Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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.




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

You don't imagine I invented it, do you?

Re Mr & Mrs Smith: of course Ms Smith will vouch for her hubby being with her all night if they sleep in the same bed, unless he's a known sleepwalker or she has cause to think otherwise.

It's called trust.

 

[Vixen]

How old was Deanna Knox in September 2007?

OK so she had just turned 18. So that's all right then, to go off romping with some guy - a cocaine drug dealer - to a motel room, whilst little sister has no idea whether she's safe or not.

 

[Vixen]

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?

You've been watching too much 'Murder She Wrote'.

Police have better things to do with their time and resources than to try to frame couple of whacky kids.

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't imagine I invented it, do you?

Re Mr & Mrs Smith: of course Ms Smith will vouch for her hubby being with her all night if they sleep in the same bed, unless he's a known sleepwalker or she has cause to think otherwise.

It's called trust.

Nope. Mr Smith can certainly say that he strongly believes that Mrs Smith was within their house all that night, and that this is supported by a) his knowledge of Mrs Smith's character, and b) the supporting evidence that Mrs Smith was lying next to him when he fell asleep and lying next to him when he woke up.

But Mr Smith simply cannot logically state with 100% certainty that Mrs Smith was within the house all that night. It's at least feasible that (for whatever reason) Mrs Smith could have snuck out and back in again while Mr Smith was sleeping.

I am not altogether surprised that you can't differentiate between a strong belief and 100% certainty. But that's the cold, hard truth underpinning this issue. Sollecito is entirely correct to state - to this day - that he cannot state with 100% certainty that Knox never left his apartment that night. And when you mention "trust", you might also be forgetting that Knox and Sollecito had only first set eyes on each other some six days previously. They were in the extremely early, lustful states of a typical student relationship. It's crazy and illogical to think that they might have even begun to develop any level of trust in each other by the night of the murder (a factor which, in and of itself, also mitigates strongly against the very idea that they teamed up to attack and kill Kercher).

 

[LondonJohn]

You've been watching too much 'Murder She Wrote'.

Police have better things to do with their time and resources than to try to frame couple of whacky kids.

You really don't understand the context, do you?

The Perugia police and PM had a grisly, high-profile murder on their hands. Media from around the world were descending on the city. The details of the murder were being reported worldwide. The murder was of a young British female exchange student. Students were deserting Perugia in their droves. Perugia was not doing very well at all out of the situation while the murderer(s) was still at large.

In addition, I think there's another very important factor. Almost exactly one year previously, another female student (Italian) had been murdered. The Perugia police and PM totally botched that investigation. It appears that the woman's boyfriend was the likely killer, but the whole investigation - from forensics through to witness statements and other lines of investigation - was so badly messed up that there never was sufficient evidence to arrest the boyfriend, let alone charge or convict him.

I believe the Perugia police and PM dept were still smarting over their public humiliation on that case. And they had the world watching them now with the Kercher case. They needed to "solve" it. Fast.

And by the afternoon of 5th November, they thought they HAD solved it. They'd phone tapped all and sundry (a dreadful breach of human rights in the breadth of tapping and the nature of authorisations, but that's another matter...), and they'd obtained everyone's phone records for the night of the murder. They'd already come to the (erroneous) conclusion that the break-in was staged (largely based, it would appear, on the risible basis that since not much was stolen, this can't have been a "proper" break-in!). They saw from the phone records that Knox had exchanged text messages with someone on the night of the murder. Knox, in interviews, had not admitted to this exchange. They had also been tailing Knox, and they'd seen Knox talking with Lumumba (whose name they had probably tied by now to the number Knox was texting on the night of the murder). And Knox had no alibi other than that supplied by Sollecito, who was telling the police (as was Knox of course) that Knox and he had spent the whole night in his apartment.

So now the cogs started turning. Knox had "lied" (by omission) about the text message exchange on the night of the murder. She had also been seen meeting with the man (Lumumba) in question since the murder. "Aha!" they concluded: Knox must have been arranging to meet up with Lumumba on the night of the murder, and the meetings they'd observed after the murder were "obviously" concerned with Lumumba asking Knox how much she thought the police/PM knew. And since the police/PM had concluded that the break-in was staged, they also (erroneously) concluded that the only people with the motive to stage a break-in were the other occupants of the cottage. Laura and Filomena had well-corroborated alibis. Knox had only Sollecito to corroborate hers. "Aha!" thought the police: Sollecito "must" be lying to protect Knox, since she has him under some sort of dominant spell and he was besotted by her.

So the police and PM put 2+2 together and got 439. They allowed themselves to get swept up in confirmation bias and tunnel vision completely at this point. They were now convinced they'd figured it all out. From that point on, everything they did was tainted by their need to fit it to this "truth" that they'd decided upon. They were excited and self-aggrandising, since they truly believed they'd solved this case within 5 days of the murder. They would been viewed as crack detectives and PM by the community and by the international media who were hanging on their every word. The pride and hubris were palpable within the police HQ and the PM's office.

So in summary, this was NEVER about "trying to frame a couple of whacky kids". In fact, it's reductive and rather naive to think that this was the case. Instead, it was about a desperation from the Perugia police and PM to solve the case as soon as possible. They truly thought they HAD solved it (though their analysis and thinking were dreadfully flawed). And from then on it became an ugly, unfair, unlawful and incompetent attempt to save face as their edifice crumbled around them. Unfortunately for Knox and Sollecito, the Italian criminal justice system was/is so dreadfully inept and unfit-for-purpose that it took several long years for them to get the justice that they deserved (and Knox and Sollecito deserve justice just as much as Kercher and her family).

 

[Bill Williams]

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"?

LOL.

No one needs to claim it. It simply is what Anna Donnino testified at trial. It's nowhere near "innocence fraud". Donnino plied her "mediator's" trade five years before Knox's book came out.

One thing is clear. You will not acknowledge at all that the PLE conducted a fraudulent, "amnesiac" investigation.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

That is ridiculous. Occam's Razor tells us that the straightest path to freedom for Raffaele was joining everyone else and throwing the whole-sheebang at Knox....

.... much like you are doing with virtually every one of your posts.

ETA - those "pings" are from Nencini's report aren't they? You mean the pings from BEFORE Jovanic saw Knox at the apartment? LOL!

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Mr Smith can certainly say that he strongly believes that Mrs Smith was within their house all that night, and that this is supported by a) his knowledge of Mrs Smith's character, and b) the supporting evidence that Mrs Smith was lying next to him when he fell asleep and lying next to him when he woke up.

But Mr Smith simply cannot logically state with 100% certainty that Mrs Smith was within the house all that night. It's at least feasible that (for whatever reason) Mrs Smith could have snuck out and back in again while Mr Smith was sleeping.

I am not altogether surprised that you can't differentiate between a strong belief and 100% certainty. But that's the cold, hard truth underpinning this issue. Sollecito is entirely correct to state - to this day - that he cannot state with 100% certainty that Knox never left his apartment that night. And when you mention "trust", you might also be forgetting that Knox and Sollecito had only first set eyes on each other some six days previously. They were in the extremely early, lustful states of a typical student relationship. It's crazy and illogical to think that they might have even begun to develop any level of trust in each other by the night of the murder (a factor which, in and of itself, also mitigates strongly against the very idea that they teamed up to attack and kill Kercher).

So, in other words, you concur Amanda does not have an alibi.

How astute of the police to know in advance she had no alibi.

 

[Desert Fox]

So, in other words, you concur Amanda does not have an alibi.

How astute of the police to know in advance she had no alibi.

Almost no alibi is 100% unless they have you in a camera on the exact moment when a crime is taking place. You could have a receipt indicating you were 50 kilometers away and the police could try to (and have claimed in cases) that you had a friend use your credit card in order to create an alibi.

 

[Bill Williams]

Almost no alibi is 100% unless they have you in a camera on the exact moment when a crime is taking place. You could have a receipt indicating you were 50 kilometers away and the police could try to (and have claimed in cases) that you had a friend use your credit card in order to create an alibi.

Wasn't it Russ Faria who had nine witnesses putting him elsewhere, but he was still convicted? That was the one where the lead investigator and the prosecutor were having a romantic affair.

Wonder how that passes Vixen's morality test?

 

[Desert Fox]

Wasn't it Russ Faria who had nine witnesses putting him elsewhere, but he was still convicted? That was the one where the lead investigator and the prosecutor were having a romantic affair.

