Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

No, I'm not going to the show. But things I'm saying about the Bruno-Marasca report will go there, through other voices.

Are you a betting-person, Machiavelli? I have no doubt the things you are saying, "will go there". I also know you will never in a million years reveal who those "other voices" are!

What this reminds me of is when Raffaele first appeared in US media on the Katie Couric show. Despite you frequent claim that US media is controled by "pro-Knox forces", the people around Peter Quennell got to Couric and her staff. One could tell given the quality of the questions.

For one thing, despite the fact she had Sollecito sitting right in front of her, Couric's questions were almost exclusively about Amanda Knox and the so-called, "weird behaviour." It didn't matter how many times Sollecito tried to steer the conversation to his own guilt or innocence, irrespective of Knox, Couric simply wouldn't let Amanda Knox go.

It ended up being a fairly confusing interview which cast more fogginess than light. Other American media people did better, recognizing that Raffaele had a story independent of Knox - but the obsession with Knox in the media was clear.

Good luck on Porta a Porta. Like I say, please let me know if it gels. I'd like to do dinner.

 

[Machiavelli]

Go for it. Wait a minute, you have! I simply do not want to play your game for reasons I have relayed ad nauseam to you. You want to frame the debate to guarantee an outcome before it begins.
(...)

Well if so, don't play it then. But just don't ask me to play yours. It's not me asking things to you, it's you who jumps into other topics, commenting or asking me questions, trying to re-frame topics which I was not discussing with you. Don't jump in, don't ask questions, if you are not interested in the topics.
My "debate" on this topic consisted in providing information, let you know what a legal paper written in Italian language says.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you sure it justifies an acquittal? (actually it was an annullment). I mean if you don't read it, how can you judge, through your own critical thinking, whether it justifies an acquittal to you? I mean you assume, you know, that it was used by some judges to justify an acquittal. But how can you know that if it really justifies an acquittal, without reading it, and thinking about it yourself?

Truly what do I know. I was told that on March 27 the Caribinieri were outside of Raffaele's house in Bari. After the announcement of the acquittal (annulment, or what have you) the Caribinieri drove away without taking Raffaele with them.

So - thinking for myself - I thought, "Self," I thought, "they must have found him innocent." Or acquitted him. Or annulled Nencini and de jure reinstated Hellmann's verdict.

I'm sure you will wish to take me down the rabbit hole of nuance of Italian law on that. All I know is that Raffaele got on with his life, and the Caribinieri went off to solve some other crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well if so, don't play it then. But just don't ask me to play yours. It's not me asking things to you, it's you who jumps into other topics, commenting or asking me questions, trying to re-frame topics which I was not discussing with you. Don't jump in, don't ask questions, if you are not interested in the topics.
My "debate" on this topic consisted in providing information, let you know what a legal paper written in Italian language says.

So, just to jump in.......

I am informing you, simply to provide you with information, that no one in Italy seems to agree with your assessment of this. I want to let you know what "popular press papers" are saying in your country - because as you revealed about four pages ago, you don't read that stuff.

They are saying that the annulment/acquittal/what-have-you was because the investigation was flawed and the prosecution myopic and amnesiac.

Just so you know. Truly, I am not arguing with you. I am giving you information. It's all there.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, OK, but I think Massei one of the worst, beaten into second place only by the incredible Nencini, but there's no need to explore this angle further I guess since we are at opposite polls.

I think Nencini was rather good. I liked parts of it, especially the way he handles the autopsy evidence, and the motive parts. But I understand Nencini is an appeal judgement, and it deals with the topics that were pointed out by parties in the courtroom. In fact many "topics" in Nencini's verdict are there because they were chosen by Crini or Bongiorno (such is for example the timing of phone call to the police).

 

[Machiavelli]

So, just to jump in.......

I am informing you, simply to provide you with information, that no one in Italy seems to agree with your assessment of this. I want to let you know what "popular press papers" are saying in your country - because as you revealed about four pages ago, you don't read that stuff.

They are saying that the annulment/acquittal/what-have-you was because the investigation was flawed and the prosecution myopic and amnesiac.

Just so you know. Truly, I am not arguing with you. I am giving you information. It's all there.

You are offering your "information" to the wrong person, Bill.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are offering your "information" to the wrong person, Bill.

More's the pity. Truly, though you need to know this stuff. It's a favour.

 

[js202]

... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

And this is your capital error.

If you have it in you, purely as an experiment, drop your armor, and endeavor to do this: for one week, be motivated by love.

