Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Suppose this is true, and in fact nobody participating in this thread has produce evidence to the contradict your assertion that Owen was a skilled, honest crime reporteer. What does it mean? It means that he develops relevant sources and reports on what they tell him.

Most of the people participating in this thread think he was lied to for the purposes of sensationalizing the crime and establishing the guilt of Sollecito and Knox.

So when you quote what Owen reported early on with regard to this case as evidence, you are not countering the argument that is being made by the people participating in this thread that believe AK/RS innocent. When what Owen claimed as damaging evidence didn't end up being used in a trial you are providing evidence that Owen was lied to or at least mislead by his informants.

If the washing machine was useful evidence against AK/RS it had the potential to provide irrefutable evidence of their guilt. So was evidence presented in court about the washing machine? Were Knox's or Sollecito's clothes found in the washing machine? Was blood residue found in the washing machine? Was the drain disassembled in an effort to find evidence of blood? The answers to all those questions appears to be no, so your view that Owen was right about the washing machine appears to be wrong, which means either he lied or was misinformed.

Similarly Owen's early reporting about the shoes was based on early police errors about a match in blood for Sollecito's shoes. Is it your view that once Owen said something it was impossible that it could turn out to be false. Is Owen some sort of supernatural reporter that is only capable of reporting true facts?

Can you find any current writing by Owen where he argues that AK/RS are guilty? Is it possible that Owen has less faith in his early reporting on this case than you do?

Very well said Dave.

 

[Grinder]

Yes in fact he could have done EXACTLY THAT. In fact, this is not uncommon. People often leave doors unlocked or not properly shut. Another possibility is that Rudy had a key that was stashed outside. He could have been just looking for a place to sleep, but what I don't buy is the anonymous guy who sold him lodging at a nursery. That screams lie

[SNIP] Go look at the video of Prato entering the nursery. It is way more likely that he was given or bought the information about the nursery. Please provide proof that Italians leave business doors in buildings with barred windows unlocked.

I admit Grinder, there is ZERO proof that Rudy stole the 2000 Euros. Still, it is very common for burglars to hit the same places many times especially if they had made a big score there. As I said, it's not proof by any means, but it's a very good possibility.

No really there is evidence he didn't do it or the whole meme of him having no rent money etc. totally falls apart. Yes it very likely that a guy that committed a felony at the nursery would return and hang out. Oh and did Prato say anything about Rudi maybe stealing the money. Did anybody say anything about it except some PIP conspiracy theorists?

if you want top dollar for anything, you don't want the customer to know it's hot. That's going to devalue it significantly. So if Rudy is at all interested in getting the most for his goods, he is going to want to sell it the average Joe just looking for a bargain. That means he has to market it. But hey if he wants to take big risks and get next to nothing, he can sell it to a limited circle. A fence is going to be looking to get ad much as he can without risking getting caught.

[SNIP] We've all agreed that used laptops aren't expensive items and most everyone will know they are stolen. No one is going "to market" these goods beyond the "hey need a laptop" I have to sell it for rent money blah, blah, blah.

Did Rudy probably sell what he stole? Yes, but what I see in Rudy is a snot nose kid who needs experience. Not a fence.

He was doing the job of a fence by selling his own stuff.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 0 & 12 and mod box

 

[davefoc]

... He was doing the job of a fence by selling his own stuff.

I don't know enough to have formed a strong opinion about who is right in this discussion between you and acbytesla, but his comments about the skills, knowledge and contacts required to be a successful dealer/fence resonated with my own ideas about this and so I tend to agree with him in this issue. But if we are going to define the term, fence, in such a way that Rudi was a fence because he sold stuff he'd stolen then the range of meaning of the term has been expanded to the point that anybody that steals stuff is a fence as well. Probably not exactly your point but you might have been a little more careful with your words there.

 

[Dan O.]

...
I admit Grinder, there is ZERO proof that Rudy stole the 2000 Euros. Still, it is very common for burglars to hit the same places many times especially if they had made a big score there. As I said, it's not proof by any means, but it's a very good possibility.

But to come back a couple of weeks later and spend the night in the same place? I give that a huge zero on the probability scale. It is more likely that the owner stole the €2000 herself after someone that could have been Rudy broke in and did some cooking.

