Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

No, I'm suggesting that the Press Conf (that caused a mass outbreak of amnesia/denial in some quarters) where RS said that he wasn’t claiming AK as an alibi coupled with the RS family press leaks about cocaine dealers might have hurt the 'purty' white killer's image.

It's quite interesting how things have to be "made up" to find anything bad about Amanda. Amanda has lived in the Seattle area for almost 23 years and no rumors about Amanda being a druggie have ever surfaced here. In fact, no one has ever come up with any verifiable person saying that Amanda was anything but a good normal person. No drug use, nothing. Yet Amanda spends 48 days in Perugia and all of a sudden she is Britney Spears/Lindsey Lohan, Jack the Ripper all rolled into one.

Why do you think that is true Platonov? Why is it all the people who really KNOW Amanda support her? But mere Italian acquaintances have turned her into something entirely different?

Seriously. People party and use drugs in Seattle. Why is it that nobody here have pictures of her snorting coke or acting crazy? Why has she never been arrested in Seattle? Why is it that nutjobs feel the need to make her into something she isn't?

 

[bolint]

I can think on one thing one of the true crime authors just made up.... John Follain. When Follain relates that Battistelli looks into Filomena's room and says, "This is not burglary, Follain concludes with a sentence: Amanda and Raffaele say nothing.

Now THAT'S just made up, but not in the sense that it did or didn't happen. It's the placement of that sentence that Follain intends to be suspicous - that Knox and Sollecito knew WHY it didn't look like a burglary.

Follain only repeats Battistelli's testimony:

MB: Glielo dissi sfacciatamente insomma, che non credevo che era un furto.
GM: E loro che hanno risposto?
MB: E loro niente, non hanno commentato.

 

[Grinder]

Follain only repeats Battistelli's testimony:

Thank you. Bill were you only referring to these three lines?

I'm pretty sure Bill quoted a much longer dialogue involving the decisions being made about whether to hold Amanda or not. He contends one cop wanted to release the kids while others prevailed.

ETA found this in his book - Amanda's turnaround electrified Mignini and the detectives. Shattered and tense after so many sleepless nights, they urgently discussed what to do next,but couldn't agree on the best strategy. Chiacchiera, the deputy head of the lying Squad, wanted to put Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele under tight surveillance, phone taps included

there's more but I'm tired of transcribing it.

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone have the translation of the memory expert Amanda's team hired?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you. Bill were you only referring to these three lines?

I'm pretty sure Bill quoted a much longer dialogue involving the decisions being made about whether to hold Amanda or not. He contends one cop wanted to release the kids while others prevailed.

ETA found this in his book - Amanda's turnaround electrified Mignini and the detectives. Shattered and tense after so many sleepless nights, they urgently discussed what to do next,but couldn't agree on the best strategy. Chiacchiera, the deputy head of the lying Squad, wanted to put Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele under tight surveillance, phone taps included

there's more but I'm tired of transcribing it.

.... I feel your pain!

Thanks for at least looking. And for providing proof that you looked. It's good to see Grinder turning over a new leaf.

There's another reference later in Follain's book, too. He sees fit to mention this twice.

More me the issue is not whether it is factual or not. It is a "plot device" that is important to Follain, narrative. Worrying about its authenticity is the least interesting part of it.

Remember, the three great sections of Follains narrative are these:

1) The PLE were right to suspect Knox. (Raffaele is a complete afterthought)
2) How the case fell apart at trial. (Follain shows how the prosecution's case fell apart at the Massei trial!, despite the conviction)
3) The reaction of the Kerchers and the Birtish friends.​

My view is that Follain includes those comments by Chiacchiera in section #1 to prepare groundwork for section #2. Despite Follain's prejudices and who he drew his sources from, I think he fully expected Massei to acquit, but in lieu of that, actually wrote a book to show why Hellmann eventually did acquit.

 

[Bill Williams]

Follain only repeats Battistelli's testimony:

MB: Glielo dissi sfacciatamente insomma, che non credevo che era un furto.
GM: E loro che hanno risposto?
MB: E loro niente, non hanno commentato.

True.

Yet Follain does not indicate that in the book. (As a nod to Grinder, it is a shortcoming, perhaps, of the True Crime format.)

For Follain's purposes he wants to communicate something guilt-sounding, even if it had originated with Battistelli. Perhaps Battaistellis had meant it that way, too.

Yet on the face of it, why is AK and RS, "saying nothing" suspicious? It's suspicious only for those who already believe they are guilty.... or for a true crime author who wants to make the case (in his 1st of 3 sections) that the PLE were right to suspect them.

 

[Grinder]

True.

Yet Follain does not indicate that in the book. (As a nod to Grinder, it is a shortcoming, perhaps, of the True Crime format.)

For Follain's purposes he wants to communicate something guilt-sounding, even if it had originated with Battistelli. Perhaps Battaistellis had meant it that way, too.

Yet on the face of it, why is AK and RS, "saying nothing" suspicious? It's suspicious only for those who already believe they are guilty.... or for a true crime author who wants to make the case (in his 1st of 3 sections) that the PLE were right to suspect them.

