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

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Nightowl2548

They saw Lumumba approach Knox in the afternoon before the interrogation when she was coming out of class. The police were following her every move and recording everything she said on her phone. Lumumba was trying to get Amanda to grant an interview to a local newspaper, it's quite possible that to the Italian cops the whole thing looked suspicious and colored their thinking as the evening approached.

Yes! Plus her behavior to them looked suspicious in general. Amanda's and Raffa's lack of full recall for the night before combined with phone records that didn't line up perfectly just added more to their suspicions.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Are they on eBay? Transcripts which have already been made (as distinct from ones which have yet to come off the tape) are very cheap in England. I mean a few pounds. I would fork out with delirium for the transcript of the hearing of 27 Feb 2009 (Profazio, Chiacchierrra and Napoleoni). Where can I get it?

They were in the possession of the defense. They could share them with anybody they wanted.

[Grinder]

Dear me - TM and GroundReport by Denver.

"The lesser point the article raises is as to the speed at which the forensic evidence accumulated. How long, for exampe, does it take to get a profile from a piece of poo, or some toilet paper? A few hours? And to match the profile in the database? A few seconds probably. One would think the cops would want that profile yesterday, or sooner if possible, and when they got it they would at least know they were looking for a fourth person, since none of their suspects was a match. Was Guede's DNA in their database on 02 Nov 2007? He had been arrested on 27 Oct in Milan. In the UK this would have meant his profile would have been entered as a matter if routine."

Dna takes time. Poo doesn't have DNA. They may well have been running other evidence first. They didn't have the shoes til the 6th. Guede's DNA was not in a DNA DB. His prints were recorded because he was an immigrant.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Right.

Grinder,

No one claimed Ms. Dempsey was especially fluent, but did you not write, "Dempsey has not shown fluency in Italian?" What would you take as proof? BTW, the English tabloid stories have a couple of uses: they show how nutty the coverage was and they do manage to get a few things correct. Your using her citing tabloids as evidence of lack of fluency is thin gruel, IMO.

It was your claim that she did not spend much time in Italy. One commenter here noted that she appears in photos of certain court dates, but if you responded, I did not see it. It seems to me that you are neglecting the obvious with respect to this issue. If Ms. Dempsey said that she made 75% of the court appearances, the pro-guilt commenters would say, "Aha, but what about Ms. Nadeau, who made 95% of the court dates, doesn't that make her reporting better?" (percentages are for illustrative purposes only). Or they would twist it around some other way, just as they did with respect to Amanda's bank records.

Ms. Dempsey used court testimony of the officers with respect to the night of the interrogation, and on other occasions. I don't have the transcripts. 2 + 2 = ?

With respect to the Seattle University forum Steve Shea wrote, "Edwin Weihe, PhD., the S.U. Director of Film Studies, sponsored the forum. Tom Wright, a film producer who helped establish Friends of Amanda, assembled and moderated the forum..." Unless one claims that a journalist was offering opinions, I don't see the problem with a journalist being a panelist. Your mileage may vary.

Poo has DNA (probably from intestinal epithelial cells), but it is easily degraded by bacterial nucleases, and so it is hard to use.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Bill's point, correct me if wrong, was that Amanda was a lesser focus point for the police that night than others including me have thought. Do you think that Amanda wasn't being focused on more than any of the others before they found the text message on her phone? I believe she was and I believe Bill disagrees.

I'll go you one better. If it is what I believe that is of interest here, I believe that Giobbi is blowing smoke with his mathematical certainty that he called both in.

I think he's bragging like that because he wants to claim credit for the "case closed", meaning, that if Knox hadn't have been there on the night of the 5th, with his briilant deductions, then they wouldn't have closed the case.

I take the cops at their word, which is not popular among the innocentati. I think the cops called Raffaele in, and I think it was initially about the Nikes. Nothing more.

In fact, the women cops had expressed annoyance about Knox on a number of fronts, one of them was that she always accompanied Sollecito everywhere. "What's with those two?"

In fact, I believe that this led to a thought - probably Napoleoni's. "Wait a minute, isn't that the problem? Aren't they always together? Hmmmmmm?"

So, making it up on the spot while they have Raffaele in bare feet, they work on separating the two. Why? Just because. "Let's see what happens if we can separate the lovebirds... it's not like anything else has worked...."

Napoleoni says to Ficarra out in the hall.... "Look, you go to that American contortionist downstairs and go through her phone. But this time I'll have something for you - get her up into an interrogation room, go through her contacts one by one, again.... and keep doing that until you hear from me...."

Ficarra does as she's told, starts by softening up Knox about the marijuana lie. Then she invites Knox upstairs for a serious talk about these men listed in Knox's phone....

Raffo stumbles on the coincidence: "See you later" seems to be just before Meredith is last seen. Raffo calls Knox a liar. "Who are you protecting?" he yells: they yell this not because they believe she's protecting someone, but that's the type of thing you yell just to keep the person off-balance in the off chance they ARE protecting someone. (Reid Technique.)

Then Napoleoni busts in with something that is a surprise to everyone in Knox's room, incl. Knox. "Raffaele is no longer supporting the American." This puts extra-vinegar in Raffo's accusations, "Liar", "Now we know who you're protecting... it's this guy isn't it, we know he did it...." They say, "We know he did it!" is yelled, not because they know who did it, but in the off chance that they are calling some unknown bluff with the witness. It's a fishing trip. (Reid Technique gone wrong)

Donnino stops translating and starts mediating. It's hard to tell with all the yelling, what it is that Donnino is passing on in English.... her own attempts at mediation, or the content of someone else's yelling.

Then they stumble onto Knox's vivid imagination, thinking she's cooperating with something the cops know already, perhaps her imaginings will be useful. And she starts signing everything put before her because she's stressed and confused.

There's no plan, there's no pre-knowledge, the 1:45 am memoradum is definitely not the cops' 10:30 pm working theory....

At 10:30 pm on the 5th, all they wanted was a look at Raffaele's Nike's and they actually were annoyed that Knox had come down. Doing yoga simply proved how annoying Knox can be.

Until Napoleoni decided, instead of complain, turn this to their advantage for a little fishing trip. Knox and Sollecito are always together.... give me 5 minutes with Raffaele and they'll be apart.

The rest unfolds like a chain reaction accident on a Los Angeles Freeway....

Me, I think one the cops' behaviour gets adjudicated, that it will be Napoleoni thrown under the bus. There'll be finger pointing, and most of them will point at Napoleoni.

What's she doing these days?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I know people here have the ability to communicate directly with her and could have that passport info easily but the fact that they don't speaks volumes.

See, this is what I like to call ridiculous. The fact that someone wouldn't waste their time to prove to some random stranger on the internet by providing her passport to a JREFer speaks volumes? That's actually just funny. You're obviously joking. Good on you.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Dear me - TM and GroundReport by Denver.

"The lesser point the article raises is as to the speed at which the forensic evidence accumulated. How long, for exampe, does it take to get a profile from a piece of poo, or some toilet paper? A few hours? And to match the profile in the database? A few seconds probably. One would think the cops would want that profile yesterday, or sooner if possible, and when they got it they would at least know they were looking for a fourth person, since none of their suspects was a match. Was Guede's DNA in their database on 02 Nov 2007? He had been arrested on 27 Oct in Milan. In the UK this would have meant his profile would have been entered as a matter if routine."

Dna takes time. Poo doesn't have DNA. They may well have been running other evidence first. They didn't have the shoes til the 6th. Guede's DNA was not in a DNA DB. His prints were recorded because he was an immigrant.

How much time? I mean, if you want a key piece of information?
The toilet paper yielded Guede's profile (and the article says they have invented a Qubit Crapometer anyway - maybe Stef didn't have one though )
If they were going to prioritise anything the crap should have been at or near the top of the list.
Are you sure they didn't have Guede's profile? Who says so?
The article from 07 Nov Rose found says the cops had quite a bit already:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.o...ile.php?id=408

Originally Posted by Teddy's paraphrased translation of Corriere dell 'umbra 07 Nov 2007

The investigators already had in their hands at this point, all the logs of the calls of all 3 of them, as well as the two used by Meredith.
It suggests the DNA, finger prints and foot prints, were already in at this point, before the interrogation.
Mignini denied Patrick from seeing his newly appointed lawyers (including Pacelli), until the GIP confirmed.
The motive was probably the 3 wanting to have sex with Meredith who refused, who was "morally incorruptable".
"Meredith tried to say no to their first advances, perhaps with a smile seeing as that girl was her friend, she tried to resist the cravings of her murderer, to the point that she rebelled, in vain", according to Arturo De Felice, the "questore" (official of the court?).

Note how fully- formed their theory is. Why aren't they saying: 'we have no real idea what happened, only that the three of them were there when Meredith was murdered'.? Where does all that come from? It's not in Amanda's confessions.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Yes! Plus her behavior to them looked suspicious in general. Amanda's and Raffa's lack of full recall for the night before combined with phone records that didn't line up perfectly just added more to their suspicions.

Yet you decline the idea they were interested in Lumumba pre-interrogation, despite the phone logs, the texts, the meeting, his colour and his acquaintance with both Amanda and Meredith. Who knows, maybe the poo profile you think they were too busy to extract yielded a known North African type ???

The giveaway is the cops claiming in court never to have heard of Lumumba. Even Bill has to resort to assuming a translation error to explain their testimony about this.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Right.

Go over her stories and see how often they are bylined Perugia.

What difference does it make how many times Candace went to Perugia? Surely you don't agree with the guilters who used to claim that in order to truly understand the case, a person either had to be present in the courtroom or fluent in Italian?

Quote:

I really don't enjoy reading her stuff but went and searched the PI site for Candace Dempsy. There are 8 pages starting with a Nick Gallo story on his passing. He was a great guy that actually was paid to travel and write about it. Not a stringer restaurant reviewer like Vogt or Nadeau.

