Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

What?
The greatest MoJ of all time but
“He doesn't know what Amanda did that night but he doesn't think she's guilty; "
& She claims him as an alibi!

Perhaps he was wearing the wrong shoes or something. Or is it all the presenters fault?
Is Vespa now part of the conspiracy

Did he really say
“I don’t think Amanda killed Meredith," because, he adds, “I would have noticed something.”

It's really not difficult at all to understand.

Sollecito can only be responsible for his own actions (and non-actions: e.g. not participating in the Kercher murder). He is not responsible for Knox. It is not his place to argue for Knox's innocence - it's purely his place to argue his own innocence.

The fact remains that it's still just possible - in theory - that Knox might conceivably have (for reasons unknown) chosen to steal Sollecito's keys from his pocket while he was sleeping/dozing, gone out and participated in the Kercher murder, then crept back into Sollecito's apartment and replaced his keys. Sollecito cannot say with 100% certainty that this did not happen. For obvious reasons. But he can say (and has said, repeatedly) that he doesn't believe Knox had anything to do with it either.

It baffles me how a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators cannot (or will not?) see the real picture here. Frankly, anyone in Sollecito's position would be strongly advised to take exactly the same line. Of course, if one is predisposed against Sollecito and Knox, then I guess it's all too easy to let the combination of poor thinking, vindictiveness, anger and wish-fulfillment cloud the judgement..........

 

[Bill Williams]

It's really not difficult at all to understand.

Sollecito can only be responsible for his own actions (and non-actions: e.g. not participating in the Kercher murder). He is not responsible for Knox. It is not his place to argue for Knox's innocence - it's purely his place to argue his own innocence.

The fact remains that it's still just possible - in theory - that Knox might conceivably have (for reasons unknown) chosen to steal Sollecito's keys from his pocket while he was sleeping/dozing, gone out and participated in the Kercher murder, then crept back into Sollecito's apartment and replaced his keys. Sollecito cannot say with 100% certainty that this did not happen. For obvious reasons. But he can say (and has said, repeatedly) that he doesn't believe Knox had anything to do with it either.

It baffles me how a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators cannot (or will not?) see the real picture here. Frankly, anyone in Sollecito's position would be strongly advised to take exactly the same line. Of course, if one is predisposed against Sollecito and Knox, then I guess it's all too easy to let the combination of poor thinking, vindictiveness, anger and wish-fulfillment cloud the judgement..........

The thing which makes the separation strategy (potentially) effective, is the provisional-judicial truth (most clearly written by Nencini) that evidence which implicates one implicates the other.

IIUC Nencini said this in his motivations report, because Bongiorno made this point at trial.

Once again, if the pro-guilt-lobby would bother to read Raffaele's appeals document to Cassation, it is spelled out there.

One of the issues of separation is where it was Amanda took the text/sent the text from/to Lumumba prior to being seen at Raffaele's by Jovana Popovic. Yes, prior to being seen.

It is telling that guilters are now doubting Nencini's brilliant grasp of cell-phone tower evidence..... but let's say that Knox actually did leave Raffaele's before Jovana Popovic saw her back at the apartment. Nencini does not use this to prove that Knox left afterwords, only that Knox was lying in saying that she never left the apartment that evening or that night.

The separation strategy should settle it for Raffaele, except that Nencini (equally brilliant as with his cell-phone analysis) says that this also is evidence against Raffaele. What Raffaele is asking about this (and other stuff they throw at Amanda) is: what's any of this got to do with me?

That's the question he's been asking since his own interrogation Nov 5/6, 2007. Of course guilters are going to accuse Raffaele of throwing Amanda under a bus with this: this is what guilters do and is what the pro-guilt lobby is for.

But the separation strategy is only indirectly related to whether or not Amanda managed to sneak out in the middle of the night unbeknownst to Raffaele. The reason Raffaele **knows** she is innocent is as outlined in his book. There is no way she'd be able to get back in without him knowing.

As well.... the timing doesn't work. He knows he was not in the square to be spotted by Curatolo. Also, because Raffaele understands the time-line necessary for the crime to have taken place, Amanda would have had to have left the apartment (presumably by herself) well before they retired for the night, for all the other time-line related reasons....

...... a time-line most guilters refuse to put together, for obvious reasons.

 

[platonov]

Counterrevolution – cartwheel spinning backwards!

It's really not difficult at all to understand.

Sollecito can only be responsible for his own actions (and non-actions: e.g. not participating in the Kercher murder). He is not responsible for Knox. It is not his place to argue for Knox's innocence - it's purely his place to argue his own innocence.

The fact remains that it's still just possible - in theory - that Knox might conceivably have (for reasons unknown) chosen to steal Sollecito's keys from his pocket while he was sleeping/dozing, gone out and participated in the Kercher murder, then crept back into Sollecito's apartment and replaced his keys. Sollecito cannot say with 100% certainty that this did not happen. For obvious reasons. But he can say (and has said, repeatedly) that he doesn't believe Knox had anything to do with it either.

It baffles me how a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators cannot (or will not?) see the real picture here. Frankly, anyone in Sollecito's position would be strongly advised to take exactly the same line. Of course, if one is predisposed against Sollecito and Knox, then I guess it's all too easy to let the combination of poor thinking, vindictiveness, anger and wish-fulfillment cloud the judgement..........

Oh LJ. LJ LJ LJ.

It is now thirty-six or seven months since I saw the the phrase “It’s irrelevant” ; and surely never lighted on this orb, a more delightful post. Oh! what a revolution! and what an heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and and now this fall!

I refer of course to the occasion when you finally accepted that RS on Nov5/6 didn’t tell the cops that AK might have gone out when he was asleep. Rather that she was out from 9 till 1 and his earlier lies were at her instigation. Your response being, of course, the rather memorable “It’s irrelevant”.

And now this

Have all my labours been in vain?

 

[lonepinealex]

Hey when is Raffaele going to throw Amanda under the bus? I seem to remember a lot of "just you waits" and "watch this spaces", along with a great number of winks and portentious ellipsis about six months ago.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Kauffer]

Head's real problem is that this isn't a comparative law issue. This is a wrongful conviction issue, and there have been enough studies done that we know that the same handful of basic problems transcend legal systems and lead to wrongful convictions worldwide. The "issues" that people are pointing out aren't "issues" due to a different system in Italy; they are "issues" because people recognize them as hallmarks of injustice (aggressive prosecutors, misleading pretrial publicity, lack of transparency, etc.) His article would be better if he approached it from that perspective. I might suggest it to him if I can ever find his actual article, as opposed to the write-up in a KU newspaper.

Professor Head's article - "Criminal Procedure in Transition: Observations on Legal Transplantation and Italy’s Handling of the Amanda Knox Trial" has not yet been published.

I understand that one or two well informed sources have been in touch and that the Professor seems to be rather more open minded on the subject of his knowledge gaps than might have been expected.

 

[Kauffer]

Oh LJ. LJ LJ LJ.

It is now thirty-six or seven months since I saw the the phrase “It’s irrelevant” ; and surely never lighted on this orb, a more delightful post. Oh! what a revolution! and what an heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and and now this fall!

I refer of course to the occasion when you finally accepted that RS on Nov5/6 didn’t tell the cops that AK might have gone out when he was asleep. Rather that she was out from 9 till 1 and his earlier lies were at her instigation. Your response being, of course, the rather memorable “It’s irrelevant”.

And now this

Have all my labours been in vain?

What is, according to you, the relevance?

Was Mr Sollecito with Ms Knox or not on the night of the murder?

Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

 

[lonepinealex]

Professor Head's article - "Criminal Procedure in Transition: Observations on Legal Transplantation and Italy’s Handling of the Amanda Knox Trial" has not yet been published.

I understand that one or two well informed sources have been in touch and that the Professor seems to be rather more open minded on the subject of his knowledge gaps than might have been expected.

Ha, interesting. Begs the question what was he doing writing an article on something he had knowledge gaps about in the first place?

 

[Desert Fox]

Ha, interesting. Begs the question what was he doing writing an article on something he had knowledge gaps about in the first place?

There is an issue from Boston University (I believe) about the Italian legal system. The problem is that the actual legal system does not really work as the theoretical framework explains it to be.

 

[Kauffer]

Ha, interesting. Begs the question what was he doing writing an article on something he had knowledge gaps about in the first place?

Lots and lots of people have done that in connection with this case. Nevertheless, the focus of this work (which we have not seen) is comparative law, not wrongful convictions. As Diocletus has suggested, perhaps it might have been better written if the latter. Let us see what emerges.

 

[Desert Fox]

Lots and lots of people have done that in connection with this case. Nevertheless, the focus of this work (which we have not seen) is comparative law, not wrongful convictions. As Diocletus has suggested, perhaps it might have been better written if the latter. Let us see what emerges.

I know that on Injustice Anywhere, we have posters who are not from British based legal systems and they too have problems.

I am kind of curious if he would also defend Sharia based court systems as being just a different system however.

