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

[codyjuneau]

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.

.
Why not, that's what they did with the bra clasp.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, and kudos to Grinder for coaxing this admission out of Machiavelli.

But of course, it's been obvious from the beginning that the "witness, not suspect" meme is unsupportable. The regular PGP claim is that Raff withdrew Amanda's alibi during his own interrogation, which was when the police called her in to the interrogation room. This obviously can't be squared with her not becoming a suspect there and then.

Briars, of course, is ignoring this and trying to convince us that an opiate abuser can still be a credible witness. Briars points to the ISC ruling as bringing sanity to this issue! Others would think it brings the ISC into disrepute, looking like it wants to convict two innocents against the evidence.

For some reason, Briars does not get this.

But back to your point. The timeline is not that Raff withdrew Knox's alibi, and THEN they took Knox into interrogation.

They brought Knox into interrogation at 11:30 pm based on Knox's lie about Meredith's drug use, and the general use of soft-drugs in the cottage. For the record, Sophie lied about this too, and Laura cautioned Knox about being too honest about it as well. (No wonder everyone turned on Knox afterwards.)

The point being, that they brought Knox into the room based on the issue of the untruth about the cottage and marijuana ... THEN the cops checked her phone and zero'ed in on the text message, "See you later". It is unclear if the cops erased Patrick's incoming message saying, "Do not come in, there's no work tonight."

By all reports it was a double whammy the cops aimed at Knox, the second of which was the "withdrawal of the alibi", that Napolenoni herself brought into Amanda's interrogation room, fresh from Raffaele's room. (Classic playing one off against the other.)

Strangely, IIRC, Raffaele says this happened later in the morning... towards 3:45 am.... but I am pulling that time from memory and am open to correction on what Raffaele said.

If there is ANYONE PGP or PIP who says that it was Raffaele's withdrawal, THEN she was called into an interrogation room, then they have to review their timeline. That's not the way it happened. Acc. to Raffaele, he didn't even really withdraw the alibi, he just said he could not remember what occurred Oct 31 as opposed to what occurred Nov 1, and when he asked to consult a calendar, he was denied. The cops wanted his memory fuzzy.

Napoleoni did not take into Amanda's room the withdrawal of an alibi, so much as that she took into the room the fact that Raffaele could not remember, and was denied the tools so that he could remember.

You see, the point of interrogation is patently NOT to put together a timeline. It is to get them to confess. This needs to be stressed. The goal is confession. Putting together a timeline is for later.

The point of pressing Raffaele to remember is not to have him actually remember, otherwise they would have given him the tools to aid memory. The point is to get him to say something that they can then take, outside of the context of the way Raffaele put it, into Amanda's room to use as leverage on her.

The goal is confession. How you get there is to be sorted out later.

Everyone needs to read up on this, because the point always gets lost.

 

[NancyS]

There is some confusion as to whether there were No buses that night ,or just fewer. People were still in costume apparently. Do you have evidence that Mignini put Curatolo in prison to protect his own interest? Or is this just the conspiracy argument. I'm sure the paper was distributed freely so the 'bum' didn't have to rummage in the garbage. Your quick judgement reminds me of the debate as to whether mentally challenged witnesses can ever be be believed or we should always question their ability to understand what is truth or fiction. Different argument I know but you cannot simply discredit people without careful consideration. Fortunately the SC gets it and Curatolo is not going to be just waved away