Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

That's NOT a credible source. Not when there are MOUNTAINS of actual case testimony and evidence. Seriously Vixen, can you imagine a court accepting a newspaper article as evidence in a criminal trial?

No, of course not. It wasn't an agreed part of the list of issues.

If you study newspaper archives pretrial, the story changes as it develops. By the time of the trial, the story becomes "fixed" and has been the same since 2009.

It is informative to understand what police were looking at and the leads they followed.

 

[acbytesla]

Name calling is very childish. Do posters here, when at work and the boss wants a report that's due, do they respond, "P!ss off, hater!"

What name calling? Go back and reread my post. There is no name calling. That is just another figment of your imagination. Otherwise, feel free to highlight the so called name calling.

I am just asking a question. Many posters have taken the time and effort to demonstrate your mistakes, but I have not seen you acknowledge them and apply that to your thinking. Instead, you race on to present more misinformation.

Am I wrong? I don't think so.

 

[Vixen]

Weak retention or reading skills? I've made it clear I believe in incompetence and bizarre thinking not framing.

I did notice, Grinder. My statement was a generic one.

 

[js202]

David Koresh's Waco cult was a breakaway division of the 7th Day Adventists. Branch Davidians.

Koresh's cult espoused polygyny, sex with underaged children, and the group arming itself to the teeth with firearms in anticipation of the coming apocalypse. Go seeking evidence for this sort of behavior amongst garden variety 7th Day Adventists and get back to us.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can quote you a newspaper article as far back as 2007/2008 re the drugdealer phone calls. However, posters here claim the TIMES (Richard Owen) is not an acceptable source.

It's interesting, the same story popped up again last year, naming the drugdealer as Federico Martini (Mattini?), a very nasty character indeed.

The €4K was supposed to last four months or more.

That's NOT a credible source. Not when there are MOUNTAINS of actual case testimony and evidence. Seriously Vixen, can you imagine a court accepting a newspaper article as evidence in a criminal trial?

No, of course not. It wasn't an agreed part of the list of issues.

If you study newspaper archives pretrial, the story changes as it develops. By the time of the trial, the story becomes "fixed" and has been the same since 2009.
It is informative to understand what police were looking at and the leads they followed.

That's all it has ever been, a story. One told often enough by suspect-centric-guilters to make it seem (for them) that it had some legitimacy.

There are MOUNTAINS of actual case testimony and evidence, which the guilters themselves estimate at 10,000 pages, and none of it confirm this factoid. The fact is, Amanda Knox made no calls to drug dealers.

In the weeks leading up to the March 2015 exonerations of RS and AK, these factoids were dusted off, again with NO supporting evidence. The Daily Mail even hired a Los Angeles-based paparazzi photographer to stalk Knox in Seattle, and all he got was a picture of Knox passing some money to her fiance.

And, of course, the Daily Mail, one of your reliable sources, opined that she was buying drugs.

Vixen - you are a veritable random-factoid machine. Completely suspect-centric and confirmation biased. Your posts are a graduate course in what went wrong with the 7 1/2 year legal ordeal to prosecute innocents, which ultimately denied the Kerchers the closure they deserved when Rudy Guede was convicted.

 

[acbytesla]

No, of course not. It wasn't an agreed part of the list of issues.

If you study newspaper archives pretrial, the story changes as it develops. By the time of the trial, the story becomes "fixed" and has been the same since 2009.

It is informative to understand what police were looking at and the leads they followed.

Informative NOT VALUABLE. It says something about the reliability of the press and maybe how the police attempted to poison the well.

It has ZERO value in determining the guilt or innocence of the suspects.

 

[js202]

In Vixen's world, avowed and confirmed hard drug-takers like Curatolo are avatars of reliability. Meanwhile, rumor and hearsay of drug-taking on the part of Knox and Sollecito - contradicted both by medical tests, witnesses to their character, and their conduct as responsible students - are pillars of their implication in bloody murder.

 

[Numbers]

Yes. I gave the commonly held definition above. They must be innocent to be framed.

Since we now know, based on the final CSC verdict, that AK and RS are innocent, then they were framed. (I assume whatever the police or prosecutor believed is not relevant to your definition of "frame".) And the framing began on or before Nov. 5, 2007. Possibly as soon as she put on her shoe covers while Giobbi observed her.

Again, the legally relevant issue is when did the official misconduct begin. It certainly began as soon as Nov. 5, 2007, when the interrogation began which violated CPP, the Convention, and ECHR case-law. It may be argued that the earlier questionings of Amanda also violated CPP Article 64, if she was a suspect, but the official summaries of those do not seem to indicate any attempt to obtain incriminating statements and they are written by the police as witness statements.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's probably true, but not necessarily true. The real point is that Battistelli's "real" first impression is hopelessly lost because of the larger subsequent events and everything we've said on this thread about the way memory works.

Bill, we were discussing when they first thought it was staged. It has been shown incontrovertibly that it was from the very beginning.
Now, if you wish to agree and start a new debate about how they should have dropped it, fine.

It has? My contention is that one cannot from this vantage point say that "the very beginning" was when Battistelli first peered into Filomena's room, pre-body discovery.

I was not trying to make the point you claim - not yet, anyway.

 

[Grinder]

Since we now know, based on the final CSC verdict, that AK and RS are innocent, then they were framed. (I assume whatever the police or prosecutor believed is not relevant to your definition of "frame".) And the framing began on or before Nov. 5, 2007. Possibly as soon as she put on her shoe covers while Giobbi observed her.

No that's not true. Framing involves the police knowing someone is innocent producing evidence to convict them.

Again, the legally relevant issue is when did the official misconduct begin. It certainly began as soon as Nov. 5, 2007, when the interrogation began which violated CPP, the Convention, and ECHR case-law. It may be argued that the earlier questionings of Amanda also violated CPP Article 64, if she was a suspect, but the official summaries of those do not seem to indicate any attempt to obtain incriminating statements and they are written by the police as witness statements.

Yes but as reported earlier what one would commonly define as a suspect isn't an official suspect and doesn't get the rights of a suspect.

ETA by your definition of framed every person found not guilty would be framed.

 

[Planigale]

Presumably, she bathmat-shuffled from the bathroom to the bedroom wherein she had left her towel, dried herself off and then walked about the apartment barefoot. By that means, she could have transferred diluted blood to the floor. There is nothing wrong with that argument and nothing wrong with yours. Legal arguments are often layered:

1 the luminol did not reveal blood (negative TMB + lies about TMB + Phony's evidence that if TMB comes up negative you can be sure it's not blood)

2 but if the luminol shows blood, it still has to be proved that it was deposited by Amanda's feet. The presence of her DNA on the floor might have nothing to do with the blood there and may have been there already, and

3 further, if the blood was deposited by Amanda's bare feet there is a reasonable, innocent explanation which is consistent with her account of what she did.

Personally, I don't see how they get past point 1 but there is nothing wrong with having further arguments to hand.

Well put.

 

[bagels]

She claims to have got up 10:00 ish, went to the cottage, had shower, hairwash, hairdry, put on "new clothes", claimed to be going to Gubbio, strolled back, told Raf after breakfast her "concerns". Rang Mez. Rang Filomena, circa 12:07, claimed to be at cottage, but actually phone records showed she was at Raf's. Filomena urged Amanda to ring Mez. Amanda omitted to inform Filomena she already had. Rang Filomena again 12:34- ish. Filomena urged her to call the police. Postal police turned up they say 12:35, but let's give slack, and say 12:45. Raf calls his sister circa 12:47. She says, call the police. Amanda rings Mum, Edda, 12:57. Raf rings police at last between 12:47- 12:58. Door kicked down by Filomena's sister's boyfriend, Luca as soon as they arrive, 13:05. Carabinieri turn up circa 13:26, "within half an hour", as promised. Postal police report washing machine just finishing cycle and the pair had a mop, on their arrival.

NB: this is from memory, so do check times for yourself.

Between 12:45 and when the last call to 112 ends at 12:55:36, Amanda and Raffaele are on the phone for a combined 55% of the time, or 5 minutes and 52 seconds. But the two postal police officers interacting with them around the cottage never once testify to seeing either on the phone. IMO it's unlikely the postal police were present when these calls were being made, and the CCTV footage corroborating an arrival of ~ 12:55+ is by far the most reasonable scenario. It requires a large number of contradictory assumptions and a complete lack of common sense to assume an earlier arrival, which is why every guilter on the planet does.

 

[Planigale]

I thought Amanda said she did a bathmat shuffle, so how would that leave the residual luminol (but below TMB) threshold foot prints? By the way, does anyone know offhand how large that window of dilution is supposed to be that Amanda's feet miraculously dampened to?

I can't buy that scenario, the 'just the right dilution' scenario seems beyond reasonable doubt, and in any event, not relevant to the crime given the evidence in the murder room.

I applaud the ingenuity, but I think its bending over backwards to satisfy a pseudo-science hypothesis.

Yes I previously posted here. About 1 drop of blood in 5 - 50 litres of water (for US readers I think that will be 2 quarts to 10 gallons), it would be visually indistinguishable from water.

 

[Numbers]

No that's not true. Framing involves the police knowing someone is innocent producing evidence to convict them.



Yes but as reported earlier what one would commonly define as a suspect isn't an official suspect and doesn't get the rights of a suspect.

ETA by your definition of framed every person found not guilty would be framed.

Well, if you insist on my knowing what the police knew in order for me to call what they did framing, you may need to wait a very long time.

Someone who is found not guilty but has been subjected to police misconduct to establish his or her guilt may be considered "framed", IMO. You have your own opinion and are entitled to it.

Where is your cite for the definition of "official suspect" in Italian law? (Please don't rely on something Mach wrote without checking that information against actual Italian law.) The Hellmann court motivation report stated the Amanda was "at this point suspected of very serious crimes," at the Nov. 5 interrogation and should have had a lawyer. {Emphasis added.}

IMO, ECHR case-law suggests that a "suspect" is someone interrogated - that is, questioned with the intent of that person producing an incriminating statement.

 

[Planigale]

Just to play "devil's advocate" for a while. Suppose Rudy's statement is broadly true. He is waiting outside the cottage. Mez arrives and asks, "Have you been waiting long?"

Rudy is waiting for Amanda who owes him money for drugs. Whilst there, he is offered Fanta from the fridge and he and Mez chat - after all, Rudy did claim to know Mez' mother was seriously ill in England. Suppose they did get romantic and indulged in foreplay. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? However, there are no condoms, so it doesn't go further.

Amanda arrives. Rudy demands his money. His kebab starts making rumbling noises so he goes to the bathroom.

In the meantime, Amanda asks Mez to borrow it. Mez gives her short shrift. Amanda forcibly steals the cash from Mez' drawer. Raf turns up whilst Rudy is on the loo playing his ipod.

Mez is still vociferous towards Amanda. Raf restrains her and the pair pull knives on her.

They flee after the killing. Rudy comes out just in time to bump into Raf. He applies towels to Mez, etc. This accounts for bloody handprint and footprints, etc.

Of course, as the judge says, Rudy's story is highly implausible. However, to ignore all DNA evidence means to deny justice to one of the perps and also the victim, if indeed all were involved.

My response is;

1) There is no evidence Guede sold drugs.
2) There is no evidence Knox bought drugs (she seemed to get them from her flat mates, or Sollecito) cf Kercher, whose boyfriend bought drugs for them both - apart from growing his own (does beg the question what he was buying).
3) There is good evidence Knox had money in her account at the time and could have gone to an ATM and got money out.
4) Sollecito did not seem short and would probably have been a gentleman and paid his squeeze's debts.
5) Have to fit in continual presence elsewhere according to Curatalo
6) Why did not Guede identify Knox as present to begin with.
7) If there was a struggle between Knox and Kercher, why was there no fibre transfer?
8) If solicit and Knox fled after the killing when did the break in occur? Remember they left with Guede still present trying to save Kercher, their assumption would be he'd call the police and ambulance.

 

[acbytesla]

No that's not true. Framing involves the police knowing someone is innocent producing evidence to convict them.

