Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

So you're saying he was there and she wasn't. Interesting.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Giobbi wasn't a chief.

 

[LondonJohn]

He also told that to little ole Mansey in a non threatening cafe. So the rest of your points fall by the wayside.

1) Mansey's article is absolutely littered with errors and inventions on her part. It's pure gutter journalism. I would certainly like to hear exactly (verbatim, in the original language) what Sollecito (who spoke very little English) communicated to her (who, IIRC, spoke little or no Italian).

2) I think the "interview" Mansey conducted with Sollecito was done on Saturday 3rd November (and published on Sunday 4th). Sollecito had therefore already spent around two days being questioned by the police. And I suspect that by the 3rd, the police were already constructing their theory of Knox's involvement - and thus they would probably have already been pushing Sollecito to "remember" that Knox was apart from him on the night of the murder.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Four or so members of Nappy's crack squad were cited for police misconduct in Nappy's divorce travails. Maybe you should drop it to 50%

 

[Grinder]

Quintavalle did not describe the clothes Amanda was wearing outside the cottage, white skirt, etc (BTW where WAS Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's?) He described accurately, the clothes police found lying on her bed; facts he could not have known before the trial.

The problem with innocence fraud is that in the mind of an innocence fraudster, "every cop is a criminal" - Jodi Arias' scribblings are full of this type of stuff, how all the jurors except the rogue one who saved her from the death sentence, were - surprise, surprise - all thoroughly corrupt.

Could you provide the proof that he knew what she wore and that it wasn't publicly know a year after the murder?

 

[Grinder]

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.

How do we know there was a scream? It would be a normal reaction to being attacked but no credible witness said they heard a scream.

 

[Grinder]

No. The thrust of the topic was it responsible behaviour for Amanda to go off for sex with the guy she picked up on a train, leaving her sister alone in the hotel. The thrust of your response is, the sister was not as young as you were led to understand, and thus the behaviour is fine.

The issue for you was that she left Deanna alone in her hotel room. Deanna would have been just as alone if they had gone to church.

How would Amanda have known he was a coke dealer? How do you know he is or was at the time?

 

[Desert Fox]

In which way is it dishonest? Curt Knox did indeed hire a PR firm. Fact.

It's a pity he refused to pay child support when it mattered.

According to the New York Times, they spent 100 k on PR and had to take out second mortgages to pay for it. That is pennies compared to what a celebrity will end up paying on PR.

With regard to child support, who knows. The two parents likely had issues on what percentage the other should pay. This can be the case with couples that don't hate each other.

 

[Desert Fox]

I know very little about the Norfolk Four case. However, there is another case here of so-called false confession and it was videotaped. So even if the cops had the foresight to tape Amanda's confession of introducing the rapist/murderer to Mez, how would it have made a difference?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...e-tactics-that-can-lead-to-false-confessions/

Interestingly, the same lawyers who have worked to exonerate the Norfolk Four also have Amanda Knox as a wrongful conviction case.

https://vimeo.com/86046579

 

[Grinder]

1) Mansey's article is absolutely littered with errors and inventions on her part. It's pure gutter journalism. I would certainly like to hear exactly (verbatim, in the original language) what Sollecito (who spoke very little English) communicated to her (who, IIRC, spoke little or no Italian).

2) I think the "interview" Mansey conducted with Sollecito was done on Saturday 3rd November (and published on Sunday 4th). Sollecito had therefore already spent around two days being questioned by the police. And I suspect that by the 3rd, the police were already constructing their theory of Knox's involvement - and thus they would probably have already been pushing Sollecito to "remember" that Knox was apart from him on the night of the murder.

So Mansey got it wrong just like Raf got it wrong on the 6th? I believe she was a regular Italian stringer or reporter. If Raf had been questioned about the murder night one would think if at all unsure he would discuss it with Amanda.

If the police were pushing Sollecito to "remember" that Knox was apart from him on the night of the murder on the second or latest the third then the two of them should have run for a lawyer.

There is no way to look at this but that Raf was extremely mixed up about what happened beyond a reasonable level particularly since he had time to review the night with Amanda. We still don't have access to his earlier statements or "transcripts" of his interviews.

 

[Grinder]

According to the New York Times, they spent 100 k on PR and had to take out second mortgages to pay for it. That is pennies compared to what a celebrity will end up paying on PR.

With regard to child support, who knows. The two parents likely had issues on what percentage the other should pay. This can be the case with couples that don't hate each other.

The issue went back 15 years. Curt may have had a cash flow problem with a new family. It doesn't matter and the Kerchers were also divorced. Both Amanda and Meredith came from broken homes. Who knows if John was late on payments and no one should care.

 

[Desert Fox]

The issue went back 15 years. Curt may have had a cash flow problem with a new family. It doesn't matter and the Kerchers were also divorced. Both Amanda and Meredith came from broken homes. Who knows if John was late on payments and no one should care.

