Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Please answer the question. Considering that Italian law not only now considers her innocent - it was a status she went into the trials with, and acc. to Italian law she never had to forfeit...... so neither she nor Raffaele were ever at any time guilty of murder......

In what sense is this "innocence fraud"? Are you calling Marasca and Bruno criminals?

Bruno and Maresca did not find the pair innocent, nor were they exonerated.

They gave their reasons as insufficiency of evidence.

 

[bagels]

No, that doesn't logically follow at all. In the US, only 10 alleles are needed for DNA matching (there were 15 of Mez on the blade and a full profile of Raff on the bra clasp). Amanda and Raff would almost certainly now be doing life without parole or even be awaiting the death penalty if they had stood trial in the USA. You cannot appeal the death penalty there, without first accepting your guilt and showing signs of remorse, as part of the 15-step process.

If it happened in the US Rudy's DNA would have been picked up on CODIS based on his previous arrest for burglary. He would have been arrested and I think we can guess what his story would have been "I was on the toilet while having a date with Meredith...some bushy hair left handed stranger came in and did it, I got scared and fled to Mexico lol."

The story would have been seen for what it is, and Amanda isn't in this picture at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda volunteered she took Patrick there for sex and that she heard Mez' bloodcurdling scream as Patrick according to Amanda raped and murdered Mez. Only a witness -or the perp themself - would know there had been such a scream.

It would be grossly irresponsible for police not to act on this information.
It's akin to Amanda saying there's a **** in my suitcase as she goes through security at an airport. Of course things will suddenly get frantic.

LOL!

Ok, Grinder is going to want to wade in on this one, but at least let me give you a couple of quote's from John Follain's book.....

1) Follain recounts two things about Mignini. One is that he regarded Amanda Knox as a liar. The second is as you say, since she accused Lumumba that "we had to arrest him."

2) Another senior cop - in a statement mentioned twice in Follain's book - said that even hearing what they heard; that all three of Sollecito, Knox and Lumuma should be released and monitored.​

You are still under the illusion that Knox wandered into the Questura, with the intent of accusing Lumumba. You have not at all considered the cops mistranslating the "see you later" SMS from Knox to Lumumba from Nov 1.

Didn't Donnino help Ficarra with that translation/interpretation? Apparently not - the 1:45 am memorale had it translated to mean, "I'll meet you later tonight." or words to that effect.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bruno and Maresca did not find the pair innocent, nor were they exonerated.

They gave their reasons as insufficiency of evidence.

LOL!

Which because they entered the process as considered legally innocent, there was an "insufficiency of evidence" to change that designation. Therefore they were found "innocent" in the sense that no one demonstrated that they were guilty.

Vixen - nothing speaks to confirmation bias more than the few remaining guilters who believe that Marasca/Bruno really thought the pair guilty, but just couldn't bring themselves to actually put that into a verdict.

They were exonerated. They'd been accused. Marasca/Bruno acquitted them, therefore exonerating them of the charges. Why is this difficult?

 

[Vixen]

Fortunately, none of this describes what happened.

It's always amazing that guilters make it sound like Amanda calmly walked into the Questura and said, "Excuse me, I'd like to accuse Mr. Lumumba. Could I talk with someone in charge?"

For heaven's sake, even a senior cop said, "she buckled and told us what we already knew to be true."

Police get to recognise persons under stress. Lying is a stressful event, it can be measured physiologically by a lie-detector. They fidget, sweat, act nervously. Security at borders and in department stores are trained to spot this behaviour, as suspicions in the past have had a high degree of being correct.

So what if they suspected Amanda - they suspected Filomena - if she was innocent there was little to worry about? Just keep calm and carry on.

 

[Vixen]

I don't really care about the train incident so I never said anything about it.

The point is the harsh interrogation techniques you're so fond of may or may not work against a guilty person but they'll certainly increase the chance of false confession against an innocent person, which is exactly what happened, and why the interrogation was poorly managed.