 

[Vixen]

The early bleach story:


19.11.2007 TIMES Richard Owen
Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.
Tests have shown Ms Kercher’s DNA on the tip of the knife and Ms Knox’s DNA close to the handle. Police suspect that Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox attempted to clean the knife, failing to realise that they would still leave identifiable DNA traces.
The till receipts call into question Mr Sollecito’s account of events on November 2, since he had testified that he did not get up until 10am, when he was woken by Ms Knox.
He told police that Ms Knox had returned to his flat at 1am but in the morning decided to return to her own cottage to have a shower, taking him with her. They found blood in the bathroom and a smashed window, with Ms Kercher’s door locked. Police believe, however, that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito smashed the window themselves to simulate a break-in.

 

[davefoc]

Very well said Dave.

Thank you for that.

I notice I used the term, true facts. So are there false facts? I would like to have edited that, but this thread moves on pretty quickly and I'll leave it. Perhaps in time I will get over my embarrassment at the use of the term.

I also appreciated Dan O's addition of the information about the examination of the drain filter. It was a point that both supported and contradicted what I had written a bit. The police were suspicious enough to investigate the washing machine, implying there was more to be suspicious of than I had implied, but they seemed to have found absolutely nothing which supports the main point, that there was absolutely nothing incriminating about the washing machine despite the fact that Owen reported early on that there was.

This provides, at least some evidence, that Owen was not a supernatural reporter incapable of error or reporting information told to him by others that later turned out to be false.

 

[Vixen]

Suppose this is true, and in fact nobody participating in this thread has produce evidence to the contradict your assertion that Owen was a skilled, honest crime reporteer. What does it mean? It means that he develops relevant sources and reports on what they tell him.

Most of the people participating in this thread think he was lied to for the purposes of sensationalizing the crime and establishing the guilt of Sollecito and Knox.

So when you quote what Owen reported early on with regard to this case as evidence, you are not countering the argument that is being made by the people participating in this thread that believe AK/RS innocent. When what Owen claimed as damaging evidence didn't end up being used in a trial you are providing evidence that Owen was lied to or at least mislead by his informants.

If the washing machine was useful evidence against AK/RS it had the potential to provide irrefutable evidence of their guilt. So was evidence presented in court about the washing machine? Were Knox's or Sollecito's clothes found in the washing machine? Was blood residue found in the washing machine? Was the drain disassembled in an effort to find evidence of blood? The answers to all those questions appears to be no, so your view that Owen was right about the washing machine appears to be wrong, which means either he lied or was misinformed.

Similarly Owen's early reporting about the shoes was based on early police errors about a match in blood for Sollecito's shoes. Is it your view that once Owen said something it was impossible that it could turn out to be false. Is Owen some sort of supernatural reporter that is only capable of reporting true facts?

Can you find any current writing by Owen where he argues that AK/RS are guilty? Is it possible that Owen has less faith in his early reporting on this case than you do?

Don't put words in my mouth. A good journalist is not an "advocate", unless they're campaigning "investigative" journalists, such as John Pilger.

Owen should put out a cheap paperback of all the developing aspects of this story, to counterpose the near fact-free efforts of WTBH.

 

[acbytesla]

[SNIP] Go look at the video of Prato entering the nursery. It is way more likely that he was given or bought the information about the nursery. Please provide proof that Italians leave business doors in buildings with barred windows unlocked.

You crack me up Grinder. Very few people deliberately leave their valuables or homes/businesses unsecured. But many people are sloppy, lazy and just make mistakes. It happens all the time in Seattle. Talk to a cop and then get back to me.

In comparison it is far far more likely than the anonymous guy selling him lodging. Please tell me that you're not this gullible.

No really there is evidence he didn't do it or the whole meme of him having no rent money etc. totally falls apart. Yes it very likely that a guy that committed a felony at the nursery would return and hang out. Oh and did Prato say anything about Rudi maybe stealing the money. Did anybody say anything about it except some PIP conspiracy theorists?

Oh, you're assuming he's smart enough to know better. LOL. Consider the following. He NEVER got caught the first time. Does he have any reason to think they might be able to pin that on him? I don't think that he would have been the slightest bit worried about that.

He was doing the job of a fence by selling his own stuff.

That ain't a fence.

Wikipedia: A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen.

