Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Massei states in his MR that both phones have been turned off at Raff's home. In the conclusion section he says it was a spontaneous, unplanned act. How is the fact that both turned off their mobile phones relevant for the case? What is the evidence here if at the moment they turned off their phone no murder was planned? Can a PGP explain?

Same with the alleged transport of the kitchen knife from Raffaele's. Both the Massei and Nencini (convicting) courts had to invent an innocent reason for AK and RS to have carried that knife that evening - because both courts say the act of murder was unplanned.

And yet they were supposed to have arrived at the cottage with that knife, Massei says with Rudy, Nencini has Rudy already there. And despite getting rid of a second knife and spending time cleaning up their presence at the scene - to the point of faking a burglary - they stupidly simply replace that knife in the drawer, rather than dispose of it and pay the landlord for its absence.

PGP have always alternated between planning and spontaneity depending on what they're alleging at the moment.

It's why at a minimum PGP have never believed even the Massei or Nencini reports, not really.

 

[Vixen]

WE know?? Who knew Vixen, about Amanda being 'on a high'? And once again you reveal yourself. 'Sexually excited'? Please explain. No dont. I am itching reading this skin crawling BS from you.
A question if I may. Do you actually follow any murder cases sans a sexual element? I know many of those you echo do, so...........

Get help. Post haste.

Annella's off. Someone throw some cold water over her!

 

[Vixen]

Same with the alleged transport of the kitchen knife from Raffaele's. Both the Massei and Nencini (convicting) courts had to invent an innocent reason for AK and RS to have carried that knife that evening - because both courts say the act of murder was unplanned.

And yet they were supposed to have arrived at the cottage with that knife, Massei says with Rudy, Nencini has Rudy already there. And despite getting rid of a second knife and spending time cleaning up their presence at the scene - to the point of faking a burglary - they stupidly simply replace that knife in the drawer, rather than dispose of it and pay the landlord for its absence.

PGP have always alternated between planning and spontaneity depending on what they're alleging at the moment.

It's why at a minimum PGP have never believed even the Massei or Nencini reports, not really.

That's because they didn't have to establish premeditation, as it was first degree anyway (in Italy: 'aggravated murder, because of sexual assault').

Why give the defence something to appeal against, when the bare minumum legal argument is needed to convict?

 

[Vixen]

I'm reasonably confident I know why it is. Regardless, it's certainly fascinating just how often pro-guilt "arguments" veer off into territories related to sex, sexualisation, sexual morality and sexual fantasy. Once again, I am pretty confident that a decent psychiatrist would reach for the terms "projection", "jealousy" and "unresolved sexual issues" to explain such behaviour.

Of course, the further irony is that so many pro-guilt "arguments" accuse those who hold a pro-acquittal/pro-innocence beliefs of harbouring improper, unhealthy feelings of sexual lust towards Knox. See the above paragraph for the most likely explanation.......

That's what we've come to expect from you, isn't it? Innunendo and insinuation is your leit motif.

Contemptible, but highly predictable. Anyone who disagrees with LondonJohn can expect to be attacked on a personal level, with scurrilous aspersions thrown in, together with degradation.

 

[bagels]

That's because they didn't have to establish premeditation, as it was first degree anyway (in Italy: 'aggravated murder, because of sexual assault').

Why give the defence something to appeal against, when the bare minumum legal argument is needed to convict?

They needed to establish premeditation to make the kitchen knife the murder weapon, otherwise there's strong reasonable doubt since not only does it not match the wounds or imprint, and doesn't contain blood, it also has no reason to be transported to the cottage in the first place.

Of course establishing premeditation is very hard when Amanda and Raff had prior plans that evening, and Rudy was caught snooping around alone on CCTV by the cottage before any of these plans were canceled, and neither had any means of communicating with him.

It was a weak to non-existent case Vixen. Why can't you see that? What's wrong with your ability to process basic reality?

Amanda Knox could be guilty, in the same way Ted Bundy could be innocent. Anything is possible. But the courts can only rule on the evidence, and when they don't they tend to get appealed. It's like super basic. Why do you need to post 5000x with crap? Makes no sense to me.

 

[bagels]

The murder theory actually went from premeditation to non-premeditation when they swapped Patrick for Rudy lol

Originally the police thought the text Amanda sent Patrick was a "let's meet up for some rape" text.

But then despite punching and kicking Patrick and calling him a dirty black and shutting down his bar and telling him he should get the electric chair, they couldn't get him to confess, and sadly for them none of his DNA matched the rapekit taken from the scene.

This was like a double your trouble moment for the police because not only was Patrick innocent, but it meant the text Amanda was sending him had nothing to do with meeting at the cottage, and it meant Amanda thought she would be called into work until she finally got that text.

So when Rudy the burglar shows up on CCTV before Amanda knows she wont be working all night, it's like hmmm how does Rudy Know there's going to be a rape murder party that night - is he psychic?

They never really address this when they swap Rudy for Patrick, even though they've lost their text, lost their timeline, lost their plans, lost their motivations, and lost their crime narrative.

But what do they gain? A burglar with a history of wall climbing and window smashing.

And what do we gain? Someone who makes 5000 posts rejecting the obvious.

Hallelujah

 

[LondonJohn]

That's what we've come to expect from you, isn't it? Innunendo and insinuation is your leit motif.

Contemptible, but highly predictable. Anyone who disagrees with LondonJohn can expect to be attacked on a personal level, with scurrilous aspersions thrown in, together with degradation.

Nothing to do with me. Don't you ever stop to wonder why your "arguments" about this case depart into the area of sexual prurience (replete with "fruity" adjectival depictions of Knox in particular) so very often? I'd be focussing on that if I were you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Same with the alleged transport of the kitchen knife from Raffaele's. Both the Massei and Nencini (convicting) courts had to invent an innocent reason for AK and RS to have carried that knife that evening - because both courts say the act of murder was unplanned.

And yet they were supposed to have arrived at the cottage with that knife, Massei says with Rudy, Nencini has Rudy already there. And despite getting rid of a second knife and spending time cleaning up their presence at the scene - to the point of faking a burglary - they stupidly simply replace that knife in the drawer, rather than dispose of it and pay the landlord for its absence.

PGP have always alternated between planning and spontaneity depending on what they're alleging at the moment.

It's why at a minimum PGP have never believed even the Massei or Nencini reports, not really.

That's because they didn't have to establish premeditation, as it was first degree anyway (in Italy: 'aggravated murder, because of sexual assault').

Why give the defence something to appeal against, when the bare minumum legal argument is needed to convict?

Sigh.

Of course they do not **have to** establish premeditation. Who here said that they had to?

Yet both Massei AND Nencini for their own reasons still find themselves commenting on the issue. Both say that this was a non-premeditated crime. Why did they say that? You cannot answer, can you! I do not know why you purposely fail to address issues that they include - you're moving the goalposts away from the issues BOTH Nencini an Massei dealt with and commented upon....

...... which is why I repeat: you simply do not believe much of what they wrote, even in provisionally convicting the pair.

Indeed, you've sashayed away from Wilson85's point where he/she asks you to explain something......

Massei states in his MR that both phones have been turned off at Raff's home. In the conclusion section he says it was a spontaneous, unplanned act. How is the fact that both turned off their mobile phones relevant for the case? What is the evidence here if at the moment they turned off their phone no murder was planned? Can a PGP explain?

The issue of premeditation/nonpremeditation is central to this crime; in the sense that the turning off the phones and the carrying of the knife had nothing to do with the crime - even as seen by Massei and Nencini in provisionally convicting them.

You simply ignore Wilson85's question to explain what the turning off the of the phones has to do with anything in Massei's or Nencini's already absurd theories of the crime.

 

[Vixen]

The murder theory actually went from premeditation to non-premeditation when they swapped Patrick for Rudy lol

Originally the police thought the text Amanda sent Patrick was a "let's meet up for some rape" text.

But then despite punching and kicking Patrick and calling him a dirty black and shutting down his bar and telling him he should get the electric chair, they couldn't get him to confess, and sadly for them none of his DNA matched the rapekit taken from the scene.

This was like a double your trouble moment for the police because not only was Patrick innocent, but it meant the text Amanda was sending him had nothing to do with meeting at the cottage, and it meant Amanda thought she would be called into work until she finally got that text.

So when Rudy the burglar shows up on CCTV before Amanda knows she wont be working all night, it's like hmmm how does Rudy Know there's going to be a rape murder party that night - is he psychic?

They never really address this when they swap Rudy for Patrick, even though they've lost their text, lost their timeline, lost their plans, lost their motivations, and lost their crime narrative.

But what do they gain? A burglar with a history of wall climbing and window smashing.

And what do we gain? Someone who makes 5000 posts rejecting the obvious.

Hallelujah

When you have three people, two can conspire against the other, especially if they are a couple.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sigh.

Of course they do not **have to** establish premeditation. Who here said that they had to?

Yet both Massei AND Nencini for their own reasons still find themselves commenting on the issue. Both say that this was a non-premeditated crime. Why did they say that? You cannot answer, can you! I do not know why you purposely fail to address issues that they include - you're moving the goalposts away from the issues BOTH Nencini an Massei dealt with and commented upon....

...... which is why I repeat: you simply do not believe much of what they wrote, even in provisionally convicting the pair.

Indeed, you've sashayed away from Wilson85's point where he/she asks you to explain something......


The issue of premeditation/nonpremeditation is central to this crime; in the sense that the turning off the phones and the carrying of the knife had nothing to do with the crime - even as seen by Massei and Nencini in provisionally convicting them.

You simply ignore Wilson85's question to explain what the turning off the of the phones has to do with anything in Massei's or Nencini's already absurd theories of the crime.

And that's not even to mention the fact that both Massei and Nencini signally (no pun intended...) failed to understand the technological issue at play here, possibly aided in their ignorance by the incompetence of the defence teams on this matter.

All that the evidence showed was that both Sollecito's phone and Knox's phone disconnected from their respective networks that evening. Knox already testified that she turned her phone off after learning that she was not needed for work at Lumumba's bar: she was already with her boyfriend, with whom she intended to spend the rest of the evening and night; she neither needed nor expected to communicate with anyone else over her mobile that evening/night; and she also said that she wanted to ensure that Lumumba couldn't have got back in touch with her later that evening to tell her that the bar had got busy and that he now wanted her to come in. And all that, in the circumstances, appears plausible and reasonable.

Sollecito, on the other hand, doesn't remember turning his mobile phone off that evening. The mistake the Massei and Nencini courts made was to assume that a phone disconnecting from the network is synonymous with the phone being manually turned off. In fact, several other factors can disconnect a phone from the network without any manual intervention. In Sollecito's particular case, it's been established that mobile phone reception on his network inside his apartment was extremely patchy and variable, owing to the particular topology of his mobile network and the pattern of closely-spaced multi-storey buildings in that part of Perugia, most of which (including Sollecito's apartment building) had very thick stone exterior walls.

So in fact it's highly feasible that Sollecito's phone disconnected from the network simply because it fell out of network coverage. Of course it's a shame that his defence team didn't conduct a more painstaking signal analysis inside his apartment to prove this phenomenon (though at least they did do some such analysis which certainly suggested it as a strong possibility).

IMO, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that on the night of the Kercher murder, Knox deliberately switched off her mobile phone (for the reasons outlined above), and Sollecito's phone just fell out of network coverage due to geographical, topological and obstruction issues.


And all that aside, three connected serious (and intractable) problems exist for the prosecution and the convicting courts in respect of this mobile phone issue. Firstly (as outlined above), if the courts are going to conclude that Knox and Sollecito both deliberately switched off their phones as a prelude to travelling to the cottage to attack Kercher, they have to square that with the fact that there is no other suggestion of premeditation (and the fact that they found for no premeditation). Secondly, if Knox and Sollecito went to the girls' cottage for some other reason and "ended up" attacking and killing Kercher, then why wouldn't they have taken their phones - switched on as normal - with them? And thirdly, if Knox and Sollecito really did form a premeditated plan to commit a serious criminal act upon Kercher that night, then why wouldn't they have had the time, wherewithal and knowledge to "lay a false trail" by leaving their two phones, switched on and with network coverage, in Sollecito's apartment. That way, in any subsequent investigation, they could have pointed to the phone records as some form of evidence that they remained in Sollecito's apartment all that evening/night.

So which ever way you choose to cut it, the evidence of the phone activity/signal coverage/location of Knox's and Sollecito's mobiles is actually entirely incompatible with either a premeditated attack or a spur-of-the-moment situation that escalated out of hand.

 

[Bill Williams]

When you have three people, two can conspire against the other, especially if they are a couple.

You just say anything that comes to mind, regardless of inconsistency.

A minute ago you had them with no regard for one another. Now you have them as confidantes trusting each other to conspire against a third. Which is it!?

You are consistent on one thing, note your use of the word "can" above. You offer nothing to connect your thought to this crime other than that word. That describes the tenor of most of your posts..... opinion unsupported by anything.

That's the definition of a PR campaign, trying to create an impression out of no evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

When you have three people, two can conspire against the other, especially if they are a couple.

Ah but what if you only have ONE person - the single person with whom the whole crime is entirely compatible evidentially as a sole act, and the person who was correctly and safely convicted of the crime of the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Rudy Guede.

 

[Stacyhs]

When you have three people, two can conspire against the other, especially if they are a couple.

So that's why the two carefully and successfully removed only their own invisible DNA and fingerprints from inside Meredith's bedroom and all other traces of them! I bet they counted the rings on Raff's shoe soles and made sure to only clean up those bloody prints, too.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh.

Of course they do not **have to** establish premeditation. Who here said that they had to?

Yet both Massei AND Nencini for their own reasons still find themselves commenting on the issue. Both say that this was a non-premeditated crime. Why did they say that? You cannot answer, can you! I do not know why you purposely fail to address issues that they include - you're moving the goalposts away from the issues BOTH Nencini an Massei dealt with and commented upon....

...... which is why I repeat: you simply do not believe much of what they wrote, even in provisionally convicting the pair.

Indeed, you've sashayed away from Wilson85's point where he/she asks you to explain something......


The issue of premeditation/nonpremeditation is central to this crime; in the sense that the turning off the phones and the carrying of the knife had nothing to do with the crime - even as seen by Massei and Nencini in provisionally convicting them.

You simply ignore Wilson85's question to explain what the turning off the of the phones has to do with anything in Massei's or Nencini's already absurd theories of the crime.

When a judge writes a report it is an exercise in damage limitation. His or her first concern is not having the embarrassment of having it overturned on appeal. Thus, they will aim to deal with the narrowest of issues, to limit the degrees of freedom.

I don't know what the list of issues were (i.e., 'issues' as in the legal sense of the word), but premeditation would not have been one of them as it was already classed as 'first degree' murder by the virtue of the sexual attack.

We saw how Massei disposed of disputes between the parties by conceding those which were not relevant to the finding of guilt.


Thus, did the kids ring up the police before they arrived? Hard evidence (pings, cctv footage, other circumstantial evidence) proves they rang after. However, Massei didn't argue it so the defence could not appeal it. Do you see what he did there?

He decided the ladies footprint in blood was not a salient issue as Amanda could be found guilty on other solid evidence. He didn't argue it, so no appeal by the defence on that issue to subvert his guilty verdict.

He ignored the pair switching off their phones the same time, as premeditation was not a legal issue, as it would have been were there no sexual assault. No grounds for the defence to appeal, therefore.

What is interesting is what he did find irrevertable indisputable evidence.

You note, the second instance court, Nencini, had just a couple of issues to reassess: the defence claim of contamination - not upheld. Hellmann's abnegation of duty to call up Aviello - the defence witness who was supposed to go into the box and swear he had been bribed into perverting justice. He deliberately cocked up his testimony, giving lie to the claim he was not. (Defence detriment).

Hellmann wrote off Quintavalle and Curatolo (you note, Massei didn't think they were marginal) so they had to be assessed again (another defence detriment).

You might wonder why Bruno-Marasca criticised the prosecution for the failures of Hellmann and the defence.

The supposed irregular press activity was again 99% due to the defence interfering in the case, yet this was given as one of the two main reasons for acquittal.

The other main reason was 'flawed police investigation', with this never having been assessed as to its merits in the lower courts. Both the first and second court found no evidence of this.

So, you can see why the Bruno-Marasca court was defective and erred in failing to send the aforesaid issues back to the merits court. It erred further in that the Italian penal code has it written in statute that serious crimes cannot just be reversed by an appeal court. It must, by law, be remitted back to a lower court with directions to reassess the issue/s in dispute as directed by the Supreme Court (as Chiefi's court did).

 

[Vixen]

You just say anything that comes to mind, regardless of inconsistency.

A minute ago you had them with no regard for one another. Now you have them as confidantes trusting each other to conspire against a third. Which is it!?

You are consistent on one thing, note your use of the word "can" above. You offer nothing to connect your thought to this crime other than that word. That describes the tenor of most of your posts..... opinion unsupported by anything.

That's the definition of a PR campaign, trying to create an impression out of no evidence.

I was responding to bagels, who claimed there's no way Amanda and Raff preplanned the crime with Rudy.

