Third Amanda Knox Verdict Due Shortly

<p>

</p>

<p>After Patrick Lumumba was arrested he claimed police brutality. He changed his story after he sued Knox. I assume because he did not want the jury to think that police brutality caused Knox to false implicate it.</p>

<p>If Lumumba’s initial claims are true, who knows what happened to Knox in those 2 1/2 hours and to Sollecito earlier that night.</p>

<p>Cpt,</p>

<p>nothing about police interrogation was proven. People testified. Jury believed. So did you. Does not mean it was proven.</p>

<p>Cpt, with all due respect your info is wrong. She was interrogated over the course of five days. The so-called confession happened in the early morning hours after a grueling interrogation on Nov 6. Up until the 5th day she told NO LIES. </p>

<p><a href=“Injustice in Perugia: The Illegal Interrogation of Amanda Knox”>http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>^^^^
Amanda Knox attended classes on November 5th and then met Solecito for dinner. He was called to the police station and she went with him. You have to read the testimony.</p>

<p>I copied and pasted below a summary of the testimony of her professor who testified about the “letter” she was assigned and wrote in class that day:</p>

<p>Negri, Antonella
Amanda Knox’s Professor
Summary
English
Italian</p>

<p>“Antonella Negri testified that Amanda Knox was punctual, diligent, and attentive. Amanda Knox sat at the front of the class and Negri felt that Knox seemed sweet and innocent.[390] Negeri testified that Amanda Knox gave guitar lessons to a girl from Kazakhstan.
Negri testified that on November 5th she assigned a exercise of writing a latter. Amanda Knox choose to write to her mother for this class assignment. According to Nergi Knox wrote in her letter that she was confused and worried and that she wanted her mother to come and take her shopping.[391][392] Nergi also testified that the letter stated that Knox “wanted to restart” and needed “to turn over a leaf” and “leave what has happened behind.”[393]
Nergi also testified that when she mentioned Meredith Kercher’s murder on Monday Amanda Knox showed discomfort.[394] Negri told the court that Amanda Knox leaned forward onto her desk and lay her head into her arms.[395]”</p>

<p>Well, cpt, you seem to be doing it again. Making things up to support your version of the truth. Most of what you are calling facts are pieces of misinformation purposefully given to the press by the prosecution. She never once said she was at a party that night. That was a mistranslation released by the prosecutors when she told them two other people stopped by Raffaele’s that night. She was interrogated for 6 hours the day they found Meredith, November 2, from 3 pm until 9 pm, but held at the police station until 6 am the next morning. That is way more than 2 1/2 hours. You are saying this is normal police procedural and not an indication that they were out to get her from the beginning? She signed those two statements implicating Lumumba in the early morning hours of November 7th. She arrived there with Raffaele shortly before 5pm the night before. 2 1/2 hours would have been 7:30pm November 6th.</p>

<p>Those two statements are the only two things in the whole case that can be seen as “lies” told by Amanda Knox. After getting her to sign a statement, written pby the police, that she had met Lumumba and let him into the apartment but didn’t remember any of it. Once they realized that she broke, they spent the next 4 hours adding more fanciful details, getting her to sign a second statement, also written by the police. Hours later she recanted both of these statements, and they, ultimately, turned out to be complete fabrications. Both Amanda Knox and Lumumba had airtight alibis showing that they could not have been there at the time of death. You continue to use these statements as “proof” that she was involved.</p>

<p>Here’s where the elephant enters the room: police and prosecutors are not always honest and not always on the side of justice. They arrest Knox and Lumumba even though both have alibis and Knox had recanted the statements. They hold Lumumba for 2 weeks, release him, then arrest Sollecito because, well, the presence of semen suggests a male was involved and he happens to be the closest one to Amanda Knox. They hold him based on a shoeprint that is neither the right size or the right brand of his shoes. When it turns out they both have an alibi for that evening, the coroner changes the time of death to something scientifically impossible. When it turns out they have an alibi on Raffaele’s computer for the new time of death, the investigators “accidentally” delete files. Note, and this is important, that the independent (not part of your imaginary “Knox PR Machine”) forensic computer experts found evidence of the deleted files during the appeal. Who’s the liar now? The Appeals Court threw out every bit of evidence used to convict, finding evidence to prove their innocence and not just cast “reasonable doubt,” but that was damaging to the reputations of many involved in the prosecution. In a country where reputation is everything, they had no choice but to appeal the new findings.</p>

