Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

" ...you may see him in the square"

Oh Platonov - this is utterly hopeless and desperate.

I thought you had actually got it for a moment, but, nope, you didn't. The mutual alibis of the defendants are not germane to the case.
No-one, including you, thinks that Mr Sollecito stayed in and Ms Knox went out, and Mr Sollecito has never accused her of doing so. The bus throwing metaphor does not work. If Ms Knox had actually been 'thrown under a bus', this would mean her case had been dealt a fatal blow as a result. She must be found guilty because of it. And yet, here we are trying to find yet another way to get it through to you, that nothing Mr Sollecito has said or done has damaged Ms Knox's case.

Secondly, you do not understand Mr Sollecito's defence, which has been eloquently explained to you on numerous occasions.

Thirdly, the treatment of Curatolo's evidence really isn't difficult to understand either. You see everyone (except you and a few others) gets that Curatolo was a heroin addled unfortunate who made up a story presumably at the behest of the prosecutor, a year after the event. Its all utter nonsense, of course, but if the prosecution wants to rely on it, they should at least appreciate what he actually said - and this is to provide an alibi for both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito - they were in the square and not the cottage. Have you not had this explained to you before?

Have you abandoned your illeisms, finally? Probably for the best...

Not germane. Can you be a little more specific?

Would you say it’s Irrelevant – might you go as far as Utterly Irrelevant.
If only this information had been available earlier in cartwheel world – thousands of posts have been made on this very issue by the groupies.
And it was all for naught apparently

ps In other news - I see the BKDL [baby killers defence league] is up in arms. Has a baby killer been ad-hom'd again - it's an outrage.

 

[platonov]

Calendars – how do they work pt 2

You quoted the wrong post. The situation as it currently stands is not summed up in some guilter-fantasy, it is summed up in court documents which you, apparently, refuse to read:

​

Once again, if the situation since was as your imagination takes flights to, Porta a Porta would be over it like a dirty shirt, etc. Instead, Porta a Porta is running TV programs within Italy featuring Dr. Peter Gill..... who unlike Ms. Patrizia Stefanoni actually has a Ph.D.

The Porta a Porta programs openly mock those who try to say that Raffaele is involved in the murder. This means, BTW, that they believe he never left his apartment that night. You are probably the only one, even in guilter-and, who thinks Raffaele said something nefarious at his news conference of some months ago about Amanda. Strangely, Porta a Porta omitted that part too. Once again, your claim has never been accompanied by anything like proof (perhaps you are having budget problems and could not flip the switch on your VCR/PVR to record this, and upload it to YouTube.) The consistent methodology of guilter-land is to make accusations unaccompanied by proof, but made possible through sheer repetition.

I, too, am sincerely relieved you've cured yourself of illeisms, which I admit I knew nothing about until Kauffer brought it up. That one required a dictionary!

But please reread Kauffer and answer.

​

This means that if Raffaele's claim is that he never went out (with no reference at all to Amanda) - the case against both of them falls apart. This means that if Raffaele's claim is that he never went out (with the reference as per his appeals amendment) - the case against both of them also falls apart.

The second best thing which could happen to either of them, is that the other is eventually acquitted.

Bill
Let’s find common ground here.
Do you accept that 2015 [Cassation appeal addendum] postdates 2014 [ Nencini ].

This whole 2nd Law/Times arrow thing seems to be at the root of several of the many issues that cause such confusion here.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not germane. Can you be a little more specific?

Would you say it’s Irrelevant – might you go as far as Utterly Irrelevant.
If only this information had been available earlier in cartwheel world – thousands of posts have been made on this very issue by the groupies.
And it was all for naught apparently

ps In other news - I see the BKDL [baby killers defence league] is up in arms. Has a baby killer been ad-hom'd again - it's an outrage.

Not germane as in.....

The conclusion of this brief note is that, 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, the Court deems that it must consider the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox as the only version of events provided by the defendants and valid for both or, at least, not contradicted by either of them.​

The only reason to post stuff like this is because you keep repeating and repeating in your thousands of posts.....

 

[platonov]

Not germane as in.....

​

The only reason to post stuff like this is because you keep repeating and repeating in your thousands of posts.....

The 2nd Law Bill, the 2nd Law!

ps And Nencini thought it 'germane' in the section you just quoted!

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill
Let’s find common ground here.
Do you accept that 2015 [Cassation appeal addendum] postdates 2014 [ Nencini ].