In the first blog post still there in a the search had numerous references to English language tabloid stories. I would think if she was fluent in Italian we would have seen far more breaking news as reported by the local Italian papers.<snip>

All of the blog posts, from 2007-2012, are still there. Most of the links, including in the first blog post, are still live. Also, most documentation and most archived material is still available, including articles from Italian newspapers.

As I recall, Candace translated most Italian news stories immediately, at least later on in the case. She had to, because they were often removed from line within 24-48 hours. I imagine the sources Candace used both in Italy and the U.S. probably increased over time. As mentioned before, her first blogs were more concerned with Seattle's reputation than with the case itself.

Quote:

Although it seems she was involved in the Seattle U event more than a presenter I will not be writing the movie club or whatever that actually sponsored the event. I will reduce my claim for now to the fact that she was the only person claiming to be any sort of journalist that participated in a purely pro innocence program.

The person who organized the Seattle University forum was Tom Wright, a parent of one of Amanda's classmates who also helped to organize the Friends of Amanda. He is in the film industry and has a connection at the SU film school.

Again, Candace was not covering the story as a journalist, she was covering it as a blogger, albeit a blogger with degrees in journalism. This would put her in the category of bloggers who covered the case, such as Frank Sfarzo, TJMK and PMF, not journalists who covered the case, such as Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt.

Quote:

I know people here have the ability to communicate directly with her and could have that passport info easily but the fact that they don't speaks volumes.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.candacedempsey.com/7.html

candacedem@gmail.com<candacedem@gmail.com>;

http://twitter.com/#!/Candace_Dempsey

http://www.linkedin.com/in/candacedempsey

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Sorry but it doesn't support the conversations that Bill W cites from Dempsey.
Go back and read the Bill W posts where he posits that because of what the cops are saying and thinking the night of the interrogation inside the police station as reported by only Dempsey as far as anybody has been able show they were not honing in on her.

I never stated that I didn't believe there were different points of view inside PLE. What I questioned was how Dempsey could know what the cops were discussing inside the station. If there is a decent explanation, great.

Bill's point, correct me if wrong, was that Amanda was a lesser focus point for the police that night than others including me have thought. Do you think that Amanda wasn't being focused on more than any of the others before they found the text message on her phone? I believe she was and I believe Bill disagrees.

What we don't agree on Dempsey as a good source.

We have looked at this for several years and are just now getting a better idea of what happened. The cops had several theories they were investigating on the 3rd and 4th as indicated by several news articles but there was still a lot of focus on Amanda. As soon as the cops had the phone logs the focus shifted almost entirely on Amanda and that was prior to the interrogations of the 5th. The very detailed article anglolawyer has referred to is too large to post as an attachment here but is available at IIP and gives a good indication of that timing.

I don't expect Dempsey to have read the cops minds and she can only report their thinking as what they indicated they were thinking. They lied but Dempsey's reporting is not in error, in my opinion. They don't want AK and RS to be shown as suspects at the point of the interrogations of the 5th simply because they were not treated as suspects should have been treated nor given the protections under Italian law that they should have been given.

[Nigel Scott]

Apologies for being late to the party but I have observed a lot of agonsing here over whether Amanda and Raffaele were both called in for interview on that fateful night. It is being posited that Amanda just tagged along, the cops interviewed Raffa and then decided to go for Amanda as well just because she happened to be there. If this is true, why had they arranged to have twelve cops from Rome standing by to tag team interrogate her and why was it reported that they knew that this was their 'last chance' to get her alone before her mother turned up and got her a lawyer?

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

What we don't agree on Dempsey as a good source.

Exactly. I was challenging her knowing what police were saying and thinking in the police station the night of the 5th. There has been no cites of others that have reported the same things.

Quote:

We have looked at this for several years and are just now getting a better idea of what happened. The cops had several theories they were investigating on the 3rd and 4th as indicated by several news articles but there was still a lot of focus on Amanda. As soon as the cops had the phone logs the focus shifted almost entirely on Amanda and that was prior to the interrogations of the 5th. The very detailed article anglolawyer has referred to is too large to post as an attachment here but is available at IIP and gives a good indication of that timing.

I don't expect Dempsey to have read the cops minds and she can only report their thinking as what they indicated they were thinking. They lied but Dempsey's reporting is not in error, in my opinion. They don't want AK and RS to be shown as suspects at the point of the interrogations of the 5th simply because they were not treated as suspects should have been treated nor given the protections under Italian law that they should have been given.

I don't think we could agree more except I'm not as sure of Dempsey and I want to know where she got the dialogue between the police inside the station.

It seems more dialogue is being made up on this thread to further a POV, not by you.

[Grinder]

Mary - I put "candace dempsey" into the PI's search engine and get 8 pages - the early blogs don't show. If you have a search that shows them all let me know - feel free to make it a PM.

By the way, how did you enjoy the Nov.7th story by Levi first reporting of the noise ticket, one month before the Dailywhatever story?

Chris - if you maintain a positive, in this case that she spent a lot of time in Italy, why don't you prove it? If I point out that almost none of her stories are bylined Perugia that doesn't prove she wasn't in Italy because I can't get access to her passport and even that wouldn't be definitive. However, if you send her trip history as she provides that would be proof enough. Obviously, you've spent more time on this than an email would take. I think Mary provided the link if you didn't have it.

I find the distinction between blogger and reporter interesting. A blogger apparently is held to lower standard regarding accuracy and quality, yet we are to take them seriously.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Sorry but it doesn't support the conversations that Bill W cites from Dempsey.
Go back and read the Bill W posts where he posits that because of what the cops are saying and thinking the night of the interrogation inside the police station as reported by only Dempsey as far as anybody has been able show they were not honing in on her.

I disagree with Bill (and agree with you) regarding the focus of the investigation the night of the interrogation--and before--but I don't see how his quoting lines from "Murder in Italy" to support his contention inherently discredits Candace Dempsey's work. That's like saying a lawyer incorrectly quoting a law that's not germane somehow invalidates the law. Or a student using someone's quotes to make a different argument than others in a history or politics class somehow infringes on the person quoted.

Originally Posted by Grinder

I never stated that I didn't believe there were different points of view inside PLE. What I questioned was how Dempsey could know what the cops were discussing inside the station.

From what they said in the press and in court about the investigation and the interrogation. You've noted this a number of times and citations have been provided to corroborate certain quotes and cites made by Bill from "Murder in Italy." Are there any left that have not been addressed?

I went back to find what you might still be referring to and found this post which I excerpt from:

Originally Posted by Grinder

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Which only adds to my own mystery of why it is so hard to fathom the actual predicament the cops were in, and the mistakes they made (unintentionally) to make a disasterous rush to judgment on Nov 6. Also, why is it hard to fathom that the cops themselves did not act or think with one mind.

For instance Marco Chiacchiera was the one who first believed that it must have been done by someone Meredith had met at Hallowe'en, that there probably was consentual sex, "Because there didn't seem to be too much of a struggle....." (So much for unanimity on the three attacker scenario!!!!)

Also, Chiacchiera opposed Napoleoni getting Mignini, so as to detain Knox and Sollecito after the first memorandum - Chiacchiera counseled that Knox be released and observed..... meaning, there were still those in the ILE who thought the fishing trip had not reeled anything in when Lumumba was in play....

I've asked several times how Dempsey could know what the police were saying or thinking.

Because they said so either to the press or in court. She's not a mind-reader, what were you supposing she relied on?

Something just occurred to me, you haven't read the other threads, have you? If you had, going back to roughly the beginning of the First Continuation, (about when "Murder in Italy" was published) you'd find you're not the first person who's doubted the veracity of parts of "Murder in Italy." In fact you might even say there was a whole team dedicated to 'discrediting' it, I called 'em bunnies, but there was a little froggy too, they called him 'Kermit.' It was seemingly his mission in life to find as many errors as he could in "Murder in Italy" and document them. Then they came here to propagate them as much as the could, and got crushed by citations. Repeatedly. Page 400 or so of that thread was their Waterloo when the Parade through the Perugian streets was sourced to about four papers along with video of the cops taking off. That was the last we saw of 'Kermit' on JREF.

I certainly don't expect you to read those 400 pages, but if you like we can do it again! Perhaps you don't realize this, but Candace Dempsey double-sourced everything in the public domain, those links can be cited again, just like they were for that episode. You see there are some (minor) errors in "Murder in Italy," but they weren't necessarily Candace Dempsey's, they were inherent to the sources themselves, and considering the maelstrom of misinformation about this case they were inevitable at that stage.

The amount of time Candace Dempsey spent in Italy or to what extent she spoke Italian is utterly irrelevant to the accuracy of her work, I've never understood why that was important to some people. Gibbon never saw the Roman Empire, nor could he speak flawless Latin as the language had been dead for hundreds of years. In fact if you think of it, virtually all history these days (and in days past) is written by those who never saw the people and places they write of, and many couldn't speak the language if they tried. How do you suppose they do it? The same way Candace Dempsey did: evaluate sources, corroborate information, weigh the evidence and insights of the accounts available relying as much on the primary sources as are available, making rational inferences when reliable data is not available, and in cases of conflict presenting the differing perspectives fairly.

The odd thing is "Murder in Italy" doesn't resemble your complaints or her blog much at all. Does that surprise you? That someone could employ a certain approach in one venue but rely on a different one for another? Grinder, for some people 'bias' is something they can turn on or off. Anyone who bets football, especially with their home team, knows how to do that. Some can spend all day on the 'rah-rah' home team websites puffing themselves up with bilge about how the home team can overcome anything, and even participate in it but when the day is done not make that wager because they damn well know better than to do that with money on the line! Things aren't true just because you want them to be, though there are those who cannot separate what is true and what they want to be true and end up with rabbit ears for pockets at the end of the season.

