Thank you, Steve, for yet another thread! Thanks, Skep, for your help in securing it...
Thanks Steve, without you we would have no home for this ongoing discussion.
As regards your introduction to this new thread, I believe that many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
-
Thank you Steve, thank you Skep 
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases. Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions? And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
---------
Crap, it loaded so fast it frightened me 
Thank you Steve for hosting this space.
Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Also, I'm not sure the police need or want any information. They seem confident they are holding the right people, and so they must think they have the crime all figured out. Now all they have to do is weather a few publicity squalls until they can present their case in court.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | #
----------
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
---------
Soozie wrote:
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases.
No, it doesn't happen in a majority of cases, but it has happened in far more than "several" cases. One of the links I provided, the Richard Leo article, gives some statistical information. Project Innocence says a quarter of the people who have been freed by DNA analysis in the U.S. either incriminated themselves or confessed outright when questioned by police. It's a statistically significant phenomenon.
Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions?
No one knows, because we don't know what percentage of false confessions are discovered. If the Hells Angels hadn't happened to discuss the murder of Gary Gauger's parents on a phone being tapped by the FBI, he'd have been executed and everyone would stil think his confession was valid.
And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
I don't personally know Knox or Sollecito or anyone associated with either of them. My interest in this case is based on the fact pattern. If it were Filomena and her boyfriend, and the fact pattern were the same, I would feel just as I do about Knox and Sollecito.
Thanks again Steve for giving us the continued opportunity to debate this case. It was a timely moment to go past Steve's home page again and I willingly made a donation via Paypal. If other regular posters havn't already done so please consider making a donation to our very generous host.
I agree with Eric that some of the posts are far to long and emotive, mainly from a few regular posters, one in particular takes a lot of space. It's great to keep it on task and try and avoid the personal insult variety of post when someones conclusions are different than your own. This blog has got a lot more interesting now there is a more balanced debate going on regards was it a 'group crime' or a 'lone wolf'.
There are lots of valid arguments from both sides of the fence.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Soozie wrote:
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
According to the report that Kermit cited earlier, there initial statements on November 2 were consistent. It was only on November 5, under more intense questioning, that their stories changed and became inconsistent. We disagree about why that happened. My view is that their initial statements were accurate.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Oceania88 | 04.11.08 - 9:29 pm | #
Yes, and your lively debate aint bad either!
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm | #
Charlie, I think they were suppose to call home and ask for permission before they spent that "private" time together! Then they would have had an alibi.
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
I usually do, it was more a space issue in respect of Steve.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm |
---------
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
--
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 9:48 pm | #
---------
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
Soozie wrote:
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Neither of these two has confessed. But I have no trouble believing they could both be manipulated into changing their stories so as to implicate themselves and each other.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba.
I do not believe, and have never argued, that any kind of serious physical coercion was used against either Knox or Sollecito.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch. Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:55 pm | #
Ok thanks for the reply. If it turns out that way, I won't be surprised they picked on her that way. She was (I believe) the youngest and would have been an easy target vs Raffael who probably new the system well enough not to be taken advantage of. I'm not saying abuses took place but it needs to be examined along with everything else.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch.
Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:05 pm |
----------
Because she didn't want to implicate Rudy? I honestly don't know. It's been suggested a few times that if we substitute Lumumba for Rudy, her story might make more sense. The fact she went into so much detail, invented a whole tale around how Lumumba had claimed to 'want' Meredith, had followed her into the bedroom, and how she'd been in the kitchen covering her ears to drown out Meredith's screams, the thuds she heard, etc etc. . . well, it seemed too detailed not to contain at least some truth in it. It's as if she told the truth, but put the wrong person in the frame. Maybe she was scared of grassing on Rudy, who knows? But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
-------------
Soozie wrote:
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Charlie, he spoke to his father several times a day. I would speculate that before he was interviewed he saw that his father had called and he just remembered that as one of the times and maybe inadvertantly said he was on the phone. Both of these suspects had to have been under a tremendous amount of stress whether they were participants or just having observed the results of a nasty murder.
Soozie wrote:
But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:43 pm | #
nodding yes how it was or yes it could have happen that way? I have a vission vs while I was in the kitchen...ect...ect...
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Yes Charlie.
It appeared in many places earlier on. However, the conclusion appears to be that Raf's Dad DID make the phone call but left a message on the answer machine.
On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.
He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events...
The Telegraph
hey Skep, idiot wind indeed!
Charlie:
From the Times
Police believe that all three suspects were present at the time of the murder,
although Mr Sollecito told them he received a phone call at his home from his father Franco at 11.30pm, which his father confirmed.
I can't find the contradiction to this right now, but I'll look for it tomorrow.
I definitely remember reading that RS did not answer his phone, and did not respond to a text his father had sent him.
Also from the Times:
"Pathologists’ reports suggest that two people were involved in the killing,
with one holding Ms Kercher down while the other “sexually violated” her."
By the way, regarding Amanda implicating Lumumba, I don't know how closely you followed the events in the early days, but she also claimed that after the murder,
(before anyone had been arrested), that Lumumba had approached her to ask if the police knew how Meredith had died, and what she'd told police etc.
Again, she appears to invent extra detail for the sake of it.
From RS's letter to his father:
Amanda is a fantasist who only thinks of her own pleasure
----------
Brian S. I type too slow!!
If interested. A ten minute video of Paul Ciolino & Peter Van Sant discussing Amanda Knox. They want everybody to contact the State Department?
http://www.kirotv.com/video/1585...8894/
index.html
Note: Steve thanks for the new web page.
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 10:48 pm | #
BTD If you go back to November/December/January timeframe there were so many leaks and documents coming from the ILE and the defence teams, it was crazy. This was much criticized by the by the judges and an "official caution" was handed out.
Then, "news" really did become short in supply for a few weeks. Everything did appear to clam up until one day Lalli released his final autopsy report to the press two weeks early. He was fired.
Back to Detention wrote:
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
I think more 'truth' was revealed in the first few weeks than anything since. Except for Lumumba's involvement of course.
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 11:13 pm | #
Charlie, today the cbs folks said that the statements they had were in broken english. Do you think they have an actual copy of the statement(s) by Amanda Knox? If not, they are just going to inflame the situation even more but if they do have an actual copy and it is in broken english then I would start to wonder why it would not be clearly written.
