Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

We can't say for sure, but we could compare with all of Amanda and Meredith's text messages to see whether it is habit or not.

Do we have their text message to others?

 

[lonepinealex]

Do we have their text message to others?

No idea if they're in the public realm, but the police or lawyers or someone must have them.

 

[acbytesla]

Sometimes it is just habit . . . .I don't think we can say for sure.
Not a sign of a bad relationship though

You're right, it could be just a kind of formality. However if there was actual serious animosity between the two, neither would have signed off that way.

My thought is that it is showing that the two were absolutely trying to become friends with each other.

It is definitely a "friendly" salutation. The only other message that had x on the end of it was one between Spyros and Amanda.

The messages between Amanda and Meredith were dated the 18th, 19th, 20th and 31st. Combine this with the two of them going to the chocolate festival two days in a row on the 24th and 25th and I believe the 25th spending the entire day with each other at both the chocolate festival and the concert, I see a pattern of friendliness between. YOU DON'T sign off with someone you are mad at or dislike with XXs. You just wouldn't do it.

Or do you think I'm wrong?

 

[acbytesla]

No idea if they're in the public realm, but the police or lawyers or someone must have them.

There are other texts...not to everybody, but to Juve, Spyros, Laura, Bruno, Raffaele, PJ, Ardak, Patrick, Lorenzo, Sanche.

 

[codyjuneau]

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

.
Speaking of droppings, let's say you go into a restaurant, order a burger from your server, then go into the bathroom and sit down on the toilet. Someone comes in and sits on the toilet in the stall next to you. After you are finished your 'droppings', you leave the stall and wash your hands. As you are washing your hands you see your server leave the other stall and walk straight out the door. You return to your table and watch the server go to the kitchen, pick up your burger with bare hands, put it on a plate and bring it to you.

Do you feel you should have to prove contamination to refuse to eat or pay for that hamburger? Do you think a court would insist you pay for that hamburger? Do you think Chef Ramsey would insist the burger is not contaminated and you should eat it? What do you think Chef Ramsey would say if a server at his restaurant was handling food, the way Stefanoni and her team handled potential DNA evidence? Just curious Supercal.

Cody
.

 

[Anode]

You're right, it could be just a kind of formality. However if there was actual serious animosity between the two, neither would have signed off that way.

My thought is that it is showing that the two were absolutely trying to become friends with each other.

It is definitely a "friendly" salutation. The only other message that had x on the end of it was one between Spyros and Amanda.

The messages between Amanda and Meredith were dated the 18th, 19th, 20th and 31st. Combine this with the two of them going to the chocolate festival two days in a row on the 24th and 25th and I believe the 25th spending the entire day with each other at both the chocolate festival and the concert, I see a pattern of friendliness between. YOU DON'T sign off with someone you are mad at or dislike with XXs. You just wouldn't do it.

Or do you think I'm wrong?

I agree completely. This is overwhelming evidence, or at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were getting along just fine as friends on the 18th, 19th, and at the Chocolate Festival on the 24th and 25th.

 

[NancyS]

.
Speaking of droppings, let's say you go into a restaurant, order a burger from your server, then go into the bathroom and sit down on the toilet. Someone comes in and sits on the toilet in the stall next to you. After you are finished your 'droppings', you leave the stall and wash your hands. As you are washing your hands you see your server leave the other stall and walk straight out the door. You return to your table and watch the server go to the kitchen, pick up your burger with bare hands, put it on a plate and bring it to you.

Do you feel you should have to prove contamination to refuse to eat or pay for that hamburger? Do you think a court would insist you pay for that hamburger? Do you think Chef Ramsey would insist the burger is not contaminated and you should eat it? What do you think Chef Ramsey would say if a server at his restaurant was handling food, the way Stefanoni and her team handled potential DNA evidence? Just curious Supercal.

Cody
.

It's the same with infection control in hospitals - you're unlikely to ever be able to find the exact source of an infection. However, if everyone totally disregards all infection control policies, it is going to spread - and if you're a soap dodger who thinks it is unimportant to wash your hands before going into neonatal intensive care, it is no defence to say "prove the contamination"

 

[acbytesla]

I agree completely. This is overwhelming evidence, or at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were getting along just fine as friends on the 18th, 19th, and at the Chocolate Festival on the 24th and 25th.

There is also a text message on the 31st signed off with an x between Amanda and Meredith.

Why is it that every actual concrete bit of evidence that comes forward demonstrates the exact opposite of all the guilters thinking and yet they just won't admit it? Amanda was a sex fiend...no...the evidence doesn't point to that. Amanda didn't care about her studies...no the evidence doesn't point to that. Amanda was a druggie coke head, no the evidence doesn't point to that.
Amanda and Meredith didn't get along..No the evidence doesn't point to that.

 

[Diocletus]

This is your imagination. Curatolo did not appear "inebriated"; in order to be reliable a witness is not required to show any particular health condition, capability, intelligence or education. In common life any person has a "right" to speak the way Curatolo speaks without being considered mentally impaired (and btw, even mentally deficient witnesses can testify).
If a theory is advanced about a witness being impaired to the point of being barred from testimony, this is something that should be proven, and the burden is on those who advance the theory. The witness does not need to pass a "smart-looking" test. And a judge does not "take as an argument" an unproven speculation. If an expert exam is requested (like, by the defence) and the witness is examined and ruled unreliable due to mental issues, that would be an argument; on the other hand, your guesses are based on zero evidence.

