughout the appeal, that suggests to me they wanted to be on it, or Costagliola was trying to distance himself from it--or both. Originally Posted by Machiavelli However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome. From what I've read the 112 page prosecution appeal is wide in latitude, so much so that some say it far oversteps what the Supreme Court has purview over. That sounds like Mignini at work! It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he was 'asked to assist' on that as well. Just speculation on my part however. Originally Posted by Machiavelli I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the original, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle. I was referring to the part where it was given to Costagliola and shortly thereafter Mignini stopped being quoted in the press, yet one story actually 'sourced' a quote to an 'anonymous person not allowed to speak for the prosecution.' That quote sounded like Mignini and Comodi was taking his place with the press openly so I doubt it was her. Originally Posted by Machiavelli The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression. No, it wasn't Amanda's blood and Meredith's blood mixed together, not even Massei thought so¹. It was Meredith's blood that Rudy got in Amanda's bathroom when he washed up there. Finding Amanda's DNA in Amanda's sink is expected (and virtually impossible to avoid considering the curious 'collection methods') and Massei is generous when he allows for his 'vigorous scrubbing theory,' but not even he will pretend there was actually mixed blood from both of them there. There's also the fact Amanda had no wounds, nor is there any explanation for how she got the blood on her from the murder room as there's no trace of her there. The reality is there's no reason to even think the DNA mixed because of the 'inappropriate methods' as Hellmann laid out quite definitively.² Originally Posted by Machiavelli No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General. You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him? Not quite, because he is the impetus. They all got sucked down into his whirlpool, but he's at the center of it. It's his theory and his case. If Costagliola can 'ask him to assist' on the appeal, Galati can ask for input on the Supreme Court appeal. The amount of 'support' he receives from others (outside Comodi) could also be mere formality for the benefit of the institution, not as much support of Mignini because in the end it doesn't amount to much more than the pretty words they say. It's kinda like at the end of the original trial where Amanda 'thanks' Mignini for ~~destroying her life~~ prosecuting her, or Hellmann saying nice things about Mignini at the end of the appeal. It's words they have to say because they're part of the script and the way the scene is blocked, not because they mean them. Have you read the prosecution appeal? Who do you think is the legal mind behind it? ¹ Originally Posted by Massei PMF 278-281 TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed. Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items: On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood. Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim. In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith. Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result. On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda. On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith. On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood. The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim. On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink. The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance. First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet. The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing. At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda. While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing. Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself. This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda. Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another. It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet. It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood. The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith. ² Originally Posted by Hellmann-Zanetti Report: Traces of Blood in the Small Bathroom (pp. 110 - 114)* Footage of this procedure was shown in Court: Officer Brocci is clearly seen to run the same swab of blotting paper again and again several times, with a dragging motion, from the rim of the sink down to the drain and back, and on both sides [of the sink]. The same procedure for the bidet, where the swab – presumably a different one – is used to accurately clean the drain area. About this procedure, Dr Stefanoni observed “that apparently this might not seem appropriate for collection” but that in that specific context it was, “because of the typology of traces that were collected” which “were clearly pinkish, hence they appeared as traces definitely mixed with water and they were seemingly all of the same origin because they were seepages…a rivulet of sorts starting from above and ending in the drain”. In her judgement it was improbable that this was a case of two DNA [samples] that were separate at the origin and which then combined in a single trace; as can be read in the ruling on page 212, this was “because of both the single location concerned and the same appearance of very diluted blood”. A statement whose generality and inconsistency need hardly be stressed, all the more so since it is in stark contrast with another statement, much more logical and convincing, made by Stefanoni herself and quoted below. Now, it is not possible to agree with what Dr. Stefanoni claimed about the correctness of the sampling procedure of the traces on the sink and on the bidet. It is obvious even to a layperson that the two bathroom fixtures concerned, intended for personal hygiene, are a natural repository of DNA, that is released easily when washing: epithelial cells, organic fluids (sweat, saliva), hair and body hair flow swept by the water and, at least partially, remain on the ceramic surface, particularly in the area around the drain, and there they reside, short of a frequent and accurate cleaning. It must be remembered that Lead Officer Brocci had occasion to state that she had also collected (ruling, p. 100) a sample of hair on the sink, of whose genetic analysis, however, there is no mention, if it was ever performed. And on the faucet, blood was found belonging only to Knox. The small bathroom at issue was used by the two girls, Meredith and Amanda, while the other two (Mezzetti and Romanelli) used the larger bathroom. It seems, then, wholly believable that the DNA of the two girls could be found on the fixtures of the small bathroom. In such a situation, evidence collection by means of repeatedly rubbing from rim to drain and back, on both sides with the same swab of blotting paper, is, contrary to what Dr. Stefanoni claimed, manifestly the least appropriate way to obtain a reassuring result. Surely in this manner all of the DNA present on the path was collected, creating a mixture that probably did not exist originally. We must remember what was stated in a general sense by Stefanoni herself and written on page 221 of the ruling: it is not possible to date a trace nor establish whether one was left before another. More precisely, with specific reference to the traces on the sink and on the bidet, she stated, as can be read in the ruling on page 228 “that they were dry and it was impossible to date them or to determine if the trace attributable to Knox was left first and then that attributable to the victim, or the other way around”. Thus it seems totally irrelevant, for purposes of a decision unfavorable to Knox, that her DNA was found mixed with the victim’s DNA on the bathroom fixtures. If, indeed, the mixture had been pre-existent at the moment of application [apposizione], it should also have been detected on the toilet lid, on the light switch and on the door framework: this did not happen, no doubt because the person who put the victim’s blood in that precise spot did not find any DNA previously deposited. Even more questionable are the genetic results from the samples taken from the cotton-swab container: according to Stefanoni (ruling p. 223) a third person could even be present, also of female sex. And this is because the alleles where very homogeneous in height, and one could think of pairings different from those attributed to Knox and Kercher, so involving other people besides those already present. An opinion shared by Dr. Torricelli, consultant for the Kercher family (ruling, page 243). Which leads one to think of the superposition of traces at different times — from the jar [barattolo] having passed through several hands — rather than a single contact by the murderer. So we cannot agree with the relevant conclusions reached in the ruling, on page 405 et seq.. According to the first-level Court, the two defendants, stained with Meredith’s blood, are supposed to have gone into the adjacent small bathroom and washed themselves there (it will be remembered that according to the first judges the footprint on the mat had been left by Sollecito’s right foot). But if it had been so, one cannot explain why the smallest genetic trace of Sollecito was not found in the small bathroom, despite the fact that the scrubbing due to the cleansing should involve the loss of flaking cells (as we read again in the ruling). The fact that only Amanda’s DNA was found together with Meredith’s leads us to believe that the mixture was created by the Police during an inappropriate collection operation. (bolding emphasis mine)
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