The police didn't show any restrain at all because they were absolutely certain Amanda was guilty. After all, she lied to them about being at her boyfriends when in fact she was texting an African immigrant of all people about a secret rendezvous on the very evening of the murder.

If they had known that Amanda was supposed to work that evening and the text was about her work schedule, they may have taken more precautions in the interrogation and gotten her to corroborate her story in more detail which, if she were actually guilty, may have lead to securing a conviction in the long run instead of having her go free and write million dollar books. But that takes something called competence, discretion, professionalism, etc which the entire department seemed to lack.

But it was not just that; it was the fact the pair were at the crime scene, called cops after their arrival, had a mop to clean up Raff's flooding, which by coincidence was on the evening of the murder. Amanda swore blind she could not remember anything about that evening . So, no, not just because she texted, "See you later".

 

[Bill Williams]

Fortunately, none of this describes what happened.

It's always amazing that guilters make it sound like Amanda calmly walked into the Questura and said, "Excuse me, I'd like to accuse Mr. Lumumba. Could I talk with someone in charge?"

For heaven's sake, even a senior cop said, "she buckled and told us what we already knew to be true."

Police get to recognise persons under stress. Lying is a stressful event, it can be measured physiologically by a lie-detector. They fidget, sweat, act nervously. Security at borders and in department stores are trained to spot this behaviour, as suspicions in the past have had a high degree of being correct.

So what if they suspected Amanda - they suspected Filomena - if she was innocent there was little to worry about? Just keep calm and carry on.

Perhaps this is something that you and I should take to PM, but.....

How on earth is what you wrote related to what I wrote? "So what if they suspected Amanda"!? It's hard to conceive that you don't realize the implications of that.

If Amanda was a suspect, she was entitled by law to a competent translator, a lawyer and a video-tape of her confession. That's the "so what"!!

In the space of three messages, you have offered a scenario of where Amanda waltzes into the Questura making a completely surprising accusation about Lumumba, and then switched to a completely different scenario where the cops might have suspected Amanda - it's just that it doesn't matter.

This is shadow boxing, friend.

Maybe you can clear it up with an apology about posting the pic.... oh never mind. It's useless to point out the obvious.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

Ok, Grinder is going to want to wade in on this one, but at least let me give you a couple of quote's from John Follain's book.....

1) Follain recounts two things about Mignini. One is that he regarded Amanda Knox as a liar. The second is as you say, since she accused Lumumba that "we had to arrest him."

2) Another senior cop - in a statement mentioned twice in Follain's book - said that even hearing what they heard; that all three of Sollecito, Knox and Lumuma should be released and monitored.​

You are still under the illusion that Knox wandered into the Questura, with the intent of accusing Lumumba. You have not at all considered the cops mistranslating the "see you later" SMS from Knox to Lumumba from Nov 1.

Didn't Donnino help Ficarra with that translation/interpretation? Apparently not - the 1:45 am memorale had it translated to mean, "I'll meet you later tonight." or words to that effect.

No, the intention of Amanda at following Raff to the questura was to keep tabs on events. They agreed a story she was with him all evening. When a cop reported Napoleoni had communicated that Raff had withdrawn his support of her alibi, that's when her mind raced and she blurted out Patrick's name, to point police in the wrong direction, and for which she is a convicted felon with a serious prison sentence of three years.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

Which because they entered the process as considered legally innocent, there was an "insufficiency of evidence" to change that designation. Therefore they were found "innocent" in the sense that no one demonstrated that they were guilty.

Vixen - nothing speaks to confirmation bias more than the few remaining guilters who believe that Marasca/Bruno really thought the pair guilty, but just couldn't bring themselves to actually put that into a verdict.

They were exonerated. They'd been accused. Marasca/Bruno acquitted them, therefore exonerating them of the charges. Why is this difficult?

The difficulty is, Marasca and Bruno categorically state Amanda was at the cottage during the murder and washed Mez' blood from her (so it must have been wet). A pyyrhic victory.

