Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

CoulsdonUK,

IMO your comment does not contribute to the discussion. However, Peter Gill recently gave an interview that did. Scroll to about 19:40 into the program.

I can't find Gill's interview. Did they pull it?

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't find Gill's interview. Did they pull it?

Seems to be at 19:40 just as Chris said (though he actually starts talking at about 20:30.

 

[Numbers]

I was referring to the application to the ECHR, from some of the posts here I was under the impression that some had access to it.

I can provide you with some links that may be useful:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_iGhvxYFM&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbDDhs5ZVA&list=TLJOTKYPB5lecNBocYG5HFefUzKqe-X4F6

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf

 

[Desert Fox]

This is one that Machiavelli made up and somehow weaved it's way to the narrative. Mach has even said that Amanda was trading sex for drugs. He has been saying it for years, not that he has a damn thing to support this rumor. (I mean why let that stop him?) He consistently has turned nothing into her being a drug crazed whore. I really don't want to run through that stupid theory again. Let's just say there is nothing but wild speculation based on Amanda spending a little too much money in Europe and that phone number. It is of course nonsense.. Especially when you consider that Amanda has plenty of money, her new boyfriend has even more and that 300 Euros wouldn't be worth killing anyone.

The thing is that if your evidence is questionable (which I don't even questionable covers this), you better have a pretty good storyline of why the defendants did it. In this case, none of the stories even make sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are right. Was less familiar with the Norfolk 4 case -- I didn't realize they had Ballard's DNA at the crime scene. Did the prosecution claim it was a gang rape and murder and somehow no one left their DNA at the crime scene except Ballard? HMM sounds familiar. God people are so freaking stupid.

If you have good internet and it available for you, I recommend you watch Frontline: The Confessions from PBS.

 

[Bill Williams]

No just a moment. It's the pro-Knox activist posters who cite Sfarzo as their source, at times now and then. They cite him as a source, as a foundation to their arguments. So, if you motivate your argumentation based on the fact that the Source says that, it's obvious that the reliability of the Source may be part of the question. It's not me who decides to rely on Frank Sfarzo: if some people decide, on their own initiative, to associate themselves to sources that are questionable, this must be noted because reflects on their arguments.

This is really quite funny. Toto is a completely legitimate source, Nara is an entirely legitimate source, and the cops who have had legal issues are legitimate, yet Sfarzo as a source is completely discredited because he is a personal hothead. This logic is applied at every possible instance.

Machiavelli's assertions are also strawman arguments.

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

I know of no one who relies on Frank Sfarzo as a "foundation" of their arguments.

Indeed, Perugia Shock was a valuable resource in getting the real story of Perugian PLE misconduct out to the world, but Perugia Shock did not invent the stuff it was propagating. It was simply reporting, in blog form, what was what; most notably for an English language audience....

..... because the alternative for an English language audience was the British tabloids. Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt - plus a few others - dominated the early story. They uncritically simply parroted the ever-changing landscape of prosecution theories and faux evidence. Things like misrepresenting Amanda Knox's "I was there" comment.

Sfarzo's blog was the other side of the story in the English language. By the time an English language version of the Massei report came out (in 2010) and by the time the Hellmann report came out (Dec 2011), one could readily see that Sfarzo had mainly got it right.

But Sfarzo cannot be said to be a "foundation" for any of anyone's "arguments", since he's merely passing on info as he sees it.

Like Michael Winterbottom has the Sfarzo character in "The Face of an Angel" say: when someone says they don't really understand this murder as represented by the various prosecutions, the Sfarzo-character says, "That is because you are stupid and do not read my blog."

It is useful to consider that Sfarzo was in the journalist-mix in Perugia just like everyone else initially. He was fully willing and able to aim his trademark snark against AK and RS early on when he was convinced they'd done a terrible thing.

Then there is that early blog entry of his, where he begins to see the other side to this. (Unfortunately, Perugia Shock was shut down, and many of those early posts are gone - are available only to internet-savvy types who know how to engage the archiving sites....)

This early blog entry had him record his reaction to the answer to this question: "Has anyone searched the wooded area below the cottage for weapons?" The answer was, "We don't need to - we already have the knife."

It trademark Sfarzo-snark-skepticism, he notes that that answer did not exactly answer the question as asked. Indeed, once the "two knife theory" was posited in court, and all they had was one knife, the answer to that question would have suddenly been very important!!!!

