Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #7

[Nova]

From Raf's diary entry dated November 12th:...

So bottom line: RS and AK DO have alibis, each other. Unfortunately for them, ILE got them both to make contradictory statements on the infamous "Night of a Thousand Statements" and so their alibis will always be doubted by some.

I for one find it very significant that RS returned to his alibi statement in support of AK. Given the paucity of forensic evidence, it might have served him greatly to continue to claim AK was gone for much of the night. And yet he declined to do so. I wonder why?

(It does not appear that AK and RS continue to be infatuated with one another.)

 

[Malkmus]

But what does that mean, otto?

It's one thing to claim you slept through the night and can't say for sure what your guest did. It's quite another to say, "Amanda left the apartment at 9 and returned at 1."

Did RS testify at the trial? What did he say then (if you recall)?

Raffaele did not testify at all. Interestingly, Mignini is quoted as saying that he would have preferred that neither him nor Amanda testified as he had no interest in hearing what they had to say.

 

[flourish]

I'm so sorry, flourish! I did not mean to suggest you three had achieved some sort of mind meld and were all speaking as one.

I meant that all three of you have extensive knowledge of the case and I was surprised none of you had mentioned (during the time I've been reading here) such a damning accusation. Now that I think back, you all probably did mention it and I just didn't realize that RS had ever been so specific.

My reference to the three of you was supposed to be high praise and I screwed it up with bad wording.

Again, I apologize.

S'okay...I was not offended, I was actually just kinda giving you a hard time

Thanks to otto and dgfred for answering the question, though

 

[otto]

From Raf's diary entry dated November 12th:"reconstructing [the events] I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with
me all night long, never going out. And I will certainly not be the one to lie in order to help the investigation and get everyone into trouble for no reason [gratuitamente]."

Did Raffaele write his diary in English?

 

[otto]

I honestly don't know, otto. Perhaps Allusonz will weigh in. She seems to understand these things better than I.

Perhaps when cell phone tracking was used to pinpoint Scott Peterson movements, there was no question about the reliability of cell phone tracking.

 

[otto]

Raffaele did not testify at all. Interestingly, Mignini is quoted as saying that he would have preferred that neither him nor Amanda testified as he had no interest in hearing what they had to say.

Where?

 

[otto]

So bottom line: RS and AK DO have alibis, each other. Unfortunately for them, ILE got them both to make contradictory statements on the infamous "Night of a Thousand Statements" and so their alibis will always be doubted by some.

I for one find it very significant that RS returned to his alibi statement in support of AK. Given the paucity of forensic evidence, it might have served him greatly to continue to claim AK was gone for much of the night. And yet he declined to do so. I wonder why?

(It does not appear that AK and RS continue to be infatuated with one another.)

It depends on which lies you prefer to believe. Some people chose to believe none of the lies and allow the evidence to speak for itself.

 

[Malkmus]

Did Raffaele write his diary in English?

No, in Italian, why do you ask?

BTW, have you remembered the question from earlier you said I ignored?

 

[Malkmus]

Where?

Here - although it was the other prosecutor speaking on behalf of the prosecution team, not specifically Mignini:

Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, said that the prosecution had not called either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.

“ If they have nothing to add and just repeat the same version of events, questioning them in court would be a waste of time. The facts will come from others.”

http://ifly2lv.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/

 

[Malkmus]

Perhaps when cell phone tracking was used to pinpoint Scott Peterson movements, there was no question about the reliability of cell phone tracking.

I think there's a difference in pinpointing someone's location between a distance radius of just a mile and a distance of several miles. Can you be more specific with how Peterson was pinpointed, how far away he was?
I believe the problem in Perugia was that the locations were too close together to be so precise with pinpointing someone's exact location.

 

[Nova]

Perhaps when cell phone tracking was used to pinpoint Scott Peterson movements, there was no question about the reliability of cell phone tracking.

The difference is distance. There are some 80+ miles between Modesto and the Berkeley Marina, IIRC.

As you have pointed out to me, all the known events in MK's murder and the lives of the accused took place within a few blocks.