This whole 2nd Law/Times arrow thing seems to be at the root of several of the many issues that cause such confusion here.

To repeat Kauffer's point....

No-one, including you (platonov) , thinks that Mr Sollecito stayed in and Ms Knox went out, and Mr Sollecito has never accused her of doing so. The bus throwing metaphor does not work. If Ms Knox had actually been 'thrown under a bus', this would mean her case had been dealt a fatal blow as a result. She must be found guilty because of it. And yet, here we are trying to find yet another way to get it through to you, that nothing Mr Sollecito has said or done has damaged Ms Knox's case.

Secondly, you do not understand Mr Sollecito's defence, which has been eloquently explained to you on numerous occasions.​

What you perhaps should do is show the most basic understanding of Raffaele's defence position; that "this is what the courts say happen.... and if this is what they say happened, and they further say that a point which tends to incriminate one of us by definition tends to incriminate both of it even when it tends to incriminate only one, and exonerate the other...."

 

[Bill Williams]

The 2nd Law Bill, the 2nd Law!

ps And Nencini thought it 'germane' in the section you just quoted!

You keep repeating this. What you first need to do is show that you understand Raffaele's defence position. It has been explained to you, yet you cut and paste, to remove context, what interests you and you alone.

Repeating another point. The first person who would want to make answer if what you say is true, would be Knox and her defence team. She is on an American morning show on TV tomorrow. Why didn't Raffaele make mention of this on Porta a Porta?

I bet you there'll be no mention of it from her.

Why? Because it is only an issue to an obscure poster on an obscure website what neither of them reads.

The courts understand Raffaele's position. Judge Nencini understands Raffaele's position and Nencini is on your side!

 

[Bill Williams]

Fred Davies is an English barrister who has written about the Kercher murder. He's written an 11-part (so part) series of pieces with a conclusion about to come.... but he has a knock for discovering these little pearls of obviousness.....

"And one final thought. If the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) were sufficiently compos mentis to dispose of the pocket knife (as well as the mobile phones), why did they not dispose of Exhibit 36? By a process of deduction and logical synthesis, the answer is plain of all to see: Exhibit 36 never left Corso Garibaldi and was not the murder weapon."

“The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher” – A critical examination of the trials and subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by F G Davies BA, Barrister, Deputy Justices’ Clerk, Cambridgeshire. Originally posted on the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly website December 2014 – March 2015.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/a-critical-examination/

 

[platonov]

You keep repeating this. What you first need to do is show that you understand Raffaele's defence position. It has been explained to you, yet you cut and paste, to remove context, what interests you and you alone.

Repeating another point. The first person who would want to make answer if what you say is true, would be Knox and her defence team. She is on an American morning show on TV tomorrow. Why didn't Raffaele make mention of this on Porta a Porta?

I bet you there'll be no mention of it from her.

Why? Because it is only an issue to an obscure poster on an obscure website what neither of them reads.

The courts understand Raffaele's position. Judge Nencini understands Raffaele's position and Nencini is on your side!

You mean this

The Court of Florence did not analyze Sollecito’s position separately from Knox’s.
Particularly it appears that the Court denied the need for such an analisys because Sollecito had not dissociated himself from Knox.

In truth in all the recorded statements by Sollecito, he claims he does not remember the details of that evening because he had smoked marijuana. He does not remember exactly if Knox went out of his flat or not. On the other hand Sollecito is not accusing Knox: he cannot believe that she may have participated to such a heinous crime.

But this should not have prevented the Court of Florence from examining the possibility of an acquittal of Sollecito independently from Knox’s position.

Moreover the appealed ruling itself admits than in her 1.45 statement Knox places herself at Piazza Grimana not together with Sollecito, but with Lumumba.

For what concerns witness Curatolo and his sighting of the two defendants together at Piazza Grimana that evening, his unreliability has already been exposed previously, together with the paradoxical fact that accepting his testimony as true would mean giving the two defendants an alibi.

You just might win that bet

 

[Bill Williams]

The 2nd Law Bill, the 2nd Law!

ps And Nencini thought it 'germane' in the section you just quoted!

Now you are just playing with words.

...........who still places himself with Amanda Marie Knox between the evening of 1 November 2007 and the morning of 2 November 2007..........

Apparently it is all you have, to dodge and weave with words.

ETA - for others out there: Raffaele's separation strategy began at the very least at his lawyer's Bongiorno's closing at the end of the Florence trial presided over by Judge Nencini.