A friend sent me this link from a local radio station in Seattle. http://icestream.bonnint.net/
sea...12008154446.mp3
These guys were saying some pretty inflammatory things and I am certainly wondering if they have the balls/evidence to back up what they were saying. State Department? What does this mean?
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 11:18 pm | #
Soozie, I thought I read something about the hand print being larger...? I will go back and see where I saw that.
Hold on to your hats!
I don't remember reading about this before re: RS, or if I did, I forgot about it.
His diary also reveals how he was "psychologically tortured" at Perugia police station after being made to strip naked and put in handcuffs.
--------
Hold on to your hats!
Nowo | 04.11.08 - 11:23 pm | #
Woooooooooooooooooooooosssshhhhh
"An imprint found on the face of murdered British student Meredith Kercher reportedly matches Amanda Knox's fingerprints, a hearing in Italy has been told."
This was posted in an earlier Haloscan, 1 or 2, so I'll try and find the original later.
I just think that if ANY of this has been proved, (and we don't know about it), it would explain why the police are so confident about her involvement.
---------
Handprint on Merediths throat? It is real and it is from a large hand, like that of a basketball players.
I dunno but I bet if you placed a certain someones hand on that area, with the wounds being where they are, I bet it matches the wound that he has on his hand.
The knife...the one that is supposedly used in the murder is a straight edged knife and the one that inflicted the wounds on Meredith are from a serrated knife, so the report says. Mignini used our willingness to be quiet and our respect for the process to use this detail against us. He never corrected this error in the public domain because it helped him.
That is all changing now.
We will not be quiet, we no longer respect him or the process because it is flawed.
Watch the 48hrs show on April 12th to see just how flawed it is.
Mignini's butt is on the line. He has to look good in this case or else. His Supreme court hearing is the day after Amandas. She has not been charged, she is just a suspect. Mignini has been charged. He is more than a suspect and he is in deep for what he did to the judges in Florence.
So, ask me and if I know, I will tell you. I am done with amanda being accused of a crime she had no part of and I am done keeping quiet.
Chris Mellas | 03.27.08 - 2:14 am | #
I have not read that far back yet but I remembered the above from the night Chris Mellas was online. I know it can't be used as truth, but I don't know why he would say that about the hand.
Just posted this on the old thread by accident, so I repeat:
Charlie Wilkes: I have an idea
You seem like a fellow who has lots of energy, time to put into issues, and are willing to delve into discussions. What we need is someone to organize the material in a chart-like format for comparison - a chart of who did it/might have done it, and why - if you will. This way you can actually help all of us on the blog.
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear. I would assume by now you have had enough of the back and forth on the case, and the questions you have asked have all been answered. So, this might be a great time to put it into form. We would all appreciate the document, to be sure. If it needs translation, you have a good group on hand. Editing skills abound. One direction could be by 'accused' taking each of the jailed accused and presenting a pro and con list. Another could be a list of clues: both admitted into court, and others that are presently hearsay. It could be done in color. Excel has lots of possibilities for this expression. It just seems you are ripe for developing and trying out other roles here. You might even put yourself in as devil's advocate! A good list of pros and cons for each of the accused might just be the thing that makes it very clear.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, as going around in circles is exhausting for everyone. Sorry if I don't have the time to respond, but earning a living trumps trivial pursuits.
Thanks,
Thanks for the links, DLW and BTD.
I'm looking forward to the 48 Hours Mystery tomorrow night.
The Pinecone Theory is still solid.
May wrote:
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear.
It's a nice idea and would no doubt enhance my stature in this group. But someone whose views are more in line with the group consensus ought to take this project on. So I respectfully decline.
But thanks for thinking of me.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended,
You may be sure of it. 
So, based on the links posted by Brian and BTD, 48 Hours is saying there is absolutely no evidence - zero, nada - against Amanda. That they checked everything out and every single accusation against her is false. That every parent of a college student should be outraged and contact the State Dept to protest.
I don't generally watch TV but does this program wield that kind of influence? Is this simply all for show? For ratings? Is it possible that they believe what they are saying AND have investigated in good faith?
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
Peter and Paul seem to have a very, um, "American" perspective on the Italian system. That certainly doesn't speak well for their objectivity. And they are very comfortable stating a slew of horrible accusations against Rudy as fact.
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
I still have so many unanswered questions - especially regarding all the conflicting alibis. But the scenarios of guilt are not yet convincing to me either.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
The link I referred to above was from DLW, not Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
The link I referred to above was posted by DLW rather than Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
It won't make the slightest bit of difference in Italy.
Nor will the State Department be able to intervene.
Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are all being held for up to a year, as they can be according to the Italian process. They have not been charged for trial, but the courts consider they have enough evidence to justify holding them as suspects.
That's just the way it is in Italy.
It's the way their law is written by act of parliament. It would also appear that the Italian system has made allowances for those who are later found to have been held unjustly. They will be awarded compensation.
It may seem a strange way to run things to many of us(i'm from the UK) who are more used to common law, but that is the way they do things in Italy.
State Department? What does this mean?
BackToDetention
Paul Ciolino during his interview with KIRO in Seattle says ‘it’s going to take a lot of pressure from out State Department to get some forward movement for this young lady’ and ‘they need to get right on this'.
kp: No problem, Brian needs credit for his input, along with many other fine posters..
Thanks, DLW
Hi Corrina I was thinking of Bali somewhere like that I think Paul C Wilkes will gladly pay for all of us after all the dosh he makes on the CBS bull.
Hi Nicki,
Yes definitely south or Far East, not Scandinavia or somewhere ice cold like Oceania and her blog hubby Paul Wilke's theories, I strongly ponder.
To that I'd say, put another record on, it's so stuck
So here we go round and round
My baby loves to hide
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight consdescension of towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
You say I unlike others here Me as breath of fresh air
but it is your cut on it not anyone elses.
You fail to offer explanations for questions asked and are sound like someone stuck in a revolving door.
How is Amanda going to explain how she was at Raffaele's place but he says she wasn't?
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
Sadly, yes.
Jeez, new gasoline computer like they have in Eye Talia typos again
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight of condescension towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
_____________________________________
Knox: I was at Raffaele's house all evening and night.
