Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

Sollecito says he doesn't remember whether Knox went out during the sera. This is what he says and will be hard to get around this.

-

Just because he doesn't remember doesn't prove she went out.

I see no evidence to prove she went out alone,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito says he doesn't remember whether Knox went out during the sera. This is what he says and will be hard to get around this.

He says no such thing.

At his unrecorded interrogation, he was denied a calendar and said he said it was impossible to distinguish between Wednesday and Thursday from 4 days later.

As even Nencini records in his motivations, this is a complete non-issue.

What Raffaele has said, is that if some are claiming that Amanda went out, then what does this whole thing (in their minds) have to do with him.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sadly, this beautiful judgment and partly concordant opinion was a little too long as a post. I do recommend those interested read it; it is highly relevant and informative.

Also, the nasty thing the ECtHR said about the Italian Constitutional Court's judgment is a judicial classic: "...not pertinent".

For those interested, here is another class in the Remedial ECHR Case Law Course.

How about what rock'n'roll radio DJs would call a Golden Oldie.....

And it's a relevant case in several ways:
1) It relates to a person convicted on the basis of statements from someone who legally refuses to be cross-examined
2) It deals with apparent conflicts between several of a nation's laws
3) It deals with conflict between a nation's laws and the ECHR
4) It mentions unfavorably how a nation's courts defy the ECHR

CASE OF LUCÀ v. ITALY 33354/96 27/02/2001 {excerpts; emphasis added}

I suppose you are well aware that this example is a case with nothing to do with Knox's submission to the ECHR about the calunnia conviction.

 

[Machiavelli]

He says no such thing.

At his unrecorded interrogation, he was denied a calendar and said he said it was impossible to distinguish between Wednesday and Thursday from 4 days later.

He never says this before Matteini.
Both before the police on the 5th and before Matteini, he says he is sure about what he remembers. He says is sure that what he told the first time was a load of crap, and that this is the correct thing.

What Raffaele has said, is that if some are claiming that Amanda went out, then what does this whole thing (in their minds) have to do with him.

What he is saying (and now what Bongiorno is saying two) is that he doesn't remember it Knox was at his place over the first part of the night.

I know that this is inconsistent with what he wrote in his book. But I can't help this.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Just because he doesn't remember doesn't prove she went out.

I see no evidence to prove she went out alone,

d

-

Well, at least proves that Sollecito has lied in his book.

 

[Machiavelli]

Typically obtuse and nonsensical response. If he had really wished, as he most certainly should, could Mignini have recorded his work as a "notary" on behalf of Amanda Knox, or could he not? Yes or no?

Anonymously insulting scientists and attorneys with equal aplomb, you've made a thoroughgoing fool of yourself here. Which would be fine, but with the obfuscating, the tu quoque fallacies, and all the rest, you've also squarely aligned yourself on the side of corrupt policing. Very well done, if one happens to be a crypto-fascist.

ETA For clarity's sake: Do you dispute that Mignini is using the device in the photo - as he points it in the direction of Lalli's mouth as he speaks - as a recording device?

I wonder if those people are again claiming that the Police or Mignini should have recorded interrogation and statement.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No Italian speaker would use the words "sera" and "notte" along with the above timings. In Italian the time called "evening" (sera) starts at 6-7 pm or when it starts to get dark if darkness comes later.
While notte is instead only the time when every routine activity has ceased and only sleep is left.

In astronomy or wether terms notte can also mean the dark part of the 24 hours or the dark sky. But when people talk about their activities and normal life, a time like 9pm or 10pm would be always called "sera" (or "serata") and never "notte".

You do find the strangest distractions. Since Sollecito has been consistently claiming to have been with Amanda the night of the murder, all night, I don't see any purpose at all in this "notte" diversion.

Now I've been repeating a number of questions for you. Whenever I do that you vanish for while and then seem to forget them. Just to save you the trouble of reviewing the thread I will give you a direct link.

Do you think you might answer those questions now?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, at least proves that Sollecito has lied in his book.

-

How does it prove he's lying? As far as you know for sure, unless you were there, she didn't go out,

d

-

 

[lonepinealex]

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.

Fine, so he did provide an alibi. We all know this, those of us with half a brain anyway. Whatever the possible reasons for his arrest, they all come down to his having claimed that he and Amanda were together all night. An alibi.