 

[davefoc]

The early bleach story:


19.11.2007 TIMES Richard Owen
Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.
Tests have shown Ms Kercher’s DNA on the tip of the knife and Ms Knox’s DNA close to the handle. Police suspect that Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox attempted to clean the knife, failing to realise that they would still leave identifiable DNA traces.
The till receipts call into question Mr Sollecito’s account of events on November 2, since he had testified that he did not get up until 10am, when he was woken by Ms Knox.
He told police that Ms Knox had returned to his flat at 1am but in the morning decided to return to her own cottage to have a shower, taking him with her. They found blood in the bathroom and a smashed window, with Ms Kercher’s door locked. Police believe, however, that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito smashed the window themselves to simulate a break-in.

This is excellent evidence of the misinformation reported in the early days of the reporting on this case. Of course, all the information about the receipts has been shown to be false, so I presume you put this forth to provide evidence that you agree that Owen's reporting was not infallible, even if you have great respect for his journalistic skills.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dennis Murphy and Richard Owen

Upthread I showed one mistake that Richard Owen made, with respect to Guede. Richard Owen was also interviewed by Dennis Murphy in a program called Amanda Knox's Deadly Exchange. Which statements he made still stand up to scrutiny? How does this erroneous reporting affect his overall credibility? I'll get this ball rolling:

"Richard Owen, correspondent for the London Times in Italy, is filing almost daily stories based on what his sources in the investigation are telling him, including one report that Meredith told her British girlfriends she was actually scared of some of the strays Amanda came home with on a regular basis.
Owen: People who Meredith Kercher distrusted. Didn't like the look of. It appears that it got to the point where she actually confronted Amanda about this.
Murphy: So she's waking up in the morning and there's somebody in the kitchen making tea. It's “Who are you, again?”
Owen: That's right, yeah. Exactly that. And so it, the picture builds up, really, of maybe four, five perhaps more, points of friction between these two girls who previously hadn't known each other at all."

Among things which actually happened, the closest analog I can think of is Laura's tryst with a handyman(?), because he ended up staying the night, and Amanda commented on this.

 

[acbytesla]

But to come back a couple of weeks later and spend the night in the same place? I give that a huge zero on the probability scale. It is more likely that the owner stole the €2000 herself after someone that could have been Rudy broke in and did some cooking.

Anything is possible Dan but why would she steal from herself?

What does Rudy have to be afraid of Dan? He got away Scott free the last time.. (if he did it) So why zero? And while Rudy might not be stupid, he also very well might be. Criminals in fact are very often stupid. All the time we see and read about the stupid criminal who got caught in a chimney, a wall etc. etc. Hell Jimmy Kimmel has had segment making fun of the stupid criminal. It's a frequent spot on the news and other shows. Zero?

 

[anglolawyer]

The early bleach story:


19.11.2007 TIMES Richard Owen
Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.
Tests have shown Ms Kercher’s DNA on the tip of the knife and Ms Knox’s DNA close to the handle. Police suspect that Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox attempted to clean the knife, failing to realise that they would still leave identifiable DNA traces.
The till receipts call into question Mr Sollecito’s account of events on November 2, since he had testified that he did not get up until 10am, when he was woken by Ms Knox.
He told police that Ms Knox had returned to his flat at 1am but in the morning decided to return to her own cottage to have a shower, taking him with her. They found blood in the bathroom and a smashed window, with Ms Kercher’s door locked. Police believe, however, that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito smashed the window themselves to simulate a break-in.

Vixen

This very report is where I came into this case. There is no truth in it. The receipts were a fiction, never produced at trial. Your idea that this is because the prosecution doesn't use all the evidence of guilt is laughable and wrong. If they could have backed up Quintavalle's story with those receipts, they would have. It follows as a matter of iron logic that there were no receipts.

 

[RoseMontague]

The early bleach story:
19.11.2007 TIMES Richard Owen
Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.

That's pretty sad reporting. Did he even try to get a response from the defense teams. Did he verify this information through non-police sources? Does he realize that he looks like an idiot today, nothing more than a police mouthpiece, mindlessly parroting whatever the cops wanted him to say? I understand he retired in 2010, about the time the TIMES went behind a pay wall and became pretty much useless. That's a good thing.

 

[Vixen]

That would be a no. I wonder what this Owen fellow's opinion of the case is now and I am curious how he views his reporting of it. Should he have been so eager to take every thing he was told by the cops as fact, without question? Would he approach things differently if a case similar to this happens again? Or does the "according to police sources" give him a clear conscious?

