Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
platonov said:
Really :)
Surely if he can account for his whereabouts between 21.00 and 00.10 that should do the trick.

What is his alibi currently – let us know when you get to it.
& whether or not he is now providing an alibi for AK.

Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice. It’s a mystery why GB has missed this :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Re: Highlighted part. Is there any proof that they were not?

As far as I recall their alibi's are that they were together in the flat. Sollecito's argument is that if the court says Knox wasn't with him, where is the proof he was at the cottage with her. Although there is no proof she was at the cottage either.

If you could point me in the direction of any evidence that either of them were at the cottage at the time of the murder it would be very much appreciated.
 
platonov said:
Really :)
Surely if he can account for his whereabouts between 21.00 and 00.10 that should do the trick.

What is his alibi currently – let us know when you get to it. & whether or not he is now providing an alibi for AK.
Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice. It’s a mystery why GB has missed this :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Read Sollecito's book, and then cite from it. Read the latest appeal's document, then cite from it.

His own alibi has always been the same. He was at home all night. What his appeal's document is saying, if you'd bother to read it, is that the evidence they use to condemn Amanda - some of it actually proves his alibi! If it proves his alibi, then he turns around and becomes Amanda's alibi - which is the reason why Nencini (have you even read that motivations report!) says that evidence which comdmens one can be used to condemn both.

The courts know the problems with proving guilt if their cases are separated, the only ones who do not, apparently, are the pro-guilt lobby.

What the appeal's document also says (implies, really), is that even the evidence against Knox is bogus. Then again you'd know that if you read it.

So, your condition has been met, "Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice." They both - now separately, rather than in a unified defence - claim this.

Read the documents.
 
Last edited:
Mr Fied said:
Re: Highlighted part. Is there any proof that they were not?

As far as I recall their alibi's are that they were together in the flat. Sollecito's argument is that if the court says Knox wasn't with him, where is the proof he was at the cottage with her. Although there is no proof she was at the cottage either.

If you could point me in the direction of any evidence that either of them were at the cottage at the time of the murder it would be very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I was beginning to wonder if this was not self-evident.

The pro-guilt lobby claims they have witnessed a news conference where Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus, by refusing to vouch for her. This would be big news and represent a major development in the case. However, other than simply asserting this, they cannot seem to find a transcript of words used or a video of a **new conference** where this earth-shattering news was dropped like a bomb. The journalists must have just missed it.

The problem being, only the pro-guilt, internet-based lobby claims this. There was a YouTube video of an Italian TV program posted here where no less than lawyer Maresca was on, and he failed to mention this.

Amanda's appeals team seems to also have missed this, and one would think that if an accused is allowed to put an amendment to their appeal to Cassazione to the court three weeks before it sits, that Amanda and her lawyers would want to reply.

It looks like there's nothing to reply to.

It looks like all some major Italian TV is doing the opposite of what the pro-guilt lobby are lobbying for. The clips on You-Tube I've seen show well-informed Italian professionals laughing at the notion of AK and RS's guilt.

But no matter. As this case has established, it is more important to be able to assert guilt-like things to a court, because a court like Nencini's will believe you. And further, the court will also engage in making stuff up with no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Bill, I think this is the best part of platonov's post.

Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice.

So, all they ever had to do was say they were at the flat. If only they had done that.:rolleyes:
 
Mr Fied said:
Bill, I think this is the best part of platonov's post.

Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice.

So, all they ever had to do was say they were at the flat. If only they had done that.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
Kauffer said:
Thanks for this. But of course, when you said:

"The ‘rough’ fabric of the fastener would have provided an excellent pick up surface for DNA."

...I think you were making a further valuable point. If Mr Sollecito grabbed the bra strap, we would have expected him to have left his DNA on the fabric many more times out of a hundred say, than we would have expected him to leave it on the hooks alone. I expect I am not alone here in having attempted the "experiment" of trying to hold a fastened bra strap by the hooks alone. It's pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

Yes I think that is a good point. having looked at the pictures again it is easier to swab the hooks of the remnant than I had thought. I was thinking about a more intact bra.
 
