Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Apparently the defamation charge against Curt Knox and Edda Mellas is gone. I'm looking for a link. This action may have come as a result of the recent acquittal of Amanda Knox for similar defamation against police.

This is where I sincerely wish Machiavelli was here, because long ago he rightly corrected me about a court decision against Mignini.

 

[Grinder]

That doesn't say anything about 'satanic rituals'.

I think Mignini's earliest best judgement is very close to the truth of the matter.

And that judgment was what?

 

[Mike1711]

Of course there can still be differences of opinion. That's the whole point of academic research.

IIRC it was the Rome Scientific Forensics team who handled this and I have every confidence their forensic scientists are amongst the best of their generation. It is an insult to their expertise and professionalism to claim they are 'bent' and attempted to frame Amanda and Raff.

Is it possible for you to address the issue....just once!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

And that judgment was what?

Vixen, in case you missed Grinder's question. I think he's asked it 3 times now. I am also curious what you believe Mignini's initial judgement was!

 

[Grinder]

Vixen, in case you missed Grinder's question. I think he's asked it 3 times now. I am also curious what you believe Mignini's initial judgement was!

Thanks. \

This isn't really a trick question, Vixen. I agree that he didn't ever say, on the record for sure, that it was a "satanic ritual" and have debated with others over the point.

Since I started reading from the very first day both british and American media, I remember some of the contentions. I would like to hear from you what you believe the ILE was saying.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Thanks. \

This isn't really a trick question, Vixen. I agree that he didn't ever say, on the record for sure, that it was a "satanic ritual" and have debated with others over the point.

Since I started reading from the very first day both british and American media, I remember some of the contentions. I would like to hear from you what you believe the ILE was saying.

I agree that he probably didn't use the words "Satanic ritual", at least in a formal document. But when he talks about Halloween rites and All Saints Day and erotic sex games, it isn't exactly hyperbole to say he was talking about a pagan sex game (or whatever you want to call it). No point in playing semantic games when it's clear the prosecutor is a lunatic, and calling him and the system infallible as the basis for a belief in guilt is downright hilarious.

 

[Mike1711]

Who's they? I've always wanted to know who "they" are.

"They" are those with infinite knowledge.

 

[Grinder]

I agree that he probably didn't use the words "Satanic ritual", at least in a formal document. But when he talks about Halloween rites and All Saints Day and erotic sex games, it isn't exactly hyperbole to say he was talking about a pagan sex game (or whatever you want to call it). No point in playing semantic games when it's clear the prosecutor is a lunatic, and calling him and the system infallible as the basis for a belief in guilt is downright hilarious.

Well the thing is he really didn't say anything for quite some time. Since I had to read the british tabs for daily reports I did get much of what you speak of. However, their reporting is so awful and they just make stuff up for the british audience that seems to lap up the low-brow reporting, I can't trust they were getting it from Mignini or any official.

Read these two stories about a guy named Ha.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...r-stabbing-ex-uw-student-wants-his-life-back/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-punched-face-man-stole-parking-space.html

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Well the thing is he really didn't say anything for quite some time. Since I had to read the british tabs for daily reports I did get much of what you speak of. However, their reporting is so awful and they just make stuff up for the british audience that seems to lap up the low-brow reporting, I can't trust they were getting it from Mignini or any official.

Read these two stories about a guy named Ha.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...r-stabbing-ex-uw-student-wants-his-life-back/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-punched-face-man-stole-parking-space.html

Grinder,
I agree that the media can royally screw up a story (as evidenced by the two different accounts you linked to for Ha). Over time it seems like the stories converged to the truth (Ha's account is corroborated by the witnesses).

Relating to the whole sex game Mignini thing -- I have read enough accounts from people who were at the proceedings where I feel comfortable saying Mignini said and believed something akin to a pagan sex scenario in his legal ramblings. I don't think I have read a single account where Mignini came in to trial with something rational. If you can find a source of something different (and not just a PGP saying "nuh uh" because they don't want to admit the whole thing is ridiculous) where Mignini's initial account sounded reasonable and completely different than a sex game, I'd like to see it. Then there's his whole (confirmed) conspiracy theorizing with the Monster of Florence case, and it dramatically increases the probability that he's a loon obsessed with coming up with outlandish theories involving Satanism to explain straightforward crimes. Pretty far from an infallible prosecutor just out for the truth.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
I agree that the media can royally screw up a story (as evidenced by the two different accounts you linked to for Ha). Over time it seems like the stories converged to the truth (Ha's account is corroborated by the witnesses).

Relating to the whole sex game Mignini thing -- I have read enough accounts from people who were at the proceedings where I feel comfortable saying Mignini said and believed something akin to a pagan sex scenario in his legal ramblings. I don't think I have read a single account where Mignini came in to trial with something rational. If you can find a source of something different (and not just a PGP saying "nuh uh" because they don't want to admit the whole thing is ridiculous) where Mignini's initial account sounded reasonable and completely different than a sex game, I'd like to see it. Then there's his whole (confirmed) conspiracy theorizing with the Monster of Florence case, and it dramatically increases the probability that he's a loon obsessed with coming up with outlandish theories involving Satanism to explain straightforward crimes. Pretty far from an infallible prosecutor just out for the truth.

Only an aside, it seems it isn't just Mignini, but Italy. They have given part of their country to a religion that is the most cultish of major religions IMO and they seem to be obsessed with the occult, Masons etc.

There is no doubt that many theories involving sex were out there from very early on. Sex game gone bad was the first I remember, which along with "we questioned her until she buckled and told us what we knew to be correct" were the red flag rockets that made very skeptical from the beginning.

Now we have a major TV show broadcasting Rudi and his story, quoting from the verdict stating M&B said Amanda was there and washed her hands of Meredith's blood and no media, I've seen to date, has questioned it. Italy currently seems to be a very backward country with the oddest of beliefs. Yes they were advanced once, but then so were the Mayans.

 

[LondonJohn]

IIP has just posted a translation of Sollecito's interview with the police from 2nd November at 3.45pm - that's to say the day after the murder, and about 2.5 hours after the body was discovered.


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/11-2-2007-Witness-deposition-Sollecito.pdf


I think it's extremely illuminating and informative to the debate about the case. In essence, Sollecito tells the police in this statement everything he remembers about the day of the murder and the following day. And (assuming that the translation is accurate and reliable), it shows that the version Sollecito was telling the police in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the body was entirely consistent with the claims made by Sollecito and Knox throughout the trial process in respect of their whereabouts and actions.

It therefore calls into very sharp relief the Kate Mansey press story that was written on the basis of some sort of limited communication with Sollecito on 3rd November (and published on 4th November), and of course the statement that was the product of the Sollecito police interrogation on 5th/6th November.

Now, if one were assuming just for a moment that Knox and Sollecito truly did participate in the Kercher murder, would seem rather difficult and improbable to me that Knox and Sollecito would have worked out such a detailed false alibi prior to the discovery of the body (which Sollecito was able to recount in detail to the police that afternoon), but that then Sollecito - knowing (as he surely would) how critically important it would be to maintain the false alibi - would somehow forget the false alibi within a day!

What seems a lot more likely to me is that the version of events that Sollecito gave to the police on 2nd November was accurate. And that one (or both) of two things then happened:

a) the police and PM had concluded as soon as the 3rd that Knox was involved (and that Knox therefore had to have left Sollecito's apartment that night), and that when questioning Sollecito on the 3rd they had started to implant that thought into his head, leading him to start to conflate/confuse 1st November and 31st October, and he then exhibited this confusion/conflation in his communication with Mansey;

b) Mansey herself communicated with the police and/or PM who told her that they suspected Knox and that therefore Knox must have left Sollecito's apartment that night, and Mansey then persuaded Sollecito (or misrepresented his views) to confuse/collate 1st November and 31st October.


Personally, I'd lean towards (a) or (a)+(b). I certainly can't see how a guilty Sollecito would drop his carefully-constructed false alibi within 24 hours to Mansey, and I therefore have to suspect that an innocent Sollecito was telling the truth in this 2nd November police statement, but that probably the police were already sowing the seeds of confusion and doubt in his mind as soon as a day later.

 

[Grinder]

Well LJ it's obvious to all that the statement was orchestrated by Amanda. They clearly worked out their alibi together.

The statement is strange because I can't believe he was just talking to them for fifteen minutes or less. I'm guessing they interviewed him for some time and summarized for him and he signed. If he just wrote it out it is oddly detailed.

It raises the question: What were the ********s he told for Amanda?

I believe there is at least one more interview summary coming.

 

[acbytesla]

IIP has just posted a translation of Sollecito's interview with the police from 2nd November at 3.45pm - that's to say the day after the murder, and about 2.5 hours after the body was discovered.


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/11-2-2007-Witness-deposition-Sollecito.pdf


I think it's extremely illuminating and informative to the debate about the case. In essence, Sollecito tells the police in this statement everything he remembers about the day of the murder and the following day. And (assuming that the translation is accurate and reliable), it shows that the version Sollecito was telling the police in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the body was entirely consistent with the claims made by Sollecito and Knox throughout the trial process in respect of their whereabouts and actions.

It therefore calls into very sharp relief the Kate Mansey press story that was written on the basis of some sort of limited communication with Sollecito on 3rd November (and published on 4th November), and of course the statement that was the product of the Sollecito police interrogation on 5th/6th November.

Now, if one were assuming just for a moment that Knox and Sollecito truly did participate in the Kercher murder, would seem rather difficult and improbable to me that Knox and Sollecito would have worked out such a detailed false alibi prior to the discovery of the body (which Sollecito was able to recount in detail to the police that afternoon), but that then Sollecito - knowing (as he surely would) how critically important it would be to maintain the false alibi - would somehow forget the false alibi within a day!

What seems a lot more likely to me is that the version of events that Sollecito gave to the police on 2nd November was accurate. And that one (or both) of two things then happened:

a) the police and PM had concluded as soon as the 3rd that Knox was involved (and that Knox therefore had to have left Sollecito's apartment that night), and that when questioning Sollecito on the 3rd they had started to implant that thought into his head, leading him to start to conflate/confuse 1st November and 31st October, and he then exhibited this confusion/conflation in his communication with Mansey;

b) Mansey herself communicated with the police and/or PM who told her that they suspected Knox and that therefore Knox must have left Sollecito's apartment that night, and Mansey then persuaded Sollecito (or misrepresented his views) to confuse/collate 1st November and 31st October.


Personally, I'd lean towards (a) or (a)+(b). I certainly can't see how a guilty Sollecito would drop his carefully-constructed false alibi within 24 hours to Mansey, and I therefore have to suspect that an innocent Sollecito was telling the truth in this 2nd November police statement, but that probably the police were already sowing the seeds of confusion and doubt in his mind as soon as a day later.

I see them focusing on Amanda out of ethnocentric culturalism. Amanda was not only a foreigner to them her behavior was foreign. Amanda went out of her way to help the police and the police were taken aback. People didn't behave like that in Italy. She stood out so they zoomed in on her.

The fact is both Amanda and Raffaele's stories were consistent other than the story they got Amanda to tell them in the middle of the night on 5th/6th. You know, when they broke her and got her to tell them the story they knew to be true, but wasn't actually.

 

[Vixen]

And that judgment was what?

His closing submissions to Matteini.

 

[Vixen]

Well LJ it's obvious to all that the statement was orchestrated by Amanda. They clearly worked out their alibi together.

The statement is strange because I can't believe he was just talking to them for fifteen minutes or less. I'm guessing they interviewed him for some time and summarized for him and he signed. If he just wrote it out it is oddly detailed.

It raises the question: What were the ********s he told for Amanda?

I believe there is at least one more interview summary coming.

Compare and contrast it with the witness statement laid before the Matteini hearing:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Matteini_Hearing_(English)

 

[Grinder]

His closing submissions to Matteini.

I liked the fox avatar better.

And what exactly were his closing submissions to Matteini?

Is there some reason you are avoiding Mignini's theory of the crime? Is it strange and weird?

What psychological type doesn't answer simple questions?

 

[Vixen]

I liked the fox avatar better.

And what exactly were his closing submissions to Matteini?

Is there some reason you are avoiding Mignini's theory of the crime? Is it strange and weird?

What psychological type doesn't answer simple questions?

We already discussed this a while ago. Here's the Italian version:



http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Giuliano_Mignini's_Closing_Arguments_-_Preliminary_Hearing

 

[Loss Leader]

As though it wasn't crashingly obvious, discussions regarding the game of chess are completely off-topic for this thread. Please confine the discussion to things actually relating to, you know, the trial of Amanda Knox.

However, for those who must have chess, here it is:



Now back to the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[acbytesla]

We already discussed this a while ago.

Bob and weave, bob and weave.

 

[Grinder]

We already discussed this a while ago. Here's the Italian version:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Giuliano_Mignini's_Closing_Arguments_-_Preliminary_Hearing

Like the stuff you bring up is all new and fresh.

If Mignini didn't claim it was a rite of some sort what did he claim? Not in a Google translated page but what you believe he said.

We were talking about the early claims as well as the later ones.

Bizarrely this isn't a transcript from the court but Mignini's prepared statement. How odd that PGP site has it. Very odd, indeed.