Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

That feeble excuse being trotted out again?

All you have to do is not accuse anyone of lying.

Something like: "My recollection of that evening is I did not agree Knox had left the apartment until shortly before 03:30 am when I signed the statement after being shown the statement Knox had signed placing herself at the crime scene."

No one can be sued for giving their recollection.

This is news to me. Maybe I missed it. When was Raffaele shown Knox's statement?

 

[Grinder]

Wow. Where'd you get this?

Ficarra says Amanda was calm? Anna Donnino, the translator, said that when she arrived the interrogation was in shambles, so much so that Donnino decided to act as if a mediator rather than a translator. (And why wouldn't it be in shambles without a translator? Ficarra thought "See you later" meant that Amanda was conspiring with another to kill someone!!!)

Thanks for this Grinder.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Testimony-of-Rita-Ficarra.pdf

 

[query grind]

Excuse me. But he has said precisely that. He just cannot account for any time which he was not awake.

I see we are back to throwing out incoherent drivel again.

Sollecito told Knox had not withdrawn her alibi when the police claimed he had.
He has never said that publically.

How can you possibly pretend not comprehend that?

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. Where'd you get this?

Ficarra says Amanda was calm? Anna Donnino, the translator, said that when she arrived the interrogation was in shambles, so much so that Donnino decided to act as if a mediator rather than a translator. (And why wouldn't it be in shambles without a translator? Ficarra thought "See you later" meant that Amanda was conspiring with another to kill someone!!!)

Thanks for this Grinder.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Testimony-of-Rita-Ficarra.pdf

Can anyone spell "revisionist history"?

It becomes now apparent that Ficarra, Napoleoni, Mignini and the others simply cannot have it both ways. Their testimony was an attempt to set up that Knox had no inducement to mention Lumumba, so in 2016 they start fudging on whether or not Knox had been informed that "Raffaele had pulled his alibi for her."

A couple of things are clear - I had always believed that in broad brushstrokes John Follain in, "A Death in Italy" gave a somewhat accurate, albeit one-sided account of the PLE case against the kids in the early days. And why not, he had unbridled access to them, sometimes their very thoughts as events unfolded.

It's clear now that Follain wrote pure fiction. The only thing which is at issue is who originated the fiction. Did Follain lie for his own reasons, or did the PLE feed him a pack of lies which he uncritically documented?

I doubt that the people suing Knox over the slap on the head are going to write much to the appeal's court. The axiom is - it is better to be silent and be thought corrupt, than speak and remove all doubt.

 

[query grind]

This is news to me. Maybe I missed it. When was Raffaele shown Knox's statement?

Who knows? All we know is he told Knox the police had lied when they said he had withdrawn his alibi.

Acbtesla he couldn't possibly repeat that public without being charged for calunnia. I demonstrated he easily could.

Again, very simple to understand

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12

How do I know what happened, all I know is he tells Knox one thing and everyone else something different.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see we are back to throwing out incoherent drivel again.

Sollecito told Knox had not withdrawn her alibi when the police claimed he had.
He has never said that publically.

How can you possibly pretend not comprehend that?

Please read Sollecito's book. He freely admits that when he signed off on his own interrogator's confusion over the two nights, that he had inadvertently put her in a tight spot.

It's in "Honor Bound".

 

[Bill Williams]

Who knows? All we know is he told Knox the police had lied when they said he had withdrawn his alibi.

Acbtesla he couldn't possibly repeat that public without being charged for calunnia. I demonstrated he easily could.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12 in quote

How do I know what happened, all I know is he tells Knox one thing and everyone else something different.

You said that Raffaele was shown Knox's signed statement, before he signed his statement. I have never seen that referred to before.

So I ask you where you got this information. You answer is, "Who knows"?

That was the simple question before you rode off in all directions. The answer is, you don't know where this information comes from.

You made it up.

 

[query grind]

Please read Sollecito's book. He freely admits that when he signed off on his own interrogator's confusion over the two nights, that he had inadvertently put her in a tight spot.

It's in "Honor Bound".

But he signed at 03:30 am. Amanda Knox signed hers at 01:45.

Subsequently he told Amanda Knox privately that he had not withdrawn her alibi at that point

Why do you have such difficult understanding such a simple concept?

 

[query grind]

You said that Raffaele was shown Knox's signed statement, before he signed his statement. I have never seen that referred to before.

...

You made it up.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Tesla asked how could Sollecito repeat what he told Knox in private without being sued, I demonstrated how he could do that without being defamatory.

Quite right, it was "made up."

 

[LondonJohn]

Who knows? All we know is he told Knox the police had lied when they said he had withdrawn his alibi.

Acbtesla he couldn't possibly repeat that public without being charged for calunnia. I demonstrated he easily could.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12 in quote

How do I know what happened, all I know is he tells Knox one thing and everyone else something different.

No - it's not black and white, as you seem to be implying. It's shades of grey. As other have pointed out (and as I myself tend to believe is most likely the truth on this issue), the police may have got Sollecito to agree that he couldn't say with certainty that Knox hadn't left his apartment at any time while he was asleep. In addition, it seems fairly clear that the police had coerced Sollecito into confusing and conflating the events of the night before (Halloween) with the events of the night of the murder.

So if either or both of those is accurate, then it's not as if Sollecito affirmatively told the police in his 6th/6th Nov interrogation that he now believed Knox went out (or even "could have gone out") and that he was making a material change to his position.