Planigale said:
Yes I think that is a good point. having looked at the pictures again it is easier to swab the hooks of the remnant than I had thought. I was thinking about a more intact bra.
Click to expand...

Planigale, when I have looked at the video of the recovery of the bra clasp assembly by the Italian Scientific Police, it appears to me that one or more of the police actually hold the assembly by a clasp hook. And of course, they were wearing gloves, and the gloves clearly had some visible foreign substances - "dirt" - on the fingers. But there is no sure way to verify that is the source of the DNA allegedly detected on the hooks. But on the other hand, in a reasonable court, that provides reasonable doubt that the alleged DNA evidence on the clasps is associated with the crime; it is likely to be contamination from the police handling. (But of course, contamination or fraud at the lab cannot be excluded, due to lack of information.)
 
Too subtle?

Mr Fied said:
Re: Highlighted part. Is there any proof that they were not?

As far as I recall their alibi's are that they were together in the flat. Sollecito's argument is that if the court says Knox wasn't with him, where is the proof he was at the cottage with her. Although there is no proof she was at the cottage either.

If you could point me in the direction of any evidence that either of them were at the cottage at the time of the murder it would be very much appreciated.
Click to expand...


Apply to GB if all else fails – she seems convinced that such evidence exists in the case of AK.

Am I being too subtle again.
If we take carbonjam72’s google powered translation /argument as accurate GB is, by the ToD argument, highlighting for Cassation that RS is not claiming that he upholds AK testimony before Massei w.r.t. the night of Nov1st. Quite the contrary.

Do you see?
Perhaps GB is not that subtle?

If cj72 can turn up the section where RS’s appeal definitively makes it clear that RS was with AK between 21.00 and 00.10 then obviously this argument is false.
 
platonov said:
Apply to GB if all else fails – she seems convinced that such evidence exists in the case of AK.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Read the appeals document. Bongiorno is convinced of no such thing.

GB is convinced that there is a body of evidence that has always been used against Amanda Knox. Some of that evidence that the prosecution (and two courts) says incriminates Knox, tends to exonerate her client, Raffaele.

It is not the place of a a defence attorney to make the prosecution's case for it. It is the place of a defence attorney to point out evidence which is used and regarded as factual by the court, which exonerates her client.

Once again, if you think GB is saying something different - would you at least quote where she says it.

Your posts on this subject are a classic definition of "begging the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The tragic thing is that this is all the pro-guilt lobby has, and yet the Italian Supreme Court is the stroke of a pen away from putting Raffaele Sollecito away for 25 years.

Please also take a look at the YouTube videos of Italian TV where the case against AK and RS is trashed and laughed at. Please watch twice the clip where Maresca gets basic fact of the case wrong - where one of the experts is very charitable in calling Maresca's errors, "a lawyer's imagination."
 
Last edited:
Here's a rough Google translation of a Perguia Today piece on Raffaele's appeal amendment.

Please note: they seem to have missed platonov's groundless assertion that Raffaele has thrown knox under a bus....

The following is from the local newspaper Perugia Today on said document. A google translation.

Meredith case, the defense of Sollecito: "That's why he can not have been the murderer"

The lives of two young people continued after those 4 years in prison. Amanda Knox is now in the United States, where she is about to begin a successful career in journalism. Raffaele Sollecito is in a different position that, if convicted, he could go back to prison.

Before (they were) convicted, then acquitted and finally again convicted after the cancellation by the Supreme Court judgment of the acquittal pronounced by the College of the Court of Appeals of Perugia chaired by Judge Pratillo Hellmann. There are only 18 days (left). On March 25, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox will be judged for the last time again to the Supreme Court, after the appeal filed by the lawyers of the former couple who asked to cancel again the last sentence. After eight long years, the Kercher case comes to an end.