At any rate perhaps you can do better than the bunnyhole, they did find a geographical error and perhaps another one of little significance that I cannot recall precisely. If you have found something in "Murder in Italy" you're dubious of just post it and the source can likely still be found, but keep in mind the nature of the sources available at that time and the progress that has been made since in sifting through the corrupt information and the plethora of data that's become available since. However you are very much mistaken if you think she wrote "Murder in Italy" the same way she conducted her blog, and the nature of your complaints such as suggesting she's fictionally narrating events in the interrogation room without any sources reveal that you're probably not as familiar with her work or her sources as you could be. I'm sure that can be demonstrated to your satisfaction if you could come up with specific items you think inaccurate or biased. We've done it before and had frog's legs for breakfast!

Incidentally, I like blogs, though I do understand why some do not. They may not be for you, as it doesn't appear you appreciate their raison d'etre which is not necessarily to be a simulacrum of a front page column, but in many cases more the editorial and comments section of a newspaper. Incidentally, overseas it's actually more common for papers to have an editorial stance, and the news tailored to each outlet, thus they all come with an inherent bias and oftentimes advocacy of certain positions. For example reading the Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph and Daily Mail one can get the same story from differing perspectives of the British political continuum more or less relative to where I put them, though the Independent can be all over the place at times. At any rate none of them would subscribe to what you think of as journalism, that doesn't mean one cannot divine the most likely truth from an overview of them. In fact one can often get a more thorough examination of an issue from that arrangement that isn't available here.

Regarding Candace Dempsey, she wasn't a reporter on this case, she was the author of an award-winning book from a major publishing house who also wrote a blog on the case, it's not a comparable position even though the issue was the same.

Originally Posted by Grinder

Bill's point, correct me if wrong, was that Amanda was a lesser focus point for the police that night than others including me have thought. Do you think that Amanda wasn't being focused on more than any of the others before they found the text message on her phone? I believe she was and I believe Bill disagrees.

As I noted before, I disagree with Bill here. Whereas from an objective standpoint Filomena might have been as likely a suspect as Amanda at the outset (which is damning with faint praise by the way!) there's too much evidence that could not be obscured that they were specifically interested in Amanda, but (mostly) not for very good reasons. One thing to note though: Amanda had an alibi as well, they just arrested him, charged him too, and destroyed the electronic data that would have corroborated their alibi. The same could have easily been done to Filomena and her boyfriend, it's possible in fact they wouldn't have had to do as much work as they might not have been on the computer and that information wouldn't have had to be destroyed.

[anglolawyer]

Sorry everyone. It was Ray Turner's blog I asked Frank about, not The Machine's TJMK piece. Specifically, I asked Frank whether the cops said they didn't know Lumumba when giving evidence. He confirmed that this was indeed their evidence, opined that it could not possibly be true, and linked me to this recent post of his which set it all out again:

http://perugiashock.com/2012/01/31/p...a-raffaele-in/

Originally Posted by Perugia Shock

And the “calumny”: “We didn’t even know who Patrick was”, they said. Sure, in 4 days they didn’t read the phone printouts of the girl they were suspecting and wiretapping!!! (Change job, then). “As soon as Amanda saw his name she suddenly turned crazy and screamed: “He’s the murderer!””. Sure… We are still waiting to hear the recording!

While trying to get hold of more information about 'The Three Chiefs' (Profazio, Napoleoni and Chiacchiera) hearing on 27 Feb 2009 (ideally the transcript) here is Frank's blog post for that hearing as dug up by Hans at IIP and posted here:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.o...33.html#p37933

Sadly, it contains nothing at all about the cops' testimony regarding what they knew about Lumumba as at 10.30 p.m. on 05 Nov.

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Personally, I would give the cops a little more credit than this. The answer to the 'bragging' point is surely that, while I am sure the cops would have loved to have said, 'we knew it was them along' they can't as that would detonate the myth that they did not become suspects until after 5.45 a.m. on the 6th. The prosecution continues to maintain this fiction even now, which shows how important it is.

What was interesting about The Machine's TJMK piece is that if it got anywhere being a fair approximation of the evidence given on 27 Feb 2009 by the three chiefs then it showed them forgetting their script by enumerating all the reasons why they 'suspected' Amanda from the start.

As I said, personally I don't think it's likely the police lied for that reason, because this information wouldn't have made them suspects anyway. But my main feeling is that the police testimony on this is just not very reliable. They could've lied in either direction (claiming they were suspicious from the start to make Amanda and Raffaele seem more guilty, claiming not to be suspicious to make it seem Amanda was responsible for the confession).

Quote:

It so happens btw that before Grinder said The Machine was not reliable I had already run his piece past Frank and he verified it and referred me to a post of his which runs the same theme and which I will link to when not using an iPad

I look forward to reading it. However, while I have a great deal of respect for Frank as a source, there are clear inaccuracies in The Machine's post even from a quick reading (that the police confronted Amanda and Raffaele with phone records, that they already had the computer records, that 'in one version' Amanda said Raffaele was present, etc) so I don't think it should be uncritically accepted no matter who verifies it. It might well be fine as a quick summary of the prosecution's case, which is probably all it was intended to be anyway.

Quote:

Can I throw into the mix this little nugget which showed up at IIP today:

http://www.groundreport.com/World/AM...PROVEN/2941121

This article takes us into the further realm in which the cops, far from knowing they had their killers before proceedings began on 05 Nov, knew they were innocent and set about deliberately framing them. If you buy that you will not be alone among serious observers of the case.

The lesser point the article raises is as to the speed at which the forensic evidence accumulated. How long, for exampe, does it take to get a profile from a piece of poo, or some toilet paper? A few hours? And to match the profile in the database? A few seconds probably. One would think the cops would want that profile yesterday, or sooner if possible, and when they got it they would at least know they were looking for a fourth person, since none of their suspects was a match. Was Guede's DNA in their database on 02 Nov 2007? He had been arrested on 27 Oct in Milan . In the UK this would have meant his profile would have been entered as a matter if routine.

I don't know a lot about how long it takes to test for DNA, but the sheer number of samples they were testing probably meant it wasn't going to be a 24 hour thing. I don't think they had Guede's DNA profile, only his fingerprints (and those from an immigration record rather than an arrest, so probably not immediately available to the police). Generally I subscribe to the 'Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" maxim (or "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity!") so think it unlikely there was a deliberate attempt to frame them.

Quote:

Re: the shoeprint, I bet they could figure it was a Nike and that Raffaele wore that brand. Which is enough to be going on with. Later, they stuck with the print even though it had the wrong number of rings so they weren't that worried about precision even when they had Raf's shoes to work with.

Like the suspect/witness conundrum it can be hard to tell whether the cops were being stupid or crafty at any particular point. I think their knowledge base would have included guys who could recognise Raffaele's Nikes though.

OK, so let's say they'd worked out the shoe print was a Nike print and had noticed that Raffaele was wearing Nikes (not an unusual brand). Why didn't they just ask him during one of the earlier interrogations if they could take a look at his shoes? They didn't need to arrest him first! They could easily have confirmed or ruled out a match beforehand.

Since we know they took Raffaele's shoes on the 6th, when they were looking for evidence against the pair of them, it still seems much more likely to me that they discovered the supposed match then.

Quote:

But they said they were focused on them, according to Follain, The Machine, and Frank and I would argue the dictates of reason also come into play once you have decided the burglary was staged. The focus does not have to have been 'exclusive' btw. That sets the bar too high. Let's just say, 'predominantly'.. After all, one line of enquiry eventually led to the capture of Rudy.

OK, "predominantly" works for me.

Quote:

Guilty as charged. Sorry. Can you please point me to where Frank deals with this?

Here's where I wish (yet again) that Frank's early blog posts were back on-line in searchable format. I managed to find this post because Rose had quoted it elsewhere on JREF; I'm not 100% sure it was my original source, but it'll do for now:

Quote:

What is this new report? Just like the fax that arrived on November 6, that assured that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito called the police after the postal police arrived? (Which was revealed a lie. We pay them to lie against us). [...]

That lie, which was initiated, coincidentally, just after the arrests -- and was believed by Mignini, Matteini, Micheli, Court of Freedom, even the Supreme Court-- was defended by them at the trial, using other lies, until the last day. That lie caused a little disaster it seems, don’t you think?

Why would we believe them again?

Mignini believed the cops when they told him that Knox and Sollecito had called 112 after the postal police arrived [...] Keep on believing them, Giuliano. Don’t investigate them. Don’t ask yourself why the November 6 fax was sent.

Frank actually goes a little further here by suggesting that the claim about the 112 call was a deliberate lie which began on 6 November after the interrogations. If that's the case (though I'd hope it was more likely a genuine error) then obviously the 112 call can't have led them to focus on Amanda and Raffaele (nor can it if they only 'discovered' it on the 6th).

Quote:

Ah ha! Now, there's your problem! Come on Fulham! (btw. Do you have the same problem I do confusing Balotelli with Battistelli? Drives me flaming nuts!)

LOL, not so far. Balotelli is kind of awesome though (Police Officer: "Sir, can you tell me why you're carrying 5000 pounds in your pocket?" Balotelli: "Because I'm RICH!!").

Quote:

See above as to The Machine. This is precisely my case, in fact: that the evidence they gave blows their cover story, which is not credible anyway. Remember, they are cops, not lawyers. Subtleties like admissibility are mostly lost on them. Plus they had a new agenda in 2009 to show how so very clever they were. They couldn't stick to the bogus line about everything hanging on the 'see you later' SMS without being stuck for an answer to the question: 'oh yeah? well you got it all wrong smarty pants. How comes you didn't let them go once it turned out that "see you later" didn't mean right now in Piazza Grimana?'

