Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

IIRC Mignini was always reported to have been asleep when Amanda broke and told what they knew to be the truth. The story was that he was awakened and went to the interrogation area. Further the story was that Amanda insisted on talking to him and he agreed and the 5:45 session was initiated.

This is another theme that I think the FOA overdid. I don't think in the early days that Mignini "framed" her. I think he and the police believed she at a minimum had something to do with the murder. As time went by they were all invested and couldn't let it go.

In terms of whack-a-mole, the PGP use volume as proof. Amanda has so many things to explain; therefore, she must be guilty.

It would fun to see one of Harry's old list of evidence, not lies, that he used to paste into every comment thread. It's a shame that most of the comment threads seem to be gone because that really was the faux pr battleground.

 

[anglolawyer]

Kaosium - great post. You said:

'he returned to the cottage. The dump was of course there and intact, thus that information was untrue. Some have tried to speculate on what a guilty Amanda may have been trying to 'hide' by 'lying' about not seeing it, but my guess is either her second glance was at a deceptive angle (Dan-O has posted some really cool pics on how this can happen with that toilet) or the dump sunk down into where it drains and thus was hidden from view when she looked again.'
It didn't sink down far. You can see it being retrieved in the CSI vid (I recommend doing so after dinner) in which, in passing, you can also see the toilet paper, the use of which by Guede is not free of significance. I may dwell on that at length when the conversation shifts away from the current focus on 'lies'.

 

[RoseMontague]

Kaosium - thank you for the detail.

Wow.

Echo ditto.

The book should have been written by Kaosium, imo. Maybe when the dust settles.

 

[Antony]

Bill --

I think it is fine that you are able to have a give and take with a PGP person, on PM or otherwise. My only comment is that I find it a bit of an odd debate for someone to claim a point (such as the 6 lies), and then refuse to tell you what they are, saying you have to do your own work. Isn't it this person's debating point? If it exists, can't they just tell you?

To illustrate, imagine the current US Presidential race, with all the debates.

Candidate 1: "Candidate #2 lied about his support for XYZ."
Candidate 2: "When? That is an unfounded charge!"
Candidate 1: "Look it up yourself, and the voters too. I am not going to do the work for you."

Does this make any sense? Just saying.

I've had the same from someone on another online discussion, on a completely different subject, but one where I was taking the minority view. The person evidently thought that his assertion was so well-established that he didn't need to provide any facts to back it up - because I could (supposedly) find the supporting facts for myself, and then I would come to the same conclusion as he did.

Of course, there might be situations where this response is valid: "Where is the evidence that the Earth goes round the Sun? I can't find any." (The trouble is that even here, telling the person to "look it up yourself!" would just mean they would go back to the first book of Genesis, and confirm to themselves that there was no evidence.)

And this shows what we continue to be up against: the PG crowd actually regard Amanda's alleged "lies" as so well-established that they don't consider that they need to be examined.

 

[Dan O.]

And this shows what we continue to be up against: the PG crowd actually regard Amanda's alleged "lies" as so well-established that they don't consider that they need to be examined.

It's gone well beyond that in this thread. They make the same claims over and over while ignoring the evidence posted by the pro innocence and skeptic sides.

I scrolled back to find the begining of the list of lies and found it posted about 2 years ago in the original thread. This list had been debunked repeatedly over the years and the PG crowd continues to post the same or extended list. This I call trollish behavior and think there should be a rule against it.

 

[Grinder]

And this shows what we continue to be up against: the PG crowd actually regard Amanda's alleged "lies" as so well-established that they don't consider that they need to be examined.

Yes, but really it's what they themselves are up against.

Every piece for them is seen in light of guilt. To this day, they discuss about when will Amanda (mostly) and Raffaele come clean and tell what happened Recently they have been discussing Rudy in the kindest tones and sympathizing with his pre-murder economic plight and how his drug dealing wasn't for money just to be popular. Apparently he didn't kill Meredith for any evil or bad motives, just to be part of something and be popular with Amanda.

More proof of your point is that now Amanda's reaction to Rudy is being given the full guilt parsing treatment. She first says that she didn't know him well at all, didn't remember his name and had only seen him 3 or 4 times. But, then she blurts out something about how awful it is to know Meredith's killer. She refers to him as the fourth suspect, which of course she shouldn't do because if she were innocent she wouldn't do that. The PGP ignore that is what the media is calling him and she is just repeating that and that if innocent she has no idea how many people were involved.

They also wonder why Amanda and Raffaele would worry what Rudy might say. Perhaps, because they have been in jail on false charges for 2 weeks and they know how the police got them to say things, they had legitimate worries.
I think at the point Rudy was arrested, that one or both of the kids would have started talking, if they were guilty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei on the arrival of the postal police

I have been having an endless go-around with a PGP elsewhere. The subject of when the postals arrived came up. The PGP noted that Raffaele said to the police that he had called the Carabiinieri after the arrival of the postals (a fact I consider meaningless, since Raffaele's statement has other false elements). I pointed out a passage in Massei on page 89 that implies that the PP arrived after the call, but it is not as clear as one might wish: "...Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112..." One might counter with "..., where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." (page 27, English translation)

However, it seems to me that Massei is conceding that the postals did arrive after the call to the Carabinieri, yet he is not calling them liars (hence the "so it seemed"). On page 25 he wrote, "Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm." There are additional mentions of 1 PM on page 27, just prior to the passage quoted above. However, on page 93, the time of 12:30 is implied. I wish Massei had been a little clearer, but I still think on balance, he is tacitly admitting that the call to the Carabinieri happened before the arrival of the PP.

 

[Bill Williams]

The whack a mole experience I have had since entering into this discussion (on IIP 3 days after the acquittal) is this.... it all has to do with the statements the now diminishing number of PGP throw at you, with the intent of shutting you up.

Like..... "Well, smarty pants, what about the mixed blood in the bathroom? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you."

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for this so-called mixed blood evidence.

I found out there is no such thing.

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about the sex on a train? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you. You're choosing the side of a floosey who'd have sex with an anonymous guy on a train!"

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for this so-called immoral act. Turns out, there IS no sex on a train, and no, Knox DID NOT have a parade of men back to the cottage, no more no less than any of the other three women.

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about all the lies? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you. Your chosing the side of a floosey who'd have sex with an anonymous guy on a train! Ooops, that was the last one you debunked, sorry."

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for these lies. Turns out there only is one - Harry Rag's authoritative list is mostly bunk. But the one true lie is Knox's imaginings under coerced interrogation (and I even read up on the Reid Technique of police interrogation) and found out why the Reid Technique is banned for use against younger people because of its high number of false confessions.

Is there not ANYTHING they can throw? They are certainly substituting quantity for quality! Is there not one, true, bona fide, gotcha thing they can throw?

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about all the times Knox changed her story? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you!"

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going through the record to see how many times Knox changed her story. If you ignore the number of times the early tabloids SAID she was changing her story again, without actually giving the specifics of the change - you actually find Knox only had 2 sotries about this in the history of everything.

One - I was at Raffaele's all night. Change #1 is, "I was imagining that Patrick did it." Change #2 is back to story #1 - I was at Raffaele's all night. Technically speaking, 2 changes should result in THREE stories, but there are only TWO stories here. So much for Knox being an unrepentant sotry-changer, like the tabloids said she was.

This process continues through the bra-clasp DNA, the double-DNA knife, the sotry of the homeless man, the story of the store owner who wrongly saw Knox on the early morning of the 2nd, the timing of the postal police's arrival, the timing of Raffaele's calls to 211, the cartwheels, the hip swivels, the eating of pizza when Knox should have been home crying, the "see you later" which was actually "See you later, good evening."

Is there not ONE good solid piece of SOMETHING that will demonstrate SOMETHING?

Put all this beside Mignini's admission that be willingly and with malice-aforethought and deliberately broke the law by interrogating Knox, first by quoting the law, then by admitting he went ahead anyway, "but only as a notary."

He then lied through his teeth by saying for four hours he asked no questions.

That's not a smoking gun, friends. That's the blast of a howitzer. How do I know this? Even the Italian Supreme Court rulled it inadmissable for the murder trial.

So, my friends, it is the turn of the PGP to feel a little sheepish that they have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here.

Meredith Kercher. Deal with it. I have.

 

[Dan O.]

Mostly forgotten: Google Trends AK vs MK

She will soon be able to rest in peace.