In the main appeal's document, Bongiorno spells out the defence strategy, pointing to multiple pieces of evidence which apply (in the court's mind) to Amanda Knox only. There are some of the which, if true, tend to exonerate Raffaele.

Raffaele's defence strategy since, including the appeal's amendment filed with Cassazione is to get Cassazione to take seriously the logic of these points which either:

1) saying nothing about Raffaele's guilt or innocence, or
2) actually tend to exonerate him​

What guilters (purposely) miss, is that this is not Amanda saying that these court-convicting points should apply to Raffaele, this is the court saying they should apply to Raffaele.

This is an appeal to the court, not throwing Amanda under a bus because it is not Amanda saying these things about the case in general.

Further, this has to be Nencini's position or else the second best thing to both of them happens - one goes free.

Guilters (and conviction courts) are stuck - they have to include evidence which they say incriminates Amanda, but which actually tends to exonerate Raffaele.

I wish someone would have a try at Kauffer's question. I don't think they will, because then one falls into the separation strategy trap - they are both innocent.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Does one use powerful cleaners, routinely, on the inside of a cutlery drawer, or on the items therein? He is testifying that he detected they had been so used at Mr Sollecito's apartment before he had even noticed, let alone selected, the knife.

I routinly just use a mild detergent on the cutlery. Bleach will actually corrode stainless steel. But there is one item inside that cutlery drawer which could use a regular disinfecting.

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean this

I'll give you one thing, you have gall.

Obviously you did not read ANY of the text surrounding that. Further - you have not read the main appeals document where all this is spelled out in full.

Good for you. You're, apparently, the only person on the planet who believes this says what you claim when restored to context.

Three months from March 25 with be yet another motivations report, this time from Cassazione. Even in that there will be no mention of what you're claiming. Just like every other time in the last 7 1/2 years when some nut has claimed that, "this time Raffaele really is throwing Knox under a bus."

You're entitled to your opinion, after all this is the internet.

That you express your opinion with the confirmation bias that any other court-document which disagrees with you "is nonsense" is all I need to hear.

Once again, read the appeals document. Read Nencini on this point.

 

[Kauffer]

That 2 co defendants giving each other an alibi is not particularly compelling has however been explained to the groupies thousands of times.

Not germane. Can you be a little more specific?

Would you say it’s Irrelevant – might you go as far as Utterly Irrelevant.
If only this information had been available earlier in cartwheel world – thousands of posts have been made on this very issue by the groupies.
And it was all for naught apparently

ps In other news - I see the BKDL [baby killers defence league] is up in arms. Has a baby killer been ad-hom'd again - it's an outrage.

How many different ways do you need this explained to you? We have been through this time and time again. Mr Sollecito's alibi for Ms Knox cannot help Ms Knox because he has been charged in connection with the same crimes! And vice versa.

In your earlier post, quoted above, (the one that gave me some hope) you appeared not only to understand what had been explained to you on this point, but actually maintained that it was we who had needed it explained to us!

So, what is the source of your present confusion? Can you be specific?

Even the Italian judiciary understands most of this stuff.

 

[Bill Williams]

How many different ways do you need this explained to you? We have been through this time and time again. Mr Sollecito's alibi for Ms Knox cannot help Ms Knox because he has been charged in connection with the same crimes! And vice versa.

In your earlier post, quoted above, (the one that gave me some hope) you appeared not only to understand what had been explained to you on this point, but actually maintained that it was we who had needed it explained to us!

So, what is the source of your present confusion? Can you be specific?

Even the Italian judiciary understands most of this stuff.

Platonov's calendar canard.

If platonov would take the time to read salient docs, he would see that Sollecito has always said that bit that platonov highlites.

If platonov would read Sollecito's book, he'd see how Sollecito worked out that despite this, Knox in fact had not gone out.

Ever since Sollecito has tied his defence to his own integrity refusing to say that Amanda went out.

That's where it sits as Cassazione threaten to finalize things.

But Sollecito is clear - it's the pro-guilt lobby tryingto go for fuzziness.

 

[Kauffer]

I routinly just use a mild detergent on the cutlery. Bleach will actually corrode stainless steel. But there is one item inside that cutlery drawer which could use a regular disinfecting.

Yes, quite. The problem with the knife is that firstly, there is no conceivable way it would have been taken to the cottage. Secondly, if it had been used as the murder weapon, then it would have been ditched - who would carry a bloody murder weapon through the streets of Perugia to Mr Sollecito's flat ten minutes away? There would be transfer evidence. Thirdly, it doesn't match the wounds. Fourthly, it's inadmissible under Italian law.