The lives of two young people continued after those 4 years in prison. Amanda Knox is now in the United States, where she is about to begin a successful career in journalism. Raffaele Sollecito is in a different position in that, if convicted, could go back to prison to serve his sentence. And it is he who published on his Facebook wall the additional grounds filed yesterday, March 6, in the Supreme Court by his lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno. The student from Apulian, accompan(ied) the pdf with a brief and incisive message: "After an exhausting very detailed work by my lawyers and my family members, we filed yesterday the additional grounds of appeal with the Supreme Court hearing to be held March 25 2015. In the documents themselves is clear and clear my complete strangeness to this sad and tragic story that has continued for over 8 years. I published everything on my site with the desire of sharing and dissemination as broad as possible. "

THE DOCUMENT IN FULL 306 PAGES

Three hundred pages that purport to dismantle the thesis accusatory and prove the innocence of Sollecito. And so nothing is left to chance. Every detail has a precise value. We start time of the meeting between Meredith and Rudy Guede (the only one in prison) occurred around (9 pm). According to the witness dell'ivoriano the two had gathered in the house on Via della Pergola, the same house where it is consumed murder. And it is Rudy Guede in a Skype call with his friend James to declare to have witnessed the crime, but that it was not him, "It 'happened about nine o'clock and twenty minutes, half past nine, so. And then when I heard a scream, but I say, I yelled so loud ... when I came out, because we were in the semi-darkness, I came, I saw ... this here. "

Rudy speaks of an aggressor. The name of Raffaele and Amanda are not made in dall'ivoriano Skype conversation. A point, this is fundamental to that defense. Then there are those elements that, according to lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno, Raffaele prove that at the time of the crime he was at his home in Corso Garibaldi. A witness to the access to the PC.
To be overturned even the testimony of homeless Curatolo that, according to the hypothesis defensive, would provide another valid excuse to the two defendants, having been spotted by the same in Piazza Grimana precisely during the time in which it is committed the crime and that is from 21 until midnight. "E 'therefore impossible - we read in additional grounds - that the two were in two different places at the same time."

Then there is the anomaly that is, the presence of traces in the place of the crime and not only of Rudy Guede of the two defendants. "How is it possible that you could be conducting a selective cleaning of the cancellation of the footprints?", Asks the defense. Detailed three hundred pages that try to prove the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito, but only March 25 we will know if the student or not Apulian killed Meredith Kercher, at least according to the judges of the Supreme Court.​
Click to expand...

It is clear. Rudy is the killer. There is no trace of AK and/or RS at the scene. Even Rudy's first story is that they weren't there, and Rudy gives a rough timeline of events at the cottage.
 
Bill Williams said:
Sigh.

Read the appeals document. Bongiorno is convinced of no such thing.

GB is convinced that there is a body of evidence that has always been used against Amanda Knox. Some of that evidence that the prosecution (and two courts) says incriminates Knox, tends to exonerate her client, Raffaele.

It is not the place of a a defence attorney to make the prosecution's case for it. It is the place of a defence attorney to point out evidence which is used and regarded as factual by the court, which exonerates her client.

Once again, if you think GB is saying something different - would you at least quote where she says it.

Your posts on this subject are a classic definition of "begging the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The tragic thing is that this is all the pro-guilt lobby has, and yet the Italian Supreme Court is the stroke of a pen away from putting Raffaele Sollecito away for 25 years.

Please also take a look at the YouTube videos of Italian TV where the case against AK and RS is trashed and laughed at. Please watch twice the clip where Maresca gets basic fact of the case wrong - where one of the experts is very charitable in calling Maresca's errors, "a lawyer's imagination."
Click to expand...

:)
No Bill this won’t do. I’m not going to waste my time reading RS’s appeal via google translate or his book. I read quite enough nonsense as it is.

Perhaps I am still being too subtle but if so why did you snip most of the post. In any case feel free to have a go at the bolded part while we wait for cj72 or someone else to ferret out the alibi.



platonov said:
snip

Am I being too subtle again.
If we take carbonjam72’s google powered translation /argument as accurate GB is, by the ToD argument, highlighting for Cassation that RS is not claiming that he upholds AK testimony before Massei w.r.t. the night of Nov1st. Quite the contrary.

Do you see?
Perhaps GB is not that subtle?

If cj72 can turn up the section where RS’s appeal definitively makes it clear that RS was with AK between 21.00 and 00.10 then obviously this argument is false.
Click to expand...
 
Lack of a Time of Death is Nencini's principle and irredeemable defect

Bill Williams said:
Here's a rough Google translation of a Perguia Today piece on Raffaele's appeal amendment.

Please note: they seem to have missed platonov's groundless assertion that Raffaele has thrown knox under a bus....

​

It is clear. Rudy is the killer. There is no trace of AK and/or RS at the scene. Even Rudy's first story is that they weren't there, and Rudy gives a rough timeline of events at the cottage.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Raf's defense waited until a few weeks before cassation to release this supplement, like this is what they really want cassation to look at, and make sure is fresh in their mind.

Even though I'm still at the beginning, the criticism of Nencini in falling to establish a concrete time of death, effectively deprives the defendants of presenting an alibi defense, seems to me pretty significant. And, it follows the reasoning many on here have asked time and again, in regard to proving a time of death can exonerate Raf and Amanda.

The argument that saying "when" a crime occurs, is a fundamental logical fact that can't simply be overlooked. And if the defendants can show that they were not at the place of the crime, WHEN the crime occurred, effectively obviates any other showing of circumstantial evidence - which at this point is really all anyone is alleging exists.

So I think its a really powerful argument in favor of setting aside Nencini's convictions. And I'm just scratching the surface, I'm sure.

This new brief looks like the whole case for them. I'm as usual, cautiously optimistic.
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
It's interesting that Raf's defense waited until a few weeks before cassation to release this supplement, like this is what they really want cassation to look at, and make sure is fresh in their mind.

Even though I'm still at the beginning, the criticism of Nencini in falling to establish a concrete time of death, effectively deprives the defendants of presenting an alibi defense, seems to me pretty significant. And, it follows the reasoning many on here have asked time and again, in regard to proving a time of death can exonerate Raf and Amanda.

The argument that saying "when" a crime occurs, is a fundamental logical fact that can't simply be overlooked. And if the defendants can show that they were not at the place of the crime, WHEN the crime occurred, effectively obviates any other showing of circumstantial evidence - which at this point is really all anyone is alleging exists.

So I think its a really powerful argument in favor of setting aside Nencini's convictions. And I'm just scratching the surface, I'm sure.

This new brief looks like the whole case for them. I'm as usual, cautiously optimistic.
Click to expand...


If your version is accurate it is ;)
 
platonov said:
:)
No Bill this won’t do. I’m not going to waste my time reading RS’s appeal via google translate or his book. I read quite enough nonsense as it is.

Perhaps I am still being too subtle but if so why did you snip most of the post. In any case feel free to have a go at the bolded part while we wait for cj72 or someone else to ferret out the alibi.
Click to expand...

Ok. Have it your way.

You keep trying to redefine what Raffaele is saying and what he should be saying. You keep trying to redefine the issues at hand.

No wonder. You refuse to even address why what GB says is important - that Nencini said it was unnecessary to establish TOD, and that this meant her client cannot mount a defence....

....if the courts can argue a piece of evidence relates to one time in the evening and another to another time.

All this when proper forensics plus Rudy's first story suggests the victim was gone by 9:30, and certainly no later than just after 10.

You keep chucking in random factoids that Raffaele is supposed to explain, when what Raffaele is saying is clear.

You may find your factoid interesting, but it has nothing to do with the appeal.

Read the appeals documents or dont read them. Your choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom