Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American cousins across the pond.

 

[Vixen]

No I think you should explain what it means to the case if he refuses to corroborate her account for her, for him and for Mignini's and Nencini's theories of the crime.

It's all smoke and mirrors. It is typical of a sociopath to cause chaos and confusion. It's just a defense strategy to try to railroad the courts.

 

[Vixen]

It's well known...

You've got nothing.

The main point is that he can reach the upper window without even using the lower window's bars. It's only 6 1/2 feet. If Rudi were to have walked up the bars he would only be about 3 feet from the sill.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's position on this is pathetically inaccurate and unthinking.

Perhaps a comparator will help Vixen to finally understand the tiny level of nuance involved in this issue. Let Vixen imagine that she is sharing her bed with her partner. Let Vixen imagine that she and her partner go to bed at 11pm one night. Let Vixen imagine that she falls asleep, with her partner lying next to her in the bed, at around 11.30pm that night.

OK so far? Now let Vixen imagine that she sleeps through until 7am the following morning. Let Vixen imagine that when she wakes up at 7am the following morning, her partner is lying in the bed next to her, still sleeping.

OK so far? Now, here comes the important part. Imagine if a third party (doesn't matter whether it's the police or anyone else) asks Vixen whether she can state with total certainty that her partner spent all of that night within their accommodation.

Can Vixen now see the crucial point here? The crucial point is that Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner did not leave their house/flat/whatever at any point that night. All Vixen can state with total certainty is that a) she herself spent the whole night inside her house/flat/whatever, and that b) her partner was lying in bed next to her when she fell asleep at around 11.30pm, and was lying in bed next to her when she woke up at 7am.

Vixen might certainly be able to tell any third party that a) all the signs and evidence point towards her partner being within their property the entire night, and b) nothing in her partner's behaviour/actions that night or the following morning gave any indication that her partner might have crept out of the property in the middle of the night while Vixen was asleep. But Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner remained within their property all night, since Vixen cannot be totally certain of what might or might not have happened while she (Vixen) was asleep.

I wonder if this might make it any easier for Vixen to comprehend Sollecito's position on Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, and the way in which his various statements support that position. Unfortunately, history suggests that this will fall on deaf ears (for one reason or another - none of them very edifying), but we live in hope......

Oh, ri-ight. He's was asleep. Well well well, he claimed in a witness statement he was surfing about his computer until about 0300. If Amanda arrived home circa 0100 - and as Raff himself averred - he would have had to let her in as she didn't have a key. So, as the man says, he is unable to swear to where Amanda was 2045 to 0100. But he was not asleep. Ball in your court.

Your comments about me are a false analogy, as it would never happen.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for repeating this. It is astounding that it needs repeating.

Add to this something else. Why didn't Raffaele take the easy way out and cut some sort of deal - like he said was offered!

Indeed, the ever-litigious Giuliano Mignini has sued Raffaele for defamation on this very point: so it seems to be a point all can agree is somewhat crucial.

Was Raffaele offered a deal?

He says he was. He says that he was under considerable pressure from within his family to cut such a deal.

Want to know the reason he didn't? Hint: it had nothing to do with Amanda.

Once he figured out - a thought-experiment of his own while in solitary - he knew she could not have gone out: she did not have a key, and would have had to rung to get back in.

So why didn't he take some alleged deal? Why didn't he just make up a story, anything other than say, "she was with me all night - she had to have been, because no one rang to get back in"?

It's because he'd have to live with himself, while Amanda was 8 years into a 28 year sentence - right at this very moment.

No guilter ever has come up with a plausible guilt-scenario to explain Raffaele NOT throwing her under a bus, even at the risk of his liberty.

Maybe someone can run a test for psychopathology on him as see where he comes out. Readers Digest might have some in print.

Occam's Razor tells us that if he had grassed her she would have grassed him. That's why. OTOH he knows, the police know, and have the evidence of her cell phone pings, that she did indeed go out that evening.

Raff likes to paint himself as the tart with a heart of gold. However, the title of his book is probably an allusion to the mafia code of honour, rather than any sentimental violin-strings mush.

 

[Vixen]

Are you using an assumption that AK murdered MK to bolster your hypothesis that AK has a personality disorder, or are you using an assumption that AK has a personality disorder to bolster your hypothesis that AK murdered MK, or both?

Neither is an assumption, but rather an assertion. Look at the Virginia Tech murders (Cho), Columbine (Harris & Kebold), Scream (Draper and another). These exhibitionist individuals were grossly abnormal in terms of social behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

That is something I never heard about. . . .Somebody else want to tell me what Vixen is talking about if there is any truth to it?

Deanna was fourteen or fifteen at the time. Far too young to be dumped alone in the middle of Europe amongst strangers, five thousand miles from home.

 

[Vixen]

Raffaele's statement on the 6th is useless, since it made no distinction between the 31st of Oct and Nov 1st - it was conflating evenings.

And why not. Given that we're into recycling old stuff let's remind everyone what an interrogation is.

The one thing that an interrogation is not, is a search for truth or an interview with people informed of the facts.

An interrogation is known by its goal - confession. Courts have ruled in most countries that it is legal for police to lie to achieve that goal.

And it is not just any confession - its intent is to get the interrogatee to confess to the narrative that the cops already know. In fact, the Reid Technique is specific that the interrogator is to actively steer the assumed-perp away from ANY innocence talk.

So - as it relates to Raffaele - the proof is that Raffaele was denied a chance to clear up his conflation of the two nights - one which Amanda went out, the other where she stayed in. Acc. to Raffaele he, on the 5th/6th really couldn't separate Oct 30, when Amanda went out to work. To him there was no reason to remember until pressed.

As soon as they collected his Nikes and took his pocket knife, he should have been given a lawyer. They should have flipped the switch on the mandatory recording of the interrogation. That Raffaele first saw a lawyer on th 8th as he was going in front of Mattieni says all one needs to know about what the cops were doing.

They were getting both of them to confess to the details of a crime that the PLE already knew. The cased which they bragged was closed before those pesky forensics came in.

Oh come, come. If Raff was bragging to a UK tabloid reporter it was his girlfriend who found the body - and Amanda was making the same brag in the questura - and they were there at the scene when cops arrived, even the thickest moron would be aware they need to get theirs story straight about what they were doing the night of the murder and if they noticed anything suspicious. Raff knew exactly what he was doing on Halloween, he was studying, making an active choice to skip the parties.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, ri-ight. He's was asleep. Well well well, he claimed in a witness statement he was surfing about his computer until about 0300. If Amanda arrived home circa 0100 - and as Raff himself averred - he would have had to let her in as she didn't have a key. So, as the man says, he is unable to swear to where Amanda was 2045 to 0100. But he was not asleep. Ball in your court.

You have been told about this already.

The witness statement interrogation in which Sollecito made those claims was the one in which he confusedly mixed up the night of the murder and the previous night (Halloween). Outside of that (highly coercive) interrogation - one in which the sole aim of the police interrogators was to get Sollecito to drop his (as they saw it) lies to protect Knox - Sollecito was constant in his declaration that he and Knox were in his apartment all night - during which time he dozed and slept on-and-off. Do try to keep up.

Your comments about me are a false analogy, as it would never happen.

What does this even MEAN? I'm not interested in whether it would "never happen". I am asking you to imagine it happening - since it's something that any reasonable person would have zero trouble imagining. But if it is so far outside the boundaries of your own personal reason and experience, then perhaps choose to imagine instead that the same scenario played out with....... ooh........ let's say Mr and Mrs Smith. Imagine if Mr and Mrs Smith went to bed at 11pm, and that Mr Smith fell asleep around 11.30pm with Mrs Smith lying next to him in bed. Imagine that Mr Smith slept through to 7am the following morning, and when he awoke, Mrs Smith was lying next to him in bed, asleep.

Can you really not see how Mr Smith could not state with total certainty that Mrs Smith had remained inside their house all night? Can you really not see that since Mr Smith was asleep between 11.30pm and 7am, he cannot be totally certain that Mrs Smith did not sneak out of the house while he was sleeping, and sneak in again before he woke up again? Can you really not see that the very most Mr Smith could state with certainty was that a) he was inside that house all night, and b) Mrs Smith was next to him in bed when he fell asleep and next to him in bed again when he woke up? Can you really not see that while Mr Smith could state that everything pointed to Mrs Smith remaining within their house (and indeed next to him in bed) all that night, he could/should not be asked to vouch for her whereabouts for the entirety of that night?

<fx:* shakes head in total despair>

* Except it's not an "fx". I've embarrassed myself with a crass attempt as some sort of pseudo-sophistication by inserting bogus and inappropriate screenwriting directions. Stupid me

 

[LondonJohn]

Deanna was fourteen or fifteen at the time. Far too young to be dumped alone in the middle of Europe amongst strangers, five thousand miles from home.

Laughably wrong. Do a little research and come back with Deanna's real age in September 2007.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder - you've neglected to show the 9 steps of the Reid Technique. Steps 2 and 3 are relevant here:

Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."

Note the goal - confession. Note a strategy towards that goal. Don't give them opportunity to talk about anything else other than how they might be involved.

This is exactly what translator Anna Donnino said she tried to mediate between Ficarra and Knox - how Knox might have been involved

I see. Amanda has been groomed by the Friends of Amanda to claim she was subjected to the Reid techniques, and her book was written with this strategy in mind.

Is this what is meant by "innocence fraud"?

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, I did give you a handy hint in one of my previous posts. Deanna Knox was 18 years old in September 2007.

So: how old was Deanna Knox in September 2007? Bet you still can't get it right

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and in addition, Deanna Knox (from the only account we have) was not "dumped alone in the middle of Europe among strangers". Deanna Knox chose to go back up to the hotel room she was sharing in Florence with Amanda Knox, in order to leave Amanda Knox and Cristiano together.

So shall we try again? Was Deanna Knox "dumped alone....... among strangers"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Occam's Razor tells us that if he had grassed her she would have grassed him. That's why. OTOH he knows, the police know, and have the evidence of her cell phone pings, that she did indeed go out that evening.

Raff likes to paint himself as the tart with a heart of gold. However, the title of his book is probably an allusion to the mafia code of honour, rather than any sentimental violin-strings mush.

You do know that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher, don't you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American cousins across the pond.

Except for that murdering, filthy prostitute Amanda Knox. May she have a miserable Thanksgiving filled with fear

 

[Vixen]

Sorry - at this point I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just trying to put it out there. If none of this schmecks for you, that's okay with me.

Anecdotally - the technique is highly discouraged for the young who are being interrogated. It yields way, too many false confessions. There was one case in Regina, Saskatchewan, where the technique was used on a teen-age boy to confess to a series of rapes. He confessed.

Before it got to trial he was cleared. When asked why he'd confessed he said, "They wear you down. I got to the point where I thought to myself, oh heck, I'll just say I did it. I have no idea why I said it, except that they just keep coming at you."

Sorry, today all I have is anecdote.

I have no idea, and less actual data, to say that the PLE were trained in the technique. You very well could be correct, that Reid simply incorporated well known elements and put his stamp on it with a view to selling his training videos to police forces.

For the purposes here, it is telling that these elements are in common:

- Assume the guilt of the person being interrogated (or else, why're they there to begin with?)

- discourage any talk of their innocence.

- help them with scenarios which implicate them

- it is permissible to lie to the perp. "Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive."

(I once had amnesia after a traumatic episode when I broke my leg. Maybe that's what you have which is causing you to forget. Try to imagine what might have happened.....)​

- an eventual confession is the goal. It actually does not matter how you get there. Get them to confess. Their legal-lives will be miserable for the next 20 years because you wear them down at interrogation.​

Anyone who needs more than this has all the pointers they need. The point is not to mark the PLE as if it were an exam on their abilities within the Reid Technique. Forget the technique if that is getting in the way....

.... the manipulative elements of the actual 5th/6th interrogation are all there.

Of course police are trained in interview techniques. A cop manual I once saw emphasised a four or five step stage, where the cop moves away from factual yes/no questions and subtley builds up to "suggestions", which apparently is known to be very effective, especially if it hits the nail on the head or hits a nerve. For example, "I suggest you were at the murder scene and you killed your room mate because she made you angry," etc, etc.

When I was in insolvency practice, we often had to inteview "dodgy directors" whose no.1 aim is to conceal their assets and illicit activities from the Official Receiver or Insolvency Practitioner. The OR examiners have to pass high level exams before they are let loose on "clients", it is a specific technique of examination. For example, two examiners firing off questions across each other, completely at random, so unless the examinee is telling the truth, he or she is bound to stall and stutter sooner or later, trying to remember what they answered before, perhaps in a different way.

 

[Vixen]

I agree it's an odd coincidence. But the police taking reference prints and DNA from a known criminal in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of a murder would be too productive they needed his important testimony about olive throwing from honors exchange students.

I think Rudy could have done everything by himself but I guess we'll never know for sure.

As we discussed before I absolutely agree Raffaele didn't make a particularly smart move when he decided to give up Amanda during the interrogation. But I tend to believe him when he says the police threatened to beat him to a bloody pulp for protecting her, and that he thought he was cutting his losses with a girl he just met and the police seemed to insist was involved with the crime in some way.

Raffaele quickly dropping her alibi is compatible with a number of theories, but a Raffaele + Amanda murder theory seems the least compatible IMO.

Raffaele and Amanda are innocent but the police threaten him with prison, and say they'll beat him to a pulp if he doesn't agree it's possible she went out that night? Makes sense.

Raffaele is guilty and Amanda is innocent, and Raffaele gives the police a woman who can say nothing and knows nothing? Maybe possible.

Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murder and rape of a woman and Raffaele gives the police a ~110 pound girl who knows where the knife collecting strong young male has stored the bloody kitchen knife while she screams about how defenseless she was? The least compatible theory.

Yesterday you were saying they went after Amanda because she was American. Now you are saying it was Raff they threatened to beat to a pulp.

I'm bewildered.

 

[Vixen]

Except for that murdering, filthy prostitute Amanda Knox. May she have a miserable Thanksgiving filled with fear

Now, now, that's not very kind.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yesterday you were saying they went after Amanda because she was American. Now you are saying it was Raff they threatened to beat to a pulp.

I'm bewildered.

Is it really so bewildering to conceive of the scenario where the police/PM decide (by the late afternoon of the 5th November) that they've figured out the crime: they "know" by this point that Knox met up with the person with whom she exchanged text messages on the night of the murder, and that the two of them had gone to the cottage together where the mystery man had assaulted and murdered Kercher while Knox either watched from the side or cowered in another room. And since they "know" all this, they also - by definition - "know" that Sollecito "must" be lying to protect Knox, since Sollecito has been telling the police that Knox spent all that night with him in his apartment.

And that's exactly why the police/PM decide that their first job is to bring down enough heat on Sollecito (threats, bullying, coercion, implied rewards) to get him to "admit" to them that Knox actually DID leave his apartment on the night of the murder (remember, the police/PM already "know" this to be a fact). They surmise - correctly - that this will be the move which brings down the whole house of cards: once Sollecito "admits" to Knox leaving, they will haul in Knox and confront her with Sollecito's "abandonment", then Knox in turn will "crumble" (and "tell them what they already know to be true"), which in turn will allow them to bring in the man whom Knox met and took to the cottage. Caso chiuso!!

Is all of that really so bewildering to comprehend? Really?

 

[LondonJohn]

Now, now, that's not very kind.

How old was Deanna Knox in September 2007?