Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Dan O.]

They don't were exactly the same cops but that's not important, because what matters is that Knox did not complain nor reported of any abuse

That Machiavelli, we call a LIE. It was made with full knowledge of the untruthfulness of the fact and intended to deceive. Do you think you are an Italian prosecutor and can make up whatever truth fancies you at the time?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Mach explanation of the De Felice saying his famous buckled and told what was correct statement is that he said she told us some things we knew were correct.

Mach, perhaps you could explain what things they knew were correct in her statements.

They knew her shower-mop story was false, they knew that she had inside knowledge of the murder scene and she knew things that she was hiding, they knew that she staged a burglary and cleaned the crime scene, they knew she was offering a false testimony in oder to protect the murderer.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli. Thank you for being helpful, with all the other illogical stuff you've been posting I had forgotten about Amanda's clothes on her bed. This was a point that you tried to ignore with verbiage...

Actually, I asked you to explain how analysis of her clothes could confirm or deny her story, and to detail the 'clothes' evidence that you intend to bring before our attention.

I agree, you answered a question by asking another, unrelated one.

It might be good to actually answer the question before going off on a tangent. People reading our little exchange here have minds of their own, and can see what you're trying to do - avoid answering a very simple question - it is embarrassing to you to adopt such silly strategies to avoid the obvious.

Why did the PLE not collect and analyse Amanda's clothes, the ones she claimed to be wearing the night of the murder? It's simple enough. I expect you will continue to evade.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course I have an explanation! I explained that more than once.
But actually, I think your axiom was indeed part of your argument, or so it seems to me. Because (and I did not "rejoice", but rather pointed the light on it) the fact that Sollecito's defence did not request to test the stain is something that changes its light if you don't use the axiom, and because it also provides you the tip to explain and understand about how it works, under a different light; you may understand that, as Stefanoni decided to delay the test of the alleged semen stain in order to leave the pillowcase intact (so that it was sent to another laboratory section that deals with print analysis, and kept it), and it was kept untouched until prof. Vinci requested the laboratory to access it and could examine it himself directly. At that point, the ball was in the defence's field. After their print test, they could have requested to test the alleged semen stain. They did't. The print analysis is all what prof. Vici requestd. They waited two years before requesting that the pillowcase be sent back to Stefanoni's lab for a DNA test on the alleged semen stain.

Thanks, but that makes no sense. We (placing ourselves in the shoes of investigators, or examining magistrates) want to know what happened. Forget the defence. Let's test the stain and see what it is. Forget the law. Forget tactics. Just test it. It might be the boyfriend, it might be Raffaele (bingo!) or it might be Rudy (no staged sexual assault!) or it might be something other than semen and entirely benign. Manoeuvres with the defence are not reasons for not finding out just as they were not reasons for not testing the knife or the bra clasp or anything else that was tested.

Plus, I am no expert, but I understand this idea of not testing in order to preserve anything to be unsound (not to mention ironic given all the stuff the cops destroyed!)

 

[Grinder]

The more I think about it, the more stupid it seems for them not to have blamed Rudy if they were all involved. They must have been fairly terrified that their prints would be all over the murder scene and that the police might find their abandoned bloody clothes and murder weapon. It would have been fairly easy for Amanda to play the part of the stupid American girl, all alone in Italy, who had watched too many episodes of the Sopranos and was terrified by threats that Rudy made - and only feeling that her family was safe once he was behind bars - she could easily have used an excuse like this in the weeks afterwards. How was she to know, if guilty, that there was no evidence of them ever being in Meredith's room - sticking to the innocent story was going to be a far bigger risk than just blaming Rudy

One would think they would be convinced they had left evidence of themselves especially if they walked around with blood on their feet and had blood all over their clothes.

I would have thought the first thing their lawyers and family would have done is to try and find out if they did know anything about what had happened - and to advise making a deal if they had any involvement. They must have been the luckiest murderers ever to avoid leaving any trace at the scene - and they must have been informed that this was so unlikely and advised to blame Rudy if they knew he was also responsible.

