Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

On another service, Machiavelli implies that Vespa, and Porta a Porta, is now part of a Masonic conspiracy because of the way it interprets the facts - pointing to Sollectio's obvious innocence.

Apparently the way to accept that Sollecito is obviously guilty is to have finely tuned radar for Masonic conspiracies.

ETA - it would have been far more convincing if Machiavelli had found that Vespa was beholden to the Masons BEFORE Vespa decided Sollecito was innocent, not BECAUSE Vespa decided Sollecito was innocent.
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
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 :blush:
Click to expand...

And one thing they've never been able to explain is why that knife did not leave any forensics in Amanda's bag, or on/in her clothing.... on the way back to the apartment.

As per this new English barrister, they've never been able to explain why they ditched the phones, as well as the real knife (which has never been found because Rudy probably did ditch it), yet returned this one knife to its drawer back at the apartment.

Why treat TWO knives differently?

The fictional reasonable person would have long since ditched the theory that this knife had been involved.
 
Bill Williams said:
And one thing they've never been able to explain is why that knife did not leave any forensics in Amanda's bag, or on/in her clothing.... on the way back to the apartment.

As per this new English barrister, they've never been able to explain why they ditched the phones, as well as the real knife (which has never been found because Rudy probably did ditch it), yet returned this one knife to its drawer back at the apartment.

Why treat TWO knives differently?

The fictional reasonable person would have long since ditched the theory that this knife had been involved.
Click to expand...

As we all know, the simplest explanation is that the knife had nothing to do with the crime. Even if you believe that Amanda and Raff are guilty, one needs to accept that the knife had nothing to do with it.
 
Kauffer said:
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.
Click to expand...

All this was obvious to me the first time I read about the knife, in the comments section under the news reports following the Massei verdict. At the time I knew almost nothing about the details of the case, but the guilter arguments were already transparent nonsense. They seemed oblivious to the need to postulate a two-way transportation, or the absurdity of claiming 2 knives.
Thirdly, it doesn't match the wounds. Fourthly, it's inadmissible under Italian law.
Click to expand...

... and it doesn't match the bedsheet imprint, and it was produced by a conjuring trick on the part of the investigators - not the only one.
 
Kauffer said:
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.
Click to expand...


There appear to be 2 points of confusion.
1 – The degree of irrelevancy of the ‘alibi’ issue.

& more importantly

2. What alibi is this?

He is not now giving her an alibi. He has reverted to the stance taken in the Massei trial but made it clearer to the Court [Cassation in this instance] that he doesn’t vouch for her.

There may be a connection between 1 & 2.

BTW Thank you for trying to explain things to me. One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by it :)
 
platonov said:
There appear to be 2 points of confusion.
1 – The degree of irrelevancy of the ‘alibi’ issue.

& more importantly

2. What alibi is this?

He is not now giving her an alibi. He has reverted to the stance taken in the Massei trial but made it clearer to the Court [Cassation in this instance] that he doesn’t vouch for her.
There may be a connection between 1 & 2.

BTW Thank you for trying to explain things to me. One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by it :)
Click to expand...

There you go again. Please check you calendar. Determine the date that his book, "Honor Bound" was published. Determine the date in which Raffaele, while in prison, puts two and two together on this issue. He has never dropped his alibi for Knox, despite not directly-remembering. This is old news, platonov.

You should be turning your attention to something new - like Machiavelli's claim that the Italian TV show Porta a Porta and Bruna Vespa in in thrall to the Masons. At least that is new, because no one believed that until Vespa started implying that Sollecito was innocent.

You see, this used to be expressed for him, that he couldn't remember if Knox had gone out or not because he was asleep. You are now inventing out of thin air another statement you claim he is making.... that he is now not giving her an alibi.

Sigh.

Ok, if you will not put this together, please, everyone else - anyone who actually wants to trace the history of this guilter-meme.... that "this time"** Raffaele really has withdrawn his alibi for Knox....

Every "this time" that has passed, and a motivations report has been written (some by the courts which convicted them!), every court has said what the Nencini court said on this subject.....

Nencini said:
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.​
Click to expand...

You are simply repeating, ad nauseum, a claim you wish to make with no evidence. As you are entitled to. This issue was dealt with in 2012. Consult your calendar.

You just are not entitled to the documents, particularly when you call the documents which disagree with you, "nonsense". That sounds a little like circular reasoning.

But heck - you have the "HILITE" function at your control, to pull something out of context. You have that right, too.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
There you go again. Please check you calendar. Determine the date that his book, "Honor Bound" was published. Determine the date in which Raffaele, while in prison, puts two and two together on this issue. He has never dropped his alibi for Knox, despite not directly-remembering. This is old news, platonov.

You should be turning your attention to something new - like Machiavelli's claim that the Italian TV show Porta a Porta and Bruna Vespa in in thrall to the Masons. At least that is new, because no one believed that until Vespa started implying that Sollecito was innocent.

You see, this used to be expressed for him, that he couldn't remember if Knox had gone out or not because he was asleep. You are now inventing out of thin air another statement you claim he is making.... that he is now not giving her an alibi.
Sigh.