 

[Kauffer]

We've discussed art 192 here before, in connection with this case, but Mr Sollecito raises it in relation to the bra clasp single amplification in his appeal summary.

Section 2 of the article states:

"The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent."

In his appeal, the summary of this point reads as follows:

"The Court of Florence has claimed that, while trace 36B is not an evidentiary element characterized by certainty, because of the lack of a second amplification, nevertheless it can be used as circumstantial evidence [indizio].
This is a major mistake, also from the point of view of law.
Indeed article 192 section 2 of the Penal Procedural Code prescribes that an indizio has to be precise to be usable, but the requisite of precision implies the certainty of its existence.It is a confirmed stance of Italian jurisprudence that before it can be used, the existence of an indizio must be ascertained with certainty, it is not enough that it may be likely or supposed.
Hence, absent a second amplification of trace 36B, the existence of the victim’s DNA on the knife lacks the prerequisite of certainty and hence it cannot be used to prove the guilt of the defendants.
A reasoning, like the one in the ruling, assuming that trace 36B could contain the victim’s DNA is not admissible."
The bra clasp "evidence" had no place at trial. It's use was contrary to Italian law and should, even at this late stage, be excluded by Cassation.

Apologies - this argument is employed by Mr Sollecito in respect of the knife.

 

[Samson]

Walter Biscotti turns up in this Sarah Scazzi trial video, this time representing an aunt of Sarah Scazzi (not Cosima).
Note that the prosecution are using the identical strategy as that to incriminate Knox and Sollecito, inverting the intention of phone calls and conversations to find guilt. Vespa does not seem to buy it, but Roberta Bruzzone is in doggy deep, because she persuaded Michele to turn on his daughter, after he confessed to the murder.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlae3_sarah-scazzi-pap-03_school

I hope Machiavelli returns to explain why prosecutors in Italy greatly prefer complicated narratives involving many perpetrators, some women, to simple ones where a man commits a sexual assault and murder.
I strongly recommend this video, as the killer Michele Misseri seems clearly on the point of madness, and is free, while the totally rational Cosima Misseri and her daughter Sabrina languish in jail during their appeal.

Also thanks to Eric Paroissen, who seems to be a very diligent translator regardlesss of his views on these cases. As long as these endeavours are done with pride in their accuracy, all can use them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Apologies - this argument is employed by Mr Sollecito in respect of the knife.

That has got to be just about the most examined knife in the history of Italy if not the world and it is just a kitchen knife

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a nose for bleach

The bleach is detectable in the drawer too, apparently, over and above it's detectability in the rest of the flat, despite:

W – the first thing I noticed was a very strong odor of bleach in the kitchen, and diffused throughout the apartment, it was smelled by me and by all my colleagues.

Kauffer,

Even as fiction, this story doesn't work for me. When my friends and I used to brew beer, it was one person's job to clean old beer bottles with a brush and bleach, then rinse the bleach away (which had to be done thoroughly, so as not to kill the yeast). It was a second person's job to sniff the rinsed bottles for remaining bleach, because the cleaner's nose had become desensitized (had adapted to) the smell of bleach. Perhaps Finzi's nose, like his investigative intuition, is better than everyone else's; perhaps not.
EDT
Dan O. makes a very good point. Also, if the knife were treated with bleach, there would be no DNA, because as a number of groups (see the Biotechniques article by Prinz and Andrus for example) have shown, bleach is very effective at destroying DNA.

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer,

Even as fiction, this story doesn't work for me. When my friends and I used to brew beer, it was one person's job to clean old beer bottles with a brush and bleach, then rinse the bleach away (which had to be done thoroughly, so as not to kill the yeast). It was a second person's job to sniff the rinsed bottles for remaining bleach, because the cleaner's nose had become desensitized (had adapted to) the smell of bleach. Perhaps Finzi's nose, like his investigative intuition, is better than everyone else's; perhaps not.

Reminds me of the question heard put to a witness by a wise old judge over the top of his half moon spectacles: "Are you sure you're being entirely rigorous with the evidence you're giving in court today?"

It's the politest accusation of lying one could ever hear.

 

[sept79]

That has got to be just about the most examined knife in the history of Italy if not the world and it is just a kitchen knife

What does it say about Italian justice that this knife is still considered to be valid evidence against a defendant?