Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[tsig]

Not to mention the fact that the actual "usable" floor space in that room was of course far less that the room's wall dimensions. There's a 2.5ft x 6ft single bed to consider, plus a desk that had a footprint of about 3ft x 1.5ft and a wardrobe with a similar footprint.

This means that the actual floor space upon which the attack occurred is probably something in the order of 8ft x 8ft max.

How many perps can occupuy the same room?

Looks like we're getting to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory.

 

[Kauffer]

How many perps can occupuy the same room?

Looks like we're getting to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory.

I'm sure you don't really believe that. Rather than evading the issue, try to make it work. Mark out the space. Think about a three person attack against another in that space - add a minimum of two litres of blood on the floor - think about aspirated blood - think about the person to person and person to furniture contact - think about exiting the room afterwards. What evidence would you expect to see?

 

[tsig]

I'm sure you don't really believe that. Rather than evading the issue, try to make it work. Mark out the space. Think about a three person attack against another in that space - add a minimum of two litres of blood on the floor - think about aspirated blood - think about the person to person and person to furniture contact - think about exiting the room afterwards. What evidence would you expect to see?

You know, it's extremely rude to tell others what they believe because basically you just accused me of lying.

This case has been "over the rainbow" since the proponents of Knoxs' innocence decided that anyone who didn't agree with them were deluded fools and hated Knox.

I reached my conclusion of guilt on what I consider sound grounds and no I do not want to go back thru the window, take an incredible journey thru Meridiths' digestive system, play time-line gotcha or wax wise about court appeals no one has ever read or knows the status of.

 

[Kauffer]

You know, it's extremely rude to tell others what they believe because basically you just accused me of lying.

This case has been "over the rainbow" since the proponents of Knoxs' innocence decided that anyone who didn't agree with them were deluded fools and hated Knox.

I reached my conclusion of guilt on what I consider sound grounds and no I do not want to go back thru the window, take an incredible journey thru Meridiths' digestive system, play time-line gotcha or wax wise about court appeals no one has ever read or knows the status of.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to make the evidence fit the room. Is that too much? Two people face 25 years in prison. Is it too much to ask you to be sure? Look at the room - please?

 

[Machiavelli]

Wait a minute - didn't you just call someone out for posting a report in a book, when the original was available? I guess your own rules do not apply to you. So you appeal to Repubblica.

No, look, Sollecito in that conference declares that his words and Bongiorno's words are those to be considered as his position. Although this is not valuable as a position in the trial, Bongiorno in the same press conference states that Amanda admitted to having lied, that her testimony has "anomalies" and that Sollecito does not remember whether they were together during the first part of the night.
These are Bongiorno's words, Repubblica reports them but I watched the entire conference and heard Bongiorno speaking, these are Bongiorno's statements. She made them on front of video cameras. This is original stuff.

"So?" in the original still stands. You are reading-in to his silence all sorts of guilt-like things. Raffaele's appearance in front of Mattieni means nothing like what you say

.

The points are: You (and Sollecito in his book) have brought up the justification that he was confused because he was unsure about dates. But this is in contradiction with his statements: both in the police interrogation, and in Matteini's hearing, what he says is he feels sure about his new recollection. He doesn't have any doubt about days. He is absolutely certain that what he says is the truth, ans also certain that his first testimony was a lie. Now he says he recalls precisely what the did on Nov. 2., timings and even the route they followed to walk home, even that the bag Knox brought away was empty.

However, what he doesn't remember, he says, is if they were together during the first part of that night.
Now, this is manifestly in contradiction with both the theory of his feeling unsure about dates, and with what he states in his book.

But what you are doing is exactly the point.... if you are distancing Sollecito from Knox, or claiming Sollecito is distancing himself from Knox, then you have a huge problem on your hands

.

I am not distancing anyone. It is Sollecito who is attempting to distance himself from Amanda (the contrary of what he claims in his book 'Honour Bound'). I am not putting forward a position: this is Sollecito's position, not mine.
What I do, is note how his "not remembering" is in plain contradiction with his book statements. And how his declarations are in contradiction with the theory that he felt unsure about the days.

 

[Kauffer]

No, look, Sollecito in that conference declares that his words and Bongiorno's words are those to be considered as his position. Although this is not valuable as a position in the trial, Bongiorno in the same press conference states that Amanda admitted to having lied, that her testimony has "anomalies" and that Sollecito does not remember whether they were together during the first part of the night.
These are Bongiorno's words, Repubblica reports them but I watched the entire conference and heard Bongiorno speaking, these are Bongiorno's statements. She made them on front of video cameras. This is original stuff.

.

The points are: You (and Sollecito in his book) have brought up the justification that he was confused because he was unsure about dates. But this is in contradiction with his statements: both in the police interrogation, and in Matteini's hearing, what he says is he feels sure about his new recollection. He doesn't have any doubt about days. He is absolutely certain that what he says is the truth, ans also certain that his first testimony was a lie. Now he says he recalls precisely what the did on Nov. 2., timings and even the route they followed to walk home, even that the bag Knox brought away was empty.

However, what he doesn't remember, he says, is if they were together during the first part of that night.
Now, this is manifestly in contradiction with both the theory of his feeling unsure about dates, and with what he states in his book.

.

I am not distancing anyone. It is Sollecito who is attempting to distance himself from Amanda (the contrary of what he claims in his book 'Honour Bound'). I am not putting forward a position: this is Sollecito's position, not mine.
What I do, is note how his "not remembering" is in plain contradiction with his book statements. And how his declarations are in contradiction with the theory that he felt unsure about the days.

You completely mis understand what's going on here. He is pursuing an appeal; his strategy is to claim the evidence used to convict Ms Knox has been used to convict him unfairly. He points out that what the court relies on to convict Ms Knox has nothing to do with him.

As I and others have pointed out to you repeatedly, the question of alibis is not a substantive one. The court agrees he supports her; the court attaches no weight to it.

If Mr Sollecito's position were that Ms Knox had gone out and he had stayed in, then he would have testified against her and would not have been charged.

If you think his position is that he thinks she went out, the only way in which this could be interpreted to add to the weight of evidence in your own mind against Ms Knox is if you were to believe him. This would then mean that you would have to contend that Mr Sollecito is innocent.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure you don't really believe that. Rather than evading the issue, try to make it work. Mark out the space. Think about a three person attack against another in that space - add a minimum of two litres of blood on the floor - think about aspirated blood - think about the person to person and person to furniture contact - think about exiting the room afterwards. What evidence would you expect to see?

Add the bed, the desk and the wardrobe closet and it is very crowded. Figure the room is 9' x 9' or 81 square feet, a bed that is 4' x 8' or 32 square feet, the desk is probably 3 x 2 or 6 square feet and a chair which takes up another 4 square feet and a wardrobe closet which is about 2' x 4' or 8 square feet. That leaves 4 people occupying a total of 31 square feet of floor space.

That is more crowded than a Led Zeppelin concert with free tickets. (It's bloody absurd).

 

[Kauffer]

Add the bed, the desk and the wardrobe closet and it is very crowded. Figure the room is 9' x 9' or 81 square feet, a bed that is 4' x 8' or 32 square feet, the desk is probably 3 x 2 or 6 square feet and a chair which takes up another 4 square feet and a wardrobe closet which is about 2' x 4' or 8 square feet. That leaves 4 people occupying a total of 31 square feet of floor space.

That is more crowded than a Led Zeppelin concert with free tickets. (It's bloody absurd).

The room is a little bigger - 11 feet x 9 ft 6 inches. Would be great if someone can work out the free space exactly with reference to the furniture and floor tile measurements. LJ thought about 8 x 8. Perhaps it's a bit less than that

 

[Methos]

The room is a little bigger - 11 feet x 9 ft 6 inches. Would be great if someone can work out the free space exactly with reference to the furniture and floor tile measurements. LJ thought about 8 x 8. Perhaps it's a bit less than that

Take a look here:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=33&image_id=281

 

[Samson]

Yes, you must give that comment (made by Italian internet poster "Vibio") to Samson for his "files".

(what a joke...)

I am currently waiting to put in my files an answer to this question.
Why did Amanda name Lumumba in one interrogation room while knowing Raffaele was naming no one or Rudy or (someone else, ridiculously unlikely)? Remember we proved they had agreed on no story when they went to the questura.
Have a crack at that one Vibio.
You won't.

 

[Samson]

No, look, Sollecito in that conference declares that his words and Bongiorno's words are those to be considered as his position. Although this is not valuable as a position in the trial, Bongiorno in the same press conference states that Amanda admitted to having lied, that her testimony has "anomalies" and that Sollecito does not remember whether they were together during the first part of the night.These are Bongiorno's words, Repubblica reports them but I watched the entire conference and heard Bongiorno speaking, these are Bongiorno's statements. She made them on front of video cameras. This is original stuff.

.

The points are: You (and Sollecito in his book) have brought up the justification that he was confused because he was unsure about dates. But this is in contradiction with his statements: both in the police interrogation, and in Matteini's hearing, what he says is he feels sure about his new recollection. He doesn't have any doubt about days. He is absolutely certain that what he says is the truth, ans also certain that his first testimony was a lie. Now he says he recalls precisely what the did on Nov. 2., timings and even the route they followed to walk home, even that the bag Knox brought away was empty.

However, what he doesn't remember, he says, is if they were together during the first part of that night.
Now, this is manifestly in contradiction with both the theory of his feeling unsure about dates, and with what he states in his book.

.

I am not distancing anyone. It is Sollecito who is attempting to distance himself from Amanda (the contrary of what he claims in his book 'Honour Bound'). I am not putting forward a position: this is Sollecito's position, not mine.
What I do, is note how his "not remembering" is in plain contradiction with his book statements. And how his declarations are in contradiction with the theory that he felt unsure about the days.

Was he talking about Halloween night?
ETA I didn't read your post clarifying he was certain he was talking about the night Popovich visited, the sink burst and Meredith was murdered. My apologies.

 

[toto]

It doesn't seem specific at all to me. I can't see how this must include a few hours before midnight, especially if we consider that Sollecito testified he doesn't remember if Knox was out, and he only remembers they slept together.

In fact, in his police interrogation he testified that she had returned probably at about 1am:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_434745477c2e304323.jpg[/qimg]

So the phrase "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" means only the night of 2nd November from 00.00 hours. I am unconvinced, to put it mildly.

 

[Kauffer]

Take a look here:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=33&image_id=281

For some reason I can't get in - could you kindly post the information? Thanks

 

[Bill Williams]

No, look, Sollecito in that conference declares that his words and Bongiorno's words are those to be considered as his position. Although this is not valuable as a position in the trial, Bongiorno in the same press conference states that Amanda admitted to having lied, that her testimony has "anomalies" and that Sollecito does not remember whether they were together during the first part of the night.
These are Bongiorno's words, Repubblica reports them but I watched the entire conference and heard Bongiorno speaking, these are Bongiorno's statements. She made them on front of video cameras. This is original stuff.

.

The points are: You (and Sollecito in his book) have brought up the justification that he was confused because he was unsure about dates. But this is in contradiction with his statements: both in the police interrogation, and in Matteini's hearing, what he says is he feels sure about his new recollection. He doesn't have any doubt about days. He is absolutely certain that what he says is the truth, ans also certain that his first testimony was a lie. Now he says he recalls precisely what the did on Nov. 2., timings and even the route they followed to walk home, even that the bag Knox brought away was empty.

However, what he doesn't remember, he says, is if they were together during the first part of that night.
Now, this is manifestly in contradiction with both the theory of his feeling unsure about dates, and with what he states in his book.

.

I am not distancing anyone. It is Sollecito who is attempting to distance himself from Amanda (the contrary of what he claims in his book 'Honour Bound'). I am not putting forward a position: this is Sollecito's position, not mine.
What I do, is note how his "not remembering" is in plain contradiction with his book statements. And how his declarations are in contradiction with the theory that he felt unsure about the days.

You completely mis understand what's going on here. He is pursuing an appeal; his strategy is to claim the evidence used to convict Ms Knox has been used to convict him unfairly. He points out that what the court relies on to convict Ms Knox has nothing to do with him.

As I and others have pointed out to you repeatedly, the question of alibis is not a substantive one. The court agrees he supports her; the court attaches no weight to it.

If Mr Sollecito's position were that Ms Knox had gone out and he had stayed in, then he would have testified against her and would not have been charged.

If you think his position is that he thinks she went out, the only way in which this could be interpreted to add to the weight of evidence in your own mind against Ms Knox is if you were to believe him. This would then mean that you would have to contend that Mr Sollecito is innocent.

I now know why Machiavelli resists putting things on a time-line.

The only time Raffaele was clouded about Amanda's presence at his apartment on the night of Nov 1, beginning from the time Nencini finds crucial (8:15pm), is when he is under interrogation. At this interrogation the interrogators go for maximum confusion by not allowing him to consult a calendar.

You see, at that time, they were perhaps not going to throw the shooting match at Raffaele. All they were after was something, anything from him to go into Knox's room to pressure her to name someone. Knox had no way of knowing, since the interrogative style was divide and conquer.

What is really too bad is that they didn't record Raffaele's interrogation, so as to be able to prove Machiavelli's contention. How fortunate is that!?

But back to Raffaele. Once he, himself regained his sense of what was what, he remembered. Machiavelli doesn't put this on a timeline, really. And once Raffaele remembered (as described in his book) he has not wavered since.

Yet the pro-guilt lobby continues, even in 2014. Machiavelli claims there are videos of Raffaele finally, after all these years, distancing himself from Amanda.

What is really too bad is that Machiavelli doesn't know how to point us to those videos. How fortunate is that!?

And in the midst of this there is Raffaele's Appeals document to Cassazione. It is readily available. I've posted the link upthread. I'll post the link again if needed.

And in the Appeals document it is as Kauffer says - if the court is going to convict Amanda Knox on a body of evidence they claim is damning towards her - what does that body of evidence have to do with him? That is the question that Nencini tries to answer (p. 117 to 145) which Machiavelli won't.

Re: alibi. The only way Nencini can poke a hole in Raffaele's alibi, is to accuse him of checking an SMS message from his dad at 6:09:59 on Nov 2. Read it. It's right there in the Necnini report.

Everything else has to do with Amanda, save for Curatolo - and if you want to believe a drug addict who didn't remember any of this until months later, that's good for you. As Nencini said, he himself rejects dismissing Curatolo on anthropological grounds - whatever the hell that means!

Everything else is to do with Amanda. It is not Raffaele saying "Amanda went out." It is not Raffaele saying, "I suddenly don't remember if Amanda went out or not."

Is it, "If you're basing your conviction of Amanda on seemingly proving that she went out - what's that got to do with me?"

The pro-guilt PR lobby will simply repeat otherwise, in the hopes that sheer repetition will win the day.

What the Pro-guilt PR lobby will not do is:

- post the video of Raffaele's interrogation of Nov 5/6
- post a link to video of the news conference
- quote from Raffaele's appeals document to Cassation leading up to the Mar 2015 decision.​

Machiavelli will simply repeat the above at the top, without any supporting evidence. And right now, as Kauffer points out, Machiavelli stands against all three of the courts - Massei, Hellmann, and Nencini - who do not argue the case for or against the pair the way Machiavelli does. Not one of them, as we have posted upthread, and can post again if need be.

Why does Machiavelli think Nencini is wrong and needs help on this point.

Read pages 117 - 145 of the Nencini report.

 

[Dan O.]

Was he talking about Halloween night?
ETA I didn't read your post clarifying he was certain he was talking about the night Popovich visited, the sink burst and Meredith was murdered. My apologies.

The results of the november 5 interrogation have more to do with what the police already believed than with what Raffaele was telling them. Either they wouldn't hear what he had to say or he simply found it easier to go along with their version of events. In either case, what we know now is that those results from november 5 are contradicted by stronger evidence in the case and other witnesses.

Where the police have Raffaele and Amanda hanging out in old town, popovich has both Amanda and Raffaele settled in at his place with Amanda on the computer. Where the police have Amanda going back to Le Chic til 1am, the phone records and the computer evidence have Amanda back at Raffaele's

 

[Bill Williams]

You know, it's extremely rude to tell others what they believe because basically you just accused me of lying.

This case has been "over the rainbow" since the proponents of Knoxs' innocence decided that anyone who didn't agree with them were deluded fools and hated Knox.

I reached my conclusion of guilt on what I consider sound grounds and no I do not want to go back thru the window, take an incredible journey thru Meridiths' digestive system, play time-line gotcha or wax wise about court appeals no one has ever read or knows the status of.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to make the evidence fit the room. Is that too much? Two people face 25 years in prison. Is it too much to ask you to be sure? Look at the room - please?

What's good to know is the criteria tsig uses in his/her assessment of this.

S/he has taken digestive forensics off his/her table. "Time-line gotcha", is IMO refusing to be held accountable when the things he/she claims happened do not line up properly.

And tsig thinks no one has read the documents. Does tsig simply scroll past the quotes from documents above?

And all to avoid actually taking a look at that room, and deciding if it is realistic to have three assailants, with two of them coming out leaving no trace of themselves in that little room.

Ok. We now know how one guilter decides things.

 

[Bill Williams]

The results of the november 5 interrogation have more to do with what the police already believed than with what Raffaele was telling them. Either they wouldn't hear what he had to say or he simply found it easier to go along with their version of events. In either case, what we know now is that those results from november 5 are contradicted by stronger evidence in the case and other witnesses.

Where the police have Raffaele and Amanda hanging out in old town, popovich has both Amanda and Raffaele settled in at his place with Amanda on the computer. Where the police have Amanda going back to Le Chic til 1am, the phone records and the computer evidence have Amanda back at Raffaele's

In fact - this is at the heart of what a confession is. Read up on the purpose of police interrogations.

The goal is not to elicit information - it is to have the person in front of them confess to being responsible for the body of facts the police already know.

Interrogation is about confession. Nothing else.

Oh wait - that's exactly what they said, "Amanda buckled and told us what we already knew."