I read Harry P and ate, watched a film with Raffaele, then woke up at 10 the next morning, then went to my house and found the door open.
I went in, there was blood, I took a shower, then went to Raffaele to tell him I think that there was a robbery at home.
Sollecito: I was at home all evening and I was on my own.
Amanda was not there with me, until 1 at night.
She left at 10 then I stayed in bed, then she came back then we went to her house to check the robbery out.
Judge to Knox's lawyer Ms Oceania: Please, what does your client have to say to Mr Sollecito's claims?
Sadly, yes.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:06 am
________________________
You must be kidding
Yes, Brian, I know it's the way they do things in Italy - and I don't have a problem with that.
But it is chilling to contemplate the possibility (the POSSIBILITY, people, however remote) that a naive, innocent, young girl (perhaps like my own daughter) might be unjustly spending many months in prison.
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is, as far as I have found out about the law in Italy, that a suspect can be held for two years if neeed be, prermission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases.
I have explained how the concepts differ between say UK or USA and that of Italy, so because these folk are seen as having serious pointers towards them, as being involved in a murder, they are confined, under the concepts of 'custody pending trial' these folk are considered in a way, charged, otherwise they would have been released after four days, the maximum that Italian police may hold someone without charging them, the procedure now involves preliminary investigation, then charging formally, then trial.
These people in custody can be considered charged. Just the various system's concepts do not equate.
Some people have understood the difference I've pointed out Brian, and some others just keep shouting out their same inaccurate stuff based on their ignorance of law.
Oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't even been charged, oew they haven't had bail (is no bail system in Italy comparable to that in UK or USA).
So, Charlie, we can't believe ANYTHING that has been published in any of the media?
And there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that, at this point, Amanda has no alibi? (She says she was with Raffaele, he says she wasn't.)
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
________________________________
Where do you get off Paul?
Like you are so fake. You pretend to know a little but all as you are doing is faking things, because you are involved as a paid-up person, the way yoiu camje here with this agenda, you are not arguing points, you are just telling everyone, this is how it is, when that is only your opinion.
How can you know what evidence the prosecutor has compiled, I know you don't know.
Simply because you say it is so, it is so.
That is ignorance to make such sweeping statements, based on nothing but yiour fixed agenda.
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
typing corrections
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is - as far as I have found out about the law in Italy - that a suspect can be held for two years if need be, permission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases that an extension is
given so that preliminaries may run for up to TWO YEARS. FACT.
I guess those suspects had better get their stories straight fast.
Did anyone ever explain how Barcroft Media obtained copyrights on crime scene photos which appeared at this link: http://tinyurl.com/2fqqlp
I imagine all the leaked evidence would have had little value had the theory of the crime not been so outlandish.
Thanks to Seattleite for introducing me to that possible angle of the case. Knox appears to be Mignini's ace in the hole.
John,
Nobody is talking about charges or bail.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb wrote:
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
Indeed. Italy is a civilized country, a democracy with a criminal justice system that affords suspects due process and an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
But abuses can happen in any system. I recognize the patterns in this case because I am familiar with so many cases in the U.S. where prosecutors railroaded innocent people.
Are people checking out these links, or have minds already been made up?
OK, it sounds like I'm getting cranky. I'm off to bed.
Until tomorrow...
Brian S. wrote:
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
My statement has the same factual basis as your statement that Sollecito killed Meredith to keep her from calling the cops. It's a conclusion reached by examining all the information I have found on this case.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am
________________--
You are talking about what you are talking about, I find that subject nonsense and irrelevant, CBS isn't going to get her released. You can believe the hype.
Your choice.
I AM talking about charges, I dictate to me what I talk about KB, you do not make up my mind for me, nor does Paul Wilkes.
These suspects are as good as charged.
And I think they may ALL be guilty.
Every reason to hold them is reasonable under the circumstances.
Amanda wasn't hit, in my view, no, and nobody is able to answer our questions here, about how Amanda is going to explain why Sollecito is calling her a liar. The RAILROAD is Paul Wilkes and his repeating the same robotic statements.
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
TLC | 04.12.08 - 12:59 am | #
I have been posting in a down to earth believable way since I got here. It's just that you, and many others, refuse to look at the other side of the story. I have read all your theories and opinions and arrived at my own conclusions. If you feel your view is threatened in any way you lash out with personal insults, condescension and derogatory remarks. Most of you have participated in this, the sly, snide comments, the group support, it fits with the group instinct mentality. You seem to think your all being terribly clever and funny but it's actually terribly childish and transparent. It amuses me.
You have gone on and on about the fresh air thing, it was a joke, a double entendree as you first seemed to have grasped but have since had some sort of humour lobotomy over. I have put forward a lot of well thought through and insightful accounts to what I think happened in terms of RG being the perpetrator of this crime covering his profile, motive and how he carried it out. Many of your theories revolve around things like "Raff lost it because he didn't want his reputation ruined and killed Meredith, but he didn't leave any DNA because he had a surgical suit and gloves on and a swim cap"
And you ask me to keep my theories down to earth and believable !
The only other person I have this much trouble trying to put to bed is 7 years old.
The cheapest trick you love to pull out of your well worn deck of insult cards is the 'because you think only RG did it Miss High and Mighty, you cannot care about Meredith'. I do feel a very real connection to Meredith as I have a son who went to Perugia under similar circumstances and who lives 750mtrs away from where her life was taken. I sincerely hope
whoever committed this horrible crime pays severly for it.
But I'm sure you will be able to find fault with those sincere words as well.
Maybe I should copy some of the other posters and say 'this is the last time wasting post of yours I shall ever read and respond to, I shall ignore you for the rest of my life....pout..stomp....slam..'
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am | #
kb,
The detention of Raffaele and Amanda has been appealed all the way up to the Italian Supreme Court by their defense teams.
Charlie will tell you that the Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp organisation, but I would suggest that's just his opinion.
MY EMAIL ADDRESS
charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com
Since we're getting so chummy...
Pinecone | 04.12.08 - 1:35 am | #
Hi Pinecone, good to see you back again, you disappeared shortly after I arrived here. Just wondering if you have you updated any part of your theory since reading RG's diary ?
AP Breaking News Friday Night
Charles Manson and Family Released!