With all due respect Grinder, it is framing if they produce false evidence regardless if they know if the suspect to be guilty or innocent. I also think it is framing when the use witness testimony like Rinaldi. My question is it framing if they hide potentially exculpatory evidence? IE: The negative TMB results,

 

[Numbers]

No that's not true. Framing involves the police knowing someone is innocent producing evidence to convict them.



Yes but as reported earlier what one would commonly define as a suspect isn't an official suspect and doesn't get the rights of a suspect.

ETA by your definition of framed every person found not guilty would be framed.

From Wikipedia:

...noble cause corruption is police misconduct "committed in the name of good ends"[3] or neglect of due process through “a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live.

{Emphasis added.}

So would you rather say "noble cause corruption" rather than "framed"?

IMO, you are simply playing with words and definitions.

There was police misconduct attempting to attribute guilt to Knox and Sollecito. The interrogation of Nov. 5 was a first(?) example of such misconduct in the case.

Whether or not someone is guilty, any misconduct against them by police is illegal; the consequences of such illegality may be simply to disallow certain evidence. But the misconduct is unfair and a corruption of the judicial process.

 

[Bill Williams]

No that's not true. Framing involves the police knowing someone is innocent producing evidence to convict them.

With all due respect Grinder, it is framing if they produce false evidence regardless if they know if the suspect to be guilty or innocent. I also think it is framing when the use witness testimony like Rinaldi. My question is it framing if they hide potentially exculpatory evidence? IE: The negative TMB results,

"Framing" cannot be said to be limited to the police knowing them to be innocent. Framing comes from assembling evidence against people and not stopping even when that evidence tends to exonerate, or doesn't nearly meet standards of proof.

 

[Grinder]

Well, if you insist on my knowing what the police knew in order for me to call what they did framing, you may need to wait a very long time.

Someone who is found not guilty but has been subjected to police misconduct to establish his or her guilt may be considered "framed", IMO. You have your own opinion and are entitled to it.

Where is your cite for the definition of "official suspect" in Italian law? (Please don't rely on something Mach wrote without checking that information against actual Italian law.) The Hellmann court motivation report stated the Amanda was "at this point suspected of very serious crimes," at the Nov. 5 interrogation and should have had a lawyer. {Emphasis added.}

IMO, ECHR case-law suggests that a "suspect" is someone interrogated - that is, questioned with the intent of that person producing an incriminating statement.

Well did Hellmann accuse the PLE of misconduct? Clearly in Italy being suspected is not being an official suspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

She claims to have got up 10:00 ish, went to the cottage, had shower, hairwash, hairdry, put on "new clothes", claimed to be going to Gubbio, strolled back, told Raf after breakfast her "concerns". Rang Mez. Rang Filomena, circa 12:07, claimed to be at cottage, but actually phone records showed she was at Raf's. Filomena urged Amanda to ring Mez. Amanda omitted to inform Filomena she already had. Rang Filomena again 12:34- ish. Filomena urged her to call the police. Postal police turned up they say 12:35, but let's give slack, and say 12:45. Raf calls his sister circa 12:47. She says, call the police. Amanda rings Mum, Edda, 12:57. Raf rings police at last between 12:47- 12:58. Door kicked down by Filomena's sister's boyfriend, Luca as soon as they arrive, 13:05. Carabinieri turn up circa 13:26, "within half an hour", as promised. Postal police report washing machine just finishing cycle and the pair had a mop, on their arrival.

NB: this is from memory, so do check times for yourself.

Between 12:45 and when the last call to 112 ends at 12:55:36, Amanda and Raffaele are on the phone for a combined 55% of the time, or 5 minutes and 52 seconds. But the two postal police officers interacting with them around the cottage never once testify to seeing either on the phone. IMO it's unlikely the postal police were present when these calls were being made, and the CCTV footage corroborating an arrival of ~ 12:55+ is by far the most reasonable scenario. It requires a large number of contradictory assumptions and a complete lack of common sense to assume an earlier arrival, which is why every guilter on the planet does.

The final nail in this coffin is that Judge Massei, one of the convicting judges, says that the postals arrived "just before 1 pm." The issue of in which order did Raffaele's calls/Postals arrival is settled - except for the small pro-guilt-lobby which is left following AK and RS's exonerations.