However, that's hardly a foundational issue. Once other English language resources came into play, other English language folk were able to join in using sources other than Sfarzo.

However, the attempts to shut him down and discredit him have themselves been revealing. Perhaps the pro-guilt lobby does need to do some advance "muddying of the waters" before Winterbottom's film hits the screens, and sees that both Paul Viragh and Winterbottom himself consider Sfarzo as the only one who at the time who had any proper perspective on the corruption and incompetence of the PLE as this progressed.

Everyone else was busy monetizing this or cozying up to the prosecutors!

 

[carbonjam72]

Not just jurors get paid in sunny Italy

Given the repetitive nature of this thread, I doubt that this most recent iteration regarding Quintavale and Curatolo will provide anything new or meaningful. I remain interested in the future, anything related to the next phase of the judicial process.

I doubt there will be any news relating to the application until after the 3rd level hearing and even then it will depend on the verdict.

I found the recents posts pointing out that a Perigian journalist was conscripting phony witnesses who then get paid for interviews to TV shows, that was something I wasn't aware of, and quite illuminating. That it was something of a cottage industry is a remarkable fact.

It further shows what a fraud the whole case has been.

Where is your outrage at this sickening behavior?
Are you so concerned with the Kerchers' grief that the suffering of two innocent people means nothing to you?

At first they kept Raf in the case to get to Amanda. Now they're keeping Amanda in the case to get to Raf's inheritance.

It's a fine bunch of criminals they have in Italy, and its shocking the Kerchers would be unable to muster the decency to refrain from stealing money from innocent families.

But do continue to look forward, lest you come face to face with the truth. The fraud must be respected, because Italy is after all a sovereign country. B.S.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is one that Machiavelli made up and somehow weaved it's way to the narrative. Mach has even said that Amanda was trading sex for drugs. He has been saying it for years, not that he has a damn thing to support this rumor. (I mean why let that stop him?) He consistently has turned nothing into her being a drug crazed whore. I really don't want to run through that stupid theory again. Let's just say there is nothing but wild speculation based on Amanda spending a little too much money in Europe and that phone number. It is of course nonsense.. Especially when you consider that Amanda has plenty of money, her new boyfriend has even more and that 300 Euros wouldn't be worth killing anyone.

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.

It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

 

[Samson]

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.

It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

Jam yesterday jam tomorrow but never jam today

The drugs, the empty duodenum. If that's too cryptic consider the absence of CCTV footage of Amanda before 9pm when Amanda entered the cottage with Rudy Guede and her key, Machiavelli.

 

[Bill Williams]

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.
It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

Out of all the completely beside-the-point posts which have ever been made in the last 7 years, this must rank in the top ten.

You really cannot be serious, that all you wish to contribute to this is to level the playing field between Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede?

You're not even really interested in either proving or disproving the allegations you make that AK has, "a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers"....

..... you just want people to hold that it is at least possible.

And based on that remote possibility you wish to send two innocents to jail for 28 and 25 years respectively? I think I've now heard everything.

 

[Kauffer]

Lack of evidence

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.

It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any contacts that Ms Knox had with any drug dealers. With which drug dealer did she have a sexual contact? What multiple phone contacts are you talking about? What evidence do you have of any relationship whatsoever between Ms Knox and Guede?

What evidence is there from Ms Knox's accounts that you refer to of "unjustified" expenditure?

 

[carbonjam72]

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.

It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

Rudy Guede was an acquaintance of the guys downstairs. Amanda was a foreign student. Rudy was a young man, without steady employment, who had taken up burglary as a means of getting money.

These people could not be further apart in life. It's amazing how you feel so free to slander Amanda and Raf, with deranged sexual fantasies that exist only in your imagination. What right do people she doesn't know, have to speculate in this way.

MAch, this type of talk is just reckless, and really a kind of criminal assault. You shouldn't need a court to you that its wrong.

 

[carbonjam72]

The theory is not about Knox trading sex for drugs and it is not about her being a whore.
The "theory" consists in pointing out some facts, that is that Knox had repeated phone contacts with multiple drug dealers who belonged to same ring and also sexual contacts with at least one of them.
It's not just a "number", it is a series of phone exchanges (on which Knox herself maintains a line of poor transparency).