Charles Manson and his merry band of followers were released today following a long series of appeals. Manson, a known Beatles afficionado and guitar hero to many, was released due to the fact that he neither confessed to the crimes, committed the crimes, or ever recovered from his LSD/Marijuana incduced interviews which were clearly politically motivated against the hippy generation, thus creating mental anguish which tornadoed into depression and ADD. According to Manson's team of attorneys from the firm Captain Mickey & Friends, Manson had recently become a big fan of news programs such as 20/20 featuring true crime stories, and recently applied for another appeal through the State Department. A recent case inspired Manson and his long suffering girlfriend, Sadie Mae Glutz, who continued to pine for each other in one most inspiring romances of all time, rivalling that of Romeo & Juliet, or even Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Manson was quoted as saying, "I'm so pleased to finally have justice. I've always said these murders had nothing to do with me. It was you people, society, which brought this on yourselves. I'm just artist who loves the Beatles and the Beach Boys. Well maybe not the Beach Boys so much. They owe me money." At his release party at the Chateau Marmont, held in the famed bungalow where John Belushi was found dead, Manson announced that he has sold the rights of his final side of the Tate Murder story. In a bizarre twist, Roman Polanski has agreed to direct the screenplay, with Dina Lohan expressing interest in the Susan Atkins role for her daughter Lindsay, as long as the serious role includes full frontal. That's Hollywood!
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:59
I do not have any one theory, I have loked at it from all angles. I take objection to your I UNLIKE MOST OTHERS HERE, as if you are the only one with any sense.
Do not worry Oceania, you have not reacted to any of my questions because you could not answer them, it has been me pulling you up when yiou make riodiculous statements, so nothiung new then there.
I do care about the Kerchers and I know that nothing is okay for them except the truth about what happened. Nobody knows the truth yet. Nobody except the ones who murdered Meredith.
It means you do not know either Oceania.
I do not think you care truly about what happened to Meredith, you have something to do now, defending Amanda Knox.
That is your right. I just think you offer crap points based on theories that do not add up, like the one the other day where you said they would have thrown their own money away to make it look like a robbery. You said they'd have done that if they'd have been guilty of robbing her. It just made no sense at all.
Anyhow good luck and do your best then.
More on the CBS show:
Hired by "48 Hours" to review the case, Ciolino said police don't have any solid evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the killing. Speaking on the program, Ciolino said he's convinced that young women such as Knox -- a Seattle Prep grad who made the UW honor roll -- don't commit murder.
"Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides," Ciolino said. "They don't do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I'd sure like to see her."...
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:28 am | #
--------------------------------
Thanks Brain S... First time that I have seen abject reporting by Seattle PI recognising the fact that Amanda is not innocent just because the way she looks..... Hold off contacting the state police everyone... she may actually be guilty!
Best regards, LW
Oceania
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??
I am sure that CBS may not have covered this question...
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf, why do you keep swimming out to sea? You're a land creature, and a lovely one at that.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Love Wolf, are you saying I am these other people? Love it!! Now I think I feel a breeze a blowing!
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:08 am | #
Whatever floats your boat as we drift out to sea (as sparrow points out).
By the way, what are my motives? I never stated any agenda here that would involve any particular motives unless this is a game you play with newcomers to your blog.
Now I see why Skeptical B was making the goofy remarks earlier; cute!
Has Sollecito tried to blame it on Knox by saying she was not with him?
If he did say she was not with him so as to try and make her take the blame how could he have imagined that she would react if it was not true?
Would she not possibly have flipped and revealed all about how they BOTH were involved after she heard that Sollecito said she was not with him?
It may be that he knew Amanda would never just tell the truth, not even if he said that she was not with him.
and that is why he said it.
If it is true, it leaves him at home and Amanda off out without him until 1 at night.
That makes Sollecito look innocent of murder. It means Knox might have done the killing alone or with Guede.
If Guede did it alone then surely Sollecito would have no reason to tell lies about Amanda.
It doesn't look like Sollecito did it alone.
It doesn't look like Guede did it alone, it could have been if the other two had not acted so out of place and strangely, and if Sollecito was not calling Amanda Knox a liar.
There are still many possibilities.
Some theories can be discluded already, like Sollecito operating alone.
Whichever way one looks at it, instead of being able to disclude one of the individuals and say they are innocent, instead one is left being unable to see how they are not involved.
TLC... which ever way you look in the "she said he said" scenario you just know that all 3 played some form of role and
1) based on what Guede says that it was Raf.... I feel that Raf did knife / murder Meredith
2) and what Raf says about AK... he blames her for the whole events that took place.....
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga.. do not hold your breath regarding the other 2 they are following Charlie's advice and saying bugger all until court as each time they write or say anything it is blown away and proved to be false by the reality of what happened.
I cannot see their alibis coming together at all... If Raf changes his he risks everything... if AK changers hers she admits that she was out and about walking around during a period of memory loss!!
LW
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | #
______________________________________
That is exactly what I thought.
That guy Paul C Charlie Wilkes has no off switch.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Sparrow | 04.12.08 - 3:02 am
____________________________________
Hi ya Sparrow,
That is comforting, because, those with that one-sidedness, seem like enemies of justice for Meredith be it because they undermine all things involved, I find it hard to sit by and let them do that. Sound arguments, I will not ridicule, but simply saying, it's injustice Amanda is the victim, is simply unacceptable.
And it is, like Lurker Boy said, taking everything away from real open discussion.
Thanks for everything, you're very kind.
The tryuth will come out.
Well said Lurker Boy and TLC...
Justice will be served and I have 110% faith in the prosecution and investigation teams
The Media storm similar to the tactics here (probably are one of the same thing).
I think they are hoping for an OJ Simpson sort of trial, bit that will never happen as all this happened in Italy.... that will not change.
Have a great weekend all..... including you BTD.. I am sure you like me will spend some time away from this blog as I am sure that you are a real normal person behind the mask.
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Hi Chris,
I think there is plenty of time for RG to carry out all the things that happened that night. RG had a time frame of between approx 9pm and 10.30pm, if the witness who saw a black man running from the house is to be relied on. But for the sake of a RG alone timeframe lets look at one and half hours.
9pm sees Meredith walking home, approaches her, says he is waiting for one of the guys downstairs (or some other story), can he wait with her. Within the next half hour he gets cosy with Meredith. They chat, RG flirts, they laugh, Meredith feels quite comfortable at this point.
9.30pm Meredith briefly phones her mum. After the call RG ups the ante about trying to score with her and starts to make a more serious move. Maybe at first she goes along with some kissing and caressing. Maybe this is the point where he gets his finger inside her. Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation. By this stage Meredith is fighting hard. RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan). He holds it to Merediths throat. It turns into a violent frenzy. Meredith is fighting for her life, she grabs his hair. RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed. The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her.
10pm - 10.30pm (Not necessarily in this order) Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife. Gets toilet paper for his cut hand. Takes the money from M's drawer. Covers M's body. Takes phones. Locks bedroom door. Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage. Wipes blood from AK's room and drawers. Wipes blood off the outside of the bedroom door. Cleans bloody footprints from the hallway etc. Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room.
10.30pm Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path. Either he makes the call to her bank or its some kind of misdial while the phones are in his possession. He ditches them on his way home to clean up.
I should imagine he was pumping adrenalin and moving quite fast, but 20-30 mins is ample to complete those tasks in that small cottage.
Oceania88
Yes. As a scenario, something very close to this.
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga..
LW
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:57 am | #
____________________________
If the true version of events was Guede was the one who stabbed Meredith, then to me, it'd mean it would make no sense that the other two did not (and do not) just tell on him.
They've definitely shown they have told lies and that is something that points to their guilt.
They really do seem to be inter-linked. Even if they wanted to tell on the other they can't, what one reveals about the other, he or she reveals about themself, supposing it is a case of joint guilt that is the truth of the case.
In that case, the truth would mean they are all involved so they cannot just tell on the other, like Amanda couldn't, even after Sollecito abandoned her and in doing so cleverly adding a small but weak alibi for himself, robbing Amanda of her alibi.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
The one thing I would be prepared to say with certainty about this case is that anyone who is prepared to used the expression "all but certainly" about their own pet theory hasn't really understood the case at all.
And I mean tkll on him because of the evidence pointing to the clean up, and their reasons behind not being able to agree on where they were, points to their involvement and presence, as does the evidence found in the cottage.
The blood spot from Knox was fresh and how they judged that was because it was still not dry and had started to dry only 'from the outside inwards', as blood spots do dry. That is why the forensics stated that the blood spot puts her at the cottage.
There was one fingerprint found from Knox, one fingerprint from the entire apartment, none in her own room.
No trace of anything of Knox, except one fingerprint and blood. I have lived in houses with women, I have had girlfriends enough, but never seen any blood anywhere like on a WC floor or bathroom. Maybe my friends were all very tidy.
Oceania....
OK based on your theory...
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
I look forward to your views........
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
EXcuses the typo's caffeine still not hit me yet!!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | "a question to Kermit, SB et al.... Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes ..."
Welcome Lurker Boy. I hear you, and I apologise to all for the wild goose chase last night. I would probably want to keep on it, because Charlie - unlike Cheese&Rice types - tries to put a structure into his comments, which make them initially attractive for engaging in debate. Indeed, there are some facts behind some of his posts - the Wenatchee, Gauger cases did exist. However, when you start to debate his structure, and show the differences between those cases and Perugia, or the fact that his logic of "Sometimes innocent people are accused, therefore Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, therefore they don't have anything whatsoever to contribute to the investigation" ... that's when the wild goose chase starts.
The chase ended for me when I went to bed after posting the second post of this new thread:
Kermit | 04.11.08 - 8:53 pm | " many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
Just a few minutes later and three posts later Charlie had the nerve to post:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | "Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty."
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
Enough said.
Lurker Boy, I hope we see more of you and other posters.
-
Kermit wrote:
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am | #
1) Telling the truth would be a start
2) Clearing up any misunderstanding
3) Clearing their names if they are innocent
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
Lurker Boy wrote:
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
That is a breathtakingly naive statement.
How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am |
----------
Interesting to note that you see their only 'option' to help the inquiry would be to 'confess'. What about the truth? Why can't they just tell the truth about where they were that night, just like all the others did who were questioned? Personally, I don't think it would be a good judgement call for them to be released until they can prove they're telling the truth about their whereabouts that night. Despite your comment about 'they didn't have an alibi because they were home alone all night together', so what? Still doesn't explain why they both DISAGREE about whether they were together. That's the problem. They DISAGREE with each other. Filomena and her boyfriend didn't disagree with each other, no doubt because they were really telling the truth and didn't need to deviate from it. I'm sure if they'd also contradicted each other, they would have been questioned further too.
I sure as hell wouldn't be happy for my daughter to be hanging out with them!
Charlie, there are two aspects to this issue.
One is legal strategy: Amanda and Raffaele have very capable lawyers who - from a purely legal strategy point of view - have probably given them good advice to invoke their right not to declare.
Quite another aspect is if Amanda and Raffaele are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened on the night of November 1. You have stated here on different occasions that you don't believe that either Amanda or Raffaele have any information beyond their declarations to ILE up to Nov. 5 ... To throw your words back at you once again:
"That is a breathtakingly naive statement."
By believing that they are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened, that doesn't mean they are guilty (REMEMBER your MISREPRESENTATION of my point of view?). We don't even know which crimes the ILE will deem to have occurred, nor in what order, although murder of one type or another will be amongst them. Quite likely, the information that Amanda could contribute to the investigation isn't 100% the same as Raffaele's.
Filomena, the victim's boyfriend, Sophie, Robyn, the Serbian, have been interviewed before and after November 5. Some old witnesses and perhaps some new ones will continue to be interviewed before the end of the investigation. There's always time and a need for input from anybody who can contribute.
-
LOVE WOLF | 04.12.08 - 5:33 am | #
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
I thought the mop was supposedly taken by AK back to RS in the morning. RG could have used cleaning materials from the cottage when he cleaned up as much blood as he could from oustide the room where Meredith was murdered.
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
No, what he cleaned up with was already at the cottage.
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
He triend to remove as much evidence of his bloody trail outside M's room. He knew M's room was too big a job, so he locked the door on it to delay discovery. When he went into AK's room he may have left some bloody footprints on the floor and bloody fingerprints on her drawers. He cleaned it off possibly with a rag and bleach. So he removed both his bloody trail and some of AK's DNA that was there from previous. I don't know how much I believe of that 'absolutely none of AK's prints found in the cottage' story. Maybe that grew a life of it's own out of the cleaning that RG did in her room. As Charlie points out how could AK selectively remove only her DNA from the entire cottage and leave all the others, that's an impossiblity.
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
He was more cunning than stupid that's for sure. And luck so far has played sickeningly into his hands with the arrest and implication of AK and RS in his hideous crime. It's also incredible how many poeple believe his lies. How many people discuss about AK stealing M's rent money etc. That was all born out of RG's imagination.
I look forward to your views........
and I look forward to yours.
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 7:08 am |
-------
I don't understand why you criticise other people for "refusing to look at the other side of the story", when you are absolutely guilty of it yourself.
It's so hypocritical. How can you not see what you're doing?
Take a look at some of the previous Haloscans, and you will see that yours and Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody. You are both in the minority of people who believe RS and Amanda are innocent of anything to do with this crime.
You seem to be here to present one theory and one theory only. You're entitled to that, but please don't insult the rest of us by accusing us of 'refusing' to look at the other side of the story, when you refuse to look at the 'other side' yourself.
--------------
Nice to see this thread getting (if just a little) back on track. Here are some comments arising from postings made yesterday:
Matteini's report of 9th November contains the ONLY hard facts we have access to.
It does NOT contain ALL the evidence that the investigators had at that date, simply what was considered enough to justify the holding of AK, RS and PL in custody pending further investigations.
That report has been appealed to the High Court who upheld it. We can thus be certain that the evidence it cites concerning RS and AK has not been subsequently been undermined, and can still be regarded as accurate. This is not the case with anything it says concerning PL.
What we have there is selective evidence, reflecting the state of play on 8th November.
Other, less hard facts, can be gleaned from media reports, mostly those that appeared within the first two weeks after the murder.
1. Faeces . When they underwent routine questioning on 2nd November (as did everyone else in any way connected with MK), the only discrepancy (according to the report) in their statements was about the faeces: AK had said there was shit in the lavatory; and RS said there wasn't. It is clear that he must have been questioned specifically on this point because RS 'affermava di aver trovato pulito'. He cannot, therefore have said he hadn't noticed.
In the context of the report, this is used to indicate that RS told a deliberate lie at the first routine questioning.
It is a very minor point; but the significance of the faeces must have emerged during the scientific investigations that also began on the afternoon of 2 November. If AK hadn't mentioned the shit, RS wouldn't have been questioned about it and their statements would have coincided precisely.
However, there must have been something (other things) else, either in these statements of 2 November or which emerged later to cause the police to bring back the two witnesses (as they then were) for a further grilling on 5th November; something serious enough for them to be called in after 22.00 rather than waiting till the next morning.
We do not know what that was (although it has been alleged without source, that the police, bugging AK's and RS's phones, heard her saying 'I can't keep this up'. The fact that AK's friends were re-questioned about what AK had told them about the finding of the body, also suggests that the police knew that AK had told more than she could have known simply from being present when the door was broken down.
They must know this; if it is the case, they chose not to mention it to Matteini when requesting to retain AK in custody.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 8:12 am |
Hi Minotaur. It's probably safe to say that at 13 h or so on Nov.2, when the postal police and AK and RS and Filomena were in the house, there was a clean slate as far as alibis go. But, right from that moment, in successive formal and informal contact with police and other witnesses, there was a chipping away of elements of a "10 point" alibi that the couple had established.
Or better said, rather than a chipping away, a constant addition of new elements, forced by ILE asking more questions. Inconsistencies arose. And the rest is history.
I would be interested to know if any other witnesses had their phones bugged. When did the moment occur that Matteini or Mignini said, "we're going in this direction, against AK and RS"? It wasn't on Nov.2, as the reports then were about an orgy and other types of initial speculation. The discovery was on Nov. 2. The "confession" questioning on Nov.5. In between there was time to decide to bug phones.
I'm out ...
-
2. Telephones
The Telegraph's translation of Matteini's report is quite good, but there are some lapses. One concerns the telephones:
'si deciseva pertanto di abbattere la porta in quanto la stessa Romanelli retenva strano sia il fatto che all'amica Kerker [sic] avesseri potuto sottrarre entrami i telefoni, essendo in usa a quest'ultima can Sim Card alla predetta inestata, sia il fatto che vi fosse la porta della stanza chiusa'
This means ' it was decided, however, to break down the door [to MK's room] , not only because Romanelli considered it strange that her friend Kercher could have lost both phones (the one with Romanelli's sim-card also being used by MK) but also because the door was locked.
The postal police had arrived at 12.35; Filomena arrived at 13.00. We do not know whether AK phoned Filomena before or after the arrival of the postal police. But the investigators do.
Furthermore: in her initial, routine, questioning, on 2 November AK states that she went to the cottage, arriving at 11.00: 'found the front door open; phoned her housemates, but without them replying; went into one of the two bathrooms where she found traces of blood, which she didn't bother to clean up; and to have noticed that in the other bathroom the lavatory was dirty with faeces, which she wondered at, but which she didn't try to flush away'
'verso le ore 11.00 di mattina, di aver traovato il portone d'ingresso aperto, di aver chiamato le coinquiine mas senza risposta, di essersi recata in uno dei due bagni e di avervi trovato tracce di sangui che communque non si preoccupava di puliere, di aver notato nell' altro bagno il water sporco di feci, di essersi meravigliata ma di non aver provveduto a ripulire, de essere uscita dall' appartamento verso le ore 11.30
As both telephones used by MK (i.e. her English one and her Italian one, which Filomena had acquired for her) were in the possession of the police, nothing could have been easier than to check whether AK did indeed try to phone MK around 11.00.
If there is no record of any attempt by AK to ring MK on the morning of 2 November; then AK was certainly lying at that very first interview that afternoon. If there was such a record, it proves nothing: in that case, and she cannot have been unaware that mobile phones record activity, she was deliberately doing what she assumed an innocent person would have done.
[In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang. If it was AK who was ringing, she (AK) would have realised that the phones had been found; that would have been the moment to abandon the clean-up....rumbled]
Nothing about the phones is contained in the Matteini report of 9th November. But by then the investigators would have known exactly who phoned whom and when. It was not necessary for Mignini to adduce it at the hearing on 8th November, there being plenty of other evidence sufficient to hold AK and RS (and at that moment PL).
We will only know this at the trial.
The other question is - and it is a crucial one - WHEN did she phone Filomena: before or after the unexpected arrival of the postal police. The investigators knew that too, but chose not to reveal it, on 8th November
In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang.
Minotaur| 04.12.08 - 9:03 am | #
--------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 9:41 am |
Hi Soozie UK
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
Raffaele has a pugliese accent
Guede has a local Umbriam accent,I doubt the call would have been done by AK.
The sun is back!
Ciao
"She told me that when she went back home she found the door wide open and traces of blood in the little bathroom. She asked me if it sounded strange to me. I answered that it did and I advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena (another housemate), but that Meredith wasn't answering."
He said the two went back to the house together.
---------
So according to RS, Amanda told him she'd already tried to call Filomena when she was at the cottage (and before she 'ran back' to RS's place).
This would have been at least a couple of hours before the postal police turned up, which no doubt can be proved one way or another.
If she didn't call Meredith, (as she claimed), then I can understand why the police decided to bug her phone, to perhaps catch her out on any other inconsistencies?
-------------
Charlie Boy.....
So you are you a father?
If so did you tell your child to tell the truth always?
LW
A questions Soozie and the Gang? Sounds almost as groovy as 'Cool and the Gang'
When AK said "I cannot lie" about where she was... what was her Mothers or Fathers response?
LW
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
nicki | 04.12.08 - 9:54 am | #
Not as far as I know. Just that 'someone' called. I think the mobile phone records hold a lot of evidence in relation to who made what calls, when they were made etc etc. If Amanda was already lying before the police even got there, well, you'd have to wonder why.
------------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:23 am |
I agree. It's clear that prosecutors have only released a tiny fraction of the evidence, just what is enough to keep them locked up.
Love Wolf - Amanda's mother said the comment had been taken out of context and that it meant "I cannot lie. I was at the house (RS's house) that night."
I haven't paid much attention to that comment since sentences taken out of context can be misleading. For example, the call to RS where she 'allegedly' said: "I can't do this anymore". . . what was the rest of the conversation? Without the full context we don't know what she meant. I know we can 'guess' what she meant, but still, it's only one sentence. The police clearly know, but we don't. They must be keeping the rest of it till later, when they need it.
--------------
About Amanda describing Meredith body in the wardrobe, I have find this link http://tinyurl.com/45kxgj
where it appears that she is quoting Sollecito for the description. Problem is, police excludes that Sollecito even saw the body. I've read several press reports where it is being stated that in no way anybody was even allowed close to the murder room.
Aplogies for typos above, particularly in the Italian.
3. Why did AK accuse Patrick?
There could be several reasons for this, any or all of which may have played a part: and what follows is hypothesis based on the little that we know:
On 5th November the investigators chose to question RS first (from 22.40) and then AK (after midnight). We do not know the reason for this sequence; but it suggests a greater suspicion of the role of AK.
During his interrogation RS said that he remained at the cottage with AK unitl about 18.00, when they went downtown. 'Around 20.30 to 21.00 Knox left him, saying she would go to Le Chic to meet up with some friends while he returned to his own flat, where he received a phone-call on his land-line from his father at 23.00'.
'verso le ore 20.30 - 21.00 la Knox se era allonntanata dicendogli che sarebbe andata presso il pub le Chic per incontrare degli amici mentre lo stesso era rientrato nella propria abitazione, che alle ore 23.00 aveva ricevuto una telefonata da padre sull' utenza fissa'.
It was a bad mistake that RS said he had 'received' a phone call on his land-line at 23.00; because we now know he didn't. And note his specification of land-line, to place him at home! So that useful alibi, which his father --who did try to phone him - must have put in his head, is worthless. But this is an aside: what concerns us here is that he said to the investigators, before they interrogated AK, that she had gone to Le Chic.
She, for her part (dal canto suo) told the investigators twice, at 01.45 and again at 05.45, that it was while she was chez RS that she had received a message at 20.30 on her mobile (voicemail or SMs we do not know) from Patrick saying that Le Chic would stay closed that night, [even though we now know (from the evidence of the Swiss academic) that it was open when this alleged message was sent. That important fact was still unconfirmed on 8th November].
'[AK] prima alle ore 1.45, poi alle ore 5.45, dichiarava al P.M che giovedì 5 novembre, alle ore 20.30, mentre si trovava presso l'abitazione di Sollectito Raffaele, receveva un messaggio sul proprio telefono cellulare inviatole da tale Patrick, titolare del pub Le Chic, dove la stessa lavorava, con il quale il predetto la avvisava che quella sera il locale sarebbe rimasto chiuso e che quindi non sarebbe dovuta andare, la medesima gle rispondeve che si sarebbero visti dopo....'
Because RS had told the investigators that AK had gone off to Le Chic, they would have focused on this when questioning her between midnight and 06.00 on 5th November. That may have given her the idea of implicating PL.
BUT, at the same time, the investigators -- as I havep pointed out before -- CANNOT have been unaware, by the morning of 3rd November at the latest, of the involvement of RG, whose fingerprints (on record as a petty criminal in Perugia) were all over the crime scene.
So they would certainly have grilled AK and RS about him (if only under the generic description of a black man). AK may well have found it convenient to conflate the two references to black at least one of which she knew.
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
In any case, the investigators continued to hold PL, even after they had confirmed that there eas nothing to link him to the scene of the crime. Given AK's testimony, they had every reason to do so; and they may have done so quite cynically to lull RG into a false sense of security in the hope that he might reveal his whereabouts.
Which he did.
PL will get compensation; and he will be a celebrity for some time.
In any case, both RS and AK can be shown to have lied, and seriously so, at a very early stage when there would have been no reason to do so if they were not involved in the crime. Which I believe, on the basis of what we have been told by reliable, if not unimpeachable sources, to be the case.
Q.E.D.
Thanks Soozie,
Appreciate about the context bit but what the mother or fathers says probably gives an indication of what AK was talking about
Best regards, LW
nicki:
From the Times, Dec 18th.