Ok, if you will not put this together, please, everyone else - anyone who actually wants to trace the history of this guilter-meme.... that "this time"** Raffaele really has withdrawn his alibi for Knox....

Every "this time" that has passed, and a motivations report has been written (some by the courts which convicted them!), every court has said what the Nencini court said on this subject.....

​

You are simply repeating, ad nauseum, a claim you wish to make with no evidence. As you are entitled to. This issue was dealt with in 2012. Consult your calendar.

You just are not entitled to the documents, particularly when you call the documents which disagree with you, "nonsense". That sounds a little like circular reasoning.

But heck - you have the "HILITE" function at your control, to pull something out of context. You have that right, too.
Click to expand...

Oh Bill.

Prepare yourself for another shock - you will never guess where I found the evidence for this :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Oh Bill.

Prepare yourself for another shock - you will never guess where I found the evidence for this :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

There you go again, assertion with no proof.

ETA - this shows your commitment to the truth of things, which is nil. It is a completely wasted post.
 
Last edited:
Here is what Sollecito writes in Honor Bound about the issue of what he remembers about his own and Amanda's movements in criticial times - the point being, at the times in question he had no inkling at all that this was in the future going to be dissected ad nauseum.

Please also note, I will leave it to others to find out, in Honor Bound, why he still asserts his alibi while in the strictest most literal sense he does not remember.

The point being at the critical time, at his interrogation, he was actually pointed away from remembering.....


Honor Bound p. 53 (Sollecito's Nov 5/6 interrogation):

I told them that one day blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?

"You need to remember what you did," one of them admonished.

They asked if Amanda had gone out that night, and on the spur of the moment, I couldn't say. Was November 1 a Tuesday or Thursday? I asked. Because I knew she worked at Le Chic on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it.

"Don't touch the calendar!" one of them said sharply. The suddenness of this startled me.

Was November 1 the day Amanda spent the evening out and I stayed home? (I was thinking of Halloween)..... somehow I had the two muddled in my head and I couldn't sort it out. As the interrogation continued, I offered both scenarios.

Honor Bound p. 78 (Sollecito's appearance before Matteini):
Perhaps the worst moment came when I was asked, for the umpteenth time, if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder. I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge's repeated questions without sounding evasive.

"I can't... I can't..." I mumbled at one point.

"Yes, no - or I can't remember," she admonished. "Those are your three options."

"I can't remember exactly."

(Matteini then admonishes Raffaele that he must remember, because she told him his shoe prints had been found near Meredith's bed - a factoid later shown not to be true, but which at the time caused Raffaele to believe he was in a fight for his life. From this distance he now sees that they were "catching him out" on so-called facts, which were anything but.)

Page 87 recounts how, while in jail, Raffaele simply did not have access to basic information. Once he got access to TV, one thing he saw, claimed that after leaving his apartment on the morning of Nov 2, that Amanda had met with an Argentinian to go to a laundromat to wash clothes; something Raffaele thought, at the time himself in prison, was true because he had no access to any other information - or else why would the media be reporting it! It was a slow learning curve to realize that, from within prison, the media were in a frenzy about this.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
There appear to be 2 points of confusion.
1 – The degree of irrelevancy of the ‘alibi’ issue.

& more importantly

2. What alibi is this?

He is not now giving her an alibi. He has reverted to the stance taken in the Massei trial but made it clearer to the Court [Cassation in this instance] that he doesn’t vouch for her.

There may be a connection between 1 & 2.

BTW Thank you for trying to explain things to me. One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by it :)
Click to expand...

Ok - thanks for clarifying the nature of your confusion - basically you are still confused about all of this. Never mind.

With regard to 1) - Don't worry about it any more. Let's just say that you don't think Mr Sollecito or Ms Knox stayed in on the night of the murder and that in this regard it doesn't matter what either defendant says - that's your position and you're sticking to it. Presumably, the late Mr Curatolo's evidence is rather important to you in this regard, as would be Mr Quintavalle's, Mr Kokomani's and perhaps even Ms Capezzali's. Do correct me if I am wrong about your regard for these 'witnesses'.

As far as 2) is concerned, I'm afraid you haven't got it yet, however, I detect a little progress. Try to understand what Mr Sollecito wants to achieve with his defence. What is his strategy, do you think? What occasioned his strategy? Don't worry about the "Massei trial" at this stage - it will only confuse you more. (But it's really really good that you see all these trials as separate entities).

I do see (and here's the real progress) that your characterisation of this issue has changed. No longer has Mr Sollecito thrown Ms Knox under a bus; now, he merely doesn't "vouch" for her. That's pretty interesting. Try to keep your new position in mind in future postings and don't let your inner illeist reassert itself.

How would it affect Ms Knox's case if Mr Sollecito did "vouch" for her in his appeal, do you think? How has Ms Knox's case been damaged by anything Mr Sollecito has said?
 
Bill Williams said:
platonov said:
Oh Bill.

Prepare yourself for another shock - you will never guess where I found the evidence for this :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

There you go again, assertion with no proof.

