Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Had the PGP had similar behavior patterns for Amanda before the murder they would be using it as an example of aberrant behavior indicating a personality disorder, necessary for someone to commit such an act.

 

[Bill Williams]

Had the PGP had similar behavior patterns for Amanda before the murder they would be using it as an example of aberrant behavior indicating a personality disorder, necessary for someone to commit such an act.

I do not know what this means or to what it refers. It's me, not you. Type slowly next time.

 

[Grinder]

'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.

Had the PGP had similar behavior patterns for Amanda before the murder they would be using it as an example of aberrant behavior indicating a personality disorder, necessary for someone to commit such an act.

I do not know what this means or to what it refers. It's me, not you. Type slowly next time.

Perhaps this will help. You ask why and I explained in way that should be acceptable here. Had Amanda done similar posts... read my post above.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps this will help. You ask why and I explained in way that should be acceptable here. Had Amanda done similar posts... read my post above.

Ah.... ok, now I get it. Thanks for the slow typing.

Of course, I agree.

 

[Matthew Best]

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?.

For some, trolling is its own reward.

 

[Kestrel]

The proper place for a troll is on your ignore list.

 

[Grinder]

Well I think all the online activity on this case is interesting. Of course, not just this case. Vixen's efforts have put a sharper focus on a few things for me, such as the fact that the police had no proof that Raf had turned of his phone. They only knew he received the text from the night before early in the morning.

We have also been shown pictures of the cottage showing nearly all the windows were barred.

I decided once and for all to drive by the cottage via Google and it is perfectly clear that Filomena's window climb would very hard and unlikely to be seen but the balcony stuck out like sore thumb.

Vixen also reminded me of how the PGP run screaming from putting together a working timeline with all their "facts".

Vixen also allows me to repeat the fact about no knife used in a murder having the DNA of the victim but testing negative for blood.

I will say featuring Raf's statement does leave me with the question of how he could mix up the two dates so thoroughly and consistently. I'm still wondering what Vixen and the PGP are saying about the crime when they point out his "pulling" her alibi. For me it only points at him not Amanda.

Certainly the lack of any of her DNA in the murder room is huge for the defense and leaves the PGP with nothing to deny someone other than she and Raf could have been the "accomplices".

 

[Bill Williams]

Well I think all the online activity on this case is interesting. Of course, not just this case. Vixen's efforts have put a sharper focus on a few things for me, such as the fact that the police had no proof that Raf had turned of his phone. They only knew he received the text from the night before early in the morning.

We have also been shown pictures of the cottage showing nearly all the windows were barred.

I decided once and for all to drive by the cottage via Google and it is perfectly clear that Filomena's window climb would very hard and unlikely to be seen but the balcony stuck out like sore thumb.

Vixen also reminded me of how the PGP run screaming from putting together a working timeline with all their "facts".

Vixen also allows me to repeat the fact about no knife used in a murder having the DNA of the victim but testing negative for blood.

I will say featuring Raf's statement does leave me with the question of how he could mix up the two dates so thoroughly and consistently. I'm still wondering what Vixen and the PGP are saying about the crime when they point out his "pulling" her alibi. For me it only points at him not Amanda.

Certainly the lack of any of her DNA in the murder room is huge for the defense and leaves the PGP with nothing to deny someone other than she and Raf could have been the "accomplices".

When I say below, "the few remaining guilters," I fully concede that there are few of anyone following this any more.

With that said......

This is perhaps why the few remaining guilters are hanging their hat on the closing section of the Marasca/Bruno report. It matters little to them that Marasca/Bruno set up that section by conceding in 9.2/9.3 that what follows is a synoptic amalgam of their alleged (PMF translation "presumed") presence at the cottage, such amalgam constructed artificially from combining both defence and prosecution claims.

