Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

That all makes sense but let's not over-analyse. The alleged "staged break-in" and "clean-up" were always fictions needed by the investigators in order to sustain their persecution of Amanda and Raff.

The point is that once you follow the evidence at the scene, you have to conclude:

a) that the crime was committed by an intruder (or, conceivably, intruders) who broke in through the window in Filomena's room;

b) that there is evidence of only one perpetrator of the crime and in particular, nothing implicates the 2 students.

So - having already announced that the 2 were guilty, the police and prosecutor were in a bind. The evidence didn't agree with their solution to the crime - so, the evidence had to be wrong! How did it come to be wrong? Of course, the 2 murderers cleaned up their own traces and simulated a break-in! Obvious, really.

It's so much easier to establish your own version of "the truth" when every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with it can be attributed to a staging of the scene. Don't you know that dinosaur fossils were put in the ground to mislead humanity from the word of God as revealed in Genesis?

Wrong thread. Darwins Theory is very elegant, but it's still only just that. A theory.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's not. Please point to anything in the autopsy report which points (exclusively) to "inhuman and degrading torture".






No, she was not. She was subjected to a short attack (probably less than a minute in duration), culminating in the fatal stabs to the neck. Inflicted by one person, acting alone: Rudy Guede.

I cannot give this the dignity of a response.

 

[Numbers]

Sorry, we were just informed there was no process in Italy for filing complaints, and now you say there is, after all. From the POV of the judiciary, anything stated in a court in hearings is legally privileged.

Therefore, by charging Amanda, she will now be obliged to substantiate her serious allegations, made under the protection of legal privilege.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

This (highlighted statement) is simply another one of your blatant misrepresentations.

Earlier, Chris had written that Italy has no independent body to evaluate claims of police misconduct. I had written that there is a process to evaluate claims of police misconduct.

Oddly, the process to evaluate claims of police misconduct in Italy often includes an evaluation by the very police team (including police superiors and prosecutors) alleged to have committed the misconduct. That does not make for an "independent body", which means a group fully independent of the police chain of command (which itself includes the local prosecutor).

ETA: Also, your statement that Amanda made her statement about the police abuse "under legal privilege" is hilarious, considering she was criminally charged for calunnia against the police for making that statement in Massei's court. Indeed, she is now apparently charged with "continuing calunnia" because the statements regarding police abuse were repeated in her appeal documents.

The "arguments" in your posts are truly laughable. I would suggest you read up on this case and confine your posts to the actual facts and your stated opinions rather than manufacturing false factoids (in the sense of "pseudo-facts" aka misrepresentations).

 

[Wattson]

I cannot give this the dignity of a response.

You were asked a straight forward question and this is your answer? Time to MENSA up Vixen.

 

[Grinder]

\\
But that's the point of a domestic insurance fraud. You simply list items you didn't own that you say were stolen and claim the cash value, usually on a new for old basis.

You have to tell the police that something was stolen - R called and said nothing was stolen. He told the PP the same thing and then F told them nothing was missing.

 

[Vixen]

I think the sign of pulling your index finger horizontally across your throat has something of a universal translation.

Yes, and it is not, "Of course she died painfully, she [insert swearword] bled to death."

 

[LondonJohn]

I cannot give this the dignity of a response.

What do you mean by that?

Do you mean that you cannot find anything in the autopsy report (or reports quoting the autopsy report) which show clear evidence of "inhuman and degrading torture"? If so, then I'll understand. Because no such evidence exists.

 

[Vixen]

Say Vixen, can you get back to me with a quote from Massei in which he finds as a fact that a female shoe print was left on the pillow? Alternatively, if you can't find it, let's agree that point falls away. OK?

I'll come back to you.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

I understand this paragraph to be a broad summary (the entire 2007 summary of Italy is perhaps eight paragraph or so), and I don't think that the first two sentences are linked, as you imply that they might be. In other words I infer that Italy did not have an independent body as of 2007.

OK, noted, thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, and it is not, "Of course she died painfully, she [insert swearword] bled to death."

Hmmm. If a murder victim has his/her throat cut, would it be reasonable to believe that the person:

a) died pain-free
b) died painfully
c) died of blunt force trauma to the head
d) bled to death


(Hint: the correct answers are (b) and (d).....)

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Amanda did not go to the station for the purpose of making a statement, and that puts her interrogation into a very different light. I believe that Numbers made this point a few months ago.

She insisted in turning up, when she could have had plenty of sleep in her bed.

She volunteered to help police draw up a list of people known to be associated with the cottage.

The evidence is against her that police forced her to name Patrick as a sex killer, for she reiterated her claims quite voluntarily in writing, in a letter she wrote with no police around. At no time did she retract her calumny.

We know she knew it was a lie, because a wire tap between her and mum Edda, informed police Amanda was happy to let Patrick rot in prison.

The stuff about police torture is pure PR spin Amanda paid $'000's dollars for.

 

[Kauffer]

[/HILITE]


Wrong thread. Darwins Theory is very elegant, but it's still only just that. A theory.

Why am I not surprised to read this from you?

 

[Kauffer]

You have to tell the police that something was stolen - R called and said nothing was stolen. He told the PP the same thing and then F told them nothing was missing.

Ah. My apologies, I see what you're getting at. Yes that's a very sound observation. The insurance fraud idea was unsustainable very early on. I'm not sure we know whether there was an insurance policy held by a tenant or tenants for contents coverage anyway. Good show!

 

[Vixen]

1) The police had no choice but to release Lumumba - he had a cast-iron alibi from a Swiss university professor (whom Mignini and the police had the chutzpah to claim they found and encouraged etc!).

