Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

The plain fact of the matter is that neither Ms Knox nor Mr Sollecito have any juice to extract from the fact that they maintain they were in each other's company at the time of the murder. When your alibi witness gets arrested, charged, tried and convicted for the same crime as you, then you have no alibi witness anymore. Things then move on to trial.

The whole PG community simply doesn't understand how these matters play out at trial. Mr Sollecito faces a very peculiar problem - the rubbish evidence used against Ms Knox has been grafted on to the case against him. He must look to his best tactical defence.

Too funny.

So has the penny dropped, finally ?
i.e Did he provide her with an alib ???
The courtroom is all yours.

 

[Bill Williams]

Too funny.

So has the penny dropped, finally ?
i.e Did he provide her with an alib ???
The courtroom is all yours.

It bears repeating, then.

Raffaele has never withdrawn himself as an alibi for Knox. Not through six months of solitary, not through three trials, nor through four years in prison.

He maintains it in his book, as well as at the news conference you refer to.

What he has said loud and clear in his latest appeal to Cassation is this: if someone is claiming that Amanda went out that night, what does that have to do with him?

This is not something aimed at Amanda, it's aimed at the illogic of the person making the claim.

 

[LondonJohn]

It bears repeating, then.

Raffaele has never withdrawn himself as an alibi for Knox. Not through six months of solitary, not through three trials, nor through four years in prison.

He maintains it in his book, as well as at the news conference you refer to.

What he has said loud and clear in his latest appeal to Cassation is this: if someone is claiming that Amanda went out that night, what does that have to do with him?

This is not something aimed at Amanda, it's aimed at the illogic of the person making the claim.

To me, this specific issue is a rather good litmus test for any given pro-guilt commentator. After all, to believe that Sollecito is now stating that Knox went out that night (on the basis of the press conference where he used it as a hypothetical example to illustrate the illogicality of the case against him) is to be either a) lacking in intellectual horsepower or b) hopelessly blinkered with vindictive bias against Knox and Sollecito. Or both.

As such, it's quite useful as an aid to sorting the (hard to find) wheat from the (seemingly ubiquitous) chaff among pro-guilt commentators.......

 

[Desert Fox]

It bears repeating, then.

Raffaele has never withdrawn himself as an alibi for Knox. Not through six months of solitary, not through three trials, nor through four years in prison.

He maintains it in his book, as well as at the news conference you refer to.

What he has said loud and clear in his latest appeal to Cassation is this: if someone is claiming that Amanda went out that night, what does that have to do with him?

This is not something aimed at Amanda, it's aimed at the illogic of the person making the claim.

I translate it as "If you are going to blame the American, just blame the American."

It seems to me that this whole case is a witch hunt against Amanda. They really only want her to be blunt. I think they also know she is not guilty but the idea is that they can convict her and either the judiciary does not request extradition or the US refuses extradition.

 

[Bill Williams]

Platonov - the business of Raffaele saying, "If you're saying that Amanda went out that night, then what's this got to do with me?" strikes at the very heart of what is wrong with the prosecutions and the convictions.

It's the inability for someone who thinks they're guilty to come up with a reason why a reason they are guilty, or that Raffaele is guilty - other than that, well, they're guilty. Other than that observational clues closed this case even before the forensics came in, the latter of which being what we tend to argue about in these forums.

Think about it. All we should be arguing about is those observational clues, shouldn't we!? Because they were supposed to have tied this up in a nice little bow. Case closed.

Ooooooops. Now we have to argue the forensics, don't we. Maybe the cased wasn't closed after all.

So aside from all this, the various prosecutions and convicting judges have struggled to come up with a cogent theory of how this happened. Was it a Satanic rite? Was it a rite to do with the day of the dead? Was it a sex game gone wrong? Was it Rudy's motive for which AK and RS made an inexplicable choice for evil? Was it about pooh in the toilet? Was it about the rent money? Or was it (as Mignini finally said) for no reason at all?

Enter Raffaele's statement at appeal. "If you're saying Amanda went out, what then has this got to do with me?"

If Amanda had gone out and killed Meredith - what's this crime got to do with Raffaele?

You see it cuts into one of the latest attempts (by Nencini) to describe a timeline which adequately explains the evidence. Or more properly, using the evidence to put together a time-line that points to AK and RS beyond a reasonable doubt.

Me, I think that one thing is a brilliant strategy on Bongiorno's part on behalf of Raffaele. If and when Cassation convicts Raffaele anyway next March, that question still remains.....

....... why would Nencini decide that Amanda had gone out and was out of sight of Raffaele, and then turn around an NOT separate Raffaele from Amanda's crimes? (Even if only to convict him of some lesser crime?)