 

[Grinder]

I have been having an endless go-around with a PGP elsewhere. The subject of when the postals arrived came up. The PGP noted that Raffaele said to the police that he had called the Carabiinieri after the arrival of the postals (a fact I consider meaningless, since Raffaele's statement has other false elements). I pointed out a passage in Massei on page 89 that implies that the PP arrived after the call, but it is not as clear as one might wish: "...Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112..." One might counter with "..., where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." (page 27, English translation)

However, it seems to me that Massei is conceding that the postals did arrive after the call to the Carabinieri, yet he is not calling them liars (hence the "so it seemed"). On page 25 he wrote, "Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm." There are additional mentions of 1 PM on page 27, just prior to the passage quoted above. However, on page 93, the time of 12:30 is implied. I wish Massei had been a little clearer, but I still think on balance, he is tacitly admitting that the call to the Carabinieri happened before the arrival of the PP.

Massei certainly doesn't make the claim they called after the PP arrived which he would have, had that been the case. IIRC the prosecution in the end also conceded that the CCTV camera had the wrong time.

Just like Hellmann, Massei made clear mistakes and the 12:30 was one. Hellmann suggesting the dishes could have been left over from lunch was an error because they ate at the cottage, just to answer the challenge before it occurs.

 

[geebee2]

I have been having an endless go-around with a PGP elsewhere. The subject of when the postals arrived came up. The PGP noted that Raffaele said to the police that he had called the Carabiinieri after the arrival of the postals (a fact I consider meaningless, since Raffaele's statement has other false elements). I pointed out a passage in Massei on page 89 that implies that the PP arrived after the call, but it is not as clear as one might wish: "...Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112..." One might counter with "..., where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." (page 27, English translation)

However, it seems to me that Massei is conceding that the postals did arrive after the call to the Carabinieri, yet he is not calling them liars (hence the "so it seemed"). On page 25 he wrote, "Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm." There are additional mentions of 1 PM on page 27, just prior to the passage quoted above. However, on page 93, the time of 12:30 is implied. I wish Massei had been a little clearer, but I still think on balance, he is tacitly admitting that the call to the Carabinieri happened before the arrival of the PP.

You are correct, but jsut refer them to Hellmann who makes it crystal clear:

There has been much discussion on whether the call to 112 happened before or after the arrival of the Police, with it having been hypothesized by the Public Minister that the call to the Carabinieri at 112 had been made on seeing the arrival of the Police, just to validate the notion [tesi] of their innocence. Except that even the Corte di Assise of first level, on the basis of the testimony given by the on-duty Police personnel and of the times reproduced from the logs, arrived at the conclusion that these calls had been made before the arrival of the Police and unaware of their imminent arrival. And, for that matter, what makes irrelevant the problem of whether the call to the Carabinieri was before or after the arrival of the Police is the fact that Amanda Knox had already called Filomena Romanelli at 12:08 pm, certainly before the arrival of the Police, such that at that point, she had already informed [partecipato] another person [soggetto estraneo] (whether it was the Carabinieri or Filomena Romanelli in this context does not matter) that they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) had entered into the house on Via Della Pergola, finding a situation that caused alarm.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think at the point Rudy was arrested, that one or both of the kids would have started talking, if they were guilty.

I think this is a much bigger point than many seem to think, but as it's not 'forced' it's hard to make out. But if they were really guilty their entire universe changes. Now, Curatolo and Kokomani become justices of the peace whose evidence is unimpeachable, Stefanoni is not to be fooled, the police themselves are fully justified in driving them off to jail, car horns blaring like football fans returning from a cup final.

Their separate legal teams begin to devise damage-limiting, cut-throat strategies, the scope for which is great ('she made me do it/ she did it and we cleaned up/I was never there but I cleaned up/she left at 9 and returned while I slept' are just four of Raffaele's which might have encountered favourable winds).