2) The police and PM could conveniently blame the Lumumba mistake on "evil Knox" deliberately misdirecting them by falsely accusing an innocent man - despite the clear and unequivocal evidence that it was the police who had essentially coerced Knox into "confirming" that Lumumba was the murderer. Worthy of the real Machiavelli, that one!

We are none the wiser as to Amanda's cast-iron alibi. Please can you remind us.

 

[Kauffer]

Yes, and it is not, "Of course she died painfully, she [insert swearword] bled to death."

Yes, so?

 

[Kauffer]

She insisted in turning up, when she could have had plenty of sleep in her bed.

She volunteered to help police draw up a list of people known to be associated with the cottage.

The evidence is against her that police forced her to name Patrick as a sex killer, for she reiterated her claims quite voluntarily in writing, in a letter she wrote with no police around. At no time did she retract her calumny.

We know she knew it was a lie, because a wire tap between her and mum Edda, informed police Amanda was happy to let Patrick rot in prison.

The stuff about police torture is pure PR spin Amanda paid $'000's dollars for.

There is nothing voluntary about a lawyerless interrogation of a suspect. You can't even claim she was offered a lawyer and refused, because that would not be a valid waiver of her rights in law.

Her memoriale, if you actually bother to try and understand it, reveals the beginnings of the clearing of her mind from the adverse influence of a brutal interrogation. She states that what she said in interrogation should not be relied upon.

Please provide a citation to the specific section of the conversation, or else quote it verbatim, where Amanda says she is "happy to let Patrick rot in prison", or uses language even approximating to that meaning.

 

[Numbers]

You have to tell the police that something was stolen - R called and said nothing was stolen. He told the PP the same thing and then F told them nothing was missing.

Thus the police considered it a very sophisticated insurance fraud, involving imaginary, invisible objects not even mentioned.

A bit more seriously, the real police would not be so stupid to think that a burglary where nothing seemed to be stollen was insurance fraud. If the Postal Police said that, it would be dismissed by the crack PLE (real police).

But what the PLE wanted to do was to solve this murder very quickly to reduce political or economic issues. The first step in solving a murder quickly, as many crack LE's know, is to find the convenient (aka obvious) potential suspects. These are usually the people closest to the murder victim. Thus Giobbi stated in his testimony that the boys downstairs and Meredith's flat mates were immediately considered. The only one that had a relatively weak alibi was that American student, Amanda Knox.

Amanda had been in the company of only one person, she claimed, the evening/night of the murder, her new Italian boyfriend, and he wasn't even from Perugia or Umbria. Such persons, IMO, to the crack LE team, clearly could be developed as suspects with just a little work. Why waste valuable police time looking for some unknown person who had possibly broken into the flat? Why would some one have broken in, if the prime (convenient) suspect is a person with a key? IMO, the police right away realized from this chain of "logical reasoning" that the break-in was staged. And probably none of them would have been physically able to climb the grate to the break-in window.

And how would PM Giuliano Mignini think of the possibility of a young American woman becoming the suspect in a murder, that to his eyes and obsessions were clearly a matter of ritual, happening the day after Halloween? And PM Mignini would also likely see the climb to the window as physically impossible, at least for himself. So why would it be possible for someone else to do it?

 

[Antony]

If your hypothesis is true, then the cops would not have immediately released Patrick as soon as they realised he was innocent.

The idea the "police could not admit they were wrong" is without foundation.

Except they didn't: they only released him when Guede conveniently came on the scene (through the diligence of the German police). Then guess what? With their story of the crime in ruins, they simply made a change of personnel (Guede for Lumumba) and hoped no-one would notice. Not everybody did, it seems. That hardly negates the "hypothesis" that they couldn't admit they were wrong.

As for Patrick, the police then kept his bar closed for 6 months, forcing him out of business, just to show him where his interests lay over going public about his experience.

Back to the hypothesis. It's pretty much borne out by every twist of the case:

• critical interrogations of all 3 under arrest? Claim not to have recorded them;
• CCTV footage? Ignore it. The tapes will be re-used soon, and it won't be available;
• suspects' and victim's computers might provide evidence (such as photos showing a strong friendship between the accused and the victim)? Wreck them;
• mystery stain suggesting semen? Don't test it;
• murder weapon? Pick one at random from the suspect's kitchen, and "find" the victim's DNA on it;
• shoeprints don't match after all? Go back to the crime scene weeks later, pick up just one item and "find" the suspect's DNA on it;
• independent experts want to check your results? Hide them;
• independent experts want to re-test disputed item? Store it in liquid so it rusts;
• independent experts produce unfavourable report? Send a squad of police to knock on their door;
• 2nd level court throws out your case? Organise a demonstration outside the court chanting "Vergogna! Vergogna!"

Yep: looks to me like they can't admit they're wrong, and can't let in any evidence they don't like.

 

[Antony]

The piece of undigested mushroom found in Mez' gullet most likely came from a punnet in the fridge. IOW it was not part of the meal with the English ladies.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the point that for the Massei/Mignini TOD to be correct, Meredith's digestion had to be in a state of complete suspension for something over 2 hours.

 

[Myriad]

We are none the wiser as to Amanda's cast-iron alibi. Please can you remind us.

The time-stamped computer file update records in the computers she and Raffaelle were using that evening while at Raffaelle's place.

Aw, did that evidence get mysteriously destroyed while in police custody? In any fair and rational legal system that alone would be reasonable doubt and grounds to dismiss the case. In any fair and rational legal system, that evidence the police destroyed should be legally equivalent to an unassailable alibi.