 

[Kauffer]

I don't know how you mean to define this "in fact" providing an alibi. From the point of view of Knox's defence, he is confirming her alibi. In fact, from his point of view and as for his position as a witness, he never testified in support of her alibi. He was never a witness in favour of Amanda Knox. And he made both previous and subsequent declarations against.



The lack of alibi is not an issue, but this is not an argument. It is obvious that his not testifying and not confirming her alibi is not an issue, there isn't any testimony from Sollecito that could work as an alibi for Knox, something that doesn't exist can't be an issue.
It is not a substantive matter for the accusation. It is merely a lack of substantive matter for the defence. If you don't testify in favor of Amanda Knox, you are not supporting or confirming her alibi. It may be quite incorrect to say that this had no consequence for the investigation and the trial. If Knox had provided a credible alibi for what she did that night and Sollecito confirmed the details of it, we may have not have had an egregious piece of circumstantial evidence or an egregious void from the first hours of investigation.

No, you still haven't quite got it - the trial courts accept they both contend they were together.

Nencini p. 114
"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."

Everything else is entirely immaterial. It is not a substantive matter for either prosecution or defence. The prosecution makes no adverse claim with regard to Ms Knox's alibi in respect of Mr Sollecito's support for it; the defence can gain no advantage - because her alibi witness stands accused alongside her. The point you seek to make in your last paragraph is a different one - that Ms Knox's alibi fails on it's merits and as such no witness to it should be believed.

No adverse inferences whatsoever should be drawn from Mr Sollecito's decision not to testify at trial. It is his right not to do so. You would only be able to draw an adverse inference if Mr Sollecito testified against Ms Knox.

Mr Sollecito's position is amply illustrated in his own words, in "Honour Bound". Pages 16-22 - that he and Ms Knox were together at his flat and did not leave.

Even your own flawed understanding reduces your argument about the alibi to meaninglessness: "something that doesn't exist can't be an issue", you state. So, why are you contradicting yourself by trying to make it an issue?

 

[Bill Williams]

He never says this before Matteini.

So?

Both before the police on the 5th and before Matteini, he says he is sure about what he remembers. He says is sure that what he told the first time was a load of crap, and that this is the correct thing.

And with some minor variations he's said the same thing for 7 years.

What he is saying (and now what Bongiorno is saying two) is that he doesn't remember it Knox was at his place over the first part of the night.

I know that this is inconsistent with what he wrote in his book. But I can't help this.

This is not what either Bongionro or Sollecito is saying. Read the appeals' document to Cassazione.

He's saying that if this is what others are saying, then what does the case have to do with him?

 

[Machiavelli]

-

How does it prove he's lying? As far as you know for sure, unless you were there, she didn't go out,

d

-

Well, in his book he writes he recalls all details about that evening and remembers that Knox was there what they were doing all the time.
In his press conference with Attorney Bongiorno, as well as if his testmonies, he declares that he doesn't know if Knox was at his place during the first part of the night.

The two versions - that he remembers and that he doesn't remember - can't be both true. At least one of them must be false.

 

[MDDVS]

Sollecito says he doesn't remember whether Knox went out during the sera. This is what he says and will be hard to get around this.

Wasn't he convicted of the murder too?

 

[Kauffer]

Mr Sollecito's position

He never says this before Matteini.
Both before the police on the 5th and before Matteini, he says he is sure about what he remembers. He says is sure that what he told the first time was a load of crap, and that this is the correct thing.



What he is saying (and now what Bongiorno is saying two) is that he doesn't remember it Knox was at his place over the first part of the night.

I know that this is inconsistent with what he wrote in his book. But I can't help this.

He is not saying he does not remember. What he says is that the prosecution claims it has evidence Ms Knox went out - but why should this evidence be used against him. He does not wish to be convicted with evidence offered against another defendant.

 

[Dan O.]

He never says this before Matteini.
Both before the police on the 5th and before Matteini, he says he is sure about what he remembers. He says is sure that what he told the first time was a load of crap, and that this is the correct thing.



What he is saying (and now what Bongiorno is saying two) is that he doesn't remember it Knox was at his place over the first part of the night.

I know that this is inconsistent with what he wrote in his book. But I can't help this.

We've been over this before with a prior user of the Machiavelli account. Let's put up tha actual words of Raffaele and analize again what he says not what some Internet poster wants to believe he said.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, you still haven't quite got it - the trial courts accept they both contend they were together.

Nencini p. 114
"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."