18th February 2012, 05:20 PM	#1841
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Machiavelli Amanda Knox is a criminal, a liar convicted for calunnia. They are actually two liars and two murderers. Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective. Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito. You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive. I would appreciate it if you could: 1) PM me with such a list, or 2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's. My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime. I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this." Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth. I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously.

18th February 2012, 06:10 PM	#1842
Charlie Wilkes Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,990	Originally Posted by Rolfe I'm a little disappointed that JHunter hasn't returned to the thread to continue discussing the points he raised. Rolfe. I'm not. What's the point? Most people believe, on the basis of intuition about how they think they would handle an interrogation, that innocent suspects seldom or never incriminate themselves or confess under any circumstances short of physical torture. US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know. I knew, before Amanda Knox was ever arrested, that false confessions are disturbingly common and have resulted in many wrongful convictions. Equipped with this knowledge, I could see that her statements were in no way indicators of her guilt. In fact, the more I learned about her statements, the more I saw them as an obvious indication that she was being railroaded. But people who formed a strong opinion without this knowledge, and are just now catching up to it, find some reason to believe it doesn't apply to this case - that even though Amanda's statements are demonstrably false and do not conform to the forensic facts of the crime, or even to the prosecution's theory of what happened, they somehow constitute a viable admission of guilt. From what I have seen, nothing will ever convince such people otherwise.

18th February 2012, 06:22 PM	#1843
Machiavelli Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,386	Originally Posted by Kaosium I asked Frank about this in December, (fourth comment) and he assured me they would pick it up in Turin. Are you saying Frank Sfarzo is wrong? You've said that before and he turned out to be right, what makes this time different? First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment. Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his ensurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying? Quote: That's how it should have been for the appeal, but he wormed his way into that somehow, He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice. However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome. Quote: That is until Mignini was muzzled, or so we heard, after the Bob Graham interview debacle. Do you have any juicy inside details about that? I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the origina, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle. Quote: It was also his case prosecuted again in court, complete with nuggets debunked even by Massei like the 'mixed blood' The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression. Quote: As you pointed out repeatedly between the trial and the appeal, Costagliola could have made an entirely different case, instead it was just a rehash of the original trash--including some things too far-fetched for Massei. No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General. You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him?

18th February 2012, 06:42 PM	#1844
Machiavelli Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,386	Originally Posted by Bill Williams Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective. Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito. You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive. I would appreciate it if you could: 1) PM me with such a list, or 2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's. My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime. I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this." Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth. I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously. As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether. I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether. Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency. Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points. I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

18th February 2012, 08:43 PM	#1848
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Machiavelli As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether. I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether. Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency. Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points. I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues. If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point. Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position?

18th February 2012, 09:03 PM	#1850
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Machiavelli As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether. I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether. Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency. Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points. I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues. For the sake of transparency of my position, Machiavelli, I regard the way you've phrased the above as representative of the evasion I've received when asking for a list. (I believe I also read a post of yours about the murder acquital not being final until the SC has ruled, and now the claim is made that Knox is a "liar" because Hellmann sustained the Massei conviction. But I'll leave that point for now - but it is evidence for me of the application of differing standards.) Also for the sake of transparency of my position, the "inconsistencies" I have seen (esp. Harry Rag's list) relate mainly to the nature of the interrogation - and the nature of that will not be in dispute forever. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. This is the difficulty I am having in trying to inderstand why the alleged "lies" or "inconsistencies" are central to the PGP position here. It's the common theme regardless of whether a PGP things this a crime of opportunity, a crime of jealously, or a crime of premeditated psychopathology. It's why I ask, and I remain puzzled why I get no direct answer. "Demonstration" is exactly what I am asking for - for example, Mignini, Massei, AND Hellmann disagree about the motive for the "confused inconsistency" regarding Knox's interrogation statements about Lumumba. When you read what they say, they "demonstrably" find differing motives for inconsistencies. Most of the PGP points I read on other boards bring in even wider divergence as to the nature of the statements made at interrogation. And, of course, innocentatii have another version of which you are well aware, and which you do not subscribe to. Therefore, for me a listing from someone who is articulate and as informed as you would be helpful, because I regard the inconsistencies and mistruths claimed about Knox to be at best exaggerations of what she had said, and at worst outright fabrications. So, it would be helpful to see a list - so that if I am being unfair to various PGP positions, it can be evaluated. Otherwise I will remain with my bias that really PGP regard Knox to be a liar, "just because". I can fathom no other rationale for either the reluctance or the outright refusal to deal in specifics. Can you not see my position?

18th February 2012, 09:13 PM	#1851
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Malkmus If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion. The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not. There is a full discussion on IIP. I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean. Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6. In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from..... ... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am. There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after. What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really. Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation. AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second. Then again, all of this will be moot.

18th February 2012, 10:08 PM	#1853
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Dan O. The record is all over the place on this story: ABC News Two+Two forum Sky News This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him. Thank you Dan-O! I didn't realize there was more to this. It occurs to me that at those exchange rates $400 would equal about 250 Euros, wouldn't it? By the time I first got interested Kokomani was so badly discredited not even the bunnies would bring him up, thus I never spent much time studying anything he said. It would not surprise me to find out he dealt with Rudy after the crime, and the one thing that is consistent is he was offered good money for the use of his car and he didn't trust him enough, outright saying that in one story.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

19th February 2012, 06:17 AM	#1854
Machiavelli Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,386	Originally Posted by Bill Williams If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point. It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann. Quote: Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position? No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me. I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event. The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years). There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory. So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events.

19th February 2012, 07:25 AM	#1855
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,321	Bill the lies meme has been the center point of the PR Kon-Tiki since very early on in their guilt campaign. Even the police chief's comment the day Amanda was arrested said that the kids had told them many untruths. It was always clear that most of these "lies" were not really lies and most cases made no sense for them if they were guilty. I speculated in the past that if one of the kids was involved it was Raffaele based on the things he said. The Mansey article demonstrates that Raffaele was not articulate in communications about events. If he were guilty with or without Amanda, there is no reason he would say they went to a party that night. It was clearly the night before and wouldn't stand up. The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1.
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,321

19th February 2012, 08:08 AM	#1856
RoseMontague Drama Queen Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,187	Originally Posted by Machiavelli There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory. From Amanda's testimony: Quote: GB: You saw -- you were shown the written statement, and underneath it thereis a signature. This statement which was written on a computer, was itwritten at your dictation? Did you dictate the words that were written in the statement? AK: No. They wrote; they asked me: "Okay, what do you imagine?" And I said "Maybe I imagine this," and they said "Okay, let's write this, and thenyou tell us if it's all right or not. So they were writing, saying "Okay, you met Patrick at Piazza Grimana, for example, you saw this, you covered your ears." "Okay, fine, fine. "GB: Okay. But when they made you sign the statement, you didn't explicitly ask to reread it or to change anything? AK: They gave it to me to read, but...well, I did like this and then I just signed.
	__________________ "I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".

19th February 2012, 08:21 AM	#1857
Bruce Fisher Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,479	I will forever be amazed at the love the guilters have for Rudy Guede. Their group claims to exist in order to preserving the memory of Meredith Kercher. So why do they feel the need to constantly coddle the man that murdered her? Guilters have recently done everything possible to prove that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money. Of course there is absolutely no proof of this so they must speculate. Each guilter has his or her own story of how it might have happened. All fiction. Hellmann described Guede's proven history of criminal activity and the guilters are appalled. They just can't believe that a judge would possibly insinuate that his recent past had anything at all to do with Meredith's murder. This protection of Guede has always exposed the guilters true intentions. There is absolutely no way to convince them that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. When it comes to judging Knox and Sollecito, speculation is perfectly fine. When it comes to judging Guede, proven facts are ignored.

19th February 2012, 09:20 AM	#1858
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	Originally Posted by Grinder The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1. I had read somewhere that it was from reading the interview in the paper that caused Giobbi to call for Raffaele to be interviewed again on the 5th. Whether this was speculation or something Giobbi had said seems impossible to find now. Does Giobbi read English or would that interview have to have been translated to Italian for him?
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

19th February 2012, 09:53 AM	#1859
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Machiavelli It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann. No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me. I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event. The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years). There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory. So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events. Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she: 1 was screaming (suggesting distress) 2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period 3 was deprived of refreshment 4 was not afforded legal assistance and 5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now.

19th February 2012, 09:58 AM	#1860
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Kaosium What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this: However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else? Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance).

19th February 2012, 10:00 AM	#1861
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 880	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes .... US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know...... I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene: http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Innoc...-93143179.html http://www.billywaynecope.net/index.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060491...ery-rock-hill/ Perhaps not surprisingly, the prosecutor's office (or someone connected with it) has created a web site contending that he's guilty. http://www.billywaynecope.com/ So does this guy have any chance of getting out of prison? Or at least getting a new trial?
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 880

19th February 2012, 10:04 AM	#1862
Machiavelli Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,386	Originally Posted by RoseMontague From Amanda's testimony: The little problem is that Knox's testimony takes place two years later, questioned by her friendly lawyers, and still is vague, contradictory, changing and elusive. When I mean "claim" I mean a position expressed at a close time to the fact, like the hand written note, or like her December 17. interrogation. Even in her statement at the preliminary hearing she lacked any factual claim. In fact, even in her testimony of 2009 she lacks factual consistence: she contradicts the sequence she had described previously about the text message, she asserts that the police treated her unkindly only as long as she did not make the name of Lumumba (which happened before 01:45) and then, after that she was consoled and "treated like a person". Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person.

19th February 2012, 10:29 AM	#1863
Machiavelli Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,386	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she: 1 was screaming (suggesting distress) 2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period 3 was deprived of refreshment 4 was not afforded legal assistance and 5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now. I am not talking about "criticism". I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation. What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof. Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions. The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence. The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation.

19th February 2012, 10:50 AM	#1864
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes Maybe someone went to a mental hospital and commissioned a forgery... but more likely Quennell posted it on his website and this is a screen shot. Michael is now claiming it's a forgery created by YOU.

19th February 2012, 11:24 AM	#1865
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance). Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen. If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen. It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,237	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

19th February 2012, 11:25 AM	#1866
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Machiavelli I am not talking about "criticism". I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation. What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof. Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions. The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence. The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation. I expect we shall hear Amanda's account in her slander trial ( which arises from one of the writs flung out like confetti by Mignini. 1 I don't see why, if she were guilty, she would be screaming. I have sat in on police interviews and never heard the accused scream. Anyway, we agree she was screaming, suggesting distress. 2 she had already spent many hours at the Questura since 02/11/2007 and was exhausted. The police counted on taking advantage of this exhaustion by scheduling a 12 man tag-team to be on hand throughout the night. 3 let's see the custody record, which ought to detail refreshments provided, including breaks for rest, themselves including comfort breaks 4 I disagree. To suggest, in effect, that it makes no difference to the outcome whether a person entilted to a lawyer is provided with one is to denude the relevant law of any meaning. A lawyer would have advised against co-operating with police suggestions that she should try to 'imagine' what happened, would have insisted on rest and refreshment and on proper recording. Had that happened, Mignini would have had no case at all. Your own supreme court ruled the statements unusable for breach of the important right to legal counsel and I am shocked that, as a lawyer yourself (if I understand correctly) you would argue otherwise. 5 I refer you to my comparison of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements upthread. I would be interested on your comments on the evolution of what she said in those four hours. For instance, how came it about that at 1.45 Lumumba was a frequent and welcome visitor to the apartment but by 5.45 all reference to these visits has gone and now Amanda is afraid of him. Neither is true, of course, but what do you think prompted Amanda to advance these inconsistent accounts? Of course, until we hear (or see) the tapes, we cannot know what they show. We have to content ourselves, for the time being, with drawing reasonable inferences from their suppression by those responsible for making and preserving the evidence they contain. And others probably have greater knowledge than me, but Mignini certainly seems to be more than trigger-happy with proceedings against those who dare to criticise this corrupt prosecution, including The West Seattle Herald, Frank Sfarzo, Amanda herself and her parents.

19th February 2012, 11:26 AM	#1867
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,492	Billy Wayne Cope Originally Posted by Bob001 I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene: Bob001, Some of my friends and I have discussed this case as one that should be pursued by grass-roots activism. Here is a blog that is generally pro-prosecution, but in this instance even they have real problems with Mr. Cope's situation. ETA, As I have said previously, I think that the conspiracy alleged between Cope and the man whom I believe is the true assailant is on par with the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution in this case: neither one makes a lick of sense.
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,492	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill Last edited by halides1; 19th February 2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: added ETA

19th February 2012, 11:47 AM	#1868
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Kaosium Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen. If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen. It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped? If the recordings are digital, copying them would be easy. A good cop might have preserved a copy. I agree completely about the inferences you draw from the non-production of these recordings, in precisely the same way that deductions could be made about the non-production of Stefanoni's data files, before they actually showed up and confirmed them, and many many other points of a similar kind.

19th February 2012, 12:10 PM	#1869
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	Originally Posted by Kaosium It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped? I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now. The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,720	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

19th February 2012, 12:34 PM	#1870
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822	Originally Posted by Bill Williams The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not. There is a full discussion on IIP. I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean. Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6. In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from..... ... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am. There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after. What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really. Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation. AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second. Then again, all of this will be moot. Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain. And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think: Originally Posted by Malkmus I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. Originally Posted by Machiavelli there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822