That is a huge Achilles Heel here. Neither the pro-guilt lobby, nor the prosecutions, nor the various convicting judges can put together a timeline which is consistent with the evidence which points to AK and RS.

It is even betrayed in the use of the term "Knoxians". Is there an equivalent which the pro-guilt lobby uses, "Sollecitoians"?

I still think you folk don't know, really, what to make of Raffaele. If tomorrow he were to accuse Amanda unreservedly, you'd immediately forget that for seven years you'd been calling him "knife-boy" and a liar, and would triumphantly suddenly believe him - "I told you Knox was guilty!"

Truly, I don't believe you see the problem with that.

 

[Bill Williams]

I translate it as "If you are going to blame the American, just blame the American."

It seems to me that this whole case is a witch hunt against Amanda. They really only want her to be blunt. I think they also know she is not guilty but the idea is that they can convict her and either the judiciary does not request extradition or the US refuses extradition.

This is something that they cannot do. As soon as the Italian courts separate the two, then Raffaele turns around and says, "But she was with me all night." And he says this as an innocent man.

People kept thinking that the two of them pursuing a separation strategy was somehow each throwing the other under a bus.

It turns out that the Nencini court had to keep them together..... or else, as Raffaele's/Bongiorno's statement in appeal to Cassation shows all of a sudden - there's actually no one timeline that Nencini or the pro-guilt lobby CAN support - it must be "Amanda goes out alone" at one part of the narrative, and "Raffaele and Amanda go out together" at another part.

 

[platonov]

It bears repeating, then.

Raffaele has never withdrawn himself as an alibi for Knox. Not through six months of solitary, not through three trials, nor through four years in prison.

He maintains it in his book, as well as at the news conference you refer to.

What he has said loud and clear in his latest appeal to Cassation is this: if someone is claiming that Amanda went out that night, what does that have to do with him?

This is not something aimed at Amanda, it's aimed at the illogic of the person making the claim.

To me, this specific issue is a rather good litmus test for any given pro-guilt commentator. After all, to believe that Sollecito is now stating that Knox went out that night (on the basis of the press conference where he used it as a hypothetical example to illustrate the illogicality of the case against him) is to be either a) lacking in intellectual horsepower or b) hopelessly blinkered with vindictive bias against Knox and Sollecito. Or both.

As such, it's quite useful as an aid to sorting the (hard to find) wheat from the (seemingly ubiquitous) chaff among pro-guilt commentators.......

Your (plural) confusion between RS's failure to provide AK with an alibi in a murder trial and a later post conviction press conference has some comedic value but it is getting in the way of what could be a breakthrough.



To continue.....

Too funny.

So has the penny dropped, finally ?
i.e Did he provide her with an alib ???
The courtroom is all yours.

So Kauffer - are we there yet ?

 

[Kauffer]

Alibi

Too funny.

So has the penny dropped, finally ?
i.e Did he provide her with an alib ???
The courtroom is all yours.

As I have tried to explain to you, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's position is that they were in each other's company at his flat. There is no equivocation on this matter. Mr Sollecito cannot be Ms Knox's alibi witness nor she his in any meaningful sense, because they were both arrested for the same crime, otherwise there would have been no trial.

Think about the Lumumba situation. They didn't try him and ask his witness to testify!!!! It's a meaningless thing at trial - it carries no weight. An alibi is a proof accepted of innocence. What do you think would happen? Put Mr Sollecito on the stand - ask him if he'll vouch for Ms Knox's whereabouts. He says "yes". And the judge says, "Right then! Trial over! Home you go!" This is not something that has never been an issue in the trial courts, as far as I am aware. Mr Sollecito testifying or not on this matter would have no bearing on the case. If either one or the other could have established an alibi by other means, then a different scenario would have been in play and evidence to that effect has been debated ad nauseum, with both defence teams trying to prove their respective clients were at Mr Sollecito's flat.

So, all your horrid little gossipy contentions about Mr Sollecito are predicated on rather stale thinking and a lack of understanding about what really matters when you are trying to clear yourself after a wrongful arrest, charge, trial and conviction. What you should be thinking about is that neither Ms Knox nor Mr Sollecito has ever testified against each other - there is meaning in that.

I ask you again: Are you under the impression that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out on the night of the murder?

 

[Bill Williams]

Your (plural) confusion between RS's failure to provide AK with an alibi in a murder trial and a later post conviction press conference has some comedic value but it is getting in the way of what could be a breakthrough.



To continue.....




So Kauffer - are we there yet ?

This is really really close to where the rubber hits the road.

Can you describe where at trial it would have done Raffaele any good to, "provide Knox with an alibi"?

You seem not to know that he himself was charged with everything Knox was charged with, save for calunnia.

At trial what good would it have done for Raffaele to say that she didn't do this?

The pro-guilt lobby has always had this undue focus on Knox, and simply does not know what to make of Raffaele. For instance if Raffaele DID withdraw himself as an alibi, you would suddenly find yourself agreeing with him, for no other reason than confirmation bias.

That you can't or don't deal with this is all i need to know.

 

[platonov]

So many words

As I have tried to explain to you, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's position is that they were in each other's company at his flat. There is no equivocation on this matter. Mr Sollecito cannot be Ms Knox's alibi witness nor she his in any meaningful sense, because they were both arrested for the same crime, otherwise there would have been no trial.

Think about the Lumumba situation. They didn't try him and ask his witness to testify!!!! It's a meaningless thing at trial - it carries no weight. An alibi is a proof accepted of innocence. What do you think would happen? Put Mr Sollecito on the stand - ask him if he'll vouch for Ms Knox's whereabouts. He says "yes". And the judge says, "Right then! Trial over! Home you go!" This is not something that has never been an issue in the trial courts, as far as I am aware. Mr Sollecito testifying or not on this matter would have no bearing on the case. If either one or the other could have established an alibi by other means, then a different scenario would have been in play and evidence to that effect has been debated ad nauseum, with both defence teams trying to prove their respective clients were at Mr Sollecito's flat.

So, all your horrid little gossipy contentions about Mr Sollecito are predicated on rather stale thinking and a lack of understanding about what really matters when you are trying to clear yourself after a wrongful arrest, charge, trial and conviction. What you should be thinking about is that neither Ms Knox nor Mr Sollecito has ever testified against each other - there is meaning in that.

I ask you again: Are you under the impression that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out on the night of the murder?

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

 

[Bill Williams]

As I have tried to explain to you, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's position is that they were in each other's company at his flat. There is no equivocation on this matter. Mr Sollecito cannot be Ms Knox's alibi witness nor she his in any meaningful sense, because they were both arrested for the same crime, otherwise there would have been no trial.

Think about the Lumumba situation. They didn't try him and ask his witness to testify!!!! It's a meaningless thing at trial - it carries no weight. An alibi is a proof accepted of innocence. What do you think would happen? Put Mr Sollecito on the stand - ask him if he'll vouch for Ms Knox's whereabouts. He says "yes". And the judge says, "Right then! Trial over! Home you go!" This is not something that has never been an issue in the trial courts, as far as I am aware. Mr Sollecito testifying or not on this matter would have no bearing on the case. If either one or the other could have established an alibi by other means, then a different scenario would have been in play and evidence to that effect has been debated ad nauseum, with both defence teams trying to prove their respective clients were at Mr Sollecito's flat.

So, all your horrid little gossipy contentions about Mr Sollecito are predicated on rather stale thinking and a lack of understanding about what really matters when you are trying to clear yourself after a wrongful arrest, charge, trial and conviction. What you should be thinking about is that neither Ms Knox nor Mr Sollecito has ever testified against each other - there is meaning in that.

I ask you again: Are you under the impression that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out on the night of the murder?

This.

You will never get an answer which leads to a meaningful timeline that answers the question (is he or is he not Knox's alibi, and via versa?)

 

[Wattson]

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

Do you think Raffaele is guilty?

 

[Planigale]

The problem for the prosecution is if they split the case they have no case. If Sollecito turned round and said Knox was not with me that night. Who do they prosecute for the crime? They would have to drop Curatolo who said he saw them together - so would the prosecution suddenly say he was unreliable? Then there is the bra hook DNA, would they suddenly say that was contamination? The bloody bathmat footprint, would that suddenly become Guede's? The double DNA knife found at Sollecito's, would that DNA test become unreliable? Without that physical evidence what is there against Knox? There is more evidence against Sollecito than Knox. If Sollecito does not give Knox an alibi the Knox does not give him one. Actually i think this would be the best thing for Knox. Knox can turn round and say if I was not with Sollecito what has any of this evidence to do with me?

 

[Bill Williams]

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

It's revealing that you are stuck on his words at trial. It's revealing because you don't seem to think it's meaningful that it belongs to the prosecutor first and foremost to demonstrate that Raffaele is not Amanda's alibi.

The way Mignini chose to deal with the issue of alibi was to charge him with the same crimes, save for calunnia. So what that Mignini now had to crowd four people into that small room and now have two, not just one, come out of a knife murder with no forensics pointing to them - not at the level they pointed to Rudy surely.

So this is the line in the sand for the pro-guilt lobby. Charge and convict Raffaele, and still be prepared to exonerate him if he only rats out Amanda. In court.

Sometimes it becomes crystal clear why they had to throw everything at Raffaele to get at Knox.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Mignini Miracle

I translate it as "If you are going to blame the American, just blame the American."

It seems to me that this whole case is a witch hunt against Amanda. They really only want her to be blunt. I think they also know she is not guilty but the idea is that they can convict her and either the judiciary does not request extradition or the US refuses extradition.

You don't think Maresca and the Kerchers are at all interested in laying claim to Raf's inheritance?

Its been so thoroughly corrupt a process all the way through and among all the participants; from the vile civil leeches, to corrupt prosecutors, lying cops and lab techs, amoral tabloids fanning the flames of a witch hunt, the coached paid witnesses, the idiotic british girls, there is no end to it.

Everything that could be done wrong, was. They did everything but actually plant solid evidence, only there they drew the line.

The most notable event is that even Hellman felt compelled not to accuse the police of being criminals. When judges like Hellman can't call a spade a spade, you know you've got a serious systemic problem.

The ECHR just needs to step in and stop the madness, It's clear that Italy has exceeded its ability to produce a fair trial at this point.

The circus like parading of witnesses in the media, for profit, pretty much precludes the possibility of any high profile trial being fair and free from social / political / mobs in the street pressure. Add to this an endemic corruption among the prosecutors and police, and you have a justice system in name only.

Miginini may well yet bring the whole Italian judiciary down with him. And godspeed to him.

 

[platonov]

This is new - I think?

The problem for the prosecution is if they split the case they have no case. If Sollecito turned round and said Knox was not with me that night. Who do they prosecute for the crime? They would have to drop Curatolo who said he saw them together - so would the prosecution suddenly say he was unreliable? Then there is the bra hook DNA, would they suddenly say that was contamination? The bloody bathmat footprint, would that suddenly become Guede's? The double DNA knife found at Sollecito's, would that DNA test become unreliable? Without that physical evidence what is there against Knox? There is more evidence against Sollecito than Knox. If Sollecito does not give Knox an alibi the Knox does not give him one. Actually i think this would be the best thing for Knox. Knox can turn round and say if I was not with Sollecito what has any of this evidence to do with me?

Wow.

What ?

Here in 2014 they have won the case and are waiting for Cassation to sign off.
Whats happening where you are ?

Timelines indeed.

 

[Bill Williams]

The problem for the prosecution is if they split the case they have no case. If Sollecito turned round and said Knox was not with me that night. Who do they prosecute for the crime? They would have to drop Curatolo who said he saw them together - so would the prosecution suddenly say he was unreliable? Then there is the bra hook DNA, would they suddenly say that was contamination? The bloody bathmat footprint, would that suddenly become Guede's? The double DNA knife found at Sollecito's, would that DNA test become unreliable? Without that physical evidence what is there against Knox? There is more evidence against Sollecito than Knox. If Sollecito does not give Knox an alibi the Knox does not give him one. Actually i think this would be the best thing for Knox. Knox can turn round and say if I was not with Sollecito what has any of this evidence to do with me?

If they split the case they have no case.

Mignini's gamble to throw everything at Raffaele once the Nike prints went south, will eventually exonerate them both.

It's only a matter of time.

What Planigale said.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow.

What ?

Here in 2014 they have won the case and are waiting for Cassation to sign off.
Whats happening where you are ?

Timelines indeed.

Do you think Raffaele is guilty as charged?

 

[Desert Fox]

This is something that they cannot do. As soon as the Italian courts separate the two, then Raffaele turns around and says, "But she was with me all night." And he says this as an innocent man.

People kept thinking that the two of them pursuing a separation strategy was somehow each throwing the other under a bus.

It turns out that the Nencini court had to keep them together..... or else, as Raffaele's/Bongiorno's statement in appeal to Cassation shows all of a sudden - there's actually no one timeline that Nencini or the pro-guilt lobby CAN support - it must be "Amanda goes out alone" at one part of the narrative, and "Raffaele and Amanda go out together" at another part.

I am fairly sure that you and I agree that the whole guilty verdict is political motivated. I have hard time pinning on the actual motivation, my best being that maybe different people are motivated for different reasons.

I don't think they need a reason to convict Amanda if they are determined. Does not matter if the prosecution or judges use a dozen different lines of incomprehensible logic.

 

[Samson]

Do you think Raffaele is guilty as charged?

This question is well asked of people who enjoy the gamesmanship of the alibis.
If Vibio, griffinmill, Platonov etc can manage this with a one word answer, the discussion can make progress.