ETA - this shows your commitment to the truth of things, which is nil. It is a completely wasted post.
Click to expand...


OK Bill :)
It’s merely a figure of speech but have a go. Prove me wrong, there’s a first time for everything.
Show where I found the evidence.
A link + quote will do.
 
Kauffer said:
Ok - thanks for clarifying the nature of your confusion - basically you are still confused about all of this. Never mind.

With regard to 1) - Don't worry about it any more. Let's just say that you don't think Mr Sollecito or Ms Knox stayed in on the night of the murder and that in this regard it doesn't matter what either defendant says - that's your position and you're sticking to it. Presumably, the late Mr Curatolo's evidence is rather important to you in this regard, as would be Mr Quintavalle's, Mr Kokomani's and perhaps even Ms Capezzali's. Do correct me if I am wrong about your regard for these 'witnesses'.

As far as 2) is concerned, I'm afraid you haven't got it yet, however, I detect a little progress. Try to understand what Mr Sollecito wants to achieve with his defence. What is his strategy, do you think? What occasioned his strategy? Don't worry about the "Massei trial" at this stage - it will only confuse you more. (But it's really really good that you see all these trials as separate entities).

I do see (and here's the real progress) that your characterisation of this issue has changed. No longer has Mr Sollecito thrown Ms Knox under a bus; now, he merely doesn't "vouch" for her. That's pretty interesting. Try to keep your new position in mind in future postings and don't let your inner illeist reassert itself.

How would it affect Ms Knox's case if Mr Sollecito did "vouch" for her in his appeal, do you think? How has Ms Knox's case been damaged by anything Mr Sollecito has said?
Click to expand...



Oh, I’m not worried about it :) – I find it interesting in a certain sense.
Let me explain. Recently here you claimed that RS’s Nov5/6th statement was IRRELEVANT.
That was a very special, even by the standards of cartwheel world, argument - reminiscent of LJ’s UTTERLY IRRELEVANT argument on the same subject,
Now you claim that the whole ‘alibi’ issue is ‘not germane’. This is also a very special argument.
I am merely trying to ascertain exactly how special your latest argument is.

Do you see?

As to the rest – I think I have it. You mentioned RS giving AK an alibi. Let me assure you he isn’t.
But as it’s ‘not germane’ I am surprised you even mention the matter further ;)
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
All this was obvious to me the first time I read about the knife, in the comments section under the news reports following the Massei verdict. At the time I knew almost nothing about the details of the case, but the guilter arguments were already transparent nonsense. They seemed oblivious to the need to postulate a two-way transportation, or the absurdity of claiming 2 knives.


... and it doesn't match the bedsheet imprint, and it was produced by a conjuring trick on the part of the investigators - not the only one.
Click to expand...

Thats whats sickening about Marescas recent tv appearance claiming "the dna of meredith was found on the tip of the knife".
Hes spewing the lies, or only gets his info from the Daily Mail or National Enquirer. I dont believe he is stupid, but that he is a snake-bellied lawyer.
Hes either a swine for saying false statements, or he is the most ignorant person in this whole case.

Maresca is one of the few leaders of the Guiltard party, he wasnt neutral, nor independent, from the start.

Only someone who is ignorant of the entire case would continue on with this large kitchen knife crap evidence. Its been found not to have been cleaned, and no blood on it = not the murder weapon.

...or I suppose someone like Maresca, who is a Guiltard, lying publicly and politically motivated to lie about the knife.
 
Samson said:
Michael Winterbottom interviewed about his film.

http://www.channel4.com/news/michael-winterbottom-amanda-knox-face-angel-film-video

Bill, maybe you can weave this into your theory, he does a superb bit of fence sitting, saying after so long of course the truth can never be known. Of course he is selling a mystery....
Click to expand...

"Truth can never be known" means in legal terms "not guilty"
Granted, I consider them almost certainly innocent but would accept simply "not guilty"
 
Desert Fox said:
"Truth can never be known" means in legal terms "not guilty"
Granted, I consider them almost certainly innocent but would accept simply "not guilty"
Click to expand...
DF if you think there is a chance they are guilty, they could be isolated, and asked to give concordant accounts of what parts they played in the murder, including time lines, the staging and everything else. In return for giving the Kercher family the truth they always sought, they get amnesty and are free.
If the stories don't line up, they are still lying and serve their full sentences.

How do you think they would go?
 
Samson said:
DF if you think there is a chance they are guilty, they could be isolated, and asked to give concordant accounts of what parts they played in the murder, including time lines, the staging and everything else. In return for giving the Kercher family the truth they always sought, they get amnesty and are free.
If the stories don't line up, they are still lying and serve their full sentences.

How do you think they would go?
Click to expand...

Look, I am as sure as I can humanly be that they are innocent but it is not in my makeup to state anything 100%. Maybe the West Memphis Three and Norfolk Four are guilty as well but I am certain as I can be that they are innocent.

That said, I don't expect their timelines to line up. Human memory is to mercurial a thing for that.
 
"Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant."


Willful ignorance or deliberate agitation? As "our Graham" used to say: the decision is yours!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom