Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

We know Amanda is guilty and carefully orchestrated the murder of her roommate with a boy she just met and a burglar she had seen once when he visited the pot grower who lived downstairs. But an interesting hypothetical to think about is, what would the case have looked like if she wasn't guilty?

Like, what if the police had misinterpreted some of the evidence and reinforced their own false theory about the crime based on say, a bar owner who was invited to the cottage by his employee Amanda, and they hastily arrested these innocent suspects on dubious grounds, only to be to be totally mistaken?

I wonder in this alternate universe how the case would have unfolded? It seems like there would have been a lot of pressure on them to avoid career and possibly even criminal scrutiny for their actions. So we might have expected very motivated attempts to salvage their case. Like maybe if they found the actual killer in this universe they could just say he was an accomplice with their initial suspects. And they could back this up with really thin assertions like the suspects DNA in their own bathroom is probative they cleaned up from the murder in there and claiming things like this nondescript fuzzy footprint on the bathmat actually belongs to the suspect we need evidence again. You know, stuff like that.

It's interesting to think about.

 

[acbytesla]

Go to your bathroom, stand on the bathmat, and walk around in such a way that that the mat is carried along under your feet as you go. It's really easy to do, and an entirely plausible solution to the problem of crossing a hallway without getting the floor wet. It does my head in that you lot are so incredulous about such mundanities, given all the other outlandish nonsense that you've invested in.

I use to do this frequently. It's not strange in the least.

That people try and suggest with innuendo that this is in some way is ridiculous demonstrates their deliberate attempt to color anything and everything Amanda did as suspicious. That has always been their modus operandi. They pile on the innuendo on her every action and inaction that somehow individually may be innocent but altogether spells guilt.

A bunch of nothing equals something in their books. Really sad.

 

[Bill Williams]

Big deal, so there was a typo (corrected before I even read your childish reprimand).

Amanda's mother Edda was born in Germany and had Austrian relatives. I'd find it surprising if, as you claim, "Amanda was too young to know what happened in the war". Especially given, she revelled in the war museum pic wherein she laughs uproarously with a machine gun style cannon.

This obsession with keeping the spotlight on Amanda Knox is the reason why:

1) the investigation went off the rails, as per the Marasca/Bruno report
2) leads nowhere.

Once the DNA evidence fell apart - 4 1/2 years ago for pete's sake - there was no reason to continue. Except if one wants to continue an otherwise amnesiac judicial folly.

No one in Italy is obsessed anymore with minutiae about Knox. There's only a few English speaking guilters who will continue slow flooding this thread with non sequitors and obsessive spotlights on one of the exonerated.

 

[analemma]

We are being asked to make a leap of faith and suspend credulity that LondonJohn sitting in his armchair on ISF knows better than experienced police forensic footprint analysts who have studied thousands of cases.

We are being asked - nay, ordered! - to believe not only are Italian police all corrupt through and through, especially Napoleoni, the prosecutors, especially Mignini, judges (except the ignominously annulled Hellmann) and forensic guys, especially Stefanoni, but police scientists Drs Rinaldi and Boemia, too.

According to LondonJohn, Boemia and Rinaldi faked the footprint analyses because they had a soft spot for Rudy and were out to "get the kids".

<fx Brummie accent*> Yes, mate!

*For our American friends, a Brummie accent is renowned in England for conveying the full range of scepticism in its tone, from scorn and derision to amusement and jeer.

Of course the "Italian police all corrupt through and through", the ISC just said so
He explained that the "experienced police forensic footprint analysts" had NO experience in footprint analysis and did not ask anyone who did.

You have not discussed a single point that LJ made!
Not a single point!
Your entire post is an ad holmium attack, which must thrill LJ, because we all know that when you have no response you call people names

 

[analemma]

Grinder,
DO you have a link to the "drinking video"?
I have never seen it.
Thanks

Grinder
I want to respond to your statement but I cannot find that video
Thanks
Analemma

 

[Welshman]

A journalist named Charlie Mudede interviewed the Jewish colleague.

The short story was written under the pen name of Marie Pace in prison and won a prize.

The context of my comments is important and was not setting out "external" crime evidence. It was in response to "Bill Williams"' claim Massei made it up about Amanda's violent propensities.

Not surprisingly Vixen has failed to understand the point I was making. If someone believes someone is guilty of a crime and the prosecution have a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, they should be able to argue their case on the basis of direct evidence rather than things which happened outside the crime. If the PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder to argue their case, this means there was a lack of direct evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. In my post I gave examples where the PGP have lied about things Amanda and Raffaele did outside the murder. The fact the PGP have to resort to lying about things which happened outside the murder indicates the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Welshman]

Exactly. And I also note the classic "reverse ferret" performed by Vixen on this matter - together with a clumsy attempt to misdirect and deflect when I called her out on her willful misinterpretation of my position.

It was also Vixen who was attaching pejorative and inflammatory terms such as "lack of empathy" and "symptom of psychopathy" to what was almost certainly nothing more than Knox making naive, ill-judged and potentially-insensitive comments.

And on top of all that, even if Knox HAD knowingly and willfully engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour, this would have been of minimal (and IMO zero) relevance to making any reasonable, rational assessment regarding her participation (or not) in the Kercher murder.

So yes, all-in-all I think it's reasonable to suggest that Vixen was attempting to perform a character smear on Knox with the apparent primary reason of trying to convince others (and maybe reinforce her own prejudices) that Knox was/is a nasty sociopath. This suggested inference also fits well with other previous attempts by Vixen to further character-smear Knox on issues such as sexual predation, sexual morals, commitment to her education, relationships with her house mates, reactions in the wake of the discovery of the murder, conversations with her parents while in prison, writings while in prison, writings after her release, and public appearances since her release.

I think it's fairly safe to say that many pro-guilt commentators have a strong need to demonise and vilify Knox, and that they have an accompanying interest in trying to convince other of these character "assessments". And I think I know why this attempted destruction of Knox's character is seemingly so important to such commentators.

The fact the PGP have to rely so heavily on character assassination is indication of a weak case and a lack of evidence. Even if the anti semitic remark was true, how is that relevant to the case? Meredith was not Jewish which meant that anti semitism could not have been a motive for Amanda to kill Meredith. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to rely on irrelevant things to argue their case?

 

[Welshman]

The video could possibly be enough but it sure wouldn't be the only evidence both direct and indirect the prosecutor would use in your hypothetical. To be fair to Vixen please provide one case where what you described above occurred and they only used a video. No way.



Even if the prosecutor believed his people 100% he would still add to the case. The video wouldn't cover everything and many a cop has gotten off because the "video doesn't show everything"



I don't know where you are getting this. Perhaps GR articles?

While I don't think the bath mat print is worth a damn even if it was worth something other evidence would be added. As I said earlier it would nail Raf and would actually help Amanda. Everything would point to him.

The prosecution lies I mentioned in my post came from the chapter in the book Injustice in Perugia on Misconduct. The lies told by the prosecution are also detailed here https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/ and here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

 

[Bill Williams]

The fact the PGP have to rely so heavily on character assassination is indication of a weak case and a lack of evidence. Even if the anti semitic remark was true, how is that relevant to the case? Meredith was not Jewish which meant that anti semitism could not have been a motive for Amanda to kill Meredith. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to rely on irrelevant things to argue their case?

....... add to this:

When it is pointed out that the Italian press has been virtually unanimous in supporting the March 2015 acquittals - virtually unanimous that the Sept 2015 motivations report speaks of a flawed investigation and almost a decade of judicial folly....

That when a piece comes out about the Stasi conviction, saying that unlike the sound decision from Marasca/Bruno the Stasi coury has gone back to the judicial roulette wheel....

The small English language guilt-group says, "well, that's just their opinion." Absent is **any** contrary opinion in Italy.

Why is that? Italians themselves seem more interested in shining a spotlight on Mignini's peer censure, than the English-guilters still trying to divert onto Knox.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder
I want to respond to your statement but I cannot find that video
Thanks
Analemma

I sent you the link in a PM.