Whoulda thunk it? They bring in Raffaele, not wanting to interview Amanda at all , she blurts something out about Lumumba out of the blue and - wouldn't you know it, a whole pile of evidence against them falls into their laps thereafter and still works even after Lumumba gets subtracted! What amazing good fortune!

Given that the police made a mistake with the 'See you later' text, they couldn't very well have stuck to the claim everything stemmed from that text whether it was bogus or not, at least not without admitting the whole case turned on an error.

Yep, it certainly is amazing that evidence just fell into their laps after they got the statements (and indeed would continue to do so, so that the collapse of virtually everything on which they'd initally based the arrests didn't make any difference to their case!). That's the serious flaw with the case, of course, but doesn't tell us much about what their theory was before the interrogations.

Quote:

There you go with that exclusively **** again!

Oy, no need to swear! Even with a smiley face. I'm happy to substitute "predominantly" for "exclusively".

Quote:

Are the early news reports a more reliable source of information than, say, Follain? I have no doubt this was an early line of enquiry. Why not? But if you believe that Mignini thought the covering of the body suggested female involvement, a view he is said to have formed more or kess at once, it would follow that a more complex enquiry was in hand, mis-directed by false clues like this one.

Yes, it's very difficult to dig out the truth from all the mass of (mis)information and to find a source which is truly reliable. I don't assume everything in the news reports is true, any more than I assume everything Follain or anyone else writes is true.

However, the one advantage the news reports have over other sources - at least as a record of what happened prior to the arrests - is that they're contemporary. Much of what was reported seems to have been leaked direct from the police or prosecution. So, flawed as they are, they're more or less the only contemporary record of what the police thought at the time.

The reason I'm suspicious of the later police accounts isn't only that they had clear motive to lie and exaggerate (after all, every police officer present testified no one laid a hand on Amanda) but also that even if they're being entirely honest, people's memories of events change in hindsight: it's quite possible that something they found mildly odd at the time, like Amanda and Raffaele kissing, was later shaped into evidence of guilt, and that even the police themselves now believe they really did find it terribly suspicious at the time.

Quote:

I have been wondering just how fundamental this mis-reading was. For instance, the cops seem to have reversed the order of events in supposing some form of sexual activity followed by the murder, rather than an assault followed by a disrobing of the victim. The failure to assign proper significance to the blood patterns and distribution of clothing (much of which they couldn't be bothered to collect until 18 Dec) supports this idea.

A bit of a tangent, but I don't think the sequence of events is clear-cut (i.e. whether the sexual assault preceded or followed the stabbing). In the absence of definite evidence to the contrary I tend to believe the assault preceded the murder, so I wouldn't say the police were necessarily in error there.

Quote:

Back to your point, though, it is not really surprising if the cops suspected Amanda all along that they managed to keep this out of the papers until they cracked the case.

That's a possibility, certainly, although somewhat out of character given all the police leaks we know actually happened! Again though, this is an argument that relies on lack of evidence: in theory they could have been fixated on Sophie up until the 6th - or on me! - but managed to keep it out of the papers.

Quote:

And he stops and takes a dump beore following her ... OK, she could be socialising with a male friend who then comes onto her. True. Still, the cops seem to have seen more than one hand at work, due to the duvet, lack of defence wounds oh, and very important, multiple knives. I think that comes out of the 7th Nov article Rose found and they ran with that all the way.

I think the multiple knife theory developed around about the time they found the kitchen knife, didn't it? When it was incompatible with the wounds, they decided there were two knives. I didn't think they'd come up with the theory before that point.

Quote:

I totally agree. Btw. Follain's book skims the hearing of 27 Feb 2009 in a page or so, while devoting 7 pages to the virgins' more salacious evidence. I get the impression he is relying on interviews with the cops and other players rather than evidence but as he doesn't let on, that is all it is.

I got the impression at least some of his information came from interviews as well, though without sources it's obviously difficult to tell. I'm pretty sure he interviewed Sophie, so perhaps that partly explains his more extensive coverage of the English girls (as well as it being more salacious, as you say!).

Quote:

This is indeed what divides us. The staged burglary, plus the generally odd behaviour (as allegedly perceived) the stange story about how the morning unfolded and even perhaps, as has recently been suggested to me, Napoleoni's immediate dislike of Amanda seem to have weighed against her from the first. Something must have, because not even her DNA on a knife she may have innocently used is evidence against her and there's not a spec of anything else.

Yes, we just disagree on exactly how focused the police were on Amanda and Raffaele. They were in the frame, of course, but I don't see convincing evidence they were the predominant () focus of the police's attention.

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by Nightowl2548

They saw Lumumba approach Knox in the afternoon before the interrogation when she was coming out of class. The police were following her every move and recording everything she said on her phone. Lumumba was trying to get Amanda to grant an interview to a local newspaper, it's quite possible that to the Italian cops the whole thing looked suspicious and colored their thinking as the evening approached.

All very much speculation though, no? Speculation that they were following Amanda, speculation that they saw this particular meeting, speculation that they were close enough and understood enough to know what was discussed, and speculation that they ascribed to it the meaning you suggest.

And again, I would come back to the fact that they weren't questioning Lumumba, which makes little sense to me if that meeting caused them to be suspicious of both of them. Not only that, but I agree with Bill that it's pretty likely they hadn't even intended to question Amanda. That Amanda wasn't called in for questioning on the evening of the 6th is one of the few things she and the police agree on: the police told Raffaele over the phone they only wanted to question him, while Amanda was told off by Napoleoni (I think) for coming into the police station when she hadn't been asked to.

So far as I know, the only evidence to the contrary comes from Giobbi, who - as well as bragging about how he just knew they were guilty because of how they behaved and that he didn't need any real evidence (geez, not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed is he? Even if that were true, you wouldn't say it!) - also claimed he was "mathematically certain" he'd called them both in (what does that even mean in that context anyway - did he write down 1+1=2 and circle it in red pen or what?).

I don't buy it: I think he's bragging, trying to make it seem that he had the whole thing planned just the way it turned out when in reality it just kind of fell into his lap. More important than my opinion though, is that he's contradicted by evidence from the time: Amanda, Raffaele, and the police disagree with him.

And if Amanda wasn't supposed to be there that night - then, well, it makes little sense that the police noted a suspicious meeting between Amanda and Patrick, and then chose to interview Raffaele!

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

As I noted before, I disagree with Bill here. Whereas from an objective standpoint Filomena might have been as likely a suspect as Amanda at the outset (which is damning with faint praise by the way!) there's too much evidence that could not be obscured that they were specifically interested in Amanda, but (mostly) not for very good reasons. One thing to note though: Amanda had an alibi as well, they just arrested him, charged him too, and destroyed the electronic data that would have corroborated their alibi. The same could have easily been done to Filomena and her boyfriend, it's possible in fact they wouldn't have had to do as much work as they might not have been on the computer and that information wouldn't have had to be destroyed.

Kaosium - even though you disagree with me, I am elevating you to the upper pantheon of understanding here, to a place currently occupied only by Katy_did and AngloLawyer, and a few others over at IIP... for one statement and one statement alone...

.... in short, you have atoned for your grievous sin of disagreement, by putting something into perspective that I could never get my head around. I'm going to start another thread on IIP about it, and give you due credit...

.... it is ....

Il problema di Raffaele.

This fits so well with my scenario, even as you disagree with it. It was always a headscratcher to me why they'd even want to drag Raffaele into this, when NOTHING, not even odd behaviour, points to him at all.

So this is my revised theory. Knox accompanies Raffaele to the interoggation on the late evening of the 5th, which, despite Giobbi's brag, is an interrogation intended initially ONLY for Raffaele - proof is that (as Katy_did noted, a pantheon member with you!) this is one of the few things the cops and Amanda agree upon. Napoleoni actually chastises Knox for always coming to the station - much like wannabee investigators with a special cereal-box decoder ring are always hanging around!

The cops are only after Raffaele's shoes - that's why Raffaele has been called in. It's got nothing to do with Edda showing up the next day, and having one last crack at Knox - the cops literally cannot put that together despite the innocentati bleatings.

It turns out that the cops actually CAN count the rings on the soles of sneakers, and this quickly exonerates Sollecito.

Yet someone gets a brilliant idea. "Look, Monica, you always get annoyed that the American goes everywhere with Sollecito. Why not look at this another way - take advantage of it."

The lighbulb goes on for Napoleoni. "Ok, I get you.... I've complained about them both being here... why not use it to our advantage. Let's see if we can separate these little love birds! Look, you go to the American, have one more look through her phone contacts. Hell, we may get lucky about one of them - but, it will be interesting to see what each of them say about such things if we can destroy each as the alibi for the other... leave it to me, you go get Knox."

SO Napoleoni returns to Sollecito's interrogation room, with a thought experiment for a shoe-less Raffaele. "If you were aslepp, how do you know that...."

The Nike's are now long forgotten, but the fishing trip continues. Instead of complaining that they have nothing but lemons left here, there're seriously going to try to make lemonade.

It develops as I noted earlier. Back in Knox's room, perhaps Raffo notes the coincidence of timing between this "See you Later" sent to an unknown telephone number - Knox can't seem to remember it. "You're lying," yells Raffo, "You're protecting someone." Donnino becomes the ever helpful meditator.

Then Napoleoni comes in with the big news - Raffaele is no longer supporting the American. Please note, this is really only meant as leverage at this point - no one really expects this "breaking of Raffaele" to survive the night, it's only purpose is to apply further immediate pressure on the American. To see what the pressure can squeeze out of the lemon.

They hit the jackpot. But there's a big problem. Big problem.