19th February 2012, 01:11 PM	#1871
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Machiavelli Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person. Machiavelli - out of all the libels you fling at Knox, this is one of them. Have you read the Hellmann-Zanetti motivation's report on why they upheld the calunnia conviction? Hellmann is saying that Knox caved into the interrogator's suggestions that Lumumba was there. Hellmann specficially REJECTS the prosecution claim that: Quote: According to the prosecution theory, Amanda Knox, at this point exhausted by the long interrogation and especially demoralized after having learned from her interrogators that Raffaele Sollecito had (so to speak) abandoned her to her fate, denying [her] the alibi that she had offered up until then (having spent the whole night together at Sollecito’s house), launched a final attempt at defense, by reporting more or less what really happened in the residence on Via Della Pergola, but substituting Patrick Lumumba for Rudy Guede: “black man for black man”, in the Public Minister’s words. In other words, it is the prosecution who said Knox lied. As do you. Hellmann, in positing another "motive" for caluunia, which is not "lying, says it best: Quote: To determine the real significance [per valutare la reale portata] of the “spontaneous” statements and the note written practically right afterward, we must take into account the context in which the former were given and the latter was written. To make it "lying" Knox's statements needed to be seen as "spontaneous", and note how Hellmann puts the word "Spontaneous" in quotes, and also further shows translator Anna Donnino to have been less than helpful in this process. Donnino may have been an honest person and a reliable witness, but at the interrogation she is unprofessional and introduces stuff unfair prejudical. I full suspect Donnino was trying to be helpful, but if I ever see her coming my way to help me, I will run in the other direction. Quote: The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later. Hellmann goes on further to use Donnino's tesitmony to destroy any sense that Knox's admissions could not be regarded as spontaneous, and therefore not in and of themselves lies: Quote: Beyond the formal aspect, the context in which those statements were made was clearly characterized by a psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden: witness Donnino reports that an outright emotional shock on the part of Amanda Knox occurred when the matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised. "The matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised." Who raised them? Knox? Donnino? No. Donnino herself, testifies that Lumumba was brought into the room by someone else. At the end of the day, though, Hellmann concludes that while "understandable", Knox is convictable of calunnia while maintaining that "lying" was not her agenda.... Quote: In that context, it is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer. Also....... Quote: (all this) makes it seem like the confused narration of a dream, albeit a macabre one, and not the description of events that actually happened — which confirms the state that Amanda Knox was in at the time she made the spontaneous statements and wrote the note, and rules out the possibility that the purpose of either could have been to conceal [tacere, lit. "keep quiet"] the name of the actual perpetrator, Rudy Guede, [even] on the assumption that it was known to her, as a co-conspirator [concorrente]. Once again, I need a list of lies. This is not one of them, and demonstrably not one of them. That you continue to do the two things below makes me suspect that simply, irrational hatred is running this show, 1) continuing to make bald aseertions like, "she's a convicted liar" 2) unwilling to actually list the specifics of any lies claimed I write this now abandoning the hope that even as a courtesy I can be provided with such a list, but in the hope that a lurker out there will not be taken it by the bald faced, hateful assertions. That's about where I am right now.

19th February 2012, 01:20 PM	#1872
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Malkmus Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain. And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think: The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told." How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word. Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster. If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point. So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts". I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia. But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear. That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed.

19th February 2012, 01:25 PM	#1873
Bill Williams Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by Dan O. I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now. The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are. I am becoming very frustrated with PGP who are invited to assert their case, by drawing up a list of lies, who never actually do it.... but they reserve to right to call someone a liar, perhaps hoping that by sheer repetition someone else might believe it. It is also very plain that the main reason why Frank's face has not been rearranged over the tapes is that these "safe hands" in possession are outside of the control of the Italian judiciary and police forces. Once it becomes known who these "safe hands" belong to, it will be plain why they are not being released today. Like many things in life, timing is important and there will not be many posts from folk like Machiavelli once the fullness of time arrives. Other folks with similar views and similar websites will be paying for consultations with their own lawyers, too.

19th February 2012, 02:04 PM	#1874
RoseMontague Drama Queen Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,187	Originally Posted by Dan O. I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now. The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are. If nothing else the existence of the tape points to the cops and Mignini as being the liars. My guess is that it will also show his personal interrogation of Amanda after the 1:45AM statement and effectively end his career.
	__________________ "I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".

19th February 2012, 02:21 PM	#1875
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822	Originally Posted by Bill Williams The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told." How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word. Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster. If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point. So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts". I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia. But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear. That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed. Not sure I understand what the disagreement is here. I too believe that the tapes would support fully what Amanda stated happened during the interrogation. I think the only disagreement is over what is the "backbone" of the PGP belief system. To me, if the tapes come out it would show unequivocally that Amanda was innocent of this crime - the interrogation is, after all, what got her into the whole mess and without the statements she supposedly wrote during it none of us would be here discussing this case. Therefore, any "list of lies" thereafter would be fruitless.
Malkmus Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 822