Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Speaking of "destruction of evidence", where is:

1. the bag of clothes, both Amanda and Raff refer to in the events of that morning, mysteriously missing.

2. Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's (see pic outside the house on a cold November morning)?

3. The ladies size 37 ASICS trainers, the imprint of which was found in Mez blood in the murder room?

4. The end of October pages in Amanda's diary?

Abuse of power by Mignini? I don't think so. He was always one step ahead of the perps. So he cut a corner by inadvertently omitting to put something in writing. However, there was no negative consequence for Raff as he had seen his attorney even before the arrest order was applied for. This is how we infer it was simply a clerical error.

Why ask for items that never existed? Which is what you are doing.

What is consistent about the Perugian experts was their total lake of expertise. They said that no one could climb a wall that was easily climbable. They said all those bloody shoe prints belong to Raffaele when all they needed to do was accurately count the rings on the shoe (how hard is it to count?) They interrogate Amanda and Raffaele for murder and lose the recordings. They conduct tests for blood and then ignore even hide the results. They conduct DNA tests that are totally outside International protocols, they hide the machine results. They test 4 computer hard drives and damage every one. They fail to do any tests in Filomena's windows. They misinterpreted the cellular radio findings. They don't complete the forensic collection and come back suspiciously 40 days later. They left Meredith's bloody sweatshirt in the hamper making it unusable for DNA testing. They collect samples and pass them around like a bottle of wine amongst drunks. They didn't change gloves often contaminating samples.

Why would anyone believe this group of Keystone Cops?

 

[Vixen]

1) You do know that using ludicrous (and pejorative) hyperbole such as "heroes" rather damages your credibility and any claim to objectivity, don't you? (Well, actually, I suppose you're not aware of that at all).

2) Why should Knox and Sollecito have called the police "an hour earlier"? I suggest you're guilty of employing poor ex post facto reasoning here.

3) Do you realise the irony of your last sentence? (Clearly not).

It is clear Amanda and Raff's version of the events of the morning of 2nd November - which the pair are still churning out in their books - is a load of bollocks.

They had to invent a story it was Mez who loaded and turned on the washing machine the day before. Only Amanda had a motive to victimise Mez only - no-one else was targetted - as Mez was the only person in the house who had anything stolen from her - despite all the laptops lying around, Filomena's gold jewellery and Amanda's own rent money - not to mention evidence that at least one of her attackers was likely female and who had a key to her room.

Come on, Amanda, own up!

 

[acbytesla]

Oh pur-leese. So, as well as Rudy being a super-athletic rock-climber leaping up a slippery wet wall (twice, according to Massei) to enter through a jagged 50cm gap of broken glass, had the apparent arms of three persons to carry out his undefended assault on Mez, had the foresight to carefully lock the door of her room behind him without leaving bloodied footprints facing the door - so it must have been behind his back! - he came back to move and undress the body and clean up: by Jove, he also took time to thoughtfully close Filomena's shutters after him, yet left a toilet bowl full of ******


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Super athletic? Yes ..... Rudy was a semi-professional basketball player who spent most of his time on the courts. He certainly was in the top 1 percent of humans in this regard. But he needn't be. That wall was easily climbable despite your ridiculous claims that it wasnt.

 

[Vixen]

The police call sequence is a PGP LIE: The PGP knows it is a lie and will not admit it, although you seem to in this case: Do you???? Really???
As to the rubbish in the second rambling paragraph:
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,
After the first sentence your response is nonsense and factoids.
This has been the PGP -Tabloid frenzy version of this case from the start: Confusion by the kids in a strangle situation gets twisted through your veil of factoids, innuendo, and outright PGP lies into "gross negligence" , and then into a "suggestion" that the pair knew Mez lay murdered behind the door.
PGP logic:
Fact: A & R were confused and concerned so they called the police.
Conclusion: They obviously are murderers.

Your factoid is a factoid. "Confusion"? So how come none of the other housemates, including the guys downstairs and Mez' numerous friends, were not similarly "confused".

An appearance of chaos and confusion is a classic warning sign of fraud. A piece of trivial information for you.

Cui bono from pretending to be "confused"?

Amanda said in her testimony she had never experienced short-term memory problems before. Indeed, in the police station she was loudly proclaiming her perspicacity, bragging on the phone to friends, "I was first to find the body" and to all and sundry in the questura that Mez had had her throat slit and had "<insert profanity> bled to death".

No empathy, no sympathy, just an entirely sociopathic focus on her own immediate bodily gratification needs.

 

[Vixen]

An, er, contributor who breathlessly makes fourteen unanswered posts in a row has the temerity to refer to others as possessed of zealotry? Interesting, in a clinically troubling fashion.

I did take a breath, too.

You ought to know.

 

[Vixen]

A police officer testified that she had showered that morning:

Judge Massei: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?
Chiacchiera: Yes.

She didn't discover the break-in until she looked into Filomena's room with Raffaele. Amanda couldn't call the police because she didn't speak Italian very well and speaking an unfamiliar language over the phone is extremely difficult at best.