 

[Vixen]

Go to your bathroom, stand on the bathmat, and walk around in such a way that that the mat is carried along under your feet as you go. It's really easy to do, and an entirely plausible solution to the problem of crossing a hallway without getting the floor wet. It does my head in that you lot are so incredulous about such mundanities, given all the other outlandish nonsense that you're so invested in.

Nope. Doesn't do it for me. Why would you care about "getting the floor wet" as it soon dries?

 

[Vixen]

We know Amanda is guilty and carefully orchestrated the murder of her roommate with a boy she just met and a burglar she had seen once when he visited the pot grower who lived downstairs. But an interesting hypothetical to think about is, what would the case have looked like if she wasn't guilty?
Like, what if the police had misinterpreted some of the evidence and reinforced their own false theory about the crime based on say, a bar owner who was invited to the cottage by his employee Amanda, and they hastily arrested these innocent suspects on dubious grounds, only to be to be totally mistaken?

I wonder in this alternate universe how the case would have unfolded? It seems like there would have been a lot of pressure on them to avoid career and possibly even criminal scrutiny for their actions. So we might have expected very motivated attempts to salvage their case. Like maybe if they found the actual killer in this universe they could just say he was an accomplice with their initial suspects. And they could back this up with really thin assertions like the suspects DNA in their own bathroom is probative they cleaned up from the murder in there and claiming things like this nondescript fuzzy footprint on the bathmat actually belongs to the suspect we need evidence again. You know, stuff like that.

It's interesting to think about.

If Amanda was not guilty (de facto) the crime would not have taken place.

 

[Vixen]

I use to do this frequently. It's not strange in the least.

That people try and suggest with innuendo that this is in some way is ridiculous demonstrates their deliberate attempt to color anything and everything Amanda did as suspicious. That has always been their modus operandi. They pile on the innuendo on her every action and inaction that somehow individually may be innocent but altogether spells guilt.

A bunch of nothing equals something in their books. Really sad.

Any photographic evidence? Or is this yet another sycophantic attempt to ingratiate yourself with Amanda?

 

[Vixen]

Nobody cares about this non sequitor. As said, they are legally innocent; and very few are arguing the details of the case. It's settled. In Italy they've moved on - witness the newspaper stuff posted here.

Is that all that's left, making non sequitor philosophical points?

No, the **** hasn't hit the fan yet.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, the **** hasn't hit the fan yet.

For what it's worth, I've been reading predictions like this since 2011. So far nothing has happened, save for the predictable predatory prosecutions Mingini and the PLE bunch have brought.

Get back to us when there's a reputable news article from Italy which sustains your prediction. So far it has been about Sollecito after innocence with a new book, the censure of Mignini by his peers, and how the Stasi case is a return to the judicial roulette wheel, so quickly after Marasca/Bruno applied logic and common sense at the ISC level.

 

[Vixen]

This obsession with keeping the spotlight on Amanda Knox is the reason why:

1) the investigation went off the rails, as per the Marasca/Bruno report
2) leads nowhere.

Once the DNA evidence fell apart - 4 1/2 years ago for pete's sake - there was no reason to continue. Except if one wants to continue an otherwise amnesiac judicial folly.

No one in Italy is obsessed anymore with minutiae about Knox. There's only a few English speaking guilters who will continue slow flooding this thread with non sequitors and obsessive spotlights on one of the exonerated.

Yes, Marasca and Bruno dropped the charges because of a misperceived verdict the investigation was irrevocably flawed. However, they made it clear Amanda and Raff had "umpteen elements of suspicious behaviour", the staged burglary was "strongly suspicious and incriminating of Amanda" and that the staging was "to cover for Rudy". In addition, the mixed DNA put Amanda indisputably at the murder scene and that she had, post-murder, rinsed off Mez' blood, having directly come into contact with it, Raff was almost certainly there with her, and in addition Bruno-Marasca slam the pair for their numerous "lies and inconsistencies". That is, lying about phone messages and computer usage.

So, it not the case "Amanda and Raff" were exonerted and declared "innocent". Far from it. In fact, quite the reverse. Marasca-Bruno could not put it more strongly their belief in Amanda's guilt, in particular. However, they claim they regrettably have to drop the charge because they could not grasp the scientific evidence and exhibited failures of reasoning in this area.