 

[Wannaknow]

This may take a little experimentation to confirm; but my current theory is that the sharpness of tract Y is due to this being only a light contact with the floor when Rudy realizes that the front door is locked and then backs up and turns around. The prints at I and H are where he first stops at the table to perhaps grab his gloves (which were removed to use the bathroom earlier) and then to contemplate how he is going to get out of the cottage.

I, by the way, would have jumped out of the window and would have taken objects from Filomena's room.

An alternate theory for the diffusion of the other prints is that other people were subsequently in that cottage and walking through that area

I am not sure wheter the prints were disturbed by this actions in a serious way. The traces were dry. Traces 2 and 3 are extremely clear, even though many people stepped on them. Trace 3 is extremely clear, although Amanda claimed to have shuffled with the bathmat over the floor; the trace is in the middle of the floor, it seems to be undisturbed. That is strange.

Still, as montioned before, H is a rather clear trace. There should be more traces of a left shoe leading back in Merediths room. I don't think the police didn't notice them; the noticed even very faint prints. The case is very mysterious.

Greetings

 

[Samson]

I, by the way, would have jumped out of the window and would have taken objects from Filomena's room.




I am not sure wheter the prints were disturbed by this actions in a serious way. The traces were dry. Traces 2 and 3 are extremely clear, even though many people stepped on them. Trace 3 is extremely clear, although Amanda claimed to have shuffled with the bathmat over the floor; the trace is in the middle of the floor, it seems to be undisturbed. That is strange.

Still, as montioned before, H is a rather clear trace. There should be more traces of a left shoe leading back in Merediths room. I don't think the police didn't notice them; the noticed even very faint prints. The case is very mysterious.

Greetings

It is a bit Sherlock Holmes, except fiction requires all detail to be relevant.

 

[Dan O.]

...

I am not sure wheter the prints were disturbed by this actions in a serious way. The traces were dry. Traces 2 and 3 are extremely clear, even though many people stepped on them. Trace 3 is extremely clear, although Amanda claimed to have shuffled with the bathmat over the floor; the trace is in the middle of the floor, it seems to be undisturbed. That is strange.

I see a diffused appearance of the prints F, I and H as if they were diluted with water at the time they we're made and not so much on tract Y. The tracts on the pillow case are from the same left shoe but of the heal and not the toe like these prints down the hall. Somehow the blood was removed from the heal prior to acquiring blood on the toe. Since we don't see those tracts fading out, it is possible that Rudy removed the shoe and washed it in the bathroom. The residual water is mixing with the new blood stain when full weight is placed on the shoe. Again, these are just my thoughts as to what could be responsible. Testing may confirm or rule out this possibility.

Still, as montioned before, H is a rather clear trace. There should be more traces of a left shoe leading back in Merediths room. I don't think the police didn't notice them; the noticed even very faint prints. The case is very mysterious.

They Missed the whole print by the pink bag between the prints 2 and 3 in the hall and F in the living room. If they couldn't spot that one, how arer they going to see the minor marks left after H?

 

[Vibio]

The Knoxians even get the Bruno Vespa interview wrong.

Vespa did appear skeptical (that's his job), but the framework of the show was favorable to Raff.

The report from Raff's hometown in Puglia was a veritable Valentine.

Raff does say he believes Knox is innocent... but it reads half hearted. It makes anyone's BS meter go off.

Funny: he gives a minutely detailed account of their first meeting but can't remember when and if she went out the night of the murder or if they spent the night together or not. Now he's out right saying he doesn't know (in his book he says it's impossible because she didn't have a key.... but that's what liars do).

As far as the dope smoking goes: Vespa makes no judgement, actually quite the opposite. He says:

"... quella sera avevate preso qualcosa, qualche spinello che possa avere annebbiato la memoria? Per carità, a Perugia abbiamo visto ben altro."

"... That night, had you taken something, a few joints that may have clouded your memory? For heaven's sake, in Perugia we've seen worse".

He does make a comment about the dope again after the Puglia clip... but it's said ironically.

Vespa is good at what he does. He was straight forward, not manipulative and the clips about the case were even and fair, presenting both sides.


----

 

[Samson]

The Knoxians even get the Bruno Vespa interview wrong.

Vespa did appear skeptical (that's his job), but the framework of the show was favorable to Raff.

The report from Raff's hometown in Puglia was a veritable Valentine.

Raff does say he believes Knox is innocent... but it reads half hearted. It makes anyone's BS meter go off.

Funny: he gives a minutely detailed account of their first meeting but can't remember when and if she went out the night of the murder or if they spent the night together or not. Now he's out right saying he doesn't know (in his book he says it's impossible because she didn't have a key.... but that's what liars do).