Wonder how that passes Vixen's morality test?

There are also some shades of this with the Norfolk Four.

 

[Planigale]

So, in other words, you concur Amanda does not have an alibi.

How astute of the police to know in advance she had no alibi.

What is the point of this discussion?

Do you believe that Sollecito was not present when Kercher was murdered, but Knox was? If you believe Sollecito was not present then you must believe that the prosecution wrongly pursued a case against him.

If you believe Sollecito was present then presumably you believe that he could say Knox was with him at the relevant times.

Do you believe Curatalo saw Knox and Sollecito together, (in which case Sollecito could say Knox was with him), or do you think he was mistaken about the identities of the individuals he saw?

The reason that the prosecution never pursued this is that it would have destroyed their case. It was a judicial fact that Guede and two (or more) others had committed the murder, so they could not have pursued a case against Guede and Knox alone. They had presented the case that Kercher was a trained fighter and they could not argue therefore the more petite Knox could overcome her alone, indeed they argue even a larger male could not overcome her alone. Sollecito's DNA was on the bra, if he was not present then they would have to accept this was as the result of innocent transfer, as they would have to accept the shoe and footprints of Sollecito were wrongly identified.

indeed as has been said above, it is easier to make a case against Sollecito alone or with others without Knox than it is to make a case against against Knox excluding Sollecito. All the key physical evidence, prints, bra strap, knife related to Sollecito not Knox.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, in other words, you concur Amanda does not have an alibi.

How astute of the police to know in advance she had no alibi.

What is the point of this discussion?

Do you believe that Sollecito was not present when Kercher was murdered, but Knox was? If you believe Sollecito was not present then you must believe that the prosecution wrongly pursued a case against him.

If you believe Sollecito was present then presumably you believe that he could say Knox was with him at the relevant times.

Do you believe Curatalo saw Knox and Sollecito together, (in which case Sollecito could say Knox was with him), or do you think he was mistaken about the identities of the individuals he saw?

The reason that the prosecution never pursued this is that it would have destroyed their case. It was a judicial fact that Guede and two (or more) others had committed the murder, so they could not have pursued a case against Guede and Knox alone. They had presented the case that Kercher was a trained fighter and they could not argue therefore the more petite Knox could overcome her alone, indeed they argue even a larger male could not overcome her alone. Sollecito's DNA was on the bra, if he was not present then they would have to accept this was as the result of innocent transfer, as they would have to accept the shoe and footprints of Sollecito were wrongly identified.

indeed as has been said above, it is easier to make a case against Sollecito alone or with others without Knox than it is to make a case against against Knox excluding Sollecito. All the key physical evidence, prints, bra strap, knife related to Sollecito not Knox.

It is sometimes hard to know what Vixen is arguing. "How astute of the police to know in advance she had no alibi."

I'm almost positive that Vixen does not believe that the cops has fore-suspicions against Knox (where is Sollecito in all these great acts of investigation? Maybe Vixen can explain..... did the cops have Knox in the Questura on 5th/6th as a "person informed of the facts" or not?)

But in any event - yes, the "evidence" against Sollecito related to him. This business of "evidence against one should condemn both," was IMO the basis of Sollecito's separation strategy. Reading his appeals documents that strategy is as follows, "Fine, you have all these indicators you say condemns Knox. What do any of them have to do with me?"

Whatever you think of that strategy, it seemed to have worked.

Barbie Nadeau once reported that one of the reasons the 2009 conviction happened at the hands of Massei was that the two defence team pursued differing strategies. Her summary to CNN was, "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker," and IIRC she cited that the Sollecito-team was simply arguing different things than the Knox-team.

By the Hellmann trial, that had been rectified - even Bongiorno was offering evidence amenable to Knox in the 2011 defence/Sollecito closing. Then there was acquittal... but look what happened with that with the 2013 ISC.

Nencini IIRC reiterated that evidence against one condemned them both - even though the only new evidence at that trial all went the defence's way.

Finally - the 2015 ISC saw reason. It took 7 1/2 years, but those three things against Sollecito - the bra DNA, the Nike and the bathmat footprint - were seen for what they were; useless. Heck - Sollecito who carried knives, did not have one of those which he habitually carried put into evidence; and the cops had one of them since the first day of arrest!