Their calculations revolve solely around getting out of jail, a rotten place to be, or getting out of jail sooner than later. They have plenty of time for these calculations and loyalty plays no part in them at all. As they are murderers, they think nothing of mere lies. Any story which cannot be falsified will do. Again, compare and contrast Rudy, whose defence strategy was spectacularly successful - considering what he did.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have been having an endless go-around with a PGP elsewhere. The subject of when the postals arrived came up. The PGP noted that Raffaele said to the police that he had called the Carabiinieri after the arrival of the postals (a fact I consider meaningless, since Raffaele's statement has other false elements). I pointed out a passage in Massei on page 89 that implies that the PP arrived after the call, but it is not as clear as one might wish: "...Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112..." One might counter with "..., where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." (page 27, English translation)

However, it seems to me that Massei is conceding that the postals did arrive after the call to the Carabinieri, yet he is not calling them liars (hence the "so it seemed"). On page 25 he wrote, "Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm." There are additional mentions of 1 PM on page 27, just prior to the passage quoted above. However, on page 93, the time of 12:30 is implied. I wish Massei had been a little clearer, but I still think on balance, he is tacitly admitting that the call to the Carabinieri happened before the arrival of the PP.

Chris, Raffaele never said he called the police after the Postales had arrived.

Buongiorno was able to prove at what time the Postales arrived by using the output of the security camera across the street in conjunction with cell phone records.

The Postales are shown arriving at 12:48 by the camera clock - but we know the camera clock was at least 10 minutes slow, because the Carabinieri are shown arriving at 1:22, even though they could not find the place and phoned for directions in a call that started at 1:29 and lasted for five minutes.

Therefore, the Postales arrived between 12:58 and 1:00 pm, a couple of minutes after Raffaele's second call to the emergency number, and exactly when he has always said they arrived.

Massei would no doubt have loved to perpetuate the claim that Raffaele called the emergency number after police were already on the scene, but he realized the proof was absolute, and it showed the police (not Raffaele) to be liars. Therefore, deceitful thug that he is, he chose not to mention the controversy at all.

 

[Dougm]

Mostly forgotten: Google Trends AK vs MK

She will soon be able to rest in peace.

Interesting. What's with the huge number of Amanda searches from Canada? Is one of our friends really THAT busy?

 

[Grinder]

I think this is a much bigger point than many seem to think, but as it's not 'forced' it's hard to make out. But if they were really guilty their entire universe changes.

Their separate legal teams begin to devise damage-limiting, cut-throat strategies, the scope for which is great ('she made me do it/ she did it and we cleaned up/I was never there but I cleaned up/she left at 9 and returned while I slept' are just four of Raffaele's which might have encountered favourable winds).

The lack of the PGP addressing these issues has been telling. To reverse their spiel, there are so many things to explain about how this could have gone down it just can't be that all can be explained away.

As mentioned above, why didn't one rat on the others?

How did the three get together at all?

Why did the kids leave Rudy's evidence and then not lead the police to him? Amanda could have remembered his name and the fact that he had been bothering Meredith.

Why didn't they just go to Gubbio and let someone else find the body?

Why did they leave the blood in the bathroom and why did Amanda say it had been clean the day before?

If she was punched by Meredith and bled, why didn't they find her DNA in the murder room?

Why would they lie about waking up early and playing some music while fooling around?

Why would they have the mop and bucket outside if they had used it to clean the cottage? Why would they say they took it to Raffaele's if they didn't? If they used the mop and bucket why didn't they find blood or bleach?

Why would Amanda buy cleaning supplies when they had them?

If they all ran out of the house right after the great scream, who's footprint was on the bathmat?

If the murder wasn't until 11:30, what was Meredith doing for 2 1/2 hours?

Why would the police take a knife that didn't look anything like the knife they were looking for?

I'm sure there are more of these.

 

[Dan O.]

Why didn't they just go to Gubbio and let someone else find the body?

That would have been interesting. If Amanda had returned to the cottage to shower and change, borrowed the mop to take over to Raf's, called Filomena from Raffaele's to say that there is a problem at the cottage. Then the two of them skip town.

That scenario would have made it much more difficult for me to find the thread on innocence.

 

[Grinder]

That would have been interesting. If Amanda had returned to the cottage to shower and change, borrowed the mop to take over to Raf's, called Filomena from Raffaele's to say that there is a problem at the cottage. Then the two of them skip town.

That scenario would have made it much more difficult for me to find the thread on innocence.

They would have just gone to Gubbio without a return to the cottage in the morning. If they were part of it and they needed to do a little cleaning, they would have done it late at night.

Using what appear to be facts we know: the murder was done by 9:30 - 10:00, there was very little time needed to "stage" and clean the scene, they could be home by midnight and be up by 9 or 10 and head out for Gubbio. They would stop on the way for a coffee and brioche.

There would have been no need for the mop or bucket as there wouldn't actually have been a mess to clean at Raffaele's or if there was one they would have just used towels or rags. If they had murdered Meredith, cleaning the flat wouldn't have been a priority. The police certainly would not have come to Raffaele's and upon seeing the mess from a broken pipe said it was proof they were involved.

They would have not called Filomena at all, rather they would have put their phones on vibrate while eating with Raf's dad and await a call or text. If none came they would just go back to Raffaele's apartment and wash the knife one more time. Other than the knife washing they would do regular things on the computer etc. and go over their alibi.

In never bought the idea that they would want to be at the cottage "to control the investigation" or any other reason why they would want to be the ones to discover it. If they did want to be there for some reason, they would have opened the door and rushed in to see if they could "save" Meredith explaining any DNA or other evidence the police would eventually find.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's statement

Is there a credible source for what Raffaele's statement actually says? I recall reading a newspaper account, but that is the only one of which I am aware. I am not sure how much credence to give it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

from the Daily Telegraph

"She told me to call 121 (the Italian emergency number) but in the meantime the postal police arrived." from the PMF translation.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The whack a mole experience I have had since entering into this discussion (on IIP 3 days after the acquittal) is this.... it all has to do with the statements the now diminishing number of PGP throw at you, with the intent of shutting you up.

Like..... "Well, smarty pants, what about the mixed blood in the bathroom? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you."

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for this so-called mixed blood evidence.

I found out there is no such thing.

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about the sex on a train? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you. You're choosing the side of a floosey who'd have sex with an anonymous guy on a train!"

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for this so-called immoral act. Turns out, there IS no sex on a train, and no, Knox DID NOT have a parade of men back to the cottage, no more no less than any of the other three women.

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about all the lies? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you. Your chosing the side of a floosey who'd have sex with an anonymous guy on a train! Ooops, that was the last one you debunked, sorry."

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going off searching for these lies. Turns out there only is one - Harry Rag's authoritative list is mostly bunk. But the one true lie is Knox's imaginings under coerced interrogation (and I even read up on the Reid Technique of police interrogation) and found out why the Reid Technique is banned for use against younger people because of its high number of false confessions.

Is there not ANYTHING they can throw? They are certainly substituting quantity for quality! Is there not one, true, bona fide, gotcha thing they can throw?

Next one was, "Well, smarty pants, what about all the times Knox changed her story? Huh? Huh!? Huh!!! Boy that shut you up, you disrespecter of Meredith's memory, you!"

Feeling a little sheepish that I may have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here, I actually DO shut up - for a minute while going through the record to see how many times Knox changed her story. If you ignore the number of times the early tabloids SAID she was changing her story again, without actually giving the specifics of the change - you actually find Knox only had 2 sotries about this in the history of everything.

One - I was at Raffaele's all night. Change #1 is, "I was imagining that Patrick did it." Change #2 is back to story #1 - I was at Raffaele's all night. Technically speaking, 2 changes should result in THREE stories, but there are only TWO stories here. So much for Knox being an unrepentant sotry-changer, like the tabloids said she was.

This process continues through the bra-clasp DNA, the double-DNA knife, the sotry of the homeless man, the story of the store owner who wrongly saw Knox on the early morning of the 2nd, the timing of the postal police's arrival, the timing of Raffaele's calls to 211, the cartwheels, the hip swivels, the eating of pizza when Knox should have been home crying, the "see you later" which was actually "See you later, good evening."

Is there not ONE good solid piece of SOMETHING that will demonstrate SOMETHING?

Put all this beside Mignini's admission that be willingly and with malice-aforethought and deliberately broke the law by interrogating Knox, first by quoting the law, then by admitting he went ahead anyway, "but only as a notary."

He then lied through his teeth by saying for four hours he asked no questions.

That's not a smoking gun, friends. That's the blast of a howitzer. How do I know this? Even the Italian Supreme Court rulled it inadmissable for the murder trial.

So, my friends, it is the turn of the PGP to feel a little sheepish that they have, unintentionally, disrespected the person who is the only known, 100% agreed upon victim here.

Meredith Kercher. Deal with it. I have.

You could not have stated this any better. This case is not the only sphere wherein people act with this sort of hypocrisy and are arrogant though with no cause to be. It is just one of the worst examples of this sort of infuriating and unjust behavior. Well stated, in any case.