Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

Because he claimed to have been home with Amanda all night. How can they pressure him if he's isn't being accused of participating, as an alternative to their both being innocent.

They need to create an incentive for Raf to give up Amanda to the flames, otherwise, they're stuck. They had to charge Raf, or let Amanda go.

Exactly my point. How do the guilters reconcile their mantra that Raffaele never provided an alibi with the fact that he was arrested? If he never provided an alibi the police had no reason to get him involved.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good Evening Everyone,

From a translation of the Matteini report: "Having clarified this point, it can be seen that Raffaele Sollecito stated during the review hearing that he spent the whole night between 1st and 2nd November with Amanda Knox, having returned to his home at about 20:00-20:30; that he had dinner with the girl; that he was aware of incoming messages on the girl’s phone; that he learned from her that she did not have to go to work at the Le Chic pub that evening, as had been communicated to her by an SMS sent to her cell phone; and that they had then gone to sleep together, waking in the morning after about 10:00 a.m., when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola to take a shower. During the same statements, he added that he did not remember whether Knox had left or not, but repeated that in any event he had not moved from the house, but had remained in front of the computer, and had received a phone call from his father at 23:00. Shortly afterwards he clarified that he did not remember whether he had actually received this phone call, or whether he had reported having received it to confirm his continued presence in the house." (highlighting mine)

Machiavelli's future answers should be judged with his past answers in mind.

The word "night" in Italian means something that starts ad midnight.
What Sollecito said, is that he doesn't remember if Knox was with him before around midnight.
He only remembers that they had slept together all night and woken up at about 10, which we know is false (he turns on his phone at 6).

 

[Bill Williams]

Why don't you quote the actual papers from Matteini's hearing, instead of rebounce the ball on second hand reports?

Machiavelli - you have been away from this board for a few days. Welcome back.

Cites from the English versions of the Massei, Hellmann and Nencini motivations reports all agree with those authors. Raffaele has always claimed he was with Amanda at his apartment all night Nov 1/2.

The issue is this: some are claiming that the evidence shows that Raffaele cannot claim this, that the evidence shows that Amanda went out, and Raffaele stayed home.

This opens a trapdoor for guilters. It is as expressed by Raffaele at his press conference and within his appeals document to Cassazione:

If you are claiming that Amanda went out, what then does this case have to do with me?​

 

[Kauffer]

Discrimination

The subject is those scientists who write on this board.
Peter Gill is simply wrong about facts.

I see - so Chris Halkides and Diocletus et al are deluded, but Peter Gill is merely wrong about the facts. Is that it? I'm sure that one of the founding fathers of the scientific discipline that forms such a huge part of this case will be delighted to learn from you that he simply needs to do his homework rather than book himself in for treatment.

Dr Hampikian, Conti and Vechiotti, Professor Budowle? Homework or treatment?

 

[LondonJohn]

The word "night" in Italian means something that starts ad midnight. What Sollecito said, is that he doesn't remember if Knox was with him before around midnight.
He only remembers that they had slept together all night and woken up at about 10, which we know is false (he turns on his phone at 6).

Oh dear. If this codswallop were true, then it wouldn't be necessary for the transcript to say "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" would it? After all, if "in Italian" the word "night" only starts at midnight, then it would only make sense to say "....the whole night of 2nd November", since all of 1st November would fall outside this definition (since it by definition all fell the wrong side of the supposed midnight cut-off for the definition of "night"!).

Baghdad Bob is alive and well!!

 

[MDDVS]

The subject is those scientists who write on this board.
Peter Gill is simply wrong about facts.

How do you know he doesn't write on this board?

 

[Kauffer]

Alibi

The word "night" in Italian means something that starts ad midnight.
What Sollecito said, is that he doesn't remember if Knox was with him before around midnight.
He only remembers that they had slept together all night and woken up at about 10, which we know is false (he turns on his phone at 6).

1) Are you under the impression that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out the night of the murder without him?
2) Since your position is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both went to the Via Pergola cottage, why is the matter of any significance at all?
3) Do you accept that it is the opinion of each of the three trial courts that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both maintain that they were together at Mr Sollecito's flat from the evening of the 1st to the morning of the 2nd November? If not, please cite from the relevant reports to support whatever claim you make about the courts' positions.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly my point. How do the guilters reconcile their mantra that Raffaele never provided an alibi with the fact that he was arrested? If he never provided an alibi the police had no reason to get him involved.