I pointed out there was no logical compulsion for them to do so. If someone wants to plan a 'perfect murder', then bring in someone whom you can use as the fall guy.

 

[Vixen]

Ah but what if you only have ONE person - the single person with whom the whole crime is entirely compatible evidentially as a sole act, and the person who was correctly and safely convicted of the crime of the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Rudy Guede.

Micheli spelt out Rudy was an accessory, with two others, Amanda and Raff, and it was not /Rudy who inflicted the death wound.

Massei, Nencini and Bruno-Marasca also spelt it out.

 

[Vixen]

So that's why the two carefully and successfully removed only their own invisible DNA and fingerprints from inside Meredith's bedroom and all other traces of them! I bet they counted the rings on Raff's shoe soles and made sure to only clean up those bloody prints, too.

Unfortunately, one of the assailants left behind a ladies size 37 footprint covered in blood, underneath Mez' body. It had a narrow heel, so you would be really reaching to claim, 'Oh that was Rudy's too!'

 

[Bill Williams]

I was responding to bagels, who claimed there's no way Amanda and Raff preplanned the crime with Rudy.

I pointed out there was no logical compulsion for them to do so. If someone wants to plan a 'perfect murder', then bring in someone whom you can use as the fall guy.

You cannot read. Both convicting courts said there was no planning. No one tried to "plan the perfect murder".

 

[Bill Williams]

Micheli spelt out Rudy was an accessory, with two others, Amanda and Raff, and it was not /Rudy who inflicted the death wound.

Massei, Nencini and Bruno-Marasca also spelt it out.

LOL! Bruno-Marasca "spelled out" that Amanda inflicted the death wound? You cannot read if you believe that.

 

[Bill Williams]

When a judge writes a report it is an exercise in damage limitation. His or her first concern is not having the embarrassment of having it overturned on appeal. Thus, they will aim to deal with the narrowest of issues, to limit the degrees of freedom.

I don't know what the list of issues were (i.e., 'issues' as in the legal sense of the word), but premeditation would not have been one of them as it was already classed as 'first degree' murder by the virtue of the sexual attack.

We saw how Massei disposed of disputes between the parties by conceding those which were not relevant to the finding of guilt.


Thus, did the kids ring up the police before they arrived? Hard evidence (pings, cctv footage, other circumstantial evidence) proves they rang after. However, Massei didn't argue it so the defence could not appeal it. Do you see what he did there?

He decided the ladies footprint in blood was not a salient issue as Amanda could be found guilty on other solid evidence. He didn't argue it, so no appeal by the defence on that issue to subvert his guilty verdict.

He ignored the pair switching off their phones the same time, as premeditation was not a legal issue, as it would have been were there no sexual assault. No grounds for the defence to appeal, therefore.

What is interesting is what he did find irrevertable indisputable evidence.

You note, the second instance court, Nencini, had just a couple of issues to reassess: the defence claim of contamination - not upheld. Hellmann's abnegation of duty to call up Aviello - the defence witness who was supposed to go into the box and swear he had been bribed into perverting justice. He deliberately cocked up his testimony, giving lie to the claim he was not. (Defence detriment).

Hellmann wrote off Quintavalle and Curatolo (you note, Massei didn't think they were marginal) so they had to be assessed again (another defence detriment).

You might wonder why Bruno-Marasca criticised the prosecution for the failures of Hellmann and the defence.

The supposed irregular press activity was again 99% due to the defence interfering in the case, yet this was given as one of the two main reasons for acquittal.

The other main reason was 'flawed police investigation', with this never having been assessed as to its merits in the lower courts. Both the first and second court found no evidence of this.

So, you can see why the Bruno-Marasca court was defective and erred in failing to send the aforesaid issues back to the merits court. It erred further in that the Italian penal code has it written in statute that serious crimes cannot just be reversed by an appeal court. It must, by law, be remitted back to a lower court with directions to reassess the issue/s in dispute as directed by the Supreme Court (as Chiefi's court did).

This post makes the mistakes that someone would make if they'd had one year of law school and no practical experience.

But dealing with the last paragraph..... it simply is not true. Indeed, subsequent courts which make reference to the B/M decision simply say that it is now a judicial fact, properly arrived at, that AK (and by implication RS) were exonerated in March 2015.

B/M gave a full and **legal** accounting for why they did not refer this matter back down to yet another 2nd grade court. You simply ignore that truth.