Owen, more than anyone, will have seen how cynical lawyers lining their pockets with all of Dad Raf's life's savings, house and property, were what really brought about the acquittal. Nothing at all to do with facts found nor guilt vs innocence.

Every bloodsucking vulture has been making money out of Mez' suffering (the real "torture", here).

 

[davefoc]

...

Owen should put out a cheap paperback of all the developing aspects of this story, to counterpose the near fact-free efforts of WTBH.

Would you provide the name of the book written by Richard Owen? I couldn't find any reference to it on the internet, but perhaps if I had the name or the ISBN number I might be able to find it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Owen, more than anyone, will have seen how cynical lawyers lining their pockets with all of Dad Raf's life's savings, house and property, were what really brought about the acquittal. Nothing at all to do with facts found nor guilt vs innocence.

Every bloodsucking vulture has been making money out of Mez' suffering (the real "torture", here).

The real bloodsucking vulture of a lawyer is Maresca. He's lower than worm slime.

 

[davefoc]

Owen, more than anyone, will have seen how cynical lawyers lining their pockets with all of Dad Raf's life's savings, house and property, were what really brought about the acquittal. Nothing at all to do with facts found nor guilt vs innocence.

Every bloodsucking vulture has been making money out of Mez' suffering (the real "torture", here).

What was the point of this post? We know what your views are. The question here is what evidence do you have to support them. Evidence free attacks on anybody associated with the case that didn't work to support your view of the case doesn't provide evidence for your views. They only provide further evidence about how your view of AK/RS guilt drives your interpretation of every aspect of the case. And by now you have more than adequately made that clear with your previous posts.

 

[analemma]

Owen, more than anyone, will have seen how cynical lawyers lining their pockets with all of Dad Raf's life's savings, house and property, were what really brought about the acquittal. Nothing at all to do with facts found nor guilt vs innocence.

Every bloodsucking vulture has been making money out of Mez' suffering (the real "torture", here).

And Owen is one of the biggest "bloodsucking vultures"
I am sure he made a bundle from his lies

Making all this BS up and passing on obvious lies from the Italian Police assured he would make a fortune from helping to frame the Amanda and raf.
The British press was soooooo accurate in their reporting, they were no more than ass kissing sycophants of the Italian Police: willing to print anything to make money.

 

[Vixen]

What case are u talking about?
The police framed raf because they said that the NUMBER of CIRCLES on Rafs shoes matched the blood print from Rudi blood soaked shoes.
Of course, Italian Police cannot count, so when someone counted the circles thay were different from rafs shoes and matched the box for rudys?
Poor poor Rudy, he is so unlucky to be wearing shoes that matched the one the murder was wearing, and had just bought them to prepare for the break in and murder!!!!!!
You are making up the part about raf bleaching his shoes, can you provide a cite or source for that, rather than just your imagination.
And rafs sister was relentlessly harassed and drummed out of the police force for being rafs sister: there was a big article about how the police had to get rid of her to protect their in-bred buddy buddy CYA tradition.

According to Raf, "the person who committed the murder, must have stolen my shoes."

Poor poor Raf. First Stefanoni "planting" his DNA (interview BBCradio4). Then that barsted Professor Rinaldi matching his foot to the bathmat and the bloody police giving him grief about his knives!

Why, his attorney couldn't even supposedly offer mafioso Aviello €104K for bent testimony, without accusations of corruption.

Poor poor Raf.

 

[davefoc]

Vixen

This very report is where I came into this case. There is no truth in it. The receipts were a fiction, never produced at trial. Your idea that this is because the prosecution doesn't use all the evidence of guilt is laughable and wrong. If they could have backed up Quintavalle's story with those receipts, they would have. It follows as a matter of iron logic that there were no receipts.

That's pretty sad reporting. Did he even try to get a response from the defense teams. Did he verify this information through non-police sources? Does he realize that he looks like an idiot today, nothing more than a police mouthpiece, mindlessly parroting whatever the cops wanted him to say? I understand he retired in 2010, about the time the TIMES went behind a pay wall and became pretty much useless. That's a good thing.

Vixen,
Here's a chance for an evidence based response. anglolawyer and RoseMontague have written that the early reporting by Owen on the receipts was false. Are they wrong? Can you produce images of the receipts? Can you show where in the court record the receipts were entered into evidence? You have put forth Richard Owen as a reliable source of information about this case. Was Richard Owen a reliable source of information about the receipts?