Momma Mia, the American is now putting herself at the scene.

Suddenly - Il problema di Raffaele.

Just like they were unprepared for the consequences of the imaginings they were squeezing out of the American.... Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we'd only intended the admissions from Raffaele as pressure against Knox - not something we were actually going to run with.

Il problema di Raffaele. Raffaele begins to stubbornly insist - I don't really care what Amanda says, I know what I know. She was with me all night.

To solve this problem, "Momma Mia, We now have to arrest the alibi!" It's not that they were now going to have to fit one round peg into a square hole, try TWO round pegs into that same square hole that is still the same size as it was before.

Two further problems. One is the computer. Make sure whoever it is who examines these things, also fries the computer. We cannot have the computer giving a further alibi, because we cannot arrest the computer too and charge it with homicide!

Second is that there is actually no evidence at the scene, none at all against Raffaele. "We've already looked into the number of rings on the soles of his Nike's - and this went nowhere so much that we actually left him alone in his interrogation room all night twiddling his thumbs while having at the American." They never once accused Raffaele at interrogation of murder!

No one had really thought of Il problema di Raffaele when composing the two memorandums - Raffaele didn't even rate a mention in the first, and got a waffling mention that he might or might not have been there in the second.

The second memorandum is the first hint that someone was considering Il problema di Raffaele.

Thank you for this Kaosium. Even though you have sinned grievously in disagreeing with me, this line of thought alone elevates you anyways.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Mary - I put "candace dempsey" into the PI's search engine and get 8 pages - the early blogs don't show. If you have a search that shows them all let me know - feel free to make it a PM.

By the way, how did you enjoy the Nov.7th story by Levi first reporting of the noise ticket, one month before the Dailywhatever story?

Chris - if you maintain a positive, in this case that she spent a lot of time in Italy, why don't you prove it? If I point out that almost none of her stories are bylined Perugia that doesn't prove she wasn't in Italy because I can't get access to her passport and even that wouldn't be definitive. However, if you send her trip history as she provides that would be proof enough. Obviously, you've spent more time on this than an email would take. I think Mary provided the link if you didn't have it.

I find the distinction between blogger and reporter interesting. A blogger apparently is held to lower standard regarding accuracy and quality, yet we are to take them seriously.

Grinder,

Let me reiterate what someone else said, that Ms. Dempsey is in photographs/videos of some court dates. Do you accept this evidence or not? IIRC, you said a couple of trips, whereas I have never put a number on it (I did note that she covered the Supremes in 2008). Moreover, I have previously explained why it makes little sense for Ms. Dempsey to answer this question.

I think bloggers (KC Johnson and CrystalMess, for example) blew the doors off of traditional media in the Duke lacrosse case. I make an exception for the Duke Chronicle, a student paper which outshot, outhustled, outrebounded, and just plain outplayed the New York Times, in my opinion. Newsweek did a fair to middling job on Duke and really badly on this case, IMO. I think that some bloggers (especially Candace abd Frank) showed the advantages of blogging over traditional reporting in this case. They often went into greater depth than traditional outlets. So, no, I don't personally hold bloggers to a lower standard, nor do I think that they performed at a lower standard in this instance (how can anything have been worse that the Sunday Times, for example)

Ms. Dempsey told me that she used the trial transcripts in her reconstruction of the cops actions in the period in question. Now you have four choices: one, call Ms. Dempsey a liar; two, call me a liar; three, accept this (implicitly or explicitly) as the truth; four, get the transcripts and translate them. I cannot think of anything more to say on the subject.

[halides1]

Kaosium,

Thank you for your comments. I would only like to add that Ms. Dempsey and I discussed at one point whether one should refer to a key ingredient of the Kastle-Meyer test as phenolphthalin (the reactant) or phenolphthalein (the product). I offer this anecdote only to reinforce a point that came up in one of RoseMontague's comments, that Ms. Dempsey takes seriously the job of getting her facts correct.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by katy_did

And again, I would come back to the fact that they weren't questioning Lumumba, which makes little sense to me if that meeting caused them to be suspicious of both of them. Not only that, but I agree with Bill that it's pretty likely they hadn't even intended to question Amanda. That Amanda wasn't called in for questioning on the evening of the 6th is one of the few things she and the police agree on: the police told Raffaele over the phone they only wanted to question him, while Amanda was told off by Napoleoni (I think) for coming into the police station when she hadn't been asked to.

So far as I know, the only evidence to the contrary comes from Giobbi, who - as well as bragging about how he just knew they were guilty because of how they behaved and that he didn't need any real evidence (geez, not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed is he? Even if that were true, you wouldn't say it!) - also claimed he was "mathematically certain" he'd called them both in (what does that even mean in that context anyway - did he write down 1+1=2 and circle it in red pen or what?).

I don't buy it: I think he's bragging, trying to make it seem that he had the whole thing planned just the way it turned out when in reality it just kind of fell into his lap. More important than my opinion though, is that he's contradicted by evidence from the time: Amanda, Raffaele, and the police disagree with him.

I'm assuming here that Raffaele has said something about this recently and I missed it? Continuing under that assumption, that only really puts Napoleoni at odds with Giobbi, as in that communication chain everything after that has to be attributed to Napoleoni who was the one who called Raffaele in. What Amanda and Raffaele have to say about it is dependent on what Napoleoni told Raffaele, and doesn't preclude pre-meditation, as they could well have planned to haul her in the same way they did Patrick. Napoleoni could have blown Giobbi's order as well, or simply strongly suspected Amanda would come in anyway and wanted to see if she'd 'tag along' to confirm a 'suspicion' that Amanda wouldn't let him out of her sight. At any rate, Amanda not being called in with Raffaele does not mean the cops didn't plan to be seeing her that night if they got what they wanted from Raffaele.

The circumstances sure seem to indicate they were expecting Amanda, they went right after Raffaele about Amanda's alibi, having a statement timestamped a mere 25 minutes after they walked through the door. They then appeared to be done with questioning Raffaele, which makes one wonder what they would have done at 10:40 if Amanda wasn't there? It could well be they needed time to set something up, like a translator for instance, and preferred to take Amanda in the middle of the night anyway for the psychological effect of her being awoken or fitfully waiting alone for hours for Raffaele and being even more exhausted and depressed than she already would be. Were those dozen police officers involved in the interrogation that started after ten PM actually supposed to be on duty with nothing more on the agenda but getting a statement from Raffaele that didn't actually (directly) incriminate either of them?

Originally Posted by katy_did

And if Amanda wasn't supposed to be there that night - then, well, it makes little sense that the police noted a suspicious meeting between Amanda and Patrick, and then chose to interview Raffaele!

Unless Bill is right and they were playing dominos. Hit up Raffaele for what they wanted against Amanda, then use Amanda to give them what they wanted about Patrick, and the worldly businessman and probably the instigator of a viscous rape murder would be confronted with the witness 'evidence' against him and crumble, one after another and each 'piece' shouldn't have been that difficult to get, it's not like they were asking either Amanda or Raffaele for (positive) evidence against themselves, which was fine because those statements couldn't be used for that, only against someone else.

If there was not a suspicion that Amanda was involved with a male other than Raffaele in the commission of the murder, how come they just let Raffaele off the hook after he gave them that worthless bilge that didn't actually incriminate himself? How on earth could they have spent three hours after Raffaele's statement was signed with Amanda about someone else and not even have questioned Raffaele on the whole murder part? This is the dog that didn't bark, there has to be an explanation for this. Nothing makes sense about the cops trying to add another male to the mix with (purportedly) zero evidence against him while the cuddlemuffin sits alone in a room.

As was long suspected, after the acquittal Raffaele's sister revealed that starting soon after the arrests Raffaele had the opportunity to make a deal and 'admit' that Amanda had left that night and he could have avoided most of those four years in prison, which suggests that they probably didn't have him high on their list on November 5th either, which is what is implied by that and their unconcern with him that night whilst Amanda was being interrogated.

None of that gets solved by assuming Napoleoni must be infallible on this issue or that she (and they) weren't capable of additional psychological ploys like having her hauled in like Patrick was. Their relative disinterest in Raffaele has to mean something especially if this was all spontaneous and not part of a plot, because then the ignoring of Raffaele becomes literally unbelievable to me. He was the one they called in! They got basically nothing (directly) incriminating against him in the statement they had him sign and not much at all about Amanda, and (basically) nothing against Raffaele from Amanda. I think with the shoes they thought he might have assisted with a 'clean-up' (or just figured the treads might be the same and not his but pretending to give them leverage) as odds are those prints were made after Meredith was dead anyway, but for some reason didn't initially think him involved in the murder, or they would have treated him like they did.

No, for some reason they wanted someone else too. No reason for it known, no evidence, (that we know of now...) but somehow Amanda and Raffaele committing it alone together wasn't a theory they ever even tried to pursue. There has to be an explanation for that, and just because they won't admit it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Mary - I put "candace dempsey" into the PI's search engine and get 8 pages - the early blogs don't show. If you have a search that shows them all let me know - feel free to make it a PM.<snip>

I believe her first blog post in the P-I was the one about Nick Gallo. Her second one was about Perugia. She never had a food blog, if that's what you're thinking.

Quote:

I find the distinction between blogger and reporter interesting. A blogger apparently is held to lower standard regarding accuracy and quality, yet we are to take them seriously.

Straw Man much? Kaosium and halides1 have already made the point well, but I will add that while a blogger can cite journalists, journalists usually don't have the freedom to cite bloggers. Candace's blog was and is far more comprehensive than what the reporters had to offer.