 

[Desert Fox]

How are you getting on with fitting 4 people into a struggle, a stabbing, a murder where the victim bled out, a sexual assault and an ejaculation into Ms Kercher's 11ft x 9ft 6 inch - (3.36m x 2.9m) bedroom, with the evidence left behind?

Is that your joke of the day?

That has been my biggest issue from day one actually. It was also one of the first problems I noted with the Norfolk Four case.

 

[Numbers]

As I have said the ECHR is a treasure trove of information.

The Court dealt with 2,950 applications concerning Italy in 2013, of which 2872 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 39 judgments (concerning 78 applications), 34 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Link to the above information Italy 2013 - Profile Document

The figures speak for themselves, little wonder there is wide spread agreement amongst member states that the ECHR requires reform. A 2012 article from UK Guardian newspaper. `

As I have said we do not know the strength of the slander application but as the figures show of the 2,950 applications against Italy in 2013 only 39 resulted in judgements.

The ECtHR has had a continuing problem with a large number of applications, many of which apparently do not involve "significant disadvantage" to the applicant, are filed too late (past the six-month deadline after final domestic action), have been filed without exhausting domestic remedies, or are merely not pursued by the applicant after initial filing. This problem has been so severe that it has been the object of study by the ECtHR, which has led to some reforms that have been only partially successful in easing the number of inadmissible applications.

In 2005, Lord (Harry K.) Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and a team of lawyers wrote a report on the problems of the ECtHR; (some of the suggested reforms have been adopted); see:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents2005_Lord_Woolf_working_methods_ENG.pdf

The following is a quote:
"Although the Court continues to deal with serious human rights questions, this work is now only a fraction of its day-to-day work. 85% of incoming cases are not examined on their merits (either because they are declared inadmissible, or because they are not pursued and are therefore disposed of administratively), and of the admissible applications, only a fraction raise serious human rights questions."

To point out some other issues with your statement, the judgments decided in 2013 were most likely not from applications submitted in 2013, but from at least one year prior; some may have been going through the system for 5 to 10 years. Cases or applications listed as "struck out" may have been assigned to the pilot-judgment program for Italy (relating to prison overcrowding). This is also the category for cases resolved by friendly settlements or unilateral settlements, the number of which vary from year-to-year.

 

[Bill Williams]

How are you getting on with fitting 4 people into a struggle, a stabbing, a murder where the victim bled out, a sexual assault and an ejaculation into Ms Kercher's 11ft x 9ft 6 inch - (3.36m x 2.9m) bedroom, with the evidence left behind?

Is that your joke of the day?

That has been my biggest issue from day one actually. It was also one of the first problems I noted with the Norfolk Four case.

My issue at the beginning was the claim that it was impossible for Rudy to have made the climb into Filomena's window. There was an active-guilter back then named Kermit, who'd done powerpoints for TJMK, and one of them was of why the climb into that window was impossible.

Please note, this is a separate issue from the alleged "staging" of a crime scene inside of Filomena's bedroom. I had shown the powerpoint to a firend who was knowledgable about such things who said (paraphrase): "Whoever this Kermit guy is, he's completely overthinking this. Any half decent, slightly athletic person would have no trouble getting in that window."

Of course in 2013, Channel 5 actually did demonstrate this.

Then there was the issue of the clean-up. It wasn't just that the allegation was that someone erased two of three forensic profiles from the murderroom itself..... it was that there was no forensics that supported the fact of a clean-up per se..... no trace swirls revealed by luminol, and hidden from normal eyesight.

Then I read Judge Massei's account of the clean up. His 2010 motivations report is completely silent about any clean-up, alleged or otherwise, in the murderroom.

He just left it unexplained, and went onwards regardless!!!!!

For Massei, the issue was: how'd the bathmat print get there in the small bathroom, with no intervening prints?

The "no intervening prints" between Meredith's room and that bathmat meant, for Massei, there must have been a clean: or else, as he said, he is at a loss to explain how the bathmat print got there (regardless of who it belonged to).

Therefore there must have been a clean in that short section of hallway between Meredith's room and the bathmat, even though there were no forensics to support the claim.

So, for me I add all this to the issue of four people in a murderous struggle in a small room which would probably not hold four people, and certainly not where two of them leave with no forensics either left behind or taken with them.

Of course, Massei claims some forensics were taken with them.... but only Amanda's. And the chief place in which these "forensics are found, is in the small bathroom, where "Amanda's biological material is mixed with Meredith's blood," (Massei's phrase).... leaving unexplained why if Meredith's blood is deposited in that bathroom, why it would not fall on biological material left by Amanda during normal use?

I mean, it was the bathroom those two women shared.

Deal with all this and I am ready to be a guilter.