Everything else is entirely immaterial. It is not a substantive matter for either prosecution or defence. The prosecution makes no adverse claim with regard to Ms Knox's alibi in respect of Mr Sollecito's support for it; the defence can gain no advantage - because her alibi witness stands accused alongside her. The point you seek to make in your last paragraph is a different one - that Ms Knox's alibi fails on it's merits and as such no witness to it should be believed.

No adverse inferences whatsoever should be drawn from Mr Sollecito's decision not to testify at trial. It is his right not to do so. You would only be able to draw an adverse inference if Mr Sollecito testified against Ms Knox.

Mr Sollecito's position is amply illustrated in his own words, in "Honour Bound". Pages 16-22 - that he and Ms Knox were together at his flat and did not leave.

Even your own flawed understanding reduces your argument about the alibi to meaninglessness: "something that doesn't exist can't be an issue", you state. So, why are you contradicting yourself by trying to make it an issue?

It is baffling the times which Machiavelli has to argue against even the convicting courts to make his points.

Nencini has not made the case against the two in his motivations report. The section beginning on p. 117 and ending in the 140s is meant to "prove" that Knox went out that night. Nencini cites three things, all three at best tenuous - the Lumumba SMS message, Curatolo, and Quintavalle, as proof that Knox had gone out.

There is no discussion of Raffaele going out. What Nencini does is cite Raffaele's checking of his SMS from his father at 6:09:59 as proof that the both of them were up and active. It doesn't occur to Nencini that Raffaele could have done this barely awake.... this is what Raffaele writes in Honor Bound:

My father called my landline a little before nine thirty the next morning to make sure we would be ready for our day trip to Gubbio. I was too groggy to talk. I'd been up several times in the night - listening to music, answering e-mail, making love - and wanted only to go back to sleep. Amanda got out of bed and said she was going home to shower and change her clothes, so I walked her to the front door, gave her a kiss, and crawled back under the covers.​

Sollecito's account is consistent with their consistent alibi. Nencini's account is pure speculation, from which fabrication ensues.

I must remember that the next time I sleepily check my phone in the middle of the night, that in Italy this means (judicially speaking) that I am awake and am actively involved in some activity.

Yet aside from this, Machiavelli needs to even help Nencini through this. Why doesn't Machiavelli just argue Nencini's narrative and be done with it. So far Nencini is winning. Machiavelli for some reason thinks Nencini needs help.

 

[Desert Fox]

We've been over this before with a prior user of the Machiavelli account. Let's put up tha actual words of Raffaele and analize again what he says not what some Internet poster wants to believe he said.

It does however show that all the pro guilt side cares about it the witch Amanda Knox and they will do anything to smear her.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, in his book he writes he recalls all details about that evening and remembers that Knox was there what they were doing all the time.
In his press conference with Attorney Bongiorno, as well as if his testmonies, he declares that he doesn't know if Knox was at his place during the first part of the night.

The two versions - that he remembers and that he doesn't remember - can't be both true. At least one of them must be false.

The one that is false is the false premise you provide. As explained by me and others, this is not what Sollecito says.

Of course, all you would need to do is provide actual evidence - but then again, the ISC has stated that for this case you don't have to. Simply asserting guilt-like things seems to count here.

 

[Bill Williams]

We've been over this before with a prior user of the Machiavelli account. Let's put up tha actual words of Raffaele and analize again what he says not what some Internet poster wants to believe he said.

This is something that will never happen. The standard of proof for the pro-guilt lobby is that it can be alleged. If it can be alleged, then no proof is required.

Except if it is something exculpatory. Then they have to prove their innocence.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, in his book he writes he recalls all details about that evening and remembers that Knox was there what they were doing all the time.
In his press conference with Attorney Bongiorno, as well as if his testmonies, he declares that he doesn't know if Knox was at his place during the first part of the night.

The two versions - that he remembers and that he doesn't remember - can't be both true. At least one of them must be false.

-

It depends on what he meant by "out" and how long the time was that he didn't remember. He might have remembered later, after some thought, that she was "out" of his sight for a few minutes, and he corrected himself along those lines. She might not have left the building, which is my definition of "out".

But of course, you'll still think he was lying, which I don't, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It seems to me that you're not really a neutral observer here, but one convinced of their guilt and therefore convinced that only guilty explanations are the true facts.

I don't see things that way. I try to look at things from both sides, and if you can convince me that his intent was to lie, than I will agree with you that he did lie, so convince me, and if you do, please don't say I was lying because I changed my mind. That's not lying, in my opinion,

d

-