Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Sorry? You don't have to be sorry. We're just trading ideas here. Are we back to semantics. I agree the police were very suspicious about everything they said. I personally don't think it rises to the definition of "probative" as you posted above. What does it afford proof of? That he was trying to cover up a burglary? From the police point of view, why stage a burglary and then try to cover it up by saying nothing is stolen? That's all that I'm saying.

Of course it doesn't rise to level of probative that's what I said all along. It was something that reasonably caused suspicion, that's all.

They didn't think he was trying to cover it up but rather he slipped up in his response. They would think he could only be knowledgeable of nothing being missing if he had done the staging.

It is reasonable to wonder why he didn't say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"or "Nothing seems to be missing" but he said "They didn't take anything,"

 

[Anode]

Of course it doesn't rise to level of probative that's what I said all along. It was something that reasonably caused suspicion, that's all.

They didn't think he was trying to cover it up but rather he slipped up in his response. They would think he could only be knowledgeable of nothing being missing if he had done the staging.

It is reasonable to wonder why he didn't say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"or "Nothing seems to be missing" but he said "They didn't take anything,"

Agreed.

 

[Samson]

sorry but he himself sees that what he said was suspicious.

It is correct that he had no way to know nothing say nothing was taken.

I think you should read the 911 transcript a little different than his book

POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.

He sees it as suspicious with hindsight because it helped shunt him into jail for four years with 20 to come. Otherwise he would have forgotten he said it.

 

[Dan O.]

It seems funny that Grinder is holding Raffaele to a higher standard for accuracy than he himself presents...

He didn't order drinks by most accounts and it was more than once.
She had been introduced to him and therefore knew him but not well. He tells of knowing her in the Skype call which there would be absolutely no reason for him to lie about.

From Rudy's Skype conversation:

Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything.
...
After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub with Lumamba whatever his name was –
​

And from Amanda's testimony:

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once. ​

 

[acbytesla]

Well there is different testimony about how often Meredith met him at the cottage.

He didn't order drinks by most accounts and it was more than once.

You will have to provide a cite. From my understanding that in the two weeks from the time Amanda met Rudy, (one of which Rudy was mostly out of town) he came into Le Chic once.

She had been introduced to him and therefore knew him but not well. He tells of knowing her in the Skype call which there would be absolutely no reason for him to lie about.[/QUOTE]

No one is arguing that they didn't meet Rudy. All we are saying is this is semantics. At least you can agree with that. GO Ms!!

 

[Grinder]

He sees it as suspicious with hindsight because it helped shunt him into jail for four years with 20 to come. Otherwise he would have forgotten he said it.

No it was suspicious in foresight because it is an odd response to the question particularly after they saw the scene. The room had been tossed and surely money, drugs and jewelry could have been missing.

It is amusing that supporters find it necessary to see something amiss with any criticism of the kids.

Since some here like to think of things in movie terms, if this scene occurred in a movie and the audience didn't know what had happened, they would be led to believe Raf had something to do with it because of that response.

It's so obvious even a caveman would get it.

 

[acbytesla]

No it was suspicious in foresight because it is an odd response to the question particularly after they saw the scene. The room had been tossed and surely money, drugs and jewelry could have been missing.

It is amusing that supporters find it necessary to see something amiss with any criticism of the kids.

Since some here like to think of things in movie terms, if this scene occurred in a movie and the audience didn't know what had happened, they would be led to believe Raf had something to do with it because of that response.

It's so obvious even a caveman would get it.

I see nothing wrong with considering all keyholders. But most of what is described as suspicious wasn't really.

 

[Grinder]

It seems funny that Grinder is holding Raffaele to a higher standard for accuracy than he himself presents...





From Rudy's Skype conversation:

Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything.
...
After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub with Lumamba whatever his name was –
​

And from Amanda's testimony:

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once. ​

Well obviously Amanda would minimize the times and if they had the Skype it would be easy. I'm sure a TCN says it was more times but the important aspect is that he knew her and she knew him.

Why didn't you correct Tesla about buying a drink? I feel like Charlie Brown

I guess we can assume everything else I've said is accurate mister task master.

So he was at the cottage twice.

Here's what he told the German Police

The crime happened differently than what they accuse me of. I was in the house. I am also aware of the investigation because yesterday I got in touch through the Internet with my friend, Giacomo Benedetti. He told me everything. Giacomo is a friend of mine from school. All of this was done in an Internet cafe in Dusseldorf. I met Amanda about a month ago in the disco Le Chic in Perugia. Some time later I met Meredith. She was with two guys that I knew because we played basketball together. I do not know their names.