I think they may originally have planned to charge Sollecito with obstructing justice by lying in his earlier statements to police (i.e. those before the night of 5th November, in which he was clear that he and Knox had spent the entire evening and night together in his apartment).

I think that on 5th November, the police - by now clear in their own minds of the "truth" - planned to psychologically bombard Sollecito until he confessed to them that he had been lying all along, and that Knox had in fact left his apartment at some point on the evening of the murder. They would then use this in their plan to break Knox in turn.

But as it turned out, they couldn't really break Sollecito (in essence because their "truth" about the crime was in fact totally wrong). The best they were able to manage was to get him confused about dates between Halloween (31st October) and the following night, the night of the murder (1st November). Eventually they got him to say a vague statement along the lines that he couldn't be certain that Knox had been with him all evening/night, though in my view it's abundantly clear that this was the product of a confused, tired and coerced man.

However, that would have to do for the police, and they obviously felt it was enough to use in part 2 of their plan. They duly brought Knox in for interview (I believe the original plan was probably to send the arrest squad over to Sollecito's place to grab her with all lights and sirens, but she thwarted that by accompanying Sollecito to the police HQ), and told her that Sollecito was no longer supporting her claim to have spent the whole evening/night with him at his apartment.

As I said above and in a previous post, I think the plan was to charge Sollecito with obstructing justice. But I think the police/PM were then thrown when - in front of Matteini - he strongly reiterated his prior statement that he and Knox were indeed together in his apartment for all of that evening and night. And then they were told by the idiots Rinaldi et al that Sollecito's trainer print had been positively identified in Kercher's blood inside Kercher's room. Suddenly it made sense to the police and PM: Sollecito had never been lying to protect Knox - he'd been lying to protect himself and Knox together. He'd actively participated in the murder alongside Knox and the third man.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) Are you under the impression that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out the night of the murder without him?

Yes. This is what he says. He doesn't confirm it, but says it's well possible.

2) Since your position is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both went to the Via Pergola cottage, why is the matter of any significance at all?

Actually, I don't have a prejudicial position, I don't have a "position" at all, I consider myself neutral. The objective fact is that Sollecito does not provide any alibi to Knox. I must note this as a matter of facts. The reason why he holds this position, is a matter on which we can make speculations and deduction, not something we know.
Whether this is an element of significance or not, is something that should not be decided in advance. Certainly this is an element that does contribute to the consistency of their testimonies. We would make our own mind about the significant as we go along considering further contradictions from the defendants.

3) Do you accept that it is the opinion of each of the three trial courts that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both maintain that they were together at Mr Sollecito's flat from the evening of the 1st to the morning of the 2nd November? If not, please cite from the relevant reports to support whatever claim you make about the courts' positions.

Well the court position becomes explicit in Nencini's motivation report, where Nencini points out that Sollecito refused to testify through the whole proceedings, and this is the main reason why the two positions cannot be split. He doesn't say that the positions cannot be split because Sollecito testified in favor of Knox's alibi. He only points out that he had no position, that implies also no position against.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briefly: this is Nencini's reasoning as to why Amanda had gone out without Raffaele.

Nencini says that (p. 117) - it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the “Le Chic” bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.

Nencini sees that as the first "lie" of Amanda's. However, since even Nencini says that Amanda was at Raffaele's apartment at 8:35 pm (and 48 seconds), it is unclear what this "lie" proves or disproves since the Lumumba text was 17 minutes earlier. The important thing, really, is that she's at Raffaele's (as is Raffaele) at 8:35 pm. She is also there at around 8:40 pm acc. to Jovana Popovic.

However, the point Nencini highlights is this:

(p. 118)In essence, it can be established with certainty that Amanda and Raffaele were apart, albeit for a limited period of time, on the evening of 1 November 2007, contrary to what is stated repeatedly in multiple statements made by Amanda Marie Knox.​

Regardless of what Nencini is trying to demonstrate about Knox, Raffaele can quite rightly say, "What's this got to do with me?"

Then Nencini launches into the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle. Nencini's point is to use the SMS "evidence" to buttress that Knox might also have been seen by these two, contrary to her consistent claim she was always with Raffaele at his apartment that night until morning. Nencini, at length, recounts the testimony given at both the 2009 and the 2011 trials.

As an aside, the criteria Nencini uses to suddenly resurrect Curatolo's testimony, is some from confirmation bias - because this is a crterion Nencini denies Knox - in the large point of her memory of that night:

This Court finds that the testimony of Antonio Curatolo must be evaluated on the basis of the ordinary interpretative criteria of evaluation that the criminal Court employs in every proceeding.

It is in fact the constant experience in any trial that the witnesses are the bearers of personal stories, not always crystal-clear or of at times commendable behavior: which does not render them, for that reason alone, non-credible. What cannot be allowed the Court, most categorically, is a judgment of the reliability of the witness on the basis of anthropological16 reasoning.​

So - Curatolo's witness cannot be summarily dismissed.... all in an argument wherein Nencini is summarily dismissing Knox's testimony on much the same grounds.

(I'm tempted to go off on a rant about the way Nencini resurrects Curatolo on issues of "the fixed points of memory", Curatolo's, "which must guige the interpretor (of them, meaning, the Court)."

But remember what's at issue here? Nencini started this long section by having Knox and Raffaele briefly apart, during her reception of the Lumumba SMS ("Don't come to work"), with her back at Raffaele's in time to meet Jovana Popovic.

While dismissing with a wave of the hand the other issue of both Curatolo AND Quintavalle's stories being a year in the making before coming forward.... Nencini then uses the three issues (Lumumba's SMS, Curatolo, and Quintavalle) to conclude:

So we are able to affirm that Amanda Marie Knox was lying when she was claiming to have slept at Mr. Sollecito’s house in his company until 10am in the morning of 2 November 2007.​

Next - Nencini turns to the more "objective evidence: the phone records. Nencini says that Raffaele's phone records indicate his never left his apartment. However, Raffaele now becomes a liar because he checked his phone for an SMS at 6:06:59 on the 2nd, therefore, acc. to Nencini, putting the lie to Amanda's claim that they'd slept all night uninterrupted.

Repeat that. Nencini's analysis is directed at proving Knox a liar for saying that she and Raffaele slept all night at Raffaele's place, without going out. Nencini makes no mention of Amanda's own knowledge that Raffaele may have briefly woken from slumber, leaned over to check his phone, then went back to sleep.

For Nencini, this small act becomes proof of lies both of them are telling:

That is what counts, and what the Court finds proved, is that at 6:02:59am on 2 November 2007 in the apartment at 130 Via Garibaldi, they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but the occupants were well awake, so much as to switch on or move the phones.​

Remember where Nencini had started back on page 117. It was that Amanda was a liar for not reporting that she had left the apartment (acc. to Nencini) well before the Popovic visit.

Now, 25 pages later, Nencini turns an innocent check of a mobile phone, and perhaps the listening to music, as proof that the two were wide awake and active. Nencini has no narrative at all suggesting that Knox was anything other than asleep (missing all this "activity" from Raffaele), and therefore was quite sincere when she, herself, had said, "We slept all night."

And this attack on Amanda's memory, after spending 25 pages giving the benefit of the doubt for faulting memories to Curatolo (a drug addict) and Quintavalle (who when first interviewed never mentioned Knox), this attack....

...... actually has nothing to do with Raffaele. On page 117, Nencini focusses in on Amanda's imagined memory sins - Nencini has not shown why Raffaele's brief SMS check would/could be remembered by a sleeping Amanda.....

...... however, he uses this as proof that the two of them were awake and active.

Without connecting the dots, Nencini then launches into his Section 5, beginning by assuming he'd defeated the alibi's with his reasoning begun on p. 117:

5. Evidence that can be drawn from the statements of the defendants and of the witnesses.

In the preceding section the alibi provided by the defendants was examined, establishing its falseness.​

He's done no such thing.