Throw those things out and where is "all the other evidence" against Sollecito? Usually this is when a guilter trumpets out, "all the lies he told."

Anyway, no wonder they were eventually acquitted. And if Sollecito is acquitted then a guilter has a major problem in their real vendetta - a vendetta against Knox.

All of a sudden there's an unimpeachable alibi for her. After considering all this, it is no wonder the forces of darkness had to try moving heaven and earth to keep Sollecito in this. They failed.

 

[bagels]

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.

You must have me confused with somebody else. They went after Amanda because she was the only occupant near the cottage with the implausible and therefore staged break-in at the time of the murder, and because she said she was at her boyfriend's all night but they discovered she was texting another man about a secret meeting at the time.

They threatened to beat Raffaele to a bloody pulp. I tend to believe him for the following reasons:

-Not a single interview on the night of the arrests was recorded or notated by the police. The police have never come forward with documentation about what happened.

-Patrick claimed the police hit him on the head and yelled "dirty black." at him.

-Patrick claimed he was interrogated harshly for hours and was kicked and punched.

-Amanda claimed she was hit on the head with the police yelling at and threatening her.

-Raffaele claimed they threatened to beat him to a bloody pulp.

-The police claim they got Amanda to "buckle" and tell them what they already "knew to be correct."

This is three accounts of the same police behavior, one by an independent witness who had absolutely no means to corroborate with the other two.

 

[Grinder]

Logical fallacies. Look at it this way: how many cold-blooded murderers do not have a personality disorder? This is the correct question to beg, for the answer is, only an inhuman monster, or a damaged individual.

You have the logical fallacy. The issue isn't what sort of person could possibly kill, the issue is whether Amanda's meeting a guy on a train etc. can in any way be construed to be evidence she is a murderer. Since millions of women and men have one-night stands and millions will meet another this weekend and yet only a tiny number will ever murder anyone therefore the causality as if oft the case is false. The vast majority of people that have casual sex do not murder people.

Do all military that murder kill the enemy have personality disorders?

 

[Grinder]

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.

'We cherished every moment together': Amanda Knox's little sisters describe their emotional reunion... and their horror at 'whore' graffiti on court tables
By DANIEL BATES
UPDATED: 14:33 EST, 28 September 2011


Amanda Knox’s sisters have told of their heartbreak after discovering abusive graffiti scrawled on the tables in the Italian courtroom where her appeal is being heard.
Deanna Knox, 22, said that she looked down to find ‘Amanda is a whore’ written on the table beneath her as she listened to the proceedings.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hore-graffiti-court-tables.html#ixzz3sigscMYt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Vixen it took 30 seconds to invalidate this bull from you. She was 18. 22 minus 4 = 18

 

[sept79]

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.

Little sister Deanna is 1 year younger than Amanda.

Vixen, please quit with the lies . . .

 

[Mike1711]

Deleted

 

[Mike1711]

Vixen...

Trust ain't evidence. Trust me. If you are suggesting that a person can give evidence in a court of law regarding things that happen when he/she is asleep you are more bewildered than you can possibly know. Evidence isn't founded on "trust" it's founded on....ummmm...evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

'We cherished every moment together': Amanda Knox's little sisters describe their emotional reunion... and their horror at 'whore' graffiti on court tables
By DANIEL BATES
UPDATED: 14:33 EST, 28 September 2011


Amanda Knox’s sisters have told of their heartbreak after discovering abusive graffiti scrawled on the tables in the Italian courtroom where her appeal is being heard.
Deanna Knox, 22, said that she looked down to find ‘Amanda is a whore’ written on the table beneath her as she listened to the proceedings.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hore-graffiti-court-tables.html#ixzz3sigscMYt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Vixen it took 30 seconds to invalidate this bull from you. She was 18. 22 minus 4 = 18

Why would Vixen willingly simply invent something so easily refuted? Why would Vixen post pictures which directly refute a claim she is making (no bars on the lower windows)? Why would Vixen post links to off-thread material that directly refutes some other point she makes?

It's a mystery. The resolution of the mystery perhaps begins with an apology, but then that would require acknowledgement of what is as plain as day.