 

[Nova]

It depends on which lies you prefer to believe. Some people chose to believe none of the lies and allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Alas, that is not the case. No, some people pick and choose which parts of statement they choose to believe.

To wit, what evidence puts AK at the cottage at the time of the murder OTHER THAN her own statement, a statement which, as you point out, is otherwise entirely fictional?

 

[Nova]

Here - although it was the other prosecutor speaking on behalf of the prosecution team, not specifically Mignini:



http://ifly2lv.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/

Of course, the prosecution had no use for testimony from AK and RS. ILE had already gotten the two defendants to say what ILE wanted said. Any additional testimony could only confuse matters.

 

[otto]

No, in Italian, why do you ask?

BTW, have you remembered the question from earlier you said I ignored?

I didn't forget the question I asked you ... it was at the bottom of the post that you responded to when you asked for a more detailed answer from me.

Perhaps you could post that portion of Raffaele's diary in it's original context so we can all judge the meaning for ourselves. So often the the online auto-translator is used, and that's usually anything but accurate.

 

[otto]

Here - although it was the other prosecutor speaking on behalf of the prosecution team, not specifically Mignini: "Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, said that the prosecution had not called either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.

“ If they have nothing to add and just repeat the same version of events, questioning them in court would be a waste of time. The facts will come from others.”

http://ifly2lv.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/

You've quoted a blog. I was actually asking for a more legitimate reference than a personal blog.

So some blog alleges that another prosecutor, and not the much favoured Mignini, said Knox and Sollecito should keep their mouths shut. I wonder if she was saying that everything they say is a lie so they should remain silent.

 

[otto]

I think there's a difference in pinpointing someone's location between a distance radius of just a mile and a distance of several miles. Can you be more specific with how Peterson was pinpointed, how far away he was?
I believe the problem in Perugia was that the locations were too close together to be so precise with pinpointing someone's exact location.

Regardless, Knox was pinpointed between two other towers, and not in Raffaele's apartment.

 

[otto]

Alas, that is not the case. No, some people pick and choose which parts of statement they choose to believe.

To wit, what evidence puts AK at the cottage at the time of the murder OTHER THAN her own statement, a statement which, as you point out, is otherwise entirely fictional?

You can choose to believe the lie that Raffaele told about spending the night using his computer (but the computer doesn't support that), or the lie that he gave about remaining at home and Amanda was not with him. When a couple of murderers lie and change their stories, it's my preference to ignore their many lies and look at the evidence.

 

[Nova]

You can choose to believe the lie that Raffaele told about spending the night using his computer (but the computer doesn't support that), or the lie that he gave about remaining at home and Amanda was not with him. When a couple of murderers lie and change their stories, it's my preference to ignore their many lies and look at the evidence.

Please try reading my post again. You have completely dodged the question I asked in favor of the meaningless mantra, "(I) look at the evidence."

I asked you what evidence you have that puts AK or RS at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime (other than the statements of AK which you now claim to disregard)?

 

[Malkmus]

I didn't forget the question I asked you ... it was at the bottom of the post that you responded to when you asked for a more detailed answer from me.

Thanks for clarifying. I actually took it as a rhetorical question, but if you really want my answer then it's "yes". If she had sent a text to let's say the guy Shaki saying "see you later" then I think ILE would have been convinced that she had met him that night instead of Patrik.

Perhaps you could post that portion of Raffaele's diary in it's original context so we can all judge the meaning for ourselves. So often the the online auto-translator is used, and that's usually anything but accurate.

Original Italian - good luck
http://qn.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/12/08/53233-amanda_meredith.shtml

The version I quoted is from the PMF translation.

 

[Malkmus]

You've quoted a blog. I was actually asking for a more legitimate reference than a personal blog.

So some blog alleges that another prosecutor, and not the much favoured Mignini, said Knox and Sollecito should keep their mouths shut. I wonder if she was saying that everything they say is a lie so they should remain silent.

It wasn't the blog making an allegation, the blog was just mirroring the article. And the meaning of Comodi's quote is quite clear.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5540939.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2