Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

What do you mean by 'day one'?

I thought they were probably guilty. That was of course before I learned that most of what I knew was false.

 

[Grinder]

What do you mean by 'day one'?

The day she was arrested or more precisely the next day there as that's when we found out here. Even more specifically when I first read the "what we knew to be correct"

ETA - so I had doubt immediately and REALLY had doubt when PL was freed. I never believed the bizarre theories of the PLE.

 

[Mike1711]

It's one thing to tell lies, it is quite another to slow-flood the thread (contrary to ISF's M.A.) with such easily exposed lies. I mean the noise ticket itself has been posted here numerous times - showing right on it that it is the same legal ballpark as a traffic infraction.

The reason why Vixen needs to embellish so is perhaps unknown. Fact the fact of the embellishment is there.

At least this was not slut-shaming. It was implying that all speeders and parking-space freeloaders are budding psychopaths and serial killers in waiting.

Vixen has convinced me!!!

If this noise ticket was even allowed into court as "evidence" it is shocking. It's a noise violation, irrelevant to the case and should be inadmissible.
On another matter....
Having read some of the court transcripts I am shocked at how the prosecution (particularly Mignini) lead witnesses without objection from defence or censure from the Judge. Apparently this is acceptable in Italian courts. It's abhorrent and it should be banished.

 

[Mary_H]

Bongiorno is your key mafia figure here. Why do you think the Bruno-Marasca report is so anti-Amanda? Because it's a cut and paste by Bongiorno whose last ditch strategy was to get Raff to save his own skin. Having saved his skin, due to her close acquaintance with Bruno, once himself charged with mafia connections, there was no way they could free him without annulling her.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere (since Machiavelli seems to have clammed up on the Mafia connection).

What good does it do to be attached to the Mafia if they take eight years to get somebody acquitted?

 

[Kauffer]

It's one thing to tell lies, it is quite another to slow-flood the thread (contrary to ISF's M.A.) with such easily exposed lies. I mean the noise ticket itself has been posted here numerous times - showing right on it that it is the same legal ballpark as a traffic infraction.

The reason why Vixen needs to embellish so is perhaps unknown. Fact the fact of the embellishment is there.

At least this was not slut-shaming. It was implying that all speeders and parking-space freeloaders are budding psychopaths and serial killers in waiting.

Vixen has convinced me!!!

When Vixen's been caught in an outrageous lie, such as with the noise ticket or the Halloween texts, she usually goes away for a bit and then re-emerges as if the incident never happened. Then she'll repeat the lie somewhere down the line as if it had never been disproved. Cowardly. It's difficult to know what her motivation is.

 

[Grinder]

If this noise ticket was even allowed into court as "evidence" it is shocking. It's a noise violation, irrelevant to the case and should be inadmissible.
On another matter....
Having read some of the court transcripts I am shocked at how the prosecution (particularly Mignini) lead witnesses without objection from defence or censure from the Judge. Apparently this is acceptable in Italian courts. It's abhorrent and it should be banished.

It was worse than you would imagine. Mignini read the account of the ticket from the DM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html

 

[Mary_H]

Big money, bagels. International fame and fortune. Politics and influence. Both Bruno & Marasca are politicians (Bongiorno used to be in Berlusconi's cabinet).

You can be sure the Sollecitos' life savings and profits from books, tv and gofundme are now lining Bongiorno's pockets, and they probably still owe her €'ms.

Bloodsucking vultures.

That's what you call the long con. Very long.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not that anyone cares or should but I was suspicious of the case against Amanda from day one. When I read that she told them what they knew to be true and the story was so bizarre, sex games etc. I was very skeptical of what the police were doing.

I don't recall CD ever expressing a belief in guilt but I'm sure if she did it will be provided forthwith.

I don't recall the meet-up in either of kids' books. I only asked if there was source because with long tired PGP assertion that they didn't get along, one would think they would mention it if true. I thought Raf detailed when he had scene Meredith.

Why a request for a source would raise such anger is difficult to understand.