It's from there that these lonely souls trumpet out their claim that Marasca/Bruno were forced to acquit by some mysterious outward force, while all the time M/B really did think the two had something to do with the horrid murder. Has any guilter ever quoted from the report about stuff written pre-9.2?

Another aspect of on-line activity on this is the refusal/inability of these folks to produce one link from Italy - one! - from anyone there who shares that view. Lawyer, Vogt-like journalist, reputable news-service - hell, I'd even want to look at a disreputable news service if there is one who spouts this line!!

IMO reputable sources within the legal community and news media in Italy "get" that reading past 9.2/9.3 is not going to give anyone any answers, if they STILL have lingering questions. (It is almost like the remaining guilters - almost totally in the English language - are saying that there's now a conspiracy to prevent Italians from reading past 9.2/9.3 of the M/B report!!!)

Whether Vixen is slow-flooding or not; it simply does not help that declining case to post stuff that is so easily refutable (the younger sister's age) or that actually self-refutes (the bars on the lower window).

That one is a complete head-scratcher.

Here it is, well past 8 years from the horrible events which started this and there still is no guilt-scenario/narrative which fits the evidence. There's a reason for that.

 

[Desert Fox]

Here it is, well past 8 years from the horrible events which started this and there still is no guilt-scenario/narrative which fits the evidence. There's a reason for that.

That is just because Amanda is so good at covering things up. . . .Right now she is planning another murder and plans to get everything perfect this time.

 

[Bill Williams]

Heck - even Machiavelli argued at length as to why a narrative of the crime was not even necessary.

Of course many of us saw that as a cop out - a way of avoiding dealing with the issue. I hesitate to speak for Machiavelli (!), but his position seemed to be that as long as one could knit together enough "facts", no matter how strong those facts were, and even if those facts were mere reasonable conjectures of the prosecution - unrefuted by the defence..... and even if they only matter to one of the possible time-lines.....

..... than that's enough to convict. For Machiavelli it was irrelevant, for instance, that Quintavalle only offered I.D. evidence a year later. Who cares that he was asked the week of the original investigation and said nothing.

It's the fact that a year later he claimed to have seen someone matching Knox's appearance. For Machiaveli that is enough to throw it into the osmotic consideration regardless of how likely it is, regardless of contradictions.

Also, it matters not that non-blood DNA might have been found on the knife - the fact is that it belonged to Meredith. If one wants to suggest contamination, then it's up to detractors/defence to prove it.

Add up enough of these non-entities and, so they say, it is safe to convict.

But Machiavelli was clear - a coherent narrative of the crime is not necessary; as long as there is a place for each item of speculation along one of the possible time-lines.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will say featuring Raf's statement does leave me with the question of how he could mix up the two dates so thoroughly and consistently.

For me, it's pretty easy to understand how this could happen. I think many of us are underestimating the incredible power of authority figures vs the lone individual citizen, and I also think many of us are underestimating the sheer fallibility of human memory - especially when put under severe pressure.

IMO, Sollecito almost had no free-will choice about mixing up the nights in the context of his police interrogation on 5th November. I think the police were telling him - forcefully and repeatedly - that they KNEW (with supporting evidence) that Knox had been in the cottage at the time of the murder. Therefore they KNEW Knox couldn't have been in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night as Sollecito had claimed. Therefore Sollecito HAD to be wrong when he "thought" he remembered Knox being in his apartment all evening/night.

Remember, the police weren't merely saying something like: "We think Knox might have been present at the murder scene; are you sure that she was in your apartment all the time that night?". They were saying that they KNEW Knox had been present at the murder scene.

And the other important factor here was the same kind of coercive technique that (IMO) was also used on Knox in turn. I think the police cleverly placed the onus of personal and civic responsibility upon Sollecito to "remember correctly". The police told him that it was more-or-less his DUTY to given them a statement "confirming" that Knox had left his apartment that night ("confirming" what the police already "knew to be true"). And into that toxic mixture, the police repeatedly dropped in the reminder that Sollecito owed no duty of care or honour to Knox: they were barely going out, and Knox wasn't the person Sollecito thought she was (the police KNEW Knox was present at the murder, remember.....).