Anyway he knew her and she knew him.

 

[Bill Williams]

No it was suspicious in foresight because it is an odd response to the question particularly after they saw the scene. The room had been tossed and surely money, drugs and jewelry could have been missing.

It is amusing that supporters find it necessary to see something amiss with any criticism of the kids.
Since some here like to think of things in movie terms, if this scene occurred in a movie and the audience didn't know what had happened, they would be led to believe Raf had something to do with it because of that response.

It's so obvious even a caveman would get it.

I think this is where you go off the rails. It's not a criticism of the kids. It's a criticism of someone who, with foresight, would see this as "odd" to the level of suspicious, probative, or determinative of guilt. The fact one has to search for the right word to "nuance" this one-off item says everything. But it is meant as a criticism of someone who would even try to put this into the mix to somehow justify "suspicion".

Raffaele in his book is clearly saying what he says with 20/20 hindsight. It's as he says with equal 20/20 hindsight that he should have warned off Amanda her so-Seattle behaviour, which he knew could have been misinterpreted by tight-ass Italian investigators. At the time he clearly thought that Amanda was simply being Amanda, and that her manner of grieving wasn't particularly interesting.

However, 6 months in solitary for a crime you did not commit, nor even right understand how the police could even confuse you with a perp will do that to you. Second-guess every nuance.

None of this is a criticism of the kids. I'm not sure any innocentisti would have ever thought of it that way until you raised it.

Once again, this is where the theme of the Winterbottom film is so revealing, even as he applies it only to the original journalists. When there was a vacuum of understanding, one sees no problem filling the vacuum with their preconceived notions.

It is in that sense that the highlighted phrase above is in fact ad hominem, in that it attempts to imply that there is something defective about someone, rather than argue the reasoning.

 

[Samson]

No it was suspicious in foresight because it is an odd response to the question particularly after they saw the scene. The room had been tossed and surely money, drugs and jewelry could have been missing.

It is amusing that supporters find it necessary to see something amiss with any criticism of the kids.

Since some here like to think of things in movie terms, if this scene occurred in a movie and the audience didn't know what had happened, they would be led to believe Raf had something to do with it because of that response.

It's so obvious even a caveman would get it.

It must be confirmation bias for me. Laptops. Two stolen from vehicles, smashed windows, one saved by a parking warden who happened on a man with a small hammer about to take it. It took three events for me to learn to put them under the seat or carry them with me and forget I had left them on the floor of the cafe, needing to return to the venue to recover. Nothing else stolen from me in many years, just laptops.
If I had seen the room I would immediately assume it was not a burglary because the laptop was there. And Raffaele was dead right. The scene he saw did not involve a burglary. But lock him up anyway for not having the imagination to see a dead body behind a locked door.

 

[Grinder]

I think this is where you go off the rails. It's not a criticism of the kids. It's a criticism of someone who, with foresight, would see this as "odd" to the level of suspicious, probative, or determinative of guilt. The fact one has to search for the right word to "nuance" this one-off item says everything. But it is meant as a criticism of someone who would even try to put this into the mix to somehow justify "suspicion".

You have been off the rails for years. No one here has said it was probative in terms of proving murder. You are so invested you can't even find the rails. I don't need to search for any word.

 

[Grinder]

It must be confirmation bias for me. Laptops. Two stolen from vehicles, smashed windows, one saved by a parking warden who happened on a man with a small hammer about to take it. It took three events for me to learn to put them under the seat or carry them with me and forget I had left them on the floor of the cafe, needing to return to the venue to recover. Nothing else stolen from me in many years, just laptops.
If I had seen the room I would immediately assume it was not a burglary because the laptop was there. And Raffaele was dead right. The scene he saw did not involve a burglary. But lock him up anyway for not having the imagination to see a dead body behind a locked door.

pity the police didn't ask if any laptops were stolen or Raf hadn't answered by saying no laptops were stolen.

I've had a few car stereos stolen but I wouldn't assume that's all the police were asking about.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have been off the rails for years. No one here has said it was probative in terms of proving murder. You are so invested you can't even find the rails. I don't need to search for any word.

So, we're back to invested again. Sigh.

 

[Grinder]

So, we're back to invested again. Sigh.

Why is that such an issue for you? Btw, it wasn't I that first used the term here.

I have stopped using the term fan because it was made clear that it was not proper. Supporter was suggested as a better term and that's what I use now.