Yes, the pair had a shower together after the murder in the early hours of the morning. That much is true. The police who found her outside the house on the morning of 2nd Nov 2007 reported objectively that she smelt rank.

No, of course she didn't discover the break in, the pair were responsible for it, remember, to throw police off the scent it was an inside job.

Rubbish. Of course you can call the police.

 

[Vixen]

More rapid fire bs from Vixen. That's about a dozen posts where she says things that have no probative value or suggests things that are not true. It really is too bad that one cannot be suspended for making bald face lies. The lie is that Raffaele dipped his shoes in bleach. Where is the proof of this? Is it in the case file? Did Stefanoni test the soles of Raffaele's shoes for bleach? No. What kind of person argues a murder case constantly lying about the facts?

Raffaele called the police before they arrived. That is a fact. Even the Postal Police didn't think much was amiss. Vixen's argument is essentially that Amanda and Raffaele should have known simply by a door being open, a broken window and poop in the toilet that there was a burglary..

And that they needed to be in some kind of hurry to report it. Really? What's the hurry? It's not an emergency situation, so I don't think there is any hurry. It is that Meredith isn't responding that is causing alarm.

Their delay reflects more that natural desire not to end up being embarrassed about probably blowing a situation out of proportion.

This was a police quote from Richard Owen in THE TIMES one of the world's most reputable broad sheets, not known as "a lying rag".

LOL They were more embarrassed by not calling the police. Not an emergency? So why did Filomena have a great urge to race home from holiday when she rang Amanda at 12:33 to be told her room was broken in to?

Yet the pair still did not ring until the police appeared anyway.

 

[Vixen]

One would be forgiven for thinking the mods here would be trying to protect the "skeptics" brand, a brand that once made this forum (as a whole) attractive. So in a sense, it's not so much consistent lying and invention of factoids which is the issue.......

...... it is that it does not serve the evidence-based inquiry which is the life-blood of skeptical inquiry.

If any true skeptic complains that these Continuations keep.... ah, er, continuing; the thing to complain about is allowing such consistent B.S. to be consistently posted unabated. For pete's sake, excuse me for going on about it.... the poster in question posted a photo which refuted the point they were making!

Now they are claiming a factoid that Raffaele bleached the bottom of his shoes - with no, none, support for that claim anyway - except for the ability to claim it - unfettered by any oversight.

Add to this that the poster raises the spectre of the phantom bleach-receipts, as well as the long-since settled issue of in which order Raffaele called the cops, vis a vis the arrival of the postal police. That one was settled in 2010 upon the publication of the Massei report. 5 1/2 years ago it was settled. Four trials ago it was settled. Then they raised the issue of "the lamp". Snore!

One rule in the M.A. should be about keeping to evidence-based inquiry.

Humph. I would appear to be the only sceptic in the village.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly correct. The censure of Mignini by the Italian CSM for violating Raffaele's human rights by denying him counsel after his arrest means that the ECHR will have a parallel case for Amanda.

It's just a matter of time before Amanda's case comes before the ECHR and there will be a judgment that Italy violated her human rights by wrongfully convicting her of calunnia.

For the record, Mignini did not deny Raff's human rights (more than can be said about Raff's upholding Mez') he simply omitted to put something in writing. Raff was never at a disadvantage.

In fact, Raff did not help the police at all, and nor did Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen constantly lies in her posts and has the cheek to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it that eight years on the PGP are still unable to argue their case without resorting to lying?

Er, unlike Amanda and Raff, I have never broken the law, I have never trashed someone's room, smashed their window, nor indulged in the type of abominations found at the cottage. Nor do I consciously lie.

But then you knew that.

 

[Vixen]

Filomena was the only person at the scene in the early afternoon of Nov 2, 2007, who departed from what everyone else observed.... a confusing scene.

This even includes the conundrum expressed **before** the grisly discovery - what kind of a burglar doesn't steal anything? It is perhaps probable that everyone shared that thought.

When Filomena found out that the Postal Police were returning Meredith's phones, Filomena was the only person who put together 2+2: that something must be the matter with Meredith, because she'd never have departed from those phones given her mother's health.

Even with this, the postal police refused to break down Meredith's door and Filomena had to badger someone else to do it.

Up until that moment there had not been a **burglary** per se. There'd been a break-in. Through Filomena's window. No one knew for sure what it was about until the door was broken down.

What it turned out to be was (in all probability) a burglary interrupted by the return of one of the residents. The rest is part of the horrid 8 years for the Kerchers, and a fight for liberty by two falsely accused.

So everyone at the scene was a moron except for Filomena, or were Raff and the "very astute" Amanda (as described by the highly experienced prosecutor) simply only acting dumb?

 

[Bill Williams]

For the record, Mignini did not deny Raff's human rights (more than can be said about Raff's upholding Mez') he simply omitted to put something in writing. Raff was never at a disadvantage.

In fact, Raff did not help the police at all, and nor did Amanda.

Other than a veiled accusation against Raffaele - what are you talking about?

