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

[anglolawyer]

Anglo you are spot on. If the message could be shown to have been erased by the PLE intentionally the night of the 5th to 6th it would make the lack of a recording that much more suspicious as well as all the iffy work they did.

Napoleoni latest brush with the law regarding fiddling in the data base system adds to suspicion even without the message being erased theory.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. It's not a fair fight. We only have to catch the cops out once and then poof!

 

[Grinder]

Briar or any PGP,

If it were shown that the cottage and the murder room were not sealed, would that change the value to you of the bra clasp?

 

[Supernaut]

John Douglas's new book, Law and Disorder, is out:

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Disorder-...d=1362302709&sr=1-1&keywords=Law+and+Disorder

It's an excellent book, and it ends with his analysis of the Meredith Kercher case.

Yay.

 

[Briars]

It is gratifying to see this meme taking firm root. However, the PGPs should resist it to their last breath because, once it is accepted the text was suppressed, an act involving wide-spread collusion, probably including Mignini, the game is up. All the destroyed evidence (hard drives, recordings, CCTV footage) all the manufactured evidence (knife, clasp) and all the professional witnesses become easy to explain. You see, there is an inverse relationship between their logical connections and gravity (Grinder understands) and it all points unerringly to the same cause.

Love it all the conspiracy coming together in one concise paragraph. Nope no confirmation bias there!

 

[LondonJohn]

Love it all the conspiracy coming together in one concise paragraph. Nope no confirmation bias there!

Where's the confirmation bias kicking in then?

Do you dispute the fact that the hard drives were destroyed while in the hands of supposedly-specialist police?

Do you dispute the fact that Mignini has now offered up a number of different (and all entirely bogus) reasons as to why the Knox and Sollecito interrogations of the 5th/6th November were not audio- or video-recorded? Do you think it's at all reasonable to suppose that these interrogations - pertaining to a massively serious, important and high-profile murder case, and taking place in the Perugia police HQ - were not recorded in any way?

Do you think it's reasonable to suppose that all the CCTV footage from the numerous cameras sited between Sollecito's apartment and the cottage "disappeared"?

Do you dispute the fact that the knife and bra clasp were egregiously badly collected, handled, transported, stored, tested, interpreted and presented to Massei's court? Do you dispute that this combination of incompetence and malpractice was so massive and widespread that it rendered the knife and bra clasp utterly worthless as items of evidential value? Do you dispute that the police and prosecutors willfully withheld vitally important data from the DNA analysis from the defence and from Hellmann's court?

Do you dispute that Curatolo, Kokomani and Quintavalle are inherently unreliable witnesses for the prosecution (owing to a multitude of reasons including mental instability, factual mistakes, miraculous "recollection" over a year after the event and severe substance abuse)?

PS: How are you coming along with answers to the previous questions put your way? Nobody's DEMANDING your responses, of course, but I'd venture to suggest that it somewhat harms your arguing position if you're either unwilling or unable to provide credible answers....

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer
It is gratifying to see this meme taking firm root. However, the PGPs should resist it to their last breath because, once it is accepted the text was suppressed, an act involving wide-spread collusion, probably including Mignini, the game is up. All the destroyed evidence (hard drives, recordings, CCTV footage) all the manufactured evidence (knife, clasp) and all the professional witnesses become easy to explain. You see, there is an inverse relationship between their logical connections and gravity (Grinder understands) and it all points unerringly to the same cause.

Anglo you are spot on. If the message could be shown to have been erased by the PLE intentionally the night of the 5th to 6th it would make the lack of a recording that much more suspicious as well as all the iffy work they did.

Napoleoni latest brush with the law regarding fiddling in the data base system adds to suspicion even without the message being erased theory.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. It's not a fair fight. We only have to catch the cops out once and then poof!

Love it all the conspiracy coming together in one concise paragraph. Nope no confirmation bias there!

Briars if, note the if, the message was erased intentionally by the cops don't you think that would be a massive step in the direction of showing that the investigation was biased from the very start? Of course you do, no need to answer.

To be clear, I have not agreed that Anglo proved this point on the message being erased.

I value it whenever anybody is concise .

I would rather we move away from the message debate. What about the sealed cottage question? If it were demonstrated that the cottage wasn't sealed would that change your evaluation of the bra clasp DNA?

What would the top evidence against RS be without the clasp DNA?

 

[Bill Williams]

It is gratifying to see this meme taking firm root. However, the PGPs should resist it to their last breath because, once it is accepted the text was suppressed, an act involving wide-spread collusion, probably including Mignini, the game is up. All the destroyed evidence (hard drives, recordings, CCTV footage) all the manufactured evidence (knife, clasp) and all the professional witnesses become easy to explain. You see, there is an inverse relationship between their logical connections and gravity (Grinder understands) and it all points unerringly to the same cause.