 

[Vixen]

Of course the "Italian police all corrupt through and through", the ISC just said so
He explained that the "experienced police forensic footprint analysts" had NO experience in footprint analysis and did not ask anyone who did.

You have not discussed a single point that LJ made!
Not a single point!
Your entire post is an ad holmium attack, which must thrill LJ, because we all know that when you have no response you call people names

The ISC did not find the investigation "corrupt". They found it flawed.

I am sure LJ is thrilled by "ad holmium". I would guess it was some kind of hot air gas newly invented.

 

[Grinder]

While a certain poster made a nasty characterization of my being, I still feel the need to come to that poster's aid.

In reviewing some comments I was drawn to Raf's prison diary. First on a PG site and then at akc.com.

In the diary as translated on Nov. 7 Raf says: I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At
least I am happy for that. My total restrictions were removed today so I can watch TV.

This would go counter to what I and others said here. The diary has a Nov. 7th date and then a Nov. 11th date with nothing in between. It would appear that Mignini was sanctioned for not immediately providing an attorney or access but that within a day Raf did have access.

Does anybody know if Amanda was also provided an attorney?

I must say that Raf's diary written well after the interrogation seems extremely confused and understandably suspicious to the PLE.

OTOH the PGP ongoing "he never restored Amanda's alibi" is shown to be false by his Nov. 12 post:

that I said a 90% really stupid thing [grossa cavolata] in my second statement. And that is:
1 that fact that Amanda persuaded me to say something is not true [è una cazzata] and I have
said so repeatedly to the judge and to the Squadra Mobile;
2 reconstructing [the events] I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me
all night long, never going out. And I will certainly not be the one to lie in order to help the
investigation and get everyone into trouble for no reason [gratuitamente]. Or better still, it
would be fabulous for me if Amanda has done nothing, since it is [diventa] impossible that
they find any traces on my shoe and on my knife and this story will have a happy ending for
me and for you

 

[Vixen]

Not surprisingly Vixen has failed to understand the point I was making. If someone believes someone is guilty of a crime and the prosecution have a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, they should be able to argue their case on the basis of direct evidence rather than things which happened outside the crime. If the PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder to argue their case, this means there was a lack of direct evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. In my post I gave examples where the PGP have lied about things Amanda and Raffaele did outside the murder. The fact the PGP have to resort to lying about things which happened outside the murder indicates the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Unfortunately for you, it is the prerogative of the judge to ramble away and pontificate as much as he likes (and we were discussing whether Judge Massei made up his claims pointing to Amanda's violent tendencies in reference to the knife).

Yes, the police, witnesses and the expert witnesses need to remain as objective and as factual as possible, giving their opinion only when asked, on their own, narrow, perspective of the case.

The judge has the advantage of a 360 degree overview of the case from all sides. If he wants to draw a reasonable inference, so be it. Too bad if you disagree with it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, Marasca and Bruno dropped the charges because of a misperceived verdict the investigation was irrevocably flawed. However, they made it clear Amanda and Raff had "umpteen elements of suspicious behaviour", the staged burglary was "strongly suspicious and incriminating of Amanda" and that the staging was "to cover for Rudy". In addition, the mixed DNA put Amanda indisputably at the murder scene and that she had, post-murder, rinsed off Mez' blood, having directly come into contact with it, Raff was almost certainly there with her, and in addition Bruno-Marasca slam the pair for their numerous "lies and inconsistencies". That is, lying about phone messages and computer usage.

So, it not the case "Amanda and Raff" were exonerted and declared "innocent". Far from it. In fact, quite the reverse. Marasca-Bruno could not put it more strongly their belief in Amanda's guilt, in particular. However, they claim they regrettably have to drop the charge because they could not grasp the scientific evidence and exhibited failures of reasoning in this area.

Well, one thing is for sure. You have a need to reinvent what Marasca/Bruno did. They "regrettably (had) to drop the charge"!? LOL!

None of this is even worth reposting relevant sections of Marasca/Bruno. Alas.

Tell you what - I've asked this before, but you simply cannot do this so it is worth the asking one more time......

Point to **one** Italian language source which even remotely sustains what you're reinventing above.