 

[acbytesla]

This was a police quote from Richard Owen in THE TIMES one of the world's most reputable broad sheets, not known as "a lying rag".

LOL They were more embarrassed by not calling the police. Not an emergency? So why did Filomena have a great urge to race home from holiday when she rang Amanda at 12:33 to be told her room was broken in to?

Yet the pair still did not ring until the police appeared anyway.

Why do keep quoting a reporter who's articles were totally fabricated? Very very little of Owens details are backed up but court records. Owens sources were lying to him or he is lying. He wouldn't be first reporter at a major news source to get it all wrong.

But more importantly. Why are you continuing to come to the site to post your fabricated nonsense? All the untruths and lies you post here doesn't change the fact that they have been acquitted. Nothing you do will change that fact. So why bother?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, the pair had a shower together after the murder in the early hours of the morning. That much is true. The police who found her outside the house on the morning of 2nd Nov 2007 reported objectively that she smelt rank.

No, of course she didn't discover the break in, the pair were responsible for it, remember, to throw police off the scent it was an inside job.

Rubbish. Of course you can call the police.

You say you do not consciously lie. Read the post above and explain the factoids.... shower together? Is tha a lie or simply the repetition of something someone else made up?

 

[Vixen]

How do you tell that a bottle of bleach was just purchased or sitting under the sink for 6 months? I know, Vixen has the bleach receipts!!

How long have been told that these exist? And have they ever been produced? No.

If you buy bleach to clean up a murder scene, of course you would throw away the receipt.

 

[Vixen]

To review: I made the comment that I hadn't realized that ONLY the data from Amanda's computer wasn't recovered, to which you indicated that it had been know for an extensive length of time and I provided the quotes from the book which showed that books published up to four years after the murder still referred to multiple drives "destroyed" which they clearly weren't. It was in a report in March of 2008 and if you or anyone wanted to bet in the parlor Anglo and I discussed (it doesn't exist but the idea was bets to settle online disagreements) I'll show multiple times where PIP maintained or certainly implied that the data was lost.

I asked around at a holiday party last night and all I asked said they hoped the hard drive of mine a tech fried was backed up because the data was gone forever. Try it yourself. People when asked or if they read it think the data was never recovered and that wasn't the case.

The fact is that long after the defense expert reported only one drive was not read PIP went on and on about all the drives that were fried and they didn't mean the data was recovered.

How do we know "computer engineer" and IT boff Raff didn't destroy the data on Amanda's laptop himself?

 

[acbytesla]

This was a police quote from Richard Owen in THE TIMES one of the world's most reputable broad sheets, not known as "a lying rag".

LOL They were more embarrassed by not calling the police. Not an emergency? So why did Filomena have a great urge to race home from holiday when she rang Amanda at 12:33 to be told her room was broken in to?

Yet the pair still did not ring until the police appeared anyway.

One person, One and only one was really concened. Filomena ended up being right. But that doesn't mean that Amanda not panicking meant something. You're applying your own confirmation bias interpretation to the evidence as opposed to acknowledging the fact that this is NOT evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for this, Grinder.

This just may be the first reference I've seen from Italy that the M&B report was somehow flawed. Yet, the Chrome translation I have seems to say something more nuanced..... seemed to be saying that the parallel between the Stasi case and the Perugian case is:

"His defenders say that the conditions of the sentence are destined to collapse, if the judges apply the same parameters: once again the scientific evidence is chaotic, contradictory and conflicting expert opinions, and above all there is no motive. Or maybe the story of the crime of Garlasco is not over yet. There is the option number three.

The Supreme Court may grant the application of the prosecution, asking to be recognized in the Stasi also aggravating crudentà. But since it can not independently retouch it, it should postpone the process back, once again, in front of new judges. Why coaster of Italian justice, and even more so after the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and everything can happen the other way around."​

If I'm reading this right, it is Stasi's defenders who are saying that ISC should simply settle this with an annulment, and it is the prosecution saying that it should be sent back to the Appeals Level for further fact-finding. The piece is saying that the ISC may grant this, not that it will grant this.

Where's the part which is calling into question M&B itself? All it seems to be saying is that the defence wants the Stasi case to go the way the Perugian case went, and the prosecution wants otherwise.

Agreed, it would be helpful to have a non-computer generated translation.

The judgment will come in the morning and the case of Meredith, in Perugia, makes it clear that no prediction has now some credibility.

Pretty clear that they are questioning what M&B did. At a minimum they are saying that the law no longer acts in a predictable way. As Mach said they either violated the law or set new precedent.

We do agree that a native translation would help.

 

[acbytesla]

How do we know "computer engineer" and IT boff Raff didn't destroy the data on Amanda's laptop himself?

You don't. But of course you have no evidence of that so like so much of your case it is just wildly absurd speculation and nothing else.

 

[Grinder]

If you buy bleach to clean up a murder scene, of course you would throw away the receipt.

Ah wouldn't one use the bleach? Why not dispose of the bleach bottles with the other items you claim they disposed of? Why didn't they dispose of the knife with the bloody clothing, shoes, cleaning materials and bleach bottles?