As far as the dope smoking goes: Vespa makes no judgement, actually quite the opposite. He says:

"... quella sera avevate preso qualcosa, qualche spinello che possa avere annebbiato la memoria? Per carità, a Perugia abbiamo visto ben altro."

"... That night, had you taken something, a few joints that may have clouded your memory? For heaven's sake, in Perugia we've seen worse".

He does make a comment about the dope again after the Puglia clip... but it's said ironically.

Vespa is good at what he does. He was straight forward, not manipulative and the clips about the case were even and fair, presenting both sides.


----

The Guedeians are running out of wicked helpers for their friend, Raffaele at home, Amanda in the kitchen....

 

[Desert Fox]

Vibio, imagine that you were accused of raping and murdering the roommate of your girlfriend's/boyfriend's in 2007. You are innocent.

Imagine how you would feel in 2015 after continuously arguing the issue and spending several years for a murder you did not commit.

How would you feel?

 

[Diocletus]

The Knoxians even get the Bruno Vespa interview wrong.

Vespa did appear skeptical (that's his job), but the framework of the show was favorable to Raff.

The report from Raff's hometown in Puglia was a veritable Valentine.

Raff does say he believes Knox is innocent... but it reads half hearted. It makes anyone's BS meter go off.

Funny: he gives a minutely detailed account of their first meeting but can't remember when and if she went out the night of the murder or if they spent the night together or not. Now he's out right saying he doesn't know (in his book he says it's impossible because she didn't have a key.... but that's what liars do).

As far as the dope smoking goes: Vespa makes no judgement, actually quite the opposite. He says:

"... quella sera avevate preso qualcosa, qualche spinello che possa avere annebbiato la memoria? Per carità, a Perugia abbiamo visto ben altro."

"... That night, had you taken something, a few joints that may have clouded your memory? For heaven's sake, in Perugia we've seen worse".

He does make a comment about the dope again after the Puglia clip... but it's said ironically.

Vespa is good at what he does. He was straight forward, not manipulative and the clips about the case were even and fair, presenting both sides.


----

That's good news. The only outcome better than an acquittal of both would be an acquittal of Sollecito and conviction of Knox. That would be deliciously absurd.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Knoxians even get the Bruno Vespa interview wrong.

Vespa did appear skeptical (that's his job), but the framework of the show was favorable to Raff.

The report from Raff's hometown in Puglia was a veritable Valentine.

Raff does say he believes Knox is innocent... but it reads half hearted. It makes anyone's BS meter go off.

Funny: he gives a minutely detailed account of their first meeting but can't remember when and if she went out the night of the murder or if they spent the night together or not. Now he's out right saying he doesn't know (in his book he says it's impossible because she didn't have a key.... but that's what liars do).

As far as the dope smoking goes: Vespa makes no judgement, actually quite the opposite. He says:

"... quella sera avevate preso qualcosa, qualche spinello che possa avere annebbiato la memoria? Per carità, a Perugia abbiamo visto ben altro."

"... That night, had you taken something, a few joints that may have clouded your memory? For heaven's sake, in Perugia we've seen worse".

He does make a comment about the dope again after the Puglia clip... but it's said ironically.

Vespa is good at what he does. He was straight forward, not manipulative and the clips about the case were even and fair, presenting both sides.


----

"The Knoxians"?

There was posted here the reaction of one person. One. It's even called, "Here's a summary." Not THE summary, but A summary.

Your summary differs. I, for one, am glad that you found the clips about the case even and fair.

So aside from the logical fallacy your post began with, I found your post rather helpful. Please do not be insulted when I say that you were helpful!

Is there a link? Trouble is, I'd have to get my cousin to come over to translate - as well as interpret all the cultural cues.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's good news. The only outcome better than an acquittal of both would be an acquittal of Sollecito and conviction of Knox. That would be deliciously absurd.

My opinion is that there simply cannot be a split decision on this. Nencini was clear - evidence against one is evidence against both.

But I have yet to predict anything correctly in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh LJ. LJ LJ LJ.

It is now thirty-six or seven months since I saw the the phrase “It’s irrelevant” ; and surely never lighted on this orb, a more delightful post. Oh! what a revolution! and what an heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and and now this fall!

I refer of course to the occasion when you finally accepted that RS on Nov5/6 didn’t tell the cops that AK might have gone out when he was asleep. Rather that she was out from 9 till 1 and his earlier lies were at her instigation. Your response being, of course, the rather memorable “It’s irrelevant”.

And now this

Have all my labours been in vain?

Oh platonov. Platonov platonov platonov.

Could you please clarify what you actually mean, and what you may or may not be asserting? Thanks.

(i.e. without all the odd embellishment and obfuscation)