I don't like the term "Broken Home" because the two couples (Amanda's father and mother's families) seem to have gotten along reasonably well from accounts I have read.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's totally clear to me that what the Marasca panel is doing is desperately trying to avoid any flat-out contradictions with the findings of fact affirmed by other, previous SC panels. Because to do so would open massive constitutional cans of worms.

............ <sinister deletia> .............​

I have little doubt that this is the whole reason why the Marasca SC panel has tried hard to accommodate the previous SC rulings as much as possible. I also have very little doubt that if the Marasca panel was not constrained by this issue, it would have forcefully concluded that all the evidence (and lack of evidence) pointed unequivocally to Guede acting alone, and to Knox and Sollecito having absolutely nothing to do with the assault and murder.

I am not as sure as you that Marasca/Bruno were trying to save the Italian system from judicial melt-down with contrary rulings.

But getting back to the plain meaning (in translation) of what Vixen refuses to deal with (I have never yet seen a guilter deal with it):

The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant....​

The meaning is this - and if Vixen disagrees, maybe Vixen can have a go at what she refuses so far - because putting together the:

1) evidence against Knox
2) evidence aganist Sollecito
3) the general musings/theories of the prosecution(s)​

....illustrates the contradictory nature of the evidence when taken as a whole. LondonJohn, this is a direct refutation of the Chieffi report from 2013 which says that Hellmann did not consider the evidence "osmotically." Well, says Bruno/Marasca, let's take it osmotically.

What one has when one does that is mass of objectively contradictory evidence.

Then it continues:

.... 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.​

Marasca/Bruno are saying they will conclude the report with an amalgam, a synopic presentation, of everything from both sides; including the "objectively contrary" evidence when Knox and Sollecito are considered separately. (In short, the Marasca/Bruno section took seriously Sollecito's separation strategy - "If you say that is damning evidence against Amanda, what does that have to do with me?"

Nothing shows the ludicrousness of this case more than combining, synoptically, the previous courts decisions/findings. One has the motive as Rudy's lust (Massei), another has the motive as an argument over rent-money (Nencini), one prosecutor said it was because of the pooh in the toilet (Crini), and Migmini/Comodi went through motives like candy at a kids' party.

I could go on, and probably will. Vixen - and the other **English-language** naysayers simply don't deal with this. When Marasca/Bruno write about allegtions of having blood are her hands, they've already said that that is simply part of the "objectively contradictory nature of the evidence". When considered synopticly.

How do we know that Italian-speakers and the Italian judiciary deal with this? Because no one in Italy, much less in the Italian courts, agree with what the English language slut-shamers are spewing.

For Pete's sake, Vixen couldn't resist taking a poke at Curt Knox above! Nothing shows Vixen's real intent than when she does that.

 

[Grinder]

I don't like the term "Broken Home" because the two couples (Amanda's father and mother's families) seem to have gotten along reasonably well from accounts I have read.

If you go back there was a big story about how Edda marrying a guy just oler than Amanda had this huge impact and made a big deal about the broken home crap. I was just pointing out that the Kerchers were in a similar state.

 

[Mr Fied]

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.

So in that case you have just proved that Amanda was not at the cottage at the time of the murder, at last.

When did Amanda confess to hearing a scream, let alone taking Patrick there for sex?

 

[Grinder]

So in that case you have just proved that Amanda was not at the cottage at the time of the murder, at last.

When did Amanda confess to hearing a scream, let alone taking Patrick there for sex?

In her statement to the police on the 5th.

 

[Mr Fied]

In her statement to the police on the 5th.

I thought she was asked why she didn't hear a scream and her reply was that she must have had her ears covered.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought she was asked why she didn't hear a scream and her reply was that she must have had her ears covered.

Fortunately we can consult the legally-mandated videotape/transcription of these confessions to clarify this.

Oh wait...........

 

[Grinder]

I thought she was asked why she didn't hear a scream and her reply was that she must have had her ears covered.

The 6th 5:45 - . I cannot recall how much time they stayed
together in the room but can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I,
frightened, covered my ears. Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I
do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was
involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.

 

[Mr Fied]

Apologies to Vixen and Grinder

From Amanda's interrogation.

"We met immediately afterward around 9:00 pm at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana. We went to my house at Via Della Pergola no. 7. I do not recall exactly whether my friend Meredith was already home or if she arrived later, [but] what I can say is that Patrik and Meredith went off to Meredith's room, while it seems to me that I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot recall how much time they stayed together in the room but can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I, frightened, covered my ears. Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.

It does not say she took Patrick back for sex.

I mis-remembered (sp) the quotes about the screaming, I apologise.

Does the part about not recalling whether Meredith was screaming mean that there was no more screaming or that there was confusion over whether there was any screaming?

Whatever happened, this was a document written in Italian that Amanda signed, what would be nice would be a voice or video recording to confirm what actually happened.