"Mr Mignini reminded Ms Knox that when first questioned at Perugia police station as a witness the day Ms Kercher's body was discovered,
she had told other witnesses she had seen Ms Kercher lying next to the wardrobe with a wound to her throat which had cause her to die "in slow agony".
She had given a similar description of the scene to Marco Zaroli, the boyfriend of Filomena Romanelli, one of two Italian female students who shared
the cottage with Ms Knox and Ms Kercher."
There's nothing here to suggest she got this information from RS, especially as you correctly noted that NO ONE was allowed to enter the room (according to the police). But RS still gave an account of looking inside (once police had broken down the door) and described the scene, saying there was blood everywhere and he couldn't recognise it was Meredith etc etc. So he seems to have got a good view from the outside, even though he didn't actually go inside.
Also, Amanda was being questioned as a witness at the time, not a suspect.
----------
I think it is fair to say Oceania et al...
AK and RS have been rather dumb in all this......
or like Charlie and BTD they must think that the police and investigators are very dumb.......
I know which side I support and who I believe.......
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:53 am |
I guess this is a conflicting conflicting report then, La Stampa that I have linked above, has a different story. It did surprise me I have to say. Oh well guess we can discount it then, since the other reports are in line with the Times.
And the body wasn't found near the wardrobe. It had been moved. The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there. When I recall Amanda talking about 'thuds' while she covered her ears, I assumed it could have been Meredith's body being dragged from the wardrobe to the other side of the bed.
------------
The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 11:05 am | #
----------
I'm confused too. Like I said, RS managed to describe the scene when police broke the door down, and he also describes dragging Amanda away as she was 'screaming'. The police must know which of them mentioned the wardrobe, and in Amanda's case, I think the 'defence' is that she overheard police talking about it at the police station.
------------
I would love to know by the Lone Wolf and "Guededidit" theorists why there is ANY confusion at all from RS and AK about what they did and not see especially when they were at home all night until AK came back on the Sunday and if it is proven that they were not allowed to see the crime scene then they should have said nothing as they knew nothing?
Cannot wait for this court case!
I think we should get TLC to write the court script.. he is rather good at that......
"...Dalla messinscena del furto nella casa della «morte», alle strane «visioni» di Sollecito - a detta di Amanda - che «vede» il corpo di Meredith nell’armadio..." La Stampa
"...From the staging of the break-in in the "house of death" to the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
The who seems to be referring to Amanda, but then what are Solecito's "visions"? I find it confusing.
to the strange "visions" of Sollecito
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
"When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and
Raffaele followed them into the room."
"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming.
I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible. "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal."
-----------------------
Is it any wonder we're confused??? I guess they were both present when the door was knocked down, and they both saw inside the room (without needing to go inside),
so I don't think RS followed them inside. How could the police run the risk of contamination?
But with regards to 'seeing Meredith's body by the wardrobe' - if this is true, it's pretty damning evidence, whichever one of them said it.
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:24 am | #
That would make much more semse, perhaps is a typo?
The police have said no way anybody entered the room and that makes very much sense. I do believe too that "seeing Meredith'd body by the wardrobe" is damning evidence. There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe. They only found out a few days later. The story "Amanda overheard the police" is pure crap.
There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because
at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe.
---------------
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I did wonder how AK managed to overhear such private information (when nobody else did!). Are her ears much bigger than everyone elses?
And for the people who believe AK is an 'unfortunate' victim of circumstance - I wonder what they make of her comments. If the police didn't even know at the point, no one can argue that Mignini put the idea in her head, since he didn't know at that point either!!! So how did she know??
-------------
"the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
'who' refers to RS, 'strange visions' because that is not what he could have seen (MK was not in or near the wardrobe at this point).
Well I guess we'll find out soon enough whether AK was reporting what RS told her, or if it was her own words.
So how did she know??
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:49 am | #
What about she was there when Meredith was murdered?
I think this is one of many reasons why she's been held. Meredith's friends told police that they learned the detail of the wardrobe from Amanda on Nov 2 I think.
Raffaele has almost become a prosecution witness against Amanda.
He is not providing her with an alibi. He recovered his position on Nov 5. He has not significantly changed his story since. I can understand him clinging to his right to silence. Any changes in his statement at this stage will only muddy the waters as far as his defense is concerned. His defense team are currently trying their damnedest to dispute any forensics linking him to the crime scene.
When eventually questioned at trial he (or his team if he remains silent) will continue to insist that he was home alone.
Does this explain and is it the case that Amanda's defense team at this stage can only offer the defense of abuse of process by the prosecution? Is this the line they will carry into court?
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am | #
-------------------------------------
Brian, because that has to be what they go into court with otherwise she is doomed. ... and they know it. If a witness saw only her out also that evening then I am not quite sure how that will also have to be explained away.
Once all the evidence is laid on the table then I think the writing will be on the wall.. hence the media storm at the moment about discrediting evidence and DNA samples and also the PM stories... they are desperate Brain... they know it... Charlie Wilkes knows it.....
I think Oceania truly believes her view which I admire but not the way that she discounts and explains away everything that merely hints that more than one person was involved... which I would stake my mortgage and house on!
Cannot wait for this court case!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 11:12 am |
____________________________________
At your service Love Lupo (a wolf in Italian I think)
Court 1 in session
Charlie W McGarrett from the Five-O team tries to have the judges arrested before disguising himself and sneaking back in as lawyer.
Charlie Mc Garret: Book 'em, Danno!",
No, no, not them, there, says his secretary Oceangoer
Judge: Defence present your case
Charlie Mc Garrett quickly puts on an old grey wig not knowing they don't do that in Italy and proceeds as lawyer
Charlie Mc Garrett: Well, because women, from Catholic schools, never commit murder and nice girls like that just never do that, 'n' all, and, do I even have to state the obvious? a girl whom is pretty, could never do anything wrong, well, then I see it as my duty to order you 8, dumb Italian judges, to release this innocent girl immedi ate laaaay from your sav - age and prim - i - tive countraaaay, before I gits angraaaay. That pretty girl must be innoccent.
I rest my case.
Quickly grabbing a scrap of paper he makes an airplane and scrawls innocent in Latin - that he'd looked up and written on his wrist earlier - on both wings, throwing it full force in the direction of the judges panel.
Anon
Brilliant... I have just spilt my tea.....
lol
Thank you