Love it all the conspiracy coming together in one concise paragraph. Nope no confirmation bias there!

Briars - this is where the method of argumentation, and the misuse of terms shows.

It is not "confirmation bias" to claim that Lumumba's incoming text was, in fact, erased. The issue is: by whom?

As London John has pointed out - do you dispute that the harddrives in all the computers were fired? Is it confirmation bias to claim that they were?

Is it confirmation bias to claim that none of the three suspects (Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba) had their respective interrogations taped? Is it confirmation bias to say that even Mignini quotes the law to the police (cf. his CNN interview where he, himself says this) but that he then proceeds with Knox's interrogation violating the very law he quoted?

You cannot just throw these terms out there. Confirmation bias is like what you are doing: starting out with the knowledge of guilt, and then interpreting the evidence through that lens. For instance, with the de Felice comment that Knox buckled and eventually told them what they knew to be the truth - your confirmation bias is so profound, you now dispute he even said this.

You have to start from evidence. The evidence is - the cops presented Knox with Lumumba's incoming SMS-text. Knox confirms this as do other sources. It is in this sense that the cops themselves brought "Lumumba into the room" as having anything at all to do with this.

Proof is this - Knox initially said that she could not remember replying. No one disputes she claims this. There's the other things which AngloLawyer shows - not as part of his own confirmation bias, but as simply the entry of further evidence. Lumumba's incoming text was, in fact, erased. The issue is: by whom? From the point onwards that this was pointed out to Knox, her cellphone was out of her control. Who do you claim (on the evidence!) erased Lumumba's incoming text?

You just cannot throw these terms around, simply because you will not admit your own confirmation bias.

 

[Grinder]

You have to start from evidence. The evidence is - the cops presented Knox with Lumumba's incoming SMS-text. Knox confirms this as do other sources. It is in this sense that the cops themselves brought "Lumumba into the room" as having anything at all to do with this.

No Bill the majority of the evidence including the initial court hearings had the incoming text erased before the police got ahold of the phone. Amanda says that she erased most incoming messages. The conversation between Amanda and her mother left at least two of here believing they were referring to the outgoing text that everyone agrees was shown to Amanda.

This is my no means a settled matter. Remember when you came here sure that Hellmann was correct on all his verdicts including calumnia. you also were sure that because your source, Frank, had told you the recordings existed and would be out sooner than later. You have no proof that the incoming message was erased by the PLE.

Proof is this - Knox initially said that she could not remember replying. No one disputes she claims this. There's the other things which AngloLawyer shows - not as part of his own confirmation bias, but as simply the entry of further evidence. Lumumba's incoming text was, in fact, erased. The issue is: by whom? From the point onwards that this was pointed out to Knox, her cellphone was out of her control. Who do you claim (on the evidence!) erased Lumumba's incoming text?

Amanda erased it. She was shown the outgoing text and asked what it meant. She explained that PL had cancelled work and she had said see you later in Italian which they misinterpreted. She may have not recalled replying until she was shown the reply.

Her book will be out in a little over a month, we'll see what she says.

Perhaps IIP will correct their account of it

The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.


You're connected over there why not ask them to correct their accounting?

 

[acbytesla]

Not premeditated at all. Machiavelli had hypothesised they took the knife to have a fish dinner at the apartment due to the flood at Raffaele's place, the latter positively refusing even to contemplate cooking without it (an idea which you, Grinder, have supported) pausing only to take in the night air for a couple of hours in the Piazza. We can picture them there, staring at the stars in rapture, contemplating their repast under observation from the extraordinarily accurate Toto. Did he notice the fish? Must be in his evidence somewhere.

I thought it was standard 8" knife and not a boning knife? I thought they had similar knives at the cottage, I thought the knife was for self defense? I heard it was because Raffaele thought of himself as a chef and was attached to his knives?

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill the majority of the evidence including the initial court hearings had the incoming text erased before the police got ahold of the phone. Amanda says that she erased most incoming messages. The conversation between Amanda and her mother left at least two of here believing they were referring to the outgoing text that everyone agrees was shown to Amanda.

This is my no means a settled matter. Remember when you came here sure that Hellmann was correct on all his verdicts including calumnia. you also were sure that because your source, Frank, had told you the recordings existed and would be out sooner than later. You have no proof that the incoming message was erased by the PLE.



Amanda erased it. She was shown the outgoing text and asked what it meant. She explained that PL had cancelled work and she had said see you later in Italian which they misinterpreted. She may have not recalled replying until she was shown the reply.