[codyjuneau]

Interesting discussion. Here is a possibility I have not seen mentioned:

Assume for a second the police lied and the bomb threat phone call was not a 200 million to 1 coincidental boy's prank so blithely accepted by most. Assume it was made by the murderer Rudy. That means it was made by a male with an African accent. And that would probably be evident to the lady that received the call. If she conveyed that information to the police then very early in the investigation they would be looking for an African male who possibly knew Meredith. And Lumumba was the best fit. This would prompt them to examine his phone records and probably tail him. If so they would discover Lumumba swapped SIM cards and texted Amanda the night of the murder. They would also observe what to them might have seemed like a clandestine meeting between Lumumba and Amanda after the murder.

So I think it is possible they were after Lumumba and thought Amanda was hiding knowledge of his involvement. That would explain the nature of the questioning and the police reaction to her statement

P.S. Someone will ask why the police would say the bomb threat phone call was a kid's prank if it was not. One reason could be that the call was made with a stolen phone or SIM card of a notable person with an alibi. Rather than throw suspicion on that person the police may have decided to say it was a kid's prank. There are other possible reasons as well, some more sinister.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Kaosium - even though you disagree with me, I am elevating you to the upper pantheon of understanding here, to a place currently occupied only by Katy_did and AngloLawyer, and a few others over at IIP... for one statement and one statement alone...

.... in short, you have atoned for your grievous sin of disagreement, by putting something into perspective that I could never get my head around. I'm going to start another thread on IIP about it, and give you due credit...

.... it is ....

Il problema di Raffaele.

Heh, I loved reading your post Bill!

I've got a reply to Katy-Did that ought to show up with this one disagreeing with you both, as a communications chain can be corrupted at any one point, and this one went through Monica Napoleoni and she's a lying liar and incompetent to boot. Whatever she said, Raffaele heard, and either told or didn't tell Amanda; neither would ever have known what Giobbi ordered. At that point everything sources to Napoleoni, and as I laid out in that post I think the preponderance of evidence still suggests Amanda and Raffaele walked into a trap set for Amanda, not Raffaele who they weren't especially interested in at the outset.

Do you know what suggests that the strongest, and which you caused me to think of as a result of your post? Something that I don't believe has ever occurred to me?

The first thing they did the night of the interrogation was separate Raffaele from Amanda--on the night of the murder. They put Raffaele at his computer where he'd still have the electronic alibi, (at that juncture) and Amanda elsewhere, presumably starting at Le Chic where she was supposedly headed from the town square. How could they have murdered together if they were apart from 9 PM-1 AM?

It didn't seem to bother them a bit at the time, thus suggesting even moreso that the idea when they walked in was not that Raffaele and Amanda were both involved in the killing together. Isn't is also curious that Raffaele's statement of 10:40 as represented in Matteini has Amanda going to Le Chic where Patrick was on the night of the murder? Do you suppose that was a coincidence? They knew she didn't work, but they had her go there anyway? At this point they hadn't even talked to Amanda about it or 'found' the test message which was supposedly their first inkling Patrick existed...

I cannot tell you with any certainty just why Raffaele and Amanda didn't both get told to come in by Napoleoni, but I do know I'm not going to overturn all the other indications and evidence they set up that interrogation to break Amanda that night, whether they were expecting her immediately with Raffaele or planned to bring her in later, just because of Monica Napoleoni. At least without the mess that makes of everything else being cleaned up with explanations for questions like these.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by halides1

Kaosium,

Thank you for your comments. I would only like to add that Ms. Dempsey and I discussed at one point whether one should refer to a key ingredient of the Kastle-Meyer test as phenolphthalin (the reactant) or phenolphthalein (the product). I offer this anecdote only to reinforce a point that came up in one of RoseMontague's comments, that Ms. Dempsey takes seriously the job of getting her facts correct.

phenolphthalin

phenolphthalein

There oughta be a law!

Did it ever get determined just exactly why Phpht (!) was sprayed in the bathroom in order to produce that 'blood soaked bathroom' effect at the date it happened? They weren't still doing forensics in there at that time, were they? I recall thinking once that might well have been done solely in order to see to it that picture ended up in the paper, and as I recall at one point it was discovered that Profazio actually owned the rights to that infamous picture.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Two further problems. One is the computer. Make sure whoever it is who examines these things, also fries the computer. We cannot have the computer giving a further alibi, because we cannot arrest the computer too and charge it with homicide!

You make it sound like those Italians are so incompetent that they can't even destroy potential evidence without screwing it up. Raffaele's computer which had the greatest potential of providing an alibi was the one that escaped the "EMP event" at the hands of the postal police. It was Amanda's computer which could at most confirm that Amanda and Meredith had spent a day at the chocolate festival that suffered the worst damage and has as yet not been recovered. Meredith's computer had initially been rendered inoperative but was fully restored and reported to have contained nothing but school related files.

[Grinder]

I never said that everything that Dempsey wrote was incorrect. I said I found her not to be reliable because of the writing she did in the PI. I asked Bill to explain how she could know what detectives were saying to each other the night of the interrogation. Bill has never responded but just about everyone else has, but no one with the specifics of that night's conversations. The reason her time in Italy seems important to me, is that it it seems odd that someone based in Seattle would be the only one to dig out those stories.

Kaosium - I've only read the Cliff's Notes version of Gibbon but I'm sure he sourced his books. Had he written a blog taking one families side of history and made mistakes on the level of Rudy being in the nursery school AFTER the murder, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one that would think his work was somewhat compromised.

As for the Seattle U forum Candace starts at about 12 minutes. I find her unprofessional and biased to the point of not being able to be a reporter. She states that she thinks of herself as a story teller. She misses no opportunity to promote her story. Her remaining blogs all have promo's for her book positioned so a search doesn't give the first part of the post but rather:

Get Amanda Knox case updates and leave comments on MURDER IN ITALY’s Facebook page. Latest: Amanda and Raffaele land book agents. Blog by Candace Dempsey, author of MURDER IN ITALY (Penguin/Berkley Books), the one, the true, the definitive... more »

During the talk she says "We did have some good news this week about the DNA evidence, looks like it's going to be totally knocked down by the independent experts." That to me is evidence that she was part of the team. She also asks one question of Amanda as she leaves the courtroom " do you have anything to say to your supporters back home." Now that's a question to get to the heart of matters.

Kaosium - no I didn't read the debate here. I have meticulously not repeated the slurs of the bunnies, but I have made specific questions about the one series of police quotes. Funny thing is that few disagree with my basic premise that the police did have Amanda in their sights as a key suspect. I think that she should have been named a suspect before the interrogation. I think they probably had some ideas about Patrick, although I don't believe he was well known to most of the detectives.

Dempsey also says that most of the English girls only met Knox for the first time in the police station. I thought many of them had met her at one club or another with Meredith. In fact this non-PMF translation of Massei the record shows that Robyn Carmel Butterworth, Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Nathalie Hayword all had met Amanda before the murder. Dempsey said "most of them had only met Amanda at the police station after the murder." CD shows a picture of five friends of Meredith but says seven testified against Amanda - I can't find these other three in Massei and even if they did "testify against" the majority of the friends DID know Amanda before the police station as listed above. Once again CD reporting is wrong. No problem it's just a forum. Does she make the same error in her book?

Candace says Amanda had met Rudy only once - I'd say a standard FOA line - but in fact we know that she met him downstairs and at Le Chic and I believe at least one more time - not really important but Candace isn't telling the story correctly. I guess that what she says at the forum is like blogging.

She says the tape of Amanda arriving at the cottage doesn't exist - I thought it existed but it wasn't Amanda in the tape. You know the one with the girl in the white dress and Rudy.

She states when she found inaccuracies about Amanda and as journalist she followed that trail. I've done exactly that with Candace.

Candace confuses circumstantial evidence with biased reporting.

She says that Amanda was brought back to the cottage "day after day after day after day". Small detail but by that last "day" she was in jail. How often did the police bring her back to the cottage? I know of the hoopla affair where she went downstairs and the looked at the knives, or was that two times? Candace claims that the seven police in the picture was the day after the body was found, is that the case?

She says Amanda was questioned all night - anyone think that's true?

It's nice that she cares about the difference between phenolphthalin and phenolphthalein but I find that esoteric compared to the errors I've picked out of her ten minute talk.

[halides1]

Grinder,

Amanda said that Rudi "might have come into Le Chic one time." (Dempsey, p. 293, and she uses quotation marks for this dialog between Pacelli and Knox) By my reckoning that means Amanda saw him once with the young men downstairs (probably not at their flat, from my reading) and that she may have seen him a second time (at Le Chic), although it is ambiguous whether or not they even spoke. Her testimony is available at PMF, so you may check their if you wish. I am not sure what other time you mean.

Indeed no tape of Amanda arriving at the cottage exists; you are parsing words in a strange way. If someone reported it as Amanda, then their reporting was biased. If someone reported that the police said it was Amanda, then their reporting may be technically accurate, but one wonders why a reporter would not wish to see the tape for himself or herself, or report that it was not made available. Is it your claim that biased reporting did not exist? Is it your claim that sloppy reporting did not exist?

I believe that Amanda was questioned between the two statements, if that is your question. Frank Sfarzo wrote, "It was not the lounge of Lady Windermere there, with the tea on the hour and the cookie aside." What do you believe, and why?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

phenolphthalin

phenolphthalein

There oughta be a law!

Did it ever get determined just exactly why Phpht (!) was sprayed in the bathroom in order to produce that 'blood soaked bathroom' effect at the date it happened? They weren't still doing forensics in there at that time, were they? I recall thinking once that might well have been done solely in order to see to it that picture ended up in the paper, and as I recall at one point it was discovered that Profazio actually owned the rights to that infamous picture.