 

[Bill Williams]

But it was not just that; it was the fact the pair were at the crime scene, called cops after their arrival, had a mop to clean up Raff's flooding, which by coincidence was on the evening of the murder. Amanda swore blind she could not remember anything about that evening . So, no, not just because she texted, "See you later".

What? Once again, you can have your opinion, but you cannot have the facts.

For heaven's sake, here we go again. Even the Massei court in 2009 conceded that the postal police arrived after Raffaele called 2-1-1.

Your posts are a textbook example of why the two were acquitted in March 2015. All there seem to be these days are regurgitated mistruths.

 

[Desert Fox]

If it happened in the US Rudy's DNA would have been picked up on CODIS based on his previous arrest for burglary. He would have been arrested and I think we can guess what his story would have been "I was on the toilet while having a date with Meredith...some bushy hair left handed stranger came in and did it, I got scared and fled to Mexico lol."

The story would have been seen for what it is, and Amanda isn't in this picture at all.

The Norfolk Four. . . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

The difficulty is, Marasca and Bruno categorically state Amanda was at the cottage during the murder and washed Mez' blood from her (so it must have been wet). A pyyrhic victory.

Sigh.

Marasca/Bruno offer a synoptic amalgam of a theoretical scenario based on combining elements from the prosecution and defence cases.

They set up what you say by saying it is first and foremost based on their "alleged" (PMF translation "presumed") presence there.

What you are claiming, then, is that this sentence makes sense: "Let's for a minute presume they are there. Therefore, this proves they were there."

Tautology.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps this is something that you and I should take to PM, but.....

How on earth is what you wrote related to what I wrote? "So what if they suspected Amanda"!? It's hard to conceive that you don't realize the implications of that.

If Amanda was a suspect, she was entitled by law to a competent translator, a lawyer and a video-tape of her confession. That's the "so what"!!

In the space of three messages, you have offered a scenario of where Amanda waltzes into the Questura making a completely surprising accusation about Lumumba, and then switched to a completely different scenario where the cops might have suspected Amanda - it's just that it doesn't matter.

This is shadow boxing, friend.

Maybe you can clear it up with an apology about posting the pic.... oh never mind. It's useless to point out the obvious.

I didn't say she waltzed into the police station to accuse Patrick.

You know perfectly well that in Italy they have official suspects, of whom they have to inform of their rights and shut them up until their defence attorney is present.

The other category "suspect" as in the colloquial meaning of the word does not require the police to read out the miranda.

But then you already knew that.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh.

Marasca/Bruno offer a synoptic amalgam of a theoretical scenario based on combining elements from the prosecution and defence cases.

They set up what you say by saying it is first and foremost based on their "alleged" (PMF translation "presumed") presence there.

What you are claiming, then, is that this sentence makes sense: "Let's for a minute presume they are there. Therefore, this proves they were there."

Tautology.

Unfortunately for you, "Bill", Bruno and Marasca also categorically state that Amanda named Patrick to cover up for Rudy.

They were falling about laughing at the idea the ECHR would overturn the calumny conviction. (A serious crime with a maximum custodial sentence of six years. In the UK you get five years for armed robbery.)

 

[Vixen]

Sigh.

Marasca/Bruno offer a synoptic amalgam of a theoretical scenario based on combining elements from the prosecution and defence cases.

They set up what you say by saying it is first and foremost based on their "alleged" (PMF translation "presumed") presence there.

What you are claiming, then, is that this sentence makes sense: "Let's for a minute presume they are there. Therefore, this proves they were there."

Tautology.

PS Bruno and Marasca made a definitive statement of legal fact that:

1. Amanda was there, and what's more, Raff almost certainly was, too.

2. Amanda had Mez' wet blood on her person which she washed off in the bidet and sink.

3. Amanda's motive in accusing Patrick was to cover Rudy's back.

Official. Deal with it.

 

[Vixen]

The Norfolk Four. . . . .

Cases like the Norfolk Four seem to emanate from poor defence provisions. The guy recently released after 30 years was because cops failed to test the gun and casing, another was released because a witness saw him covered in mud, the night his chum was murdered.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Norfolk Four. . . . .