Her book will be out in a little over a month, we'll see what she says.

Perhaps IIP will correct their account of it

The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.


You're connected over there why not ask them to correct their accounting?

This is certainly an issue which I deserve correction on.... I haven't really followed it as closely as other issues. So it is prudent to back off a bit.

My own confirmation bias is this.... it was not Knox who brought Lumumba into the room, forensically speaking. I used to agree straight down the line with Hellmann and would at one time passionately argue that Hellmann had got it right - all except for the sentence he imposed. Of all the theories out there as to why Knox would, without help from the ILE, bring Lumumba into the room, I now regard Hellmann's explanation, "that she would say anything to end the distress of the interrogation," as the least likely.

So I agree... let's wait until April 30 and see how Knox addresses this.

But there's still the little matter of Anglo's Ground Report article.... I regard it as persuasive.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Briar or any PGP,

If it were shown that the cottage and the murder room were not sealed, would that change the value to you of the bra clasp?

If it were shown?

Have we not all seen the video that shows the room torn apart, with the mattress and closet doors in the hallway, clothes heaped on the bed frame, drawers dumped on whatever surface was at hand, and the pile of random debris from which the bra clasp was recovered?

If people still want to defend the bunglers who ran this investigation, nothing will ever convince them.

Thankfully reason has prevailed where it matters.

 

[Grinder]

My own confirmation bias is this.... it was not Knox who brought Lumumba into the room, forensically speaking. I used to agree straight down the line with Hellmann and would at one time passionately argue that Hellmann had got it right - all except for the sentence he imposed. Of all the theories out there as to why Knox would, without help from the ILE, bring Lumumba into the room, I now regard Hellmann's explanation, "that she would say anything to end the distress of the interrogation," as the least likely.

Thanks. I agree that the PLE brought PL into play either knowingly or only by saying this text for the meeting who was it sent to or some such approach. I do think she, at least in part, did go along with what they wanted to end the interrogation, but who wouldn't?

So I agree... let's wait until April 30 and see how Knox addresses this.

But there's still the little matter of Anglo's Ground Report article.... I regard it as persuasive.

Each to their own .

 

[Grinder]

If it were shown?

Have we not all seen the video that shows the room torn apart, with the mattress and closet doors in the hallway, clothes heaped on the bed frame, drawers dumped on whatever surface was at hand, and the pile of random debris from which the bra clasp was recovered?

If people still want to defend the bunglers who ran this investigation, nothing will ever convince them.

Thankfully reason has prevailed where it matters.

Charlie, you *&(&^*(^%$$%$@#$% have you never heard of a set up?

Now, that you have let the cat out of the bag, I can say I believe that there are pictures with the door open during the "sealed period" and later while the cottage was still closed up people broke in and stole MK's mattress (what's up with dat?) after having a candlelit night in the cottage. At first that too was reported as a satanic event.

So Briar I need to revise the question, knowing that there was some breaches of the room do you still believe that the "sealed room" part of your narrative is accurate?

 

[anglolawyer]

No Bill the majority of the evidence including the initial court hearings had the incoming text erased before the police got ahold of the phone. Amanda says that she erased most incoming messages. The conversation between Amanda and her mother left at least two of here believing they were referring to the outgoing text that everyone agrees was shown to Amanda.

Is that the same as the majority of the judges thought they did it?

This is my no means a settled matter. Remember when you came here sure that Hellmann was correct on all his verdicts including calumnia. you also were sure that because your source, Frank, had told you the recordings existed and would be out sooner than later. You have no proof that the incoming message was erased by the PLE.

There is proof (= evidence). It's set out in my article. I agree it's not a settled question.

Amanda erased it. She was shown the outgoing text and asked what it meant. She explained that PL had cancelled work and she had said see you later in Italian which they misinterpreted. She may have not recalled replying until she was shown the reply.

You know this how? Please set out the proof.

Her book will be out in a little over a month, we'll see what she says.

She may not know whether she deleted the message or not.

Perhaps IIP will correct their account of it

The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.


You're connected over there why not ask them to correct their accounting?

What's incorrect about it?

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought it was standard 8" knife and not a boning knife? I thought they had similar knives at the cottage, I thought the knife was for self defense? I heard it was because Raffaele thought of himself as a chef and was attached to his knives?

I was indulging in some gentle mockery AC. Mach did offer his fish dinner idea as an unpremeditated way of getting the knife to the cottage. In all seriousness. Grinder buys it.

If you haven't come across it, I warmly recommend roteoctober's essay The Unbearable Thoughtlessness of Guilt which dissects some of the problems associated with both the premeditated and unpremeditated versions of the crime.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The ones who say the crime scene was sealed, oh yeah...

The ones who say gloves were changed with every item, oh yeah...

The ones who say contamination is not possible, oh yeah...

 

[anglolawyer]

The ones who say the crime scene was sealed, oh yeah...

The ones who say gloves were changed with every item, oh yeah...

The ones who say contamination is not possible, oh yeah...

Well, there's still all the other evidence

 

[tronic]

Confirmation of an early false alibi from Raffaele Sollecito.

There's a more complete Kate Mansey (Daily Mirror) interview of Raffaele Sollecito, from the week of the murder, in John Follains book about the crime "Death in Perugia".

'Tell me about what happened that night,' Mansey said.
'Meredith has been out at the Halloween party", Raffaele said.
Mansey corrected him, saying this had been the night before the murder. 'So what was she doing that night?' she asked.
'I was out with Amanda at a party and Meredith was at a Halloween party with her friends', Raffaele said.
Mansey corrected him again. Raffaele looked irritated. 'Amanda and I had been out to a party and we went back to my place', he said.
'Who were you with?' Mansey asked.
'One of my friends', Raffaele replied.
'You are sure it wasn't Halloween night?'
'No, no, it was that Thursday night.' Raffaele insisted- the night of the murder.

As you can see, he meant the night of the murder

He wasn't stoned, intoxicated or confused. He was sober, photographed, voluntarily giving his details out; even correcting Mansey with the spelling of his name.

Also, in that interview, when shown this graphic from a local newspaper report that Mansey was carrying, he stated that it was he and Amanda Knox that discovered the body of Meredith Kercher.

He seemed obsessed with the Italian newspapers I was carrying, all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page.

One of the local reports had a cartoon showing a man and a woman standing over a body sprawled out on a bed.

I asked him: "Is this right? Is this how you found her? And who is the girl with you in the picture?"

He said: "It is right but it's not if you know. It's a cartoon but I was there with Amanda. Amanda Knox, my girlfriend. Meredith was Amanda's flatmate."

He was lying from the earliest stage. This was before he became a suspect. Two lies (this is before multiple further lies). Lying to say that he was elsewhere (at a party) on the night, and lying to say that he and Knox discovered the body.

If you want to see a more in-depth breakdown of this, fairly new information, refer to my recent posts (I am ttrroonniicc) on perugiamurderfile.net

I'm here telling you about this, because Bruce Fischer stated that Sollecito wasn't talking about the night he killed, in that interview. That is not the case, I wish to correct him.

 

[anglolawyer]

Tronic

I saw your post at dot net. Maybe you should post this at Injustice Anywhere. You are more likely to get a reply from Bruce there.

 

[acbytesla]

Confirmation of an early false alibi from Raffaele Sollecito.

There's a more complete Kate Mansey (Daily Mirror) interview of Raffaele Sollecito, from the week of the murder, in John Follains book about the crime "Death in Perugia".

As you can see, he meant the night of the murder

He wasn't stoned, intoxicated or confused. He was sober, photographed, voluntarily giving his details out; even correcting Mansey with the spelling of his name.

Also, in that interview, when shown this graphic from a local newspaper report that Mansey was carrying, he stated that it was he and Amanda Knox that discovered the body of Meredith Kercher.

[qimg]http://oi46.tinypic.com/21ab6a9.jpg[/qimg]



He was lying from the earliest stage. This was before he became a suspect. Two lies (this is before multiple further lies). Lying to say that he was elsewhere (at a party) on the night, and lying to say that he and Knox discovered the body.

If you want to see a more in-depth breakdown of this, fairly new information, refer to my recent posts (I am ttrroonniicc) on perugiamurderfile.net

I'm here telling you about this, because Bruce Fischer stated that Sollecito wasn't talking about the night he killed, in that interview. That is not the case, I wish to correct him.

Tronic, you can clearly tell by this conversation that there was a mis-communication between Mansey and Sollecito. It is clear as day to me that Rafffaele was talking about Halloween night and not the night of the murder.

One can be lucid, sober, not stoned and still be confused about the question being asked. As for Sollecito saying they discovered the body. It wasn't a lie, it was another mis-communication and out of context. It's these micro details that are easily mis-communications that happen every day in conversations between people.

It is hardly evidence of their involvement in the murder. Why not focus on real evidence in the case, such as the location of Meredith's phone at 10:13? Or Curatolo's statement and whether it is credible? Where is the real evidence in this case? Where is the footage from the three CCTV cameras on Corso Garibaldi across from the Piazza Grimana? Three cameras that Amanda and Raffaele would have passed by that night.
Why don't you try and prove that the break in was staged when the logic points to it not being staged?