I believe Raffaele is full value for saying, "What does Amanda going out have to do with me?" I am also thinking that Amanda would be full value for saying, "What does what Raffaele did at 6:09:59 am on the 2nd have to do with me!?"

Nencini simply has not demonstrated how Amanda receiving the Lumumba SMS outside of Raffaele's (which she probably didn't in the first place) relates to Raffaele leaning over and briefly receiving an SMS, then perhaps going back to sleep?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh dear. If this codswallop were true, then it wouldn't be necessary for the transcript to say "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" would it? After all, if "in Italian" the word "night" only starts at midnight, then it would only make sense to say "....the whole night of 2nd November", since all of 1st November would fall outside this definition (since it by definition all fell the wrong side of the supposed midnight cut-off for the definition of "night"!).
(...)

It is not necessary in fact, but it helps. This is the way people talk.
I'm sorry LJ, every Italian understands that Sollecito does not provide an alibi to Amanda Knox. The word night (notte) as a term of time means after midnight, but can also mean after the moment when you go to sleep (if you sleep before midnight). But certainly does not mean the part of the night before midnight when you are still awake. Sollecito says rather clearly that he doesn't know if Knox went out during the first part of the night.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh dear. If this codswallop were true, then it wouldn't be necessary for the transcript to say "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" would it? After all, if "in Italian" the word "night" only starts at midnight, then it would only make sense to say "....the whole night of 2nd November", since all of 1st November would fall outside this definition (since it by definition all fell the wrong side of the supposed midnight cut-off for the definition of "night"!).

Baghdad Bob is alive and well!!

I think it best to remember that his / her handle is Machiavelli . . . I don't think that is accidental.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well the court position becomes explicit in Nencini's motivation report, where Nencini points out that Sollecito refused to testify through the whole proceedings, and this is the main reason why the two positions cannot be split. He doesn't say that the positions cannot be split because Sollecito testified in favor of Knox's alibi. He only points out that he had no position, that implies also no position against.

This is not entirely true.

Nencini's position in his motivations report is that the alibi claimed is Amanda's alibi:

that this is the time frame that will be referred to when discussing the alibi furnished by Amanda Knox for both the accused.​

This is the story that Amanda Marie Knox offers the First Instance Court and which is, in essence, the alibi to be verified, hers and Raffaele Sollecito’s.​

Nencini discusses the Sollecito defence's, "emphasiz(ing) the need to distinguish between the positions at trial of the two defendants." But then Nencini disagrees with what you say above about "neutrality"....

the Court considers that it must look on the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox as the only version of events provided by the defendants, and ascribed to by both or, at least, not contradicted by either of them.​

Nencini does not say that his court does not have a position on this.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is not necessary in fact, but it helps. This is the way people talk.
I'm sorry LJ, every Italian understands that Sollecito does not provide an alibi to Amanda Knox. The word night (notte) as a term of time means after midnight, but can also mean after the moment when you go to sleep (if you sleep before midnight). But certainly does not mean the part of the night before midnight when you are still awake. Sollecito says rather clearly that he doesn't know if Knox went out during the first part of the night.

Every Italian? Bongiorno? Sollecito's father? Frank Sfarzo? Claudio Hellmann?

Do you mean, "every Italian not in the thrall of Masons"?

 

[acbytesla]

The word "night" in Italian means something that starts ad midnight.

TOTAL NONSENSE. "Notte" in Italian means exactly the same as "night" in English. Gallileo described the night sky. November 1, 2007 Thursday night or "Novembre 1 2007 notte giovedì" does not mean November 2, Friday morning, as Machiavelli is now trying to tell us. The day in Italy begins at 00:00:00 or 12:00 AM just as it does in the UK or the US.

While there are differences in culture and meanings etc between the English speaking world and Italy, this is NOT one of them. Matteini is quite clear.

 

[Kauffer]

Well the court position becomes explicit in Nencini's motivation report, where Nencini points out that Sollecito refused to testify through the whole proceedings, and this is the main reason why the two positions cannot be split. He doesn't say that the positions cannot be split because Sollecito testified in favor of Knox's alibi. He only points out that he had no position, that implies also no position against.