If they had gone out that night and shopping the next morning, why lie about this? They could just as easily have said they went for a walk and to the shop for milk/bread - to lie is just nonsensical. Although if they were out and about, Curatolo would probably testify that he only saw them on the night of the disco busses and the other people in the shop would have testified they didn't see Amanda, which would result in still multiple claims of 'she lied she lied'

They would have undoubtedly said as much of the truth as possible. They would assume that they would caught on video somewhere and that someone would have noticed them in the piazza for 2 plus hours.

It remains remarkable that no one else saw them in the piazza or walking around. Someone with such notable blue eyes couldn't be missed

The morning run to Q's store could have been for something she wanted for the trip to Gubbio that they would certainly have taken rather than be at the cottage.

If she actually got up at 7:15 why not say so knowing that Meredith was murdered at 11:30 latest or more likely by 9:45 latest. If Raf was up early and listened to music, why would he lie about it?

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree, you answered a question by asking another, unrelated one.

Unrelated? Geez you are weak in logic. Don't you see that asking how clothes analysis would confirm or deny Knox's story, is the same question as asking for what purpose should the police collect the clothes?

And, moreover, are you so sure the clothes were never collected?

 

[Bill Williams]

(...)
Mach explanation of the De Felice saying his famous buckled and told what was correct statement is that he said she told us some things we knew were correct.

Mach, perhaps you could explain what things they knew were correct in her statements.

They knew her shower-mop story was false, they knew that she had inside knowledge of the murder scene and she knew things that she was hiding, they knew that she staged a burglary and cleaned the crime scene, they knew she was offering a false testimony in oder to protect the murderer.

Did I just read this correctly?

Machiavelli has just confirmed that Knox and Sollecito were suspects GOING INTO THEIR LATE NOV 5 INTERROGATIONS!

Machiavelli, you need to get this info to the Italian Supreme Court. It's not too late to overturn the ISC's 26 March rulings!

This was a frame-up from the beginning, Mach admits it! Knox and Sollecito needed lawyers and as suspects, Mach admits they were, they were not afforded lawyers, translators (until later) and no recordings of interrogations.

Thank you Machiavelli. I would never have figured this out on my own!

You had better stop, Machiavelli. You, yourself have rights. Please do not say anything more spontaneously. You need a lawyer! If you want to, JREF can act only as if a notary.

 

[anglolawyer]

They knew her shower-mop story was false, they knew that she had inside knowledge of the murder scene and she knew things that she was hiding, they knew that she staged a burglary and cleaned the crime scene, they knew she was offering a false testimony in oder to protect the murderer.

Oh, this is a keeper! Two points before Grinder barges in:

1 forget about pretending she was not a suspect - Mach, may I assume you will give evidence for the defence at the ECHR?
2 funnily enough, most of the above is not in the 1.45 or 5.45 statements.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree, you answered a question by asking another, unrelated one.

Unrelated? Geez you are weak in logic. Don't you see that asking how clothes analysis would confirm or deny Knox's story, is the same question as asking for what purpose should the police collect the clothes?

And, moreover, are you so sure the clothes were never collected?

Your inability or unwillingness to answer is duly noted. That is enough for people reading this to make up their own minds as to the state of the case against Knox and Sollecito.

So far in Machiavelli's latest melt down we have him:

1) admitting that S and K were suspects way, way, before the interrogations
2) claiming that he is a lay expert on sleep deprivation issues
3) claiming expertise on false and compliant memory syndrome.
4) he's now asking me if I can prove that Knox's clothes WEREN'T collected.... when it is the responsibility of the PLE to do all collection, including following standard protocols, and providing a chain of possession on those items which track the item from crime-scene to courtroom so that things like contamination can be ruled out when examined in the courtroom. Apparently those protocols don't apply in Italy. It's now up to the defence to prove that they weren't collected. And if they were, then replaced for the photo, WHAT'S THAT ABOUT?​

I hope someone is getting screen shots of all this.

 

[Grinder]

They knew her shower-mop story was false, they knew that she had inside knowledge of the murder scene and she knew things that she was hiding, they knew that she staged a burglary and cleaned the crime scene, they knew she was offering a false testimony in oder to protect the murderer.

Could you provide the parts of her statements that covered the staging of the burglary, the cleaning of the crime scene, the false testimony to cover Patrick and the shower- mop story.

It seems to be you are very confused about her statements (perhaps you've been up too long ).

She didn't tell about the shower in her statement, she had done that well before. She didn't say anything about staging anything. She didn't say anything about a cleaning.

They may have had those beliefs but she didn't sign off on them. She didn't tell them things that were correct.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks, but that makes no sense. We (placing ourselves in the shoes of investigators, or examining magistrates) want to know what happened. Forget the defence. Let's test the stain and see what it is. Forget the law. Forget tactics. Just test it. It might be the boyfriend, it might be Raffaele (bingo!) or it might be Rudy (no staged sexual assault!) or it might be something other than semen and entirely benign. Manoeuvres with the defence are not reasons for not finding out just as they were not reasons for not testing the knife or the bra clasp or anything else that was tested.

Plus, I am no expert, but I understand this idea of not testing in order to preserve anything to be unsound (not to mention ironic given all the stuff the cops destroyed!)

But you can't forget the law and forget tactis, because this is not how the legal things work, especially in Italy.
You cannot just demand that beaurocratic paths coincide with straight common sense as perceived by a lay citizen.
You want to know. But who are "you"? You need to be a player inside the game, and you need to follow the rules.
Massei - not the prosecution - decided to not test the stain; the court determined that - at that stage of the trial - the full knowledge of that detail of the scenario would be irrelevant to the outcome of the trial. And the court cannot spend time to search irrelevant aspects of the truth. It would have been irrelevat to their judgement if it was Guede's or Sollecito. They aready fund evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Sollecito was guilty - and that trial was only about Sollecito and Knox, not about others.
Massei's decision might be objectionable, you may disagree with it. However, Hellmann-Zanetti DID agree with it because they refused to test the semen stain too.

 

[Briars]

I know all this. I take issue with the idea that Curatolo's evidence can be used for one purpose but discarded for another and I argue by analogy. You want to cherry pick his evidence for the part that suits you but ignore the part that doesn't. I don't see anything which compels a fair minded observer to do that. Galati even maintains he is 'extraordinarily accurate'. If so, this must extend to his recollection of times as well as dates. He says they were there until midnight, later modified to 11.30 p.m.

Fine he proves Amanda is a liar (but interestingly, not Raffaele, who gave no evidence) but so what? Everybody tells lies. Filomena even lied about her drug use. Big deal.

You also ignored what I posted about your timeline, now you have committed yourself to a murder after 10.30 (meaning some time not long after, presumably) but in which they are hanging around in the square for an hour beforehand. You can't use Curatolo this way. If he is that wrong then he cannot be considered reliable in his identification and may have been looking at someone else or just stoned out of his bonce.

Curatolo by his own account was occupied reading. Noting his surroundings periodically and seeing the defendants at different times follows that logic. Key here of course he was reading and not paying attention to them non stop.Why would he? Coming and going during his time frame and remembering them as always being there was natural because when he happened to look up he saw them once again.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could you provide the parts of her statements that covered the staging of the burglary, the cleaning of the crime scene, the false testimony to cover Patrick and the shower- mop story.

I was talking about just her statements, I was instead answering about a more general question by you, asking what the police thought was true. I'm talking about what De Felice's statement intended to refer to.

The false testimony to cover Patrick is obviously implied in her offering new statements that deny it (because by releasing them she retracts her previous testimony about the shower-mop story).

 

[Machiavelli]

Your inability or unwillingness to answer is duly noted.

Would you explain how analysis on clothes would confirm or deny Knox's story?
No?

The problem is that you overlook the implicit premises which you embed your questions; you should acknowledge them before, that would allow you to properly formulize any further question.

And would you explain what is your evidence that clothes were never collected? (that is another implicit premise, which you do't care of verifying).

 

[Grinder]

On review of the SC ruling and Hellmann's statement, I go back to Hellmann's appointment.

Hellmann had the reputation of overturning another murder case the SC had finalized. Did the SC have something to do with getting Hellmann appointed? Did they wish to set him up for his previous embarrassment of their body. We have witnessed the propensity of the Italians to defend their institutions against one and all.

They have now been able to embarrass Hellmann. Now, Hellmann is fighting back and I'm surprised that the PGP aren't accusing him of taking his criticism from here and other non-PGP sites. This is just like C&V using FOA PR talking points.

It is interesting that Hellmann's read on the SC ruling is what many of us here thought when it came out. The SC is violating Italian law and that will be a powerful argument at an extradition hearing should it come to that. Sure makes the ILE look corrupt.

 

[NancyS]

They knew her shower-mop story was false, they knew that she had inside knowledge of the murder scene and she knew things that she was hiding, they knew that she staged a burglary and cleaned the crime scene, they knew she was offering a false testimony in oder to protect the murderer.

So why didn't they do the sensible thing and just blame Rudy? They had nothing to gain from protecting him and everything to lose - it makes no sense to argue that they were worried about what Rudy would say, they were already in as much trouble as it is possible to be in. If guilty, they must have realised they had been rumbled and that the best solution was to blame Rudy before he blamed them

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, this is a keeper! Two points before Grinder barges in:

1 forget about pretending she was not a suspect - Mach, may I assume you will give evidence for the defence at the ECHR?
2 funnily enough, most of the above is not in the 1.45 or 5.45 statements.

The above is obviously not in the 01:45 and 05:45, it is instead implied by the 01:45 and 05:45 statements.

You have to still better focus and digest the concepts of suspect. She was suspected (even in the informal sense) but of covering the murderer not of being the murderer (not her specifically), this even during her 05:45.

Believe me, I think there is no case to bring to the EC.

 

[anglolawyer]

They don't were exactly the same cops but that's not important, because what matters is that Knox did not complain nor reported of any abuse, nor her lawyers did. Moreover, her own testimony and that of witnesses are against her; she has no credibility. And, what also matters, is that in any event her hand written note and statements are not explained nor justified by any alleged police wrongdoing.
Is she lying? Yes, yes she is lying, because she did not report the alleged violation to anyone before. The rules of the game are that a person who suffers an abuse needs to report it, at least to lawyers; attorneys have a duty to ask, and if attorneys obtain information about it, they have an absolutely compelling duty to file a formal complaint. Not only that; but Knox also received visits from parliamentaries, such as Catia Polidori (the laws provides a right of legislators to access prison falcilities for the explicit purpose of interviewing people in custody about possible abuses and about their treatment).

You say you would think "whatever the law says" (!) the cops would want to record everything to protect themselves from such beastly allegations.
Actually the only thing I agree to, is the word "beastly". These allegations are in fact good for non-Italian listeners who apparently don't know anything about the context nor about the law, and who have an already twisted mindset which allows them to obliviate the actual gravity of Knox's and Sollecito's set of statements, including those that were obviously non-coerced.

The best thing about that post is the word 'obliviate' which will now enter the lexicon for future use.

OK, so the argument is: she did not complain therefore she is a liar because a truthful person would have complained right away. I suppose she might have been advised that to complain would bring down on her head a claim for difumazione at a time when she still did not know she would ever be charged. Why alienate the investigators when there remained the hope they would at some stage behave properly, discover their mistake and let her go (or ask the judge to let her go)? That doesn't seem a good idea. I wonder what you would have advised her to do and also whether you can give an honest reply even if it undermines this part of your argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

So why didn't they do the sensible thing and just blame Rudy? They had nothing to gain from protecting him and everything to lose - it makes no sense to argue that they were worried about what Rudy would say, they were already in as much trouble as it is possible to be in. If guilty, they must have realised they had been rumbled and that the best solution was to blame Rudy before he blamed them

The SC already threw out this reasoning (brought by Hellmann) as manifestly illogical.

 

[Grinder]

Curatolo by his own account was occupied reading. Noting his surroundings periodically and seeing the defendants at different times follows that logic. Key here of course he was reading and not paying attention to them non stop.Why would he? Coming and going during his time frame and remembering them as always being there was natural because when he happened to look up he saw them once again.

Did he testify when they weren't there? He knew to the minute when he first saw them because he wore a watch.

He was reading and smoking. He would smoke, turn the page, butt out his smoke, read a little and all the while look up and check his surroundings.

How long do you think someone on heroin would read without looking up?

It's truly an embarrassing joke that he is used only for when they want. He never testified at what times they were absent.