Supporter are invested and do seem to have a problem seeing anything suspicious or mistaken in the actions of the kids, ever.

 

[Samson]

Why is that such an issue for you? Btw, it wasn't I that first used the term here.

I have stopped using the term fan because it was made clear that it was not proper. Supporter was suggested as a better term and that's what I use now.

Supporter are invested and do seem to have a problem seeing anything suspicious or mistaken in the actions of the kids, ever.

By definition the innocent do not engage in suspicious behaviour, that is the province of the guilty. As I just pointed out, Raffaele was jailed in part for reporting a break in where nothing was stolen.

 

[Bill Williams]

delete

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Brandon Garrett on bad forensics

Here is a video from Brandon Garrett, a professor who has written a book, Convicting the Innocent. In it he discusses the Ron Williamson/Dennis Fritz case. Some of what he says is relevant to this case. Link

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I've already said somewhere above that I think they probably fabricated evidence and that you could call that framing (in the "framing the guilty" sense). But that happened later on, when the pathetic evidence they used to arrest the two fell apart.

There is no way you can call what happened in that first week a frame up by any generally accepted use of the phrase, unless you're indulging in conspiracies. That's why I wondered how you understood the term, in case we were talking at cross purposes. Most people use "framed" to mean deliberately stitched up despite being knowably innocent.

As I said before, if Mignini or the police were, for some reason, collectively intent upon framing someone from day one, they couldn't have picked a statistically less likely suspect for a rape and murder.

If arresting the wrong person (which by definition must rely on weak or non-existent evidence) can be defined as framing, then every wrongful conviction is a frame up.

-

I just don't see how you could use the word "frame" in the context that it only applies when it's done against a knowingly innocent person?

In my opinion, you can frame someone who is innocent or guilty. It doesn't matter, because if someone was knowingly innocent, where exactly did that knowledge come from?

In short, when someone (or many ones) create false evidence to help imply that someone is guilty, that's a frame-up. I don't care whether the person is guilty or innocent, in my opinion.

I'm not going to get into a semantic arguement over this, because it's ridiculous and a waste of time.

Personally, if anything suggest a frame, it's the knife, but again that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

As I see it, there are two kinds of framing. There is framing someone you don't believe is guilty (either you know he or she is innocent, or you have no idea). And there is helping to convict someone you believe is guilty but believe you lack sufficient evidence for a conviction. This might take the form of planting evidence to simply failing to follow up any evidence to the contrary; in other words it encompasses a whole range of mildly to grossly unethical behavior. Possibly the phrase "fitting up" someone is more appropriate for the latter than "framing" is. I would also call the latter a form of noble cause corruption. I hope this clarifies, rather than confuses, the issue.

With respect to DNA, I would strongly urge that we not use the word "contamination" to refer to deliberate tampering of evidence. Although the definition of contamination is the subject of much learned discussion, it definitely does not mean that.

-

Thank you Chris. I agree except I would still use the word "frame" instead of "fitting up", but that's just me.

I also agree with your arguement about "contamination", unless you could prove the contamination was deliberate and although the collection and handling of the bra-clasp, and ignoring the other individual samples found on it, suggest it might have been deliberate, there's not enough good evidence to prove it absolutely, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Anode]

No it was suspicious in foresight because it is an odd response to the question particularly after they saw the scene. The room had been tossed and surely money, drugs and jewelry could have been missing.

It is amusing that supporters find it necessary to see something amiss with any criticism of the kids.
Since some here like to think of things in movie terms, if this scene occurred in a movie and the audience didn't know what had happened, they would be led to believe Raf had something to do with it because of that response.

It's so obvious even a caveman would get it.

With regards to the hilite, for me I was just relating to what I would have done in the same situation. When I was young (30 years ago) and had just settled into my first house, I was the victim of a break-in. I called 911 when I arrived home and saw the front room of the house amiss (or a mess as it were), and said a few contradictory things that I still remember today. The dispatch agent asked if the perps were still in the house. I answered "yes, I mean they may be." In reality, I had walked in a few rooms before I got the phone and sat on the porch to call. The accurate answer should have been "I haven't seen any evidence that they are still here but I haven't searched everywhere."

So in retrospect I also answered a question inaccurately and I remember why I did it. In the instant that I replied I was thinking that if I imply the perps are still there, then I would get a faster response from the police. I regretted it a moment later and then down-played it. Nobody was attacked in my case but I still was an innocent victim who made an inaccurate comment to 911. So I can understand why it may happen to RS.

I believe I would be much different on a call like now. Hopefully we won't have to find out though.