As for the monetary aspect, in fact there is also cash withdrawal records which appear to be in a unjustified amount, especially because 1) there is no apparent counter value to them (receipts, goods, expenses etc); 2) it is all cash money.

As for acbytesla's last comment, obviously nobody thought that the purpose of killing was to gain 300 euros, suggesting that would be a very stupid straw man. However an urgent need for cash might have lead to incidents, like "borrow" 300 euros without asking for them or letting Guede take them, and an incident can be a premise for an extremely harsh argument, where something very different may come to be at stake.

The point in bringing up a set of elements that link Knox to a drug dealers' ring does not have the purpose to present a "theory" nor to draw a picture of Knox personality.

It has however the purpose to debunk and demolish a myth, a bogus characterization of Knox's personality as “having no contacts” with Guede, as not attending his environment , and as having a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers, such as it was presented by the Knox supporters PR campaign.

Were Quintavale and Curatolo getting paid for their TV interviews as witnesses?

Was the question as to whether they were paid by any one at all for their testimony, did that question get asked at trial? It certainly would have been in the US, and I'm guessing in the UK.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is really quite funny. Toto is a completely legitimate source, Nara is an entirely legitimate source, and the cops who have had legal issues are legitimate, yet Sfarzo as a source is completely discredited because he is a personal hothead. This logic is applied at every possible instance.

All are "legitimate" sources, including Sfarzo.
But Frank Sfarzo used to take money from the Knox family and supporters, he was accused to be a liar and a dishonest by some people you do trust and his reports are proven false.
Now, indeed Antonio Curatolo and Nara and Quintavalle didn't have a motive for lying of for making up a story. And a testimony like Nara's one is also doubled by the testimony of Antonella Monacchia. There is actually nothing that specifically discredits these people. We may assume Curatolo would have lied if questioned about whether he used to sell drugs or not. But on a on a circumstance totally unrelated from him?

Now, the Mobile Squad instead. Some may like to assume soem of the police officers are not that angels, they may have committed offences, etc. But this is not something from which you can deduce that a conspiracy theory could make sense. Because you don't need just some few cops who are ready to break the law. You can't go much further with Napoleoni's intemperance. You would need a pre-planned and/or systematic conspiracy performed on a wider scale, by entire offices (not just one) and on a much higher level, and with evidence convincing, compelling motives, in order to manifacture evidence on a murder case like this one. You would need a whole conspiracy theory which looks immediately unproven and unrealistic. And also, what evidence, after all?
Had they decided to manufacture evidence, why don't manufacture phisical evidence on a massive scale. If they had the capability and the will to manufacture such a technical piece of evidence like the kitchen knife, this means they could much more easilly have placed flocks of the victim's DNA wherever they wanted to; they could have placed massive easy-to-produce evidence. The whole conspiracy theory stands out immediately as inconsistent and nonsens when you try to fit these aspects in.
Not to speak about the fact that DNA evidence is unnecessary in this case.

Moreover, the truth is that the various officers of Mobile Squad are not my sources"; my 'sources' instead include Mignini and Anna Donnino, as well as Patrizia Stefanoni. You can't put the word of an anti-mafia prosecutor on the same scale of a girl who says the only truth is she doesn't know what the truth is, or defendants who had no clue of what they were doing the night before.

 

[Numbers]

.

It's not that I am not interested in the truth. I am very interested in the truth, and I think it has been found. I am only not that interested in forensic science. I don't accept that a trial is mistaken for an investigation on forensic science. And I also radically object to the ideology that the "whole truth" is to be found only within a comprehensive release of all the data and for that data to be peer reviewed. I believe the only review of evidence must be within the trial, and subject to the interest expressed by the judge and by the parties. The only trial must take place within the courtroom.



There is no standard of any kind for pieces of evidence.
Pieces of evidence cannot be subjected to evidentiary laws of the kind you have in jury based systems.

The emphasized statement is false, according to Italian law.

CCP Article 192 Section 2 requires that evidence be "precise". Each element of evidence must be evaluated for precision before the "osmotic" blending of evidence.

From: information in the summary of Amanda Knox's appeal to the CSC.
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

 

[Machiavelli]

Were Quintavale and Curatolo getting paid for their TV interviews as witnesses?

No. Quintavalle was interviewed by a female journalist who worked for Castellini, and then by the national tv network Rai1 (both around December 2008), he gave his interviews for free.
Quintavalle complained that is interview with the lady was cut: he claims he confirmed he was sure about the identity of Amanda Knox, and those pieces were cut. H complained to Castellini for this at the time.

Was the question as to whether they were paid by any one at all for their testimony, did that question get asked at trial?

Quintavalle was asked, and he answered, as I said. Curatolo was not asked as far as I remember, but I might seek in the papers. There were no real interviews to Antonio Curatolo at the time that I recall. The defence could cross-question Curatolo on two different trials and it's up to them to decide whether to put these questions.
I point out anyway that both Curatolo and Quintavalle were questioned by the Procura before they released interviews. They both talked with authority first releasing their testimony, and they spoke publicly only later.

 

[Machiavelli]

The emphasized statement is false, according to Italian law.

(...)

The above statement is true, according to Italian law.

 

[Kauffer]

Misleading PLE

All are "legitimate" sources, including Sfarzo.
But Frank Sfarzo used to take money from the Knox family and supporters, he was accused to be a liar and a dishonest by some people you do trust and his reports are proven false.
Now, indeed Antonio Curatolo and Nara and Quintavalle didn't have a motive for lying of for making up a story. And a testimony like Nara's one is also doubled by the testimony of Antonella Monacchia. There is actually nothing that specifically discredits these people. We may assume Curatolo would have lied if questioned about whether he used to sell drugs or not. But on a on a circumstance totally unrelated from him?

Now, the Mobile Squad instead. Some may like to assume soem of the police officers are not that angels, they may have committed offences, etc. But this is not something from which you can deduce that a conspiracy theory could make sense. Because you don't need just some few cops who are ready to break the law. You can't go much further with Napoleoni's intemperance. You would need a pre-planned and/or systematic conspiracy performed on a wider scale, by entire offices (not just one) and on a much higher level, and with evidence convincing, compelling motives, in order to manifacture evidence on a murder case like this one. You would need a whole conspiracy theory which looks immediately unproven and unrealistic. And also, what evidence, after all?
Had they decided to manufacture evidence, why don't manufacture phisical evidence on a massive scale. If they had the capability and the will to manufacture such a technical piece of evidence like the kitchen knife, this means they could much more easilly have placed flocks of the victim's DNA wherever they wanted to; they could have placed massive easy-to-produce evidence. The whole conspiracy theory stands out immediately as inconsistent and nonsens when you try to fit these aspects in.
Not to speak about the fact that DNA evidence is unnecessary in this case.

Moreover, the truth is that the various officers of Mobile Squad are not my sources"; my 'sources' instead include Mignini and Anna Donnino, as well as Patrizia Stefanoni. You can't put the word of an anti-mafia prosecutor on the same scale of a girl who says the only truth is she doesn't know what the truth is, or defendants who had no clue of what they were doing the night before.

You can't even prove Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito left his flat let alone that they went to Via Pergola, so sure there's a very clear intention to 'find' evidence supportive of a prosecution and to hide evidence of an exonerating character. Thus we have PLE returning to Via Pergola 46 days after the murder when they had no business going back to a highly compromised crime scene and, thus we have substantial undisclosed forensic evidence.

The picture we have of the cottage is profoundly unsatisfactory because we have no reference samples or prints from Romanelli and Mezzetti and their partners. The "viewers" are supposed to conclude that the normal appearance through sampling of Ms Knox is abnormal because it's all they can see and is erroneously presented as bring necessarily connected to the murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're not even really interested in either proving or disproving the allegations you make that AK has, "a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers"....

..... you just want people to hold that it is at least possible.

Exactly. Because this is the truth.

And based on that remote possibility you wish to send two innocents to jail for 28 and 25 years respectively? I think I've now heard everything.

Absolutely not. I intend to send them to jail based on a totally different set of evidence. But I also don't wish to allow the pro-Knoxes to use a false characterization as a defensive shield: I intend to take away that shield from their hands, show it is a bogus paper shield.

 

[Kauffer]

Citation

The emphasized statement is false, according to Italian law.

CCP Article 192 Section 2 requires that evidence be "precise". Each element of evidence must be evaluated for precision before the "osmotic" blending of evidence.

From: information in the summary of Amanda Knox's appeal to the CSC.
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

I already pointed this out to Machiavelli but without your cite. I've noticed he does not usually respond when his erroneous claims are dealt with. I have a growing list. I expect a lot of people here do. He is profoundly dishonest in his posting habits.