If by "CD" you mean Candace Dempsey, when I first heard about her I went on a wee bit of a reading binge. Not just her book, but her early columns, the "comments sections" of which became the first place our own Machiavelli found a niche as a consistent critic of innocence.

What I remember about Candace's position-on-innocence/guilt in her earliest writings was to be somewhat guilt oriented (students abroad do stupid things) but in truth mostly agnostic. But she committed herself to also commenting on the, then, emerging tabloid excesses - similar to the slut-shaming some engage in here 8 years later.

I'll leave it up to you to guess Dempsey's opinion on the way the press views women in general, or accused females for murder in particular. It was open season on a young woman, and at least initially she was going to comment on that, but (initially) leave it to courts to sort out the murder stuff.

Maybe not as quickly as you, but she also eventually bowed to the obvious. IIRC her contacts with Frank Sfarzo opened doors in those early days beforr the usual suspects of journalists stopped talking to each other and became firmly embedded in opinions one way or another.

As for Machiavelli, because of his characteristic comments (!) On Dempsey's blog, he was invited as an English-speaking but Italian voice to the now closed PMF.ORG. And the rest is history!

 

[Mike1711]

When Vixen's been caught in an outrageous lie, such as with the noise ticket or the Halloween texts, she usually goes away for a bit and then re-emerges as if the incident never happened. Then she'll repeat the lie somewhere down the line as if it had never been disproved. Cowardly. It's difficult to know what her motivation is.

Vixen knows the earth is the centre of the universe. Vixen knows this for a fact. In defence of this it is acceptable to say or do anything to underpin THE FACT. Her/his absolute knowledge must be underpinned at any cost. Even her own credibility or honesty is sacrificial to defending THE FACT.
Galileo contested THE FACT and an entire collective religious psyche faced a meltdown. So lying to defend THE FACT is a defensible position.
THE FACT when it's embedded in the psyche can result in psychological trauma should reality dawn.
...."and that's all I have to say about that".

 

[Bill Williams]

That's what you call the long con. Very long.

Yes, as Vixen seems to imply, Bongiorno and the Sollecitos saw 4 years in prison for Raffaele as an "investment" in this long con!

It's the price of insisting that he get rapped up in the murder in Perugia. It was the whole reason he'd gone - to con Amanda ( with a week to spare) into associating him in some way with that cottage.

He had to. No time to even meet Guede! Everything from this point on is gravy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen knows the earth is the centre of the universe. Vixen knows this for a fact. In defence of this it is acceptable to say or do anything to underpin THE FACT. Her/his absolute knowledge must be underpinned at any cost. Even her own credibility or honesty is sacrificial to defending THE FACT.
Galileo contested THE FACT and an entire collective religious psyche faced a meltdown. So lying to defend THE FACT is a defensible position.
THE FACT when it's embedded in the psyche can result in psychological trauma should reality dawn
...."and that's all I have to say about that".

And as I said upthread, even Galileo made a false confession/recantation.

Yet it moves!

 

[Mike1711]

It was worse than you would imagine. Mignini read the account of the ticket from the DM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html

Curiouser and curiouser.
The Mad Hatter's tea party and the caterpillar with his pipe. Were they all there with Mignini?

 

[Mike1711]

And as I said upthread, even Galileo made a false confession/recantation.

Yet it moves!

Yes, Bill. ...well said.
I hope the Italian court moves. Stagnation leads to rot.

 

[Methos]

Yea, wasn't he the one that covered his face and said he met Amanda with her uncle before Amanda had left Seattle and described Amanda as having a large gap in her teeth?

Highlight from Kokomani's testimony was this:

DOMANDA – Lei la vede Amanda oggi? È in grado di indicarci la spaziatura dei denti?
INTERPRETE – (Incomprensibile).
DOMANDA – Se magari vede i denti...
RISPOSTA – Adesso ce li ha attaccati.

 

[Strozzi]

Big money, bagels. International fame and fortune. Politics and influence. Both Bruno & Marasca are politicians (Bongiorno used to be in Berlusconi's cabinet).

You can be sure the Sollecitos' life savings and profits from books, tv and gofundme are now lining Bongiorno's pockets, and they probably still owe her €'ms.

Bloodsucking vultures.

Vixen, it is fascinating to see the hostile tone of your comments. I remember when you began posting on this forum in April, five months and 2,109 posts ago, and (falsely) stated you have an open mind and don't have a preconceived notion about this case.

 

[Grinder]

If by "CD" you mean Candace Dempsey, when I first heard about her I went on a wee bit of a reading binge. Not just her book, but her early columns, the "comments sections" of which became the first place our own Machiavelli found a niche as a consistent critic of innocence.

What I remember about Candace's position-on-innocence/guilt in her earliest writings was to be somewhat guilt oriented (students abroad do stupid things) but in truth mostly agnostic. But she committed herself to also commenting on the, then, emerging tabloid excesses - similar to the slut-shaming some engage in here 8 years later.

I'll leave it up to you to guess Dempsey's opinion on the way the press views women in general, or accused females for murder in particular. It was open season on a young woman, and at least initially she was going to comment on that, but (initially) leave it to courts to sort out the murder stuff.

Maybe not as quickly as you, but she also eventually bowed to the obvious. IIRC her contacts with Frank Sfarzo opened doors in those early days beforr the usual suspects of journalists stopped talking to each other and became firmly embedded in opinions one way or another.

As for Machiavelli, because of his characteristic comments (!) On Dempsey's blog, he was invited as an English-speaking but Italian voice to the now closed PMF.ORG. And the rest is history!

Bill could you provide us with the comments from CD's Blog in 2007, 2008 and 2009 that would be fab.

Since you are an expert on this, do you have the posts she deleted as well? You can read about those on PMF archives.

You started on this case in 2011, correct?

 

[Methos]

Shan't. Already been done. Refer to Dark Matter or Deceit by Nick van der Leek if you want the full exchange.

Your problem is, you refer to the One-Eyed Man aka IIP/IA for your sources, when they only publish stuff that promotes pro-Knox. You are dependent on half the story.

Get 20-20 vision. Read up on the full exchange of texts that day.

Can't wait for Nick van der Leek's next book. (Any chance of an advance copy?)

I wonder if there'll be reviewers having him for breakfast again, like this one on "Dark Matter".
IIRC Co-author Ms Wilson aka Juror13 removed her blog post advertising the chapter "No Answer" shortly after the review was published...
...wonder why .

For completeness Mr van der Leeks answer to the review was just... priceless:

N. Van Der Leek says:
thanks for identifying all our mistakes. that appears to be your bias. A whole schpiel on the 'No Answer' chapter to thrill us with your brilliance and our stupidity. you seem to be doing so with glee, as opposed to consideration. My advice, we will be writing more books on the Knox case - don't read any of them as they will only upset you, and worse, if you do learn something you will need to blame someone for that too.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen, it is fascinating to see the hostile tone of your comments. I remember when you began posting on this forum in April, five months and 2,109 posts ago, and (falsely) stated you have an open mind and don't have a preconceived notion about this case.

Now, that was the big con

 

[Strozzi]

Of course the only mention of rocks is they were seen lying around and in no way was Amanda cited for rock throwing. The cop cautioned that she should make sure OTHERS didn't do it. No reports of damage were forthcoming and she didn't have Bongiorno to quash reports.

ETA - The police report

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.​

It is somewhat common for an annoyed complainant calling the police about noisy neighbors to embroider the seriousness of the incident in order to get a prompt and serious police response. In this particular case described above the complainant alleged youth throwing rocks, yet he specifically said the police should not contact him about it. He didn't want to be bothered by a cop, upon arriving on the block, ringing his doorbell to ask details of the complaint.

 

[Strozzi]

Now, that was the big con

Yes, especially when you consider that while she claimed impartiality she was helping prepare Van der Leek's book for online publication.

The book's name is Deceit. Not sure if that refers to the book or the defendant.