In my belief, all of the above - all the more so when further placed into context by the heightened stress, worry and "need to be helpful" on Sollecito's part - made it extremely easy and understandable for Sollecito to confuse/conflate the two nights. The police convinced him that Knox left his apartment on the night of the murder, so it was only a small further step for him to convince himself that his original memory "must" have been faulty, and that yes, he DID remember Knox leaving his apartment that night.

Finally, I really do think it's of huge importance to realise that under extraordinary circumstances and under the power of authority figures, seemingly-rational individuals with normal mental faculties really CAN make the most extraordinary lapses of memory and judgement - even when such lapses directly implicate THEM in very serious crimes! My mind is immediately drawn back to the subject of a Discovery Channel documentary that's been linked on this thread before. He was a 20 year old male, with utterly normal mental faculties, whom a US police department had become convinced had participated in the gruesome gang murder of a teenage girl. The man denied any involvement, but the police told him they KNEW he was there, and yelled at him for not "helping them" etc. Finally the man broke and made a full, detailed confession. But..... then unimpeachable records turned up showing that the man had actually been in Brazil on the night of the murder! Fortunately for students of justice and psychology, the video tapes of that interrogation existed and were made publicly available. If only the same were true of Sollecito's (and Knox's) interrogations on 5th/6th November 2007.......

 

[Vixen]

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?

Dying for your country is not murder. It is an act of supreme valiance. How insulting to put Amanda and Raffaele up there with war heroes. That is one of the sickest suggestions I have heard.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Oh pur-leese. The police ask someone whether their spouse was with them all night. Of course, they are going to unequivocally say, he/she was with me that night. Unless of course there's no trust. For example, they are married to a philanderer or a slimeball.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It shows you cannot believe the word of an asocial degenerate.

 

[Vixen]

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.

He was obviously there. All the evidence points to it. The police busted his lie that Amanda was with him all evening, so he had to astutely blurt out, "She made me lie. I lied because I was being honourable".

Having put his foot in it, his defense gagged him for the entire trial.

 

[Vixen]

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.

So you are advocating for Raff now. In your fantasy world, anything can happen, so who can argue with it.

 

[Vixen]

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).

Really? Do you seriously believe the Italian police gave a toss about protecting the reputation of the puffed up self-important Police Chief Giobbio (_sp?). I'll bet he has plenty of secret enemies only too happy to burst his unbearable pomposity.

Truth is, they released Patrick after 14 days, which shows they were able to admit a mistake.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The police are by no means perfect, but I believe the did they best they could within their limited resources. Sure, some were going for glory, others were probably bullies; some may have been corrupt, but I am confident 99% of them resolutely followed the police code of ethical conduct.

There is no evidence the police were corrupt. Donnino was probably acting outside of her remit as she is not a detective. But hey, she didn't know Amanda was suddenly going to blurt out a confession of being there and witnessing the crime.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Amanda has all the evidence of being groomed by her PR. In her statements at the questura, she said she understood the police were under stress and only doing their job. In her Prison Diary she herself wrote she hadn't been beaten up by anyone. She was groomed to make all sorts of claims as a form of innocence fraud. The reality is, it was a bog standard murder investigation enquiry. These are hard-nosed cops not airline cabin crew.

 

[Desert Fox]

Really? Do you seriously believe the Italian police gave a toss about protecting the reputation of the puffed up self-important Police Chief Giobbio (_sp?). I'll bet he has plenty of secret enemies only too happy to burst his unbearable pomposity.

Truth is, they released Patrick after 14 days, which shows they were able to admit a mistake.

The reason why they released him was because there was a witness whom they could not impugn whom indicated that he was not involved. Otherwise, I will bet that they would have argue in court that he was involved as well.