Kaosium,

Everything is speculative, in the sense that little information has appeared (nothing at all in the Daily Mail, IIRC). Perhaps Dan O. remembers when the photo was taken, but it appeared around 16 January in the Daily Mail, IIRC. However, I would like to take this opportunity to debunk one myth about the use of the Kastle-Meyer test (if that is indeed what was done in the pink photo). Carlos Naldinho in comments at Gather attempted to say that the test had been performed correctly and was really detecting latent blood (a cleanup, in other words). To believe this you have to believe that you can spray down essentially the whole bathroom in x number of seconds (the actual value of x was in dispute in this discussion). Depending on the value of x, such a task would either be challenging or nearly impossible.

However, Carlos' whole line of reasoning evaporates when one considers the question, "If I wanted to spray down the whole bathroom, would I even use the Kastle-Meyer test, or would I use leuco crystal violet or some other test?" From the link above, "The application of LCV, particularly to large crime scene areas in most scenarios, has several distinct advantages over Amido Black, DAB and Luminol...The LCV overspray may discolor some substrates in time due to photo-ionization; however this does not occur immediately. Individual impressions which are detected can be individually removed from the scene. The subsequent processing with Amido Black methanol/glacial acetic acid formulation will further enhance the impression and eliminate most discoloration." Why the reporters from the Daily Mail did not stop to ask those questions is worth pondering. MOO.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

None of that gets solved by assuming Napoleoni must be infallible on this issue or that she (and they) weren't capable of additional psychological ploys like having her hauled in like Patrick was. Their relative disinterest in Raffaele has to mean something especially if this was all spontaneous and not part of a plot, because then the ignoring of Raffaele becomes literally unbelievable to me. He was the one they called in! They got basically nothing (directly) incriminating against him in the statement they had him sign and not much at all about Amanda, and (basically) nothing against Raffaele from Amanda. I think with the shoes they thought he might have assisted with a 'clean-up' (or just figured the treads might be the same and not his but pretending to give them leverage) as odds are those prints were made after Meredith was dead anyway, but for some reason didn't initially think him involved in the murder, or they would have treated him like they did.

No, for some reason they wanted someone else too. No reason for it known, no evidence, (that we know of now...) but somehow Amanda and Raffaele committing it alone together wasn't a theory they ever even tried to pursue. There has to be an explanation for that, and just because they won't admit it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Nature abhours a vacuum.

That's all the wisdom I have left, after taking a beating from you and Grinder, with Katy_did taking my side for solace.

Despite my bleatings, and trying to argue shades of grey with you good people, that at the end of the day amounts to the same thing really....

... regardless of what you think about the sources, and how Dempsey got inside the private thoughts of detectives...

.... and yes, I can be accused of trying to paint the cops in the best light possible, because I oprate on the theory that people are rarely as bad as others try to apint, esp. when the options are between conspiracy vs. all-too-human screwups....

.... and yes, I'd make an exception to that rule with Mignini, and still hold to the theory that eventually Napoleoni will be thrown under a bus on behalf of all...

.... it still really is a head scratcher, what with all the jawing, and all the arguments with guilters, and with all the nuanced what-ifs among the innocentati who are all trying to make the cops out to be brigands and scoundrels, the lot of them....

.... why the need for more than one perp? How'd they get there from Chicchiera's first instinct, the only instinct that actually "guessed" at the number of perps ("Let's look for someone", not the singular, and yes I am putting words into his mouth, so don't bother slaggin Dempsey for my sin, "that Meredith may have met at Hallowe'en.")

Everyone else was in the mode, "Follow the known key holders," which by its onsey does not take a guess at the number of perps.

Why the need for more than one? As Kaosium has suggested the perfect opportunity to go for more than one was when Knox confusedly, might have remembered something... but no one beat up Knox, not the way they put the boots to Lumumba, calling him, "a dirty black."

And even if you say that Raffaele only merits an arrest so as to deprive Knox of an alibi, this begins to be a rather crowded room, where it would be nigh imppossible to mask 2/3s of the partcipants in this cruel, grisly crime.

The perfect opportunity to correct this, even if so as to avoid future embarrassment, would be when they found Guede - but then everyone here has said that, and knows it, too. Suddenly the break-in makes sense, no need to follow a key holder, no need to look for some other guy at Hallowe'en. With Guede Occam's Razor is smiling, and the evidence is converging and the Kercher's themselves just may have some justice....

.... but, but, but, there has to be more than one, in some well placed person's mind. Why?

To quote Kaosium: "They got basically nothing (directly) incriminating against Raffaele in the (10:40 pm) statement they had him sign and not much at all about Amanda, and (basically) nothing against Raffaele from Amanda." Certainly Lumumba could not enlighten the police about Knox or Sollecito, and the first thing Guede says about it in the Skype call is that, "Knox wasn't there," and he makes zero mention of Raffaele!

So far, the sordid cast of characters has come up with zilch for the original three alleged sordid characters.

And AFAIAC, the only time the realy sordid character joins in with the allegations that more than one person was involved was when he was trying desparately to get 30 years reduced to 16.

Originally Posted by Kaosium

for some reason they wanted someone else too. No reason for it known, no evidence, (that we know of now...) but somehow Amanda and Raffaele committing it alone together wasn't a theory they ever even tried to pursue. There has to be an explanation for that, and just because they won't admit it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, one Guede was known, and his forensics was the ONLY forensics found.... they pretty well had to at least nod at the guy.

But at the risk of agreeing with Bruce Fisher on this, it is not Meredith herself who is the forgotten person here, it is Rudy Guede, the guy whose non-semen DNA is found inside her, where it should not be!

If you can solve this puzzle for us all, I will retract everything I've said and personally apologize to Grinder for insult.

I think the need to focus on Knox and Raffaele, whether before or after the fateful interrogation is precisely because there wasn't anything there... point weak, pound lecturn, that sort of thing.

Besides, it made a better story.... a seedier story. Was it just because it was a better narrative at press time?

That's as good a guess as any.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I never said that everything that Dempsey wrote was incorrect. I said I found her not to be reliable because of the writing she did in the PI. I asked Bill to explain how she could know what detectives were saying to each other the night of the interrogation. Bill has never responded but just about everyone else has, but no one with the specifics of that night's conversations. The reason her time in Italy seems important to me, is that it it seems odd that someone based in Seattle would be the only one to dig out those stories.

Kaosium - I've only read the Cliff's Notes version of Gibbon but I'm sure he sourced his books. Had he written a blog taking one families side of history and made mistakes on the level of Rudy being in the nursery school AFTER the murder, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one that would think his work was somewhat compromised.

As for the Seattle U forum Candace starts at about 12 minutes. I find her unprofessional and biased to the point of not being able to be a reporter. She states that she thinks of herself as a story teller. She misses no opportunity to promote her story. Her remaining blogs all have promo's for her book positioned so a search doesn't give the first part of the post but rather:

Get Amanda Knox case updates and leave comments on MURDER IN ITALY’s Facebook page. Latest: Amanda and Raffaele land book agents. Blog by Candace Dempsey, author of MURDER IN ITALY (Penguin/Berkley Books), the one, the true, the definitive... more »

During the talk she says "We did have some good news this week about the DNA evidence, looks like it's going to be totally knocked down by the independent experts." That to me is evidence that she was part of the team. She also asks one question of Amanda as she leaves the courtroom " do you have anything to say to your supporters back home." Now that's a question to get to the heart of matters.

Kaosium - no I didn't read the debate here. I have meticulously not repeated the slurs of the bunnies, but I have made specific questions about the one series of police quotes. Funny thing is that few disagree with my basic premise that the police did have Amanda in their sights as a key suspect. I think that she should have been named a suspect before the interrogation. I think they probably had some ideas about Patrick, although I don't believe he was well known to most of the detectives.

Dempsey also says that most of the English girls only met Knox for the first time in the police station. I thought many of them had met her at one club or another with Meredith. In fact this non-PMF translation of Massei the record shows that Robyn Carmel Butterworth, Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Nathalie Hayword all had met Amanda before the murder. Dempsey said "most of them had only met Amanda at the police station after the murder." CD shows a picture of five friends of Meredith but says seven testified against Amanda - I can't find these other three in Massei and even if they did "testify against" the majority of the friends DID know Amanda before the police station as listed above. Once again CD reporting is wrong. No problem it's just a forum. Does she make the same error in her book?

Candace says Amanda had met Rudy only once - I'd say a standard FOA line - but in fact we know that she met him downstairs and at Le Chic and I believe at least one more time - not really important but Candace isn't telling the story correctly. I guess that what she says at the forum is like blogging.

She says the tape of Amanda arriving at the cottage doesn't exist - I thought it existed but it wasn't Amanda in the tape. You know the one with the girl in the white dress and Rudy.

She states when she found inaccuracies about Amanda and as journalist she followed that trail. I've done exactly that with Candace.

Candace confuses circumstantial evidence with biased reporting.

She says that Amanda was brought back to the cottage "day after day after day after day". Small detail but by that last "day" she was in jail. How often did the police bring her back to the cottage? I know of the hoopla affair where she went downstairs and the looked at the knives, or was that two times? Candace claims that the seven police in the picture was the day after the body was found, is that the case?

She says Amanda was questioned all night - anyone think that's true?

It's nice that she cares about the difference between phenolphthalin and phenolphthalein but I find that esoteric compared to the errors I've picked out of her ten minute talk.

The "errors" you are sensitive to seem insignificant to me. They remind me of the guilters who put the full burden of Raffaele's "guilt" on the one misstatement he made in his diary. Or the "many lies" Amanda told, which "proved" she was a liar and therefore a murderer.

There were many sources of information along the way, and the information kept changing along the way. I think we could probably find that every source conveyed at least a few errors at certain times. You just gather as much information as you can and deduce the truth from all of it.