 

[Machiavelli]

My recommendation would be to read the following:

"Murder in Italy", by Candace Dempsey. Good straightforward presentation of the story and info. The PG folks hate this book because Ms. Dempsey became a public advocate for Knox and Sollecito's innocence, but the book itself does not advocate so much as explain what happened.

Not because "became an advocate", but because Dempsey is the most hypocrite author.
That would be an example of reading foll of "amnesia", as well as of twisting and falsehood.
Recall one of Dempsey's myth's: the couple couldn't have seen the cottage gate from piazza Grimana, because it was "clear as mud".
Dempsey, the one who used to claim she spoke Italian, and provided "hasty translations" (comical Google cobble), and shaved 20 years off her bio.
At the beginning of book, Dempsey sets of getting names of roads wrong and describes Via della Pergola as surrounded by a neighborhood of "modern buildings"...

" The Fatal Gift of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh. Well researched take on the case. NB did some research on several of the characters involved, providing some info not found elsewhere, especially about Guede. She provides some opinions about some of the people involved that each reader must decide if they agree with. For example, although this book concludes they must be innocent, NB includes unflattering portraits of almost everyone involved, including Knox family members.

Burleigh has only a few problems. One is that she is a sociopath. A visibly sick person (I mean, also in person, not just the book). Part of her problem appears to be sexual.
Burleigh has lines of this kind:
“Amanda was the sole member of the gaggle of menstruating, jealous, bitchy, angry, loving, needy females around Curt who could keep her emotions in check”

John Follain's book, the title of which escapes me for now. Disliked by PI people because Follain's appears to get most of his info from Mignini and the police, this is nevertheless worthwhile to see an attempt to present the case from a largely "they must have done it" POV, but failing.

"Death in Perugia".
Follain actually gets information directly from trial, not from the police. On the contrary from the other two previous authors, Follain was actually present to trial hearings, and he actually understands and talks fluent Italian.
One thing to note is Follain actually talked with witnesses. He seems to have talked directly with Meredith's British friends, and with the families of victim and suspects.

 

[js202]

And in "my land", the finding of semen belonging to anyone may have well actually supported any possible theory against Amanda Knox.

"May well," eh? You are an individual who, to support his implacable bias and hatred, lives in a world of fantasy transmogrified and trumped up to substitute for reason.

You were *shot* at the Group of Eight summit. Until you were merely *shot at*.

Knox left her lamp in Meredith's room after she ran out before any blood got on her. And yet since she ran out, she left no trace to require her to later bring in the lamp.

Etcetera, etcetera...

 

[Bill Williams]

"Death in Perugia".
Follain actually gets information directly from trial, not from the police. On the contrary from the other two previous authors, Follain was actually present to trial hearings, and he actually understands and talks fluent Italian.
One thing to note is Follain actually talked with witnesses. He seems to have talked directly with Meredith's British friends, and with the families of victim and suspects.

That's a whopper.

Follain writes about the very thoughts of Mignini as things happen, as well as the police. He obviously has access to them outside of trial. It's stunning you can say what you say with a straight face.

Mignini sees Amanda finally with her lawyers just before the Matieni hearing. Mignini watches Amanda immediately converse with friendly faces, thinks to himself, "Now we'll never know the truth".

And on and on and on. It's revealing that you, Machiavelli, would lie like this. You know better.

 

[carbonjam72]

Not because "became an advocate", but because Dempsey is the most hypocrite author.
That would be an example of reading foll of "amnesia", as well as of twisting and falsehood.
Recall one of Dempsey's myth's: the couple couldn't have seen the cottage gate from piazza Grimana, because it was "clear as mud".
Dempsey, the one who used to claim she spoke Italian, and provided "hasty translations" (comical Google cobble), and shaved 20 years off her bio.
At the beginning of book, Dempsey sets of getting names of roads wrong and describes Via della Pergola as surrounded by a neighborhood of "modern buildings"...



Burleigh has only a few problems. One is that she is a sociopath. A visibly sick person (I mean, also in person, not just the book). Part of her problem appears to be sexual.
Burleigh has lines of this kind:
“Amanda was the sole member of the gaggle of menstruating, jealous, bitchy, angry, loving, needy females around Curt who could keep her emotions in check”




"Death in Perugia".
Follain actually gets information directly from trial, not from the police. On the contrary from the other two previous authors, Follain was actually present to trial hearings, and he actually understands and talks fluent Italian.
One thing to note is Follain actually talked with witnesses. He seems to have talked directly with Meredith's British friends, and with the families of victim and suspects.