Cases like the Norfolk Four seem to emanate from poor defence provisions. The guy recently released after 30 years was because cops failed to test the gun and casing, another was released because a witness saw him covered in mud, the night his chum was murdered.

Your post makes no sense. . . .Not that most of your posts make much sense but this one less than the others.

 

[Bill Williams]

PS Bruno and Marasca made a definitive statement of legal fact that:

1. Amanda was there, and what's more, Raff almost certainly was, too.

2. Amanda had Mez' wet blood on her person which she washed off in the bidet and sink.

3. Amanda's motive in accusing Patrick was to cover Rudy's back.

Official. Deal with it.

You have a right to believe this.

Yet this is not what Bruno and Marasca say. The amazing part is that after 100 pages of Bruno/Marasca calling the previous 7 1/2 years of investigations and trials an anmesiac, incompetent judicial folly - is that ANYONE (aside from the seriously confirmation biased, almost exclusively English-language guilters) would describe the final pages of the report as you do.

Do you want proof? Actually I don't think you do.

But here it is anyway. Provide one link from an Italian language source which believes as you do. One. Hint: this has to be a reputable source - so although she perhaps can write in the Italian language, Andrea Vogt does not count.

Let's lay aside for a second that the ISC is not a court which is a finder of fact. Ok, let's not lay that aside because that's another reason why what you claim is true simply is not.

In setting up the concluding "even-if" parts, of course some of the historic prosecution claims will be chucked in to the "synopic" amalgam; but the conclusion the whole report is that neither Raffaele nor Amanda bear any responsibility for the crime. Innocent they came into the court process, innocent they left it. Definitively.

There is no truth to the fairy tale you want me to "deal with". I've dealt with it. It remains the province of a small group of English-language guilters who've also shown a propensity for slut-shaming....

... not to mention posting things (like pics showing bars on windows) that they claim proves their point, when it actually refutes it.

Consider #1 of your claims above. #1 is actually a synoptic amalgam of both prosecution and defence cases, which where even the defence says that Amanda was at the cottage - albeit at 10:30 am Nov 2nd, and Raffaele was there 2 hours later.

What your small, English language bunch never deals with is Sections 9.2/9.3 of the Marasca/Bruno report which says:

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of
evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in
mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation
in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established
by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.​

In what you say that Marasca/Bruno regards as factual (which they relate following 9.2/9.3) - it is plain that they regard those things as "even-ifs".

None of your English language guilters deal with this - at all.

But - in the interests of fairness, no one can require you to deal with 9.2/9.3. You won't anyway.

 

[Vixen]

From the web; you can see Amanda's rights were not violated, even in US terms. In any case, her volunteered confession and email to the world, were excluded as evidence.

When The Police Must Read Your Rights

It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time. Their vigilance to this rule means less chance of a case being overturned in court due to poor procedure on their part.

If public safety is an issue, questions may be asked without the defendant being Mirandized, and any evidence obtained may be used against the suspect under these circumstances. The Miranda Warning is all about questioning and being protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, not being arrested.

The person arrested must still answer questions asked about their name, age, address, etc. They can be searched in order to protect the police officer. Also, a confession given before a suspect has been read the Miranda Warning may find that confession entered as evidence in court.

If you have been Mirandized and you waive your rights, meaning you wish to speak to police freely without an attorney present, you can change your mind at any time and ‘plead the fifth,’ meaning you no longer wish to answer questions, or that you have changed your mind and wish to have an attorney present after all.

In some states, juveniles have the right to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present.

 

[Bill Williams]

From the web; you can see Amanda's rights were not violated, even in US terms. In any case, her volunteered confession and email to the world, were excluded as evidence.

"LOL"!

Truly amazing. Her rights weren't violated. Yet the echo of those keypresses had yet to diminish when.....

The statements were excluded because........

Truly, if one does not see the ludicrousness of those two claims side by each, then there is no hope.