Of course Candace was "part of the team" by the time of the forum, April 4, 2011, almost a year-and-a-half after the first verdicts. As I said earlier, you can't be as familiar with the facts of the case as she was and still believe in guilt. To see the truth after much examination is not the same as being biased.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I
Dempsey also says that most of the English girls only met Knox for the first time in the police station. I thought many of them had met her at one club or another with Meredith. In fact this non-PMF translation of Massei the record shows that Robyn Carmel Butterworth, Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Nathalie Hayword all had met Amanda before the murder. Dempsey said "most of them had only met Amanda at the police station after the murder." CD shows a picture of five friends of Meredith but says seven testified against Amanda - I can't find these other three in Massei and even if they did "testify against" the majority of the friends DID know Amanda before the police station as listed above. Once again CD reporting is wrong. No problem it's just a forum. Does she make the same error in her book?

Grinder,

Here is a list of Meredith's seven British friends: Robyn Butterworth, Amy Frost, Sophie Purton, Nathalie Hayworth, Jane Bidwell, Helen Powell, Samantha Rodenhurst. From Curt Knox's words I surmise that all seven testified. From my reading of your link, I would say that Robyn, Amy, and probably Natalie met Amanda prior to the murder. However, I cannot find a passage to support a claim that Sophie had. Which passage do you mean? On page 81 of MiI, Sophie is described as being introduced to Amanda at the Questura. On page 280 of MiI, Ms. Dempsey briefly recounts the testimonies of Helen, Jade, and Samantha, after giving a much longer account of Robyn's testimony, starting on page 277. So I would say that it stands as 3 of 7 having met Amanda before the murder with the fourth young woman (Sophie) presently in dispute.

[anglolawyer]

On 06 Nov the cops had their three killers. Caso chiuso, as we like to repeat, in mockery. On the same day they collected the knife, which is a euphemism for the deliberate fabrication of crucial evidence (which is still in play).

In Bill's theory this makes no sense at all. The chance events of the evening, which the cops did not expect, had led, to their surprise, from the withdrawal of Amanda's alibi, through her 'confessions' to the arrest of Lumumba. And straightaway they begin brazenly fabricating evidence, within hours of his arrest.

Before the interrogations began the cops had bugged Amanda's and Raffaele's phones and also bugged them at the questura. They subsequently 'lost' the recordings, from which it surely follows they contained only benign exchanges of which the cops were fully aware before the interrogations began.

I am recently informed by someone who knows her that Amanda was not in the habit of deleting texts from her phone, the implication being the cops deleted Lumumba's SMS from his phone and hers.

We know the rest: the professional witnesses, deliberate lies disseminated to the press (purchase of bleach, bload-soaked bathroom) deliberate destruction of hard drives, Stefanoni's lies, illegitimate pressure on Lumumba after he was cleared, shenanigans with Guede whose sentence was reduced two weeks after the conviction etc. etc.

A compelling case can be made that from about mid-November onwards the cops were deliberately framing people against whom they knew they had no case. The case that they were doing the same during the night of the interrogations deserves serious attention.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by codyjuneau

Interesting discussion. Here is a possibility I have not seen mentioned:

Assume for a second the police lied and the bomb threat phone call was not a 200 million to 1 coincidental boy's prank so blithely accepted by most. Assume it was made by the murderer Rudy. That means it was made by a male with an African accent. And that would probably be evident to the lady that received the call. If she conveyed that information to the police then very early in the investigation they would be looking for an African male who possibly knew Meredith. And Lumumba was the best fit. This would prompt them to examine his phone records and probably tail him. If so they would discover Lumumba swapped SIM cards and texted Amanda the night of the murder. They would also observe what to them might have seemed like a clandestine meeting between Lumumba and Amanda after the murder.

So I think it is possible they were after Lumumba and thought Amanda was hiding knowledge of his involvement. That would explain the nature of the questioning and the police reaction to her statement<snip>

I think this is a reasonable possibility, codyjuneau.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Grinder

She misses no opportunity to promote her story

OK. Is there something wrong with promoting her book? Most people that write a book, I would have to say the vast majority of those that write a book, do what they can to promote it. Did Nadeau promote her book? Did Burleigh promote hers? Yep yep.

Originally Posted by Grinder

During the talk she says "We did have some good news this week about the DNA evidence, looks like it's going to be totally knocked down by the independent experts." That to me is evidence that she was part of the team. She also asks one question of Amanda as she leaves the courtroom " do you have anything to say to your supporters back home." Now that's a question to get to the heart of matters.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. She was convinced Amanda was innocent. I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Grinder

CD shows a picture of five friends of Meredith but says seven testified against Amanda - I can't find these other three in Massei and even if they did "testify against" the majority of the friends DID know Amanda before the police station as listed above. Once again CD reporting is wrong.

Do you think Massei included every thing in his report? Is Dempsey including preliminary hearings and witness statements? Is she counting the boys downstairs? They were friends with both Amanda and Meredith. I don't know. Do you?

Originally Posted by Grinder

Candace says Amanda had met Rudy only once - I'd say a standard FOA line - but in fact we know that she met him downstairs and at Le Chic and I believe at least one more time - not really important but Candace isn't telling the story correctly. I guess that what she says at the forum is like blogging.

Does having seen Rudy count as meeting him?

Originally Posted by Grinder

She says the tape of Amanda arriving at the cottage doesn't exist - I thought it existed but it wasn't Amanda in the tape. You know the one with the girl in the white dress and Rudy.

Looks to me like somebody carrying a light colored bag. I am not seeing this dress. If she is saying it is not Amanda she is correct. There is no tape of Amanda arriving at the cottage the night of the murder.

Originally Posted by Grinder

She states when she found inaccuracies about Amanda and as journalist she followed that trail. I've done exactly that with Candace.

Nothing wrong with this. Ms. Dempsey made every effort to be accurate. I do my best to do the same but sometimes I won't get something right.

Originally Posted by Grinder

She says that Amanda was brought back to the cottage "day after day after day after day". Small detail but by that last "day" she was in jail. How often did the police bring her back to the cottage? I know of the hoopla affair where she went downstairs and the looked at the knives, or was that two times? Candace claims that the seven police in the picture was the day after the body was found, is that the case?

IIRC, she was brought there with Laura and Filomena on the 3rd and by herself on the 4th but I may just be remembering this wrong. I don't think it was more than twice in any case.

Originally Posted by Grinder

She says Amanda was questioned all night - anyone think that's true?

Yes. I believe her questioning continued after the 1:45AM statement all the way up to her 5:45AM statement.

Originally Posted by Grinder

It's nice that she cares about the difference between phenolphthalin and phenolphthalein but I find that esoteric compared to the errors I've picked out of her ten minute talk.

I think you are holding Dempsey to a higher standard than others that have written and blogged about the case. Just my opinion.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by Grinder

She says Amanda was questioned all night - anyone think that's true?

I'm a bit surprised by this question, as you must know that many of us believe this to be the case based on what we know of the interrogation. Amanda in her testimony says she was questioned up to the 5:45 statement, and there is every reason to believe this. Are you saying Mignini's account that she simply dictated to him another statement, sans questions, is what actually happened?

[halides1]

Make that Jade Bidwell, not Jane.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

On 06 Nov the cops had their three killers. Caso chiuso, as we like to repeat, in mockery. On the same day they collected the knife, which is a euphemism for the deliberate fabrication of crucial evidence (which is still in play).

In Bill's theory this makes no sense at all. The chance events of the evening, which the cops did not expect, had led, to their surprise, from the withdrawal of Amanda's alibi, through her 'confessions' to the arrest of Lumumba. And straightaway they begin brazenly fabricating evidence, within hours of his arrest.

Yup. They did. Makes perfect sense to my theory. Il problema di Raffaele... they had to arrest their alibi, so tie the three people, Meredith-Knox-Sollecito... a knife from his place, with Amanda on the handle and Kercher on the balde. Makes perfect sense to me.

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Before the interrogations began the cops had bugged Amanda's and Raffaele's phones and also bugged them at the questura. They subsequently 'lost' the recordings, from which it surely follows they contained only benign exchanges of which the cops were fully aware before the interrogations began.

And you're using this as a reason why the cops were suspicious of them? And my theory is supposed to make no sense?

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

A compelling case can be made that from about mid-November onwards the cops were deliberately framing people against whom they knew they had no case. The case that they were doing the same during the night of the interrogations deserves serious attention.

All true.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by codyjuneau

Interesting discussion. Here is a possibility I have not seen mentioned:

Assume for a second the police lied and the bomb threat phone call was not a 200 million to 1 coincidental boy's prank so blithely accepted by most. Assume it was made by the murderer Rudy. That means it was made by a male with an African accent. And that would probably be evident to the lady that received the call. If she conveyed that information to the police then very early in the investigation they would be looking for an African male who possibly knew Meredith. And Lumumba was the best fit. This would prompt them to examine his phone records and probably tail him. If so they would discover Lumumba swapped SIM cards and texted Amanda the night of the murder. They would also observe what to them might have seemed like a clandestine meeting between Lumumba and Amanda after the murder.

So I think it is possible they were after Lumumba and thought Amanda was hiding knowledge of his involvement. That would explain the nature of the questioning and the police reaction to her statement

1 how would he know her number?
2 why would he make the call?

I think they could discover Lumumba by looking at Amanda's phone log.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by grinder

CD shows a picture of five friends of Meredith but says seven testified against Amanda - I can't find these other three in Massei and even if they did "testify against" the majority of the friends DID know Amanda before the police station as listed above. Once again CD reporting is wrong.

Originally Posted by Rose Montague

Do you think Massei included every thing in his report? Is Dempsey including preliminary hearings and witness statements? Is she counting the boys downstairs? They were friends with both Amanda and Meredith. I don't know. Do you?

He certainly did not. He made no finding on the lamp despite it's being the prosecution case it was used in the clean-up.

Btw I think 7-5 = 2