Mach,

What comes next in the trial of Amanda from the police? Is there a next scheduled court date, and at what stage is the trial at? Does the defense get to present any evidence, or call any witnesses? Are the judges ready to rule? How long before there is a verdict?

And, what's become of the Sollecito/Gumbel trial? I thought that was supposed to be going on at about roughly the same time? Do you know when the next sscheduled trial dates are, or where they are in the trial process? Has Mignini testified yet in that one, and has the defense cross examined him? Do you know when the defense will be allowed to cross examine Mignini?

And what penalties are available in these cases? Are they all civil matters? And will the statute of limitations render any judgements moot? Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill Williams]

"May well," eh? You are an individual who, to support his implacable bias and hatred, lives in a world of fantasy transmogrified and trumped up to substitute for reason.

You were *shot* at the Group of Eight summit. Until you were merely *shot at*.

In normal discourse, a slip-up like this on Machiavelli's part would go by without comment.

Yet he and guilters hang on every nuance of meaning in things Amanda Knox once said, and if there is a scintilla of difference in two of her accounts, it is liar liar from that quarter.

So, just to apply Machiavelli's logic - he obviously lied about what happened to him in 2001.

 

[js202]

In normal discourse, a slip-up like this on Machiavelli's part would go by without comment.

Yet he and guilters hang on every nuance of meaning in things Amanda Knox once said, and if there is a scintilla of difference in two of her accounts, it is liar liar from that quarter.

So, just to apply Machiavelli's logic - he obviously lied about what happened to him in 2001.

With respect, I would be skeptical of *any individual* anonymously making such a claim on the Internet.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, it's no gossip. This is testimony.
Marco Zaroli

Yeah, thanks, that's a big help.

You forgot the part where he testified, "...everyone was talking with another, in the sense, we were five persons where there were speeches cross, in quotes, that maybe ... everyone still said nothing."

 

[MichaelB]

With the motivations report Knox-Sollecito, the Supreme Court shows fists to those who work without professionalism in the justice system and also get it wrong because of the media

by Massimo Prati

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/massimo-prati-blog-9-sep-2015/

 

[anglolawyer]

snip

"Death in Perugia".
Follain actually gets information directly from trial, not from the police. On the contrary from the other two previous authors, Follain was actually present to trial hearings, and he actually understands and talks fluent Italian.
One thing to note is Follain actually talked with witnesses. He seems to have talked directly with Meredith's British friends, and with the families of victim and suspects.

I wonder who Follain spoke to before writing that Mignini's phone rang right after he went to bed on the night of the 6th and that he headed straight into the Q? 3.00 a.m. huh? Sure.

I agree Follain is useful for this and other unintended reasons.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bumping up in case Mach gets around to it -

Mach,

What comes next in the trial of Amanda from the police? Is there a next scheduled court date, and at what stage is the trial at? Does the defense get to present any evidence, or call any witnesses? Are the judges ready to rule? How long before there is a verdict?

And, what's become of the Sollecito/Gumbel trial? I thought that was supposed to be going on at about roughly the same time? Do you know when the next sscheduled trial dates are, or where they are in the trial process? Has Mignini testified yet in that one, and has the defense cross examined him? Do you know when the defense will be allowed to cross examine Mignini?

And what penalties are available in these cases? Are they all civil matters? And will the statute of limitations render any judgements moot? Thanks in advance.

 

[Diocletus]

In "my land", it was Manuela Comodi who was dealing with the piece of evidence.

Agreed. Manuela Comodi was in charge of the prosecution's DNA case, and her misconduct does not get nearly enough attention. I think that she's more of a liar and bad actor than Mignini.

To me, the worst actors in this whole thing are Comodi, Stefanoni and Napoleoni. Mignini is more like a cartoon, but those three Weird Sisters are truly dishonest and evil.

 

[Diocletus]

I think Nencini was rather good. I liked parts of it, especially the way he handles the autopsy evidence, and the motive parts. But I understand Nencini is an appeal judgement, and it deals with the topics that were pointed out by parties in the courtroom. In fact many "topics" in Nencini's verdict are there because they were chosen by Crini or Bongiorno (such is for example the timing of phone call to the police).

Was Nencini formally annulled, or did Cassation basically just say "Nencini is a dumbass and got everything wrong" without adding that he is annulled?