That is not what he says. What he says on the subject of the court's position is that they both maintain they were together in Mr Sollecito's flat from evening to morning. Nencini writes that Mr Sollecito was "in her company", that he maintains their "shared innocence" and "places himself with Amanda Marie Knox". Would you care to revise your position?

"...he (RS) has credited in spontaneous statements the notion that he was in her company from the night of 1st November 2007 until the morning of 2nd November 2007.

Raffaele Sollecito, moreover, mounted a defense at trial by which he seeks to objectively prove that he must have been at his home during the period within which the murder was committed and in his spontaneous statements he has never distanced himself from the statements of Amanda Marie Knox. In the last statement he made to this Court on 6 November 2013, he once again testified to his shared innocence with his co-defendant.....
..... in the absence of defense assertions to the contrary on the part of Raffaele Sollecito and, moreover, noting the consistent spontaneous statements made by the defendant, who still places himself with Amanda Marie Knox between the evening of 1 November 2007 and the morning of 2 November 2007...."

 

[Machiavelli]

I see - so Chris Halkides and Diocletus et al are deluded, but Peter Gill is merely wrong about the facts.

Well, if he wrote that the knife was carred inside a shoe box that was connected to Meredith Kercher, and if he relies on information from the case provided by Vecchiotti, no question he is wrong.

Is that it? I'm sure that one of the founding fathers of the scientific discipline that forms such a huge part of this case will be delighted to learn from you that he simply needs to do his homework rather than book himself in for treatment

.

I think we will learn that he is not a judge, and that judges can do their job too.

Dr Hampikian, Conti and Vechiotti, Professor Budowle? Homework or treatment?

For Conti and Vecchiotti I'd suggest another place.
Budowle was inolved in interesting controversies in the past. But he is just a defence witness who wrote a letter.

 

[Vibio]

Notte in Italian is used from midnight on...or is also used for the bedtime hour which could be before. In Italian we call the hours of the evening up until around midnight "la sera"

 

[Machiavelli]

That is not what he says. What he says on the subject of the court's position is that they both maintain they were together in Mr Sollecito's flat from evening to morning. Nencini writes that Mr Sollecito was "in her company", that he maintains their "shared innocence" and "places himself with Amanda Marie Knox". Would you care to revise your position?

"...he (RS) has credited in spontaneous statements the notion that he was in her company from the night of 1st November 2007 until the morning of 2nd November 2007.

We know that he made some statements, but he never testified.
And Nencini points that out.
You can't consider a statement as it was of the same level of a testimony. You can perfectly understand that a spontaneous statement has basically no value as an alibi. In fact, in his 2014 press conference he put again distance between him and Knox's alibi.

Raffaele Sollecito, moreover, mounted a defense at trial by which he seeks to objectively prove that he must have been at his home during the period within which the murder was committed and in his spontaneous statements he has never distanced himself from the statements of Amanda Marie Knox.

It doesn't change the point: he never provided an alibi to Amanda Knox. He only sought an alibi for himself.

In the last statement he made to this Court on 6 November 2013, he once again testified to his shared innocence with his co-defendant.....

"shared innocence" does not mean "alibi".

..... in the absence of defense assertions to the contrary on the part of Raffaele Sollecito and, moreover, noting the consistent spontaneous statements made by the defendant, who still places himself with Amanda Marie Knox between the evening of 1 November 2007 and the morning of 2 November 2007...."

Another spontaneous statement (without timings, without questions). But don't forget that he didn't testify, that Nencini poionted this out and said that because of this it would be impossible to consider different roles, and that Sollecito made the point of his distance from Knox's alibi clear again in a subsequent press conference.

 

[Vibio]

TOTAL NONSENSE. "Notte" in Italian means exactly the same as "night" in English.

Once again the Knoxians just make stuff up and discuss it as if its fact.

"In alcune lingue, fra cui quella italiana e quella francese, si è soliti definire la prima parte della notte, quella antecedente la mezzanotte, con un termine specifico, e cioè sera.

Per tale motivo, in codeste culture le ore notturne sono convenzionalmente comprese nell'arco tra le 0:00 e le 5:00"

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notte

Acbytesla...since you know Italian so well, read what is written above.