However you never featured Battistelli - I never questioned his testimony it was the discussion inside the police station I questioned and still question.

 

[Bill Williams]

However you never featured Battistelli - I never questioned his testimony it was the discussion inside the police station I questioned and still question.

Why not then do something to move towards a solution to your question? Simply raising it and raising it and raising it and raising it.....

.... does nothing other than, ah, er, raise the question. (I am going to refrain from saying that what you really mean is that it negates the claim! Simply because a question can be raised!)

You have the capacity to raise this with Follain himself. Which is my gripe whenever you go off on an anti-True Crime rant. You claim that True Crime is licence to make stuff up. Then you don't lift a finger off of your mouse to go about proving it one way or another.

On the issue in question (Chiacchiera's alleged and ignored caution), you simply want to say that it is made up, on the sole basis that you can raise a question about sources.

There is a short path to the source, and it is through Follain.

 

[platonov]

It's quite interesting how things have to be "made up" to find anything bad about Amanda. Amanda has lived in the Seattle area for almost 23 years and no rumors about Amanda being a druggie have ever surfaced here. In fact, no one has ever come up with any verifiable person saying that Amanda was anything but a good normal person. No drug use, nothing. Yet Amanda spends 48 days in Perugia and all of a sudden she is Britney Spears/Lindsey Lohan, Jack the Ripper all rolled into one.

Why do you think that is true Platonov? Why is it all the people who really KNOW Amanda support her? But mere Italian acquaintances have turned her into something entirely different?

Seriously. People party and use drugs in Seattle. Why is it that nobody here have pictures of her snorting coke or acting crazy? Why has she never been arrested in Seattle? Why is it that nutjobs feel the need to make her into something she isn't?

"made up" Made up ?? She is a convicted killer.

Now now – I know this is upsetting for some but I don’t think referring to RS or his family as nutjobs is the way forward.
After all, he is her alibi.

 

[toto]

You intend this as snarky, aimed at "Amanda's supporters", yet in a roundhouse way, you've summarized Raffaele's position as well.
The way Raffaele phrases it is, "What's all this got to do with me?" Indeed, even the "separation" of the defences as seen in the differing appeals' documents reflects this.

Raffale (through Bongiorno in the appeal to Cassazione) says in effect: "Amanda is accused of not being at my apartment when she replies to Lumumba's SMS message. That's all well and good, and I know it's not true. But, even if it is - what's that got to do with me?"

It appears, then, that you can include Raffaele in your post above, that although he has served exactly the same number of days in prison for a crime he did not commit, that this is really about one person. This is so much about one person, that during Bongiorno's closing in Sept 2011, she mentioned Amanda as much as she mentioned her own client....

Read Raffaele's book. Ooops, you cannot. It is effectively banned in the UK.

In it you will find the real reason why, for instance, Raffaele did not testify at either of the trials, except for spontaneous statements. It's because nobody asked. In this forum we've been around this block dozens of times with Machiavelli. No one wanted to know his story.

What is the height of irony in your post, which betrays your opions on this case, is that once again something that was used against Amanda and Raffaele at trial and for 7 years on-line - ignoring Raffaele and obsessing about Amanda - is now blamed on their supporters!

Casual readers or book buyers certainly can't read Amanda or Rafaelle's book, but it is as easy to order from Amazon.com as from Amazon.co.uk! I got my copies from the U.S. very easily!

 

[Grinder]

Why not then do something to move towards a solution to your question? Simply raising it and raising it and raising it and raising it.....

Please kettle. Y-haplotypes

You have the capacity to raise this with Follain himself. Which is my gripe whenever you go off on an anti-True Crime rant. You claim that True Crime is licence to make stuff up. Then you don't lift a finger off of your mouse to go about proving it one way or another.

Bill it isn't MY claim, it is the definition of the genre.

On the issue in question (Chiacchiera's alleged and ignored caution), you simply want to say that it is made up, on the sole basis that you can raise a question about sources.

There is a short path to the source, and it is through Follain.

Bill since it is you basing another of you theories (remember Hellmann got it completely right and Amanda was guilty of calumnia?) on the writings of one novelist it is you that is obligated to prove it.

Barbie says there was mixed blood of Meredith and Amanda which the PGP have used for years as a talking point. Have you contacted her?

Btw, I looked up the Follain quote because I figured you'd justa let her slide.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have the capacity to raise this with Follain himself. Which is my gripe whenever you go off on an anti-True Crime rant. You claim that True Crime is licence to make stuff up. Then you don't lift a finger off of your mouse to go about proving it one way or another.

Bill it isn't MY claim, it is the definition of the genre.

No it's not. You then know nothing of the genre.

For instance, Candace Dempsey is clear why she chose it. She very well could have written a fully sourced account, but was more interested in a flow of a unified narrative. True Crime was suggested to her patently NOT because she could then make stuff up..... then again, if you actually engaged people readily available to you, you'd know that rather than just pontificating in a vacuum.

Bill since it is you basing another of you theories (remember Hellmann got it completely right and Amanda was guilty of calumnia?) on the writings of one novelist it is you that is obligated to prove it.