<p>This whole thing reminds me of the Battleship Iowa explosion and the fanciful Clayton Hartwig/ gay love triangle story concocted by the Department of the Navy. Even when they found the evidence showing what it really was, the Navy stuck by their story to preserve the careers of the officers involved. A competent fiction writer could have come up with a reasonable scenario, but these guys were amateurs and, as career Navy, gay=evil=bad=murderer. Not a single person I knew in the Navy at the time, and I lived in VA Beach so I knew a lot, believed the cover story, but they understood why it existed. I’m sure you can still find some cptofthehouse types who believe it, though, despite it having been proved false.</p>

<p>What earthly reason do the Italian police have for going after one of their own citizens when they already have one culprit in custody who was clearly involved? Why not just leave it at that? The answer is because it was clear from testimony and evidence that there was more to the story. Below is a summary of the testimony of Marco Chiacchiera a police officer involved in the case. His testimony explains why the court found the burglary theory not 100% credible. But more importantly, check out the last paragraph where he testifies as to what they found in Sollecitos apartment. That coupled with the testimony of the administrator from his college, which I referenced in a previous post, was what led to that whole sex/cult thing. It had nothing to do with Amanda, but the American press distorts that for sympathy.</p>

<p>Witness
Chiacchiera, Marco
Deputy Chief of Police
Summary
English
Italian</p>

<p>"Chiacchiera testified as many of the police officers and friends of Meredith before him that he found Sollecito and Knox’s behaviour at the police station the night the murder was discovered strange and disturbing. They were kissing, laughing, and hugging.[229] Their behaviour was very different than everyone else present Chiacchiera told the court.[230] He also testified that he found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions that night.[231]</p>

<p>Chiacchiera also testified that the lone burglar theory was not something that seemed believable based on his experience as a police officer. The point of entry was a window that was too high and easier and better options existed for a burglar looking to enter the cottage.[232] Chiacchiera also testified that the rock was too big and heavy for someone to throw it from underneath the window.[233] Chiacchiera also testified that he examined the room and the glass was on top of the clothing indicating that the room had been ransacked before the window was broken.[234] Chiacchiera testified that it was obvious early in the investigation that the burglary was not authentic.[235]</p>

<p>Chiacchiera also testified with respect to phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder. When Raffaele Sollecito changed his story and said he was home alone while Amanda Knox went out until 1am he offered a phonecall from his father to Sollecito’s landline as proof of this.[236] Chiacchiera testified that when the police investigated Sollecito’s claim there was no record of the call.[237][238] Chiacchiera also testified with respect to the activity of Knox and Sollecito’s mobile phones. The night of the murder both phones were turned off at 8:30pm. Chiacchiera told the court that a search of their past history showed no similar void but instead there was activity late into the night.[239]</p>

<p>Chiacchiera testified that searching Sollecito’s apartment they discovered several pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.[240][241] As a note of clarification these were not pornagraphic magaines of the Playboy or Penthouse variety but illustrated graphic novels depicting scenes in which women were raped, bound, cut, and mutilated. Chiacchiera also gave details of how the knife was collected. The knife looked like it could be compatible with the wound on the victim’s neck so it was included in the list of items taken from Sollecito’s apartment for further analysis. It was put in a envelope that was sealed and transported to the Serious Crimes Against Persons division of the Perugia police.</p>

<p>harvestmoon, you should cite the source when you take verbatim quotes from a website set up by the Kercher family. With all due respect to the Kercher family, much of the stuff you QUOTED is taken out of context and some of it blatantly inaccurate. I don’t have time to respond to the distortions and outright untruths, but Sollecito told the police, he only may not have known if she left the apt and came back because he was asleep. He never said that Knox actually left the apt. Anyway, I know it is not going to change your mind but please quote and cite your sources when you lift entire paragraphs from someone’s blog.</p>

<p>What I quoted is a summary of the transcripts of the testimony of witnesses at the trial. No spin or bias, just what the witnesses SAID. Now you have to decide for yourself how credible those witnesses are. All the testimony is up online, although some of the links to the english translations have been taken down. The summaries are accurate as I personally read both translations of the transcripts and summaries when they first were made available online. </p>

<p>There is nothing more biased than the Injustice in Perugia that you linked earlier. </p>

<p><a href=“http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Lorena_Zugarini”>http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Lorena_Zugarini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Please cite the website or blog where your 5:31pm verbatim post came from. It wasn’t written by you.</p>

<p>Okay, this is the site you quoted.</p>

<p><a href=“http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial”>http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Can you tell me who is responsible for this site? For some reason no one takes credit for authorship of this blog. I wonder why?</p>