Junkies are unreliable.

 

[Diocletus]

What you can't or won't grasp, sadly, is that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of the courts . The two "students" (ahem) are not as innocent as you would like to believe and the courts, taking all in all, have concluded they are guilty as charged. You can get your knickers in a twist about it for eternity but that's where it's at I'm afraid.

Well, yes . . . that's how wrongful convictions work.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

.
Speaking of droppings, let's say you go into a restaurant, order a burger from your server, then go into the bathroom and sit down on the toilet. Someone comes in and sits on the toilet in the stall next to you. After you are finished your 'droppings', you leave the stall and wash your hands. As you are washing your hands you see your server leave the other stall and walk straight out the door. You return to your table and watch the server go to the kitchen, pick up your burger with bare hands, put it on a plate and bring it to you.

Do you feel you should have to prove contamination to refuse to eat or pay for that hamburger? Do you think a court would insist you pay for that hamburger? Do you think Chef Ramsey would insist the burger is not contaminated and you should eat it? What do you think Chef Ramsey would say if a server at his restaurant was handling food, the way Stefanoni and her team handled potential DNA evidence? Just curious Supercal.

Cody
.

I'm afraid your analogy, though graphic, is astonishingly puerile and not at all apt, refecting only a strangely visceral disgust with toilet matters and, by implication, Stefanoni - who you have presumably never met.

I would suggest that you and others take a break because your over-emotional investment in the case is clearly leading to the frankly loony characterisation of Italian justice officials as evil incarnate. Breathe slowly and reflect on this extremely insightful quote I found elsewhere on the internet:

"...It's odd that supporters of Knox take such issue with Kercher's DNA being on the knife, because Sollecito, to whom the knife belonged, had no trouble accepting it:

'The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,” he wrote in his prison diary. “I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

An utter fabrication; one of the few Sollecito’s admitted to. Kercher had never been to Sollecito's house, they had never cooked together and her DNA had no business being on his knife. Sollecito's diary is most intriguing; when Guede was arrested, Sollecito wasn't relieved at the 'real killer' being caught; he was worried that Guede would “make up strange things” about him. The diary contains several other revealing comments:

“I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her. Amanda may have stitched me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith.”

The fact so few Knox supporters ever address the circumstantial evidence is telling. The reason is because there's no easy way to counter it: you can't shout 'contamination!' or suggest everyone involved in this case is corrupt. Because that is what we are expected to believe; it's everyone else who is lying, not the two defendants. We must turn a blind eye to their multiple, proven deceptions and ignore the fact that, even now, seven years on, the defendants are unable to get their stories straight."

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think this is a call from Meredith, I think its from Amanda to Meredith, going by the list of phone calls at the link you provided. Am I wrong? (On Nov 2, 2007, Meredith was already dead and about to be discovered.

Yes, probably just a typo.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm afraid your analogy, though graphic, is astonishingly puerile and not at all apt, refecting only a strangely visceral disgust with toilet matters and, by implication, Stefanoni - who you have presumably never met.

I would suggest that you and others take a break because your over-emotional investment in the case is clearly leading to the frankly loony characterisation of Italian justice officials as evil incarnate. Breathe slowly and reflect on this extremely insightful quote I found elsewhere on the internet:

Emotional investment!? Where does this ad hominem come from?

"...It's odd that supporters of Knox take such issue with Kercher's DNA being on the knife, because Sollecito, to whom the knife belonged, had no trouble accepting it:

'The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,” he wrote in his prison diary. “I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

An utter fabrication; one of the few Sollecito’s admitted to. Kercher had never been to Sollecito's house, they had never cooked together and her DNA had no business being on his knife. Sollecito's diary is most intriguing; when Guede was arrested, Sollecito wasn't relieved at the 'real killer' being caught; he was worried that Guede would “make up strange things” about him. The diary contains several other revealing comments:

“I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her. Amanda may have stitched me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith.”

You say that Sollecito had "no trouble accepting" that Meredith's DNA was on the knife. Then you provide the very data which shows he had tremendous trouble with it! Nice one.

The fact so few Knox supporters ever address the circumstantial evidence is telling. The reason is because there's no easy way to counter it: you can't shout 'contamination!' or suggest everyone involved in this case is corrupt. Because that is what we are expected to believe; it's everyone else who is lying, not the two defendants. We must turn a blind eye to their multiple, proven deceptions and ignore the fact that, even now, seven years on, the defendants are unable to get their stories straight."

It would be better if you actually listed this "circumstantial evidence", instead of simply asserted that people have trouble accepting it.

This is the 9th continuation of JREF's thread and we're on page 121 of this continuation. Supporters of innocence have done nothing-but address the so called "circumstantial evidence".