Ah, er, no. My claim about Chiacchiera is how it fits with Follain's narrative. It is your claim he just made it up and therefore it is a complete fabrication.

Follain's narrative is principally that the PLE (and therefore Mignini) were right to suspect Knox and therefore take Knox AND Sollecito to trial. His narrative continues with how the case fell apart at trial. Follain has a narrative-role for Chiacchiera's words... astounding, really, given Follain's over-all bias.

Barbie says there was mixed blood of Meredith and Amanda which the PGP have used for years as a talking point. Have you contacted her?

Btw, I looked up the Follain quote because I figured you'd justa let her slide.

There is no need to contact Barbie about that, other than to chastise her for passing on prosecution factoids uncritically. I'm not sure what your point is is raising that, other than you don't understand what's at issue....

 

[anglolawyer]

The only example of someone asking for source material to verify something one of the novelists wrote was Tesla and the gold watch affair and nothing came of it other than assurances Diaz told her and was reading off a police report (that couldn't/wasn't produced). It wasn't explained why in telling this story Diaz would need the report.

Did Follain explain how he acquired dialogue from inside the police station?

Btw, those are the only two specifics I recall questioning though I could have forgotten something that I'm confident will be brought up.

Did CD ever tell us where the fact that the DNA on the knife identified as Meredith's turned out to be starch came from? Oh, I forgot that didn't count because she wrote it in her blog and blogs don't count.

I am truly stunned. I asked Candace Dempsey where she got it from that the room was dark when they broke the door open. She said court testimony and I reported that here. I also spoke (spoke!) with the Telegraph journalist before his exile to China about the text messages story. I don't know why I bother

 

[Bill Williams]

Read Raffaele's book. Ooops, you cannot. It is effectively banned in the UK.

Casual readers or book buyers certainly can't read Amanda or Rafaelle's book, but it is as easy to order from Amazon.com as from Amazon.co.uk! I got my copies from the U.S. very easily!

Good to hear. Makes it all the more puzzling why CoulsdonUK doesn't read up on the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am truly stunned. I asked Candace Dempsey where she got it from that the room was dark when they broke the door open. She said court testimony and I reported that here. I also spoke (spoke!) with the Telegraph journalist before his exile to China about the text messages story. I don't know why I bother

You're the closest to Follain. Care to take a day in London, track him down, and ask him why he included what he did about Chiacchiera?

Send the bill for expenses to Grinder.

 

[Grinder]

I am truly stunned. I asked Candace Dempsey where she got it from that the room was dark when they broke the door open. She said court testimony and I reported that here. I also spoke (spoke!) with the Telegraph journalist before his exile to China about the text messages story. I don't know why I bother

My deepest apologies. The subject was the novels and not reporters.

Did she give you the court testimony?

Didn't you connect with the reporter after he went to China?

He told you he was quite sure the police had said messages plural.

 

[JREF2010]

In essence the new judge, which turned out to be Nencini, was required to find them guilty, which he did despite no evidence being place before him to justify it, and ISC is now happy.

It seems the ISC ignored the fact the entire courtroom was laughing at the forensic video because of the clown work, the compromised crime scene caught on film.

I'm surprised, now that the DNA testing proves the knife was not cleaned, and had no blood on it, and the sloppy Stephoni work was found out....the prosecution and ISC didnt go with a "there must have been 3 knives!" theory.

Just make up a new scenario, like a new fictional novel each time the prosecution loses their theory.

Now its the Poop Theory and Nencini liked the smell of it.

 

[acbytesla]

"made up" Made up ?? She is a convicted killer.

Which is the result of made up evidence and made up rumors. A total farce.

Now now – I know this is upsetting for some but I don’t think referring to RS or his family as nutjobs is the way forward.
After all, he is her alibi.

I don't think Raffaele is a nutjob. Maybe a couple of his relatives. No, I mean nutjobs like Mignini, Harry Rag, MCall, "The Machine", Ergon, Peggy, Andrea Vogt, BR. You know..your friends over on PMF.NUT, PMF.ORG, TJMK. Or the crazy guy from across the country who keeps making veiled death threats against Amanda.

 

[Kaosium]

"made up" Made up ?? She is a convicted killer.

They made that part up too. Have you ever wondered where the idea came from that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder? It was invented by the police and prosecutor in Perugia before they knew about the real murderer, Rudy Guede. They took the statements Amanda and Raffaele had signed along with some mistaken or coincidental evidence and imagined a murder scenario involving all three--except of course none of that evidence was valid.

So what makes you think their imaginings were still plausible? Have you ever wondered about the leap of faith required to believe Amanda and Raffaele were still involved despite the fact that everything they were arrested for was nonsense and they later found the actual killer?

 

[anglolawyer]

My deepest apologies. The subject was the novels and not reporters.

Did she give you the court testimony?

No, she said the whole book was based on court testimony.

Didn't you connect with the reporter after he went to China?

He told you he was quite sure the police had said messages plural.

He said he was completely sure of the accuracy of his report and that he was fluent in Italian. He also told me the story of Mignini telling him that they had a whole bunch of stuff on Lumumba (this was before they found out he had nothing to do with it )