 

[query grind]

Here you go. from 7 minutes 30
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...a-knox-exclusive-video-interview-guilty-video

Knox: And then they told me that Raffaele said I wasn't there and that completely threw me off as I couldn't understand why he would say that.
Paxton: Which also wasn't true
Knox: Which also wasn't true
Paxton: They lied to her,[ that something was being said that wasn't] (not very audible)

As we know Sollecito statement was that she was gone until 1 am, so I think Knox is correct when she says the police were saying things that Sollecito had not said at that point.

It suggests the police had a source of evidence, which they have not revealed, that showed Knox out of his apartment between 20:00 and 21:00. They then pretended Sollecito had said she was gone just for the time period they believed they had evidence that she really had been absent
If they were repeating what Sollecito signed, they would have said she was gone until 1:00 am.

In my view.

 

[Bill Williams]

But he signed at 03:30 am. Amanda Knox signed hers at 01:45.

Subsequently he told Amanda Knox privately that he had not withdrawn her alibi at that point

Why do you have such difficult understanding such a simple concept?

He told the world publically that he had inadvertently cut her loose, by signing off on the interrogator's version of what was talked about at his interrogation. It was based on a confusion of two nights - a confusion that he caved into.

Read his book. Rather than go all ad hominem on posters here, quit speculating on what he told Amanda privately. The whole world understands his position, save for a few who say he eventually threw her under a bus.

Quit speculating on who told what to whom privately.

 

[query grind]

No - it's not black and white, as you seem to be implying.

I'm only saying what Knox said.
Paxton says they were lying and Knox agrees. The only source for that claim has to be Sollecito.

For the record, from Knox's account, I agree with her. The police were lying as to the source. However, their information was correct: out of the apartment from 20:00 to 21:00

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm only saying what Knox said.
Paxton says they were lying and Knox agrees. The only source for that claim has to be Sollecito.

For the record, from Knox's account, I agree with her. The police were lying as to the source. However, their information was correct: out of the apartment from 20:00 to 21:00

Then was Jovanic lying?

 

[Bill Williams]

Here you go. from 7 minutes 30
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...a-knox-exclusive-video-interview-guilty-video

Knox: And then they told me that Raffaele said I wasn't there and that completely threw me off as I couldn't understand why he would say that.
Paxton: Which also wasn't true
Knox: Which also wasn't true
Paxton: They lied to her,[ that something was being said that wasn't] (not very audible)

As we know Sollecito statement was that she was gone until 1 am, so I think Knox is correct when she says the police were saying things that Sollecito had not said at that point.

It suggests the police had a source of evidence, which they have not revealed, that showed Knox out of his apartment between 20:00 and 21:00. They then pretended Sollecito had said she was gone just for the time period they believed they had evidence that she really had been absent
If they were repeating what Sollecito signed, they would have said she was gone until 1:00 am.

In my view.

What it suggests is that the cops did not know what to make of Raffaele's involvement - which they assumed (as on the interrogations) he had none. It explains why the 5:45 am memorale said that it was unknown if Raffaele had been involved or not.

When the two, two days later, went before Mattieni Mignini realized that without Raffaele as a participant, there was no case against Knox.

It does not suggest that on the night of the interrogations there was some other source. It is more probably that the cops simply let events get away from them with a theory that involved Lumumba.

 

[Bill Williams]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12 on quote

Tesla asked how could Sollecito repeat what he told Knox in private without being sued, I demonstrated how he could do that without being defamatory.

Quite right, it was "made up."

So you "demonstrated" something by making something else up.

Right. Carry on.

 

[query grind]

So you "demonstrated" something by making something else up.

Right. Carry on.

The English language is a wonderful instrument. If someone says it is raining cats and dogs outside, invariably you will find it is just normal water droplets descending.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Bill Williams]

The English language is a wonderful instrument. If someone says it is raining cats and dogs outside, invariably you will find it is just normal water droplets descending.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Thank you for clearing this up. So you are not claiming that anyone showed Raffaele any of Amanda's statements. Got it.

It still leaves it an interesting question why you thought you had to claim it, even hypothetically, to refute Tesla's claim. In the future it would be better to stick to what is known, rather than what can be imagined to make one's point.

 

[query grind]

Thank you for clearing this up. So you are not claiming that anyone showed Raffaele any of Amanda's statements. Got it.

No, I think Sollecito was shown Knox's statements. Knox seemed to think so or she wouldn't have started gabbling about fish blood being on his hands.

What is beyond dispute is that Sollecito has privately share a different narrative with Knox than that share publicly - which is why she stated the police lied to her.
Now I think that private narrative will include Knox and Sollecito being shown each others statements, but since the narrative is private obviously I can't know.

Tesla's claim was that the narrative HAD to stay private to avoid calunnia suits, I demonstrated that was not so

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I think Sollecito was shown Knox's statements. Knox seemed to think so or she wouldn't have started gabbling about fish blood being on his hands.

What is beyond dispute is that Sollecito has privately share a different narrative with Knox than that share publicly - which is why she stated the police lied to her.
Now I think that private narrative will include Knox and Sollecito being shown each others statements, but since the narrative is private obviously I can't know.

Tesla's claim was that the narrative HAD to stay private to avoid calunnia suits, I demonstrated that was not so

You demonstrated no such thing. Yet, you say this is only your opinion. Fair enough. What you say is "beyond dispute" is simply wishful thinking on your part. Fair enough. You're allowed to embellish if need be.