<p>This thread made me think of the followings:</p>

<p>Roman Polanski, the famous French movie director did not return to the US when he was accused of raping a 13 year-old girl in Los Angeles 32 years ago.</p>

<p>Edward Snowden’s father is happy with his traitor son’s life in Russia.</p>

<p>DSK, the French politician lost his his chance to become president of France when he was accused of raping a hotel maid in NYC two or three years ago.</p>

<p>Look the testimony is what it is. Some of it helps Knox and Solecitto and some of it does not. The quote in my post of 5:31 came from the translations of the testimony of witnesses linked in my post above.</p>

<p>The quote comes directly from that website blog word-for-word. I would love to know who is responsible for the blog but as far as I can tell no one is claiming authorship. Essentially, you are lifting language from an anonymous blog. </p>

<p>What I have heard is that the blog is the work of Barbie Nadeau, the Newsweek/Daily Beast reporter who followed the case from Italy and wrote the book Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox, a poorly written piece portraying Amanda Knox as a sex-crazed psychopath. It uses Mignini’s smear campaign as evidence against her, and has never admitted to what they found in the appeal process. It also seems to be the major source of information for both HarvestMoon1 and cptofthehouse. </p>

<p>By the way, don’t know if it has been posted, but guess who’s free?</p>

<p><a href=“Meredith Kercher killer freed from prison to study after serving just six years of his sentence | Daily Mail Online”>Meredith Kercher killer freed from prison to study after serving just six years of his sentence | Daily Mail Online;

<p>I very much doubt that Barbie Nadeau would post testimony that actually helps Amanda Knox. The website is the closest one can come to reading the actual testimony of witnesses, including Knox and Sollecitos statements in their own defense. They don’t just included witnesses who support Kercher but all witnesses who testified. They also provide DNA reports, photographs and audio of the actual calls made to police by Sollecito. The judge’s decisons and sentencing statements are also linked, so you can at least see what logic they used to arrive at their decision. </p>

<p>You can discard it Golden but the testimony is what it is. Doesn’t provide any “crystal ball” but it does let the reader form their own opinion based on what witnesses actually testified to. We obviously have come to different conclusions, but I am not afraid to read and consider information that tests my thought process. </p>

<p>Here is another web-site that has trials transcripts and more. </p>

<p><a href=“Injustice in Perugia: Case Files/Transcripts”>http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>These people are called “Knox PR machine” by so called “guilters” and cpt. This is a bit misleading, because people who run this web-site are NOT paid by Knox family. </p>

<p>And to believe the Mignini version you also have to believe a number of details that could not possibly be true:

  1. Meredith Kercher somehow knew she was going to be killed so her body did not digest the food she ate for more than 5 hours. The greatest time ever recorded is 3 hours 20 minutes.
  2. In a life and death struggle involving punching, kicking, blood, and rape, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito did not leave one single piece of evidence that they were ever in the room.
  3. Meredith Kercher, who called her mother every day, happened to hang up on her this day. An hour later she was randomly punching buttons on her phone while blocking the transmission with her body, reflecting the signal to another cell tower on the other side of the ridge. This is from Mignini, not from anyone associated with Knox.</p>

<p>It goes on and on, but that should be enough to see that there are holes in the prosecution story. Guilt bias says that every smile, emotion, movement and behavior after the murder is somehow proof of involvement. Her buying underwear after she was locked out of her apartment was used as “proof.”</p>

<p>Why would Mignini release a story that they had found Amanda Knox’s bloody fingerprint on Meredith Kercher’s face? He knew it wasn’t true, but he also knew it is easier to convict if the jury already believes in her guilt.</p>

<p>Judge Nencini will release his reasoning for the verdict in about 2 months. I am certain a translation will be available. Highly doubt any of the things you cite above will be what he basis the decision on. And you seem to gloss over the fact that this is the second guilty verdict for Sollecito and Knox.</p>

<p>But Allan Dershowitz in yet another interview can say it better than I can on issues of guilt and extradition.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20140131/1601172/Dershowitz-Lots-of-evidence-against-Knox.htm”>http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20140131/1601172/Dershowitz-Lots-of-evidence-against-Knox.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The first time Knox was convicted, the jury was reportedly bored and seen napping. </p>

<p>Sollecito first said that he and Knox were at some party/event. Then he said she was gone between 9pm -1am or something of that sort, while he was at his place. Then he said he wasn’t 100% sure she was with him every bit of time that evening something that he has elaborated upon as an effort to be accurate, as he was asleep a good part of the time. So we have 3 stories right there.</p>