The fact is that guilters do not address it. Guilters never factor in to the "osmotic view" of this case that there is no presence of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room. Guilters try to discount every independent DNA analysis which says that Stefanoni's work was substandard, not fit for court, and certainly not fit for condemning two innocents.

Many now feel that the decisions that the Italian judiciary are now making are not so much on the evidence but to protect reputations within the system, as the ISC said in 2013.................

From p. 75 -p. 82 the Court adopted the arguments developed in the assesment that, indeed, had been the subject of severe disagreement with both Prof. Novelli that Prof. Torricelli, consultants of the Procurator General and the civil parties, whose authoritative voices were completely neglected. Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud. 6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.​

 

[Dan O.]

What you can't or won't grasp, sadly, is that contamination has not been shown to the satisfaction of the courts . The two "students" (ahem) are not as innocent as you would like to believe and the courts, taking all in all, have concluded they are guilty as charged. You can get your knickers in a twist about it for eternity but that's where it's at I'm afraid.

Your argument fails as a logical fallacy - appeal to authority. You cheery-pick which court you choose to accept as the authority and apparently don't even realize that there are other courts that will be hearing this case.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in discussing this case and that your only interest here is to cause harm to the accused. I see no benefit in further responses. Bye.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

You what?

Emotional investment!? Where does this ad hominem come from?

[/i]
You say that Sollecito had "no trouble accepting" that Meredith's DNA was on the knife. Then you provide the very data which shows he had tremendous trouble with it! Nice one.

It would be better if you actually listed this "circumstantial evidence", instead of simply asserted that people have trouble accepting it.

This is the 9th continuation of JREF's thread and we're on page 121 of this continuation. Supporters of innocence have done nothing-but address the so called "circumstantial evidence".

The fact is that guilters do not address it. Guilters never factor in to the "osmotic view" of this case that there is no presence of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room. Guilters try to discount every independent DNA analysis which says that Stefanoni's work was substandard, not fit for court, and certainly not fit for condemning two innocents.

Many now feel that the decisions that the Italian judiciary are now making are not so much on the evidence but to protect reputations within the system, as the ISC said in 2013.................

​

Huh? Sollecito clearly had NO trouble accepting it: that's why he felt the need to explain it , presumably.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Your argument fails as a logical fallacy - appeal to authority. You cheery-pick which court you choose to accept as the authority and apparently don't even realize that there are other courts that will be hearing this case.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in discussing this case and that your only interest here is to cause harm to the accused. I see no benefit in further responses. Bye.

Cheerio

 

[codyjuneau]

I'm afraid your analogy, though graphic, is astonishingly puerile and not at all apt, refecting only a strangely visceral disgust with toilet matters and, by implication, Stefanoni - who you have presumably never met.

I would suggest that you and others take a break because your over-emotional investment in the case is clearly leading to the frankly loony characterisation of Italian justice officials as evil incarnate. Breathe slowly and reflect on this extremely insightful quote I found elsewhere on the internet:

"...It's odd that supporters of Knox take such issue with Kercher's DNA being on the knife, because Sollecito, to whom the knife belonged, had no trouble accepting it:

'The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,” he wrote in his prison diary. “I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

An utter fabrication; one of the few Sollecito’s admitted to. Kercher had never been to Sollecito's house, they had never cooked together and her DNA had no business being on his knife. Sollecito's diary is most intriguing; when Guede was arrested, Sollecito wasn't relieved at the 'real killer' being caught; he was worried that Guede would “make up strange things” about him. The diary contains several other revealing comments:

“I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her. Amanda may have stitched me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith.”

The fact so few Knox supporters ever address the circumstantial evidence is telling. The reason is because there's no easy way to counter it: you can't shout 'contamination!' or suggest everyone involved in this case is corrupt. Because that is what we are expected to believe; it's everyone else who is lying, not the two defendants. We must turn a blind eye to their multiple, proven deceptions and ignore the fact that, even now, seven years on, the defendants are unable to get their stories straight."

.
Thanks for the reply Supercal, although I would have preferred it if you had actually answered my questions, or at the very least explained why they are so 'puerile and not at all apt'. How am I ever going to learn otherwise?

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Huh? Sollecito clearly had NO trouble accepting it: that's why he felt the need to explain it , presumably.

Sollecito was in jail when he made those remarks and never thought that the police would manufacture evidence.

You need to read his book. He has tremendous trouble with now accepting what the police back then told him.... with no ability on his part to refute it at the time.... because he was in jail.

The cops also could pick and choose what they leaked. Case in point is the "I was there," comment Knox said to her mother, secretly recorded then leaked with the wrong interpretation attached to it.

Yet you repeat Raffeale's thing devoid of context. Good for you.

 

[NancyS]

It's when circumstantial evidence includes nonsense such as buying pants, that you really have to question the quality of the circumstantial evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

It's when circumstantial evidence includes nonsense such as buying pants, that you really have to question the quality of the circumstantial evidence.

That is the kind of things that the guilters seem to think as evidence. Amanda buying panties, Amanda possibly having sex on a train, Amanda doing cocaine, Amanda doing a yoga split, Amanda not noticing something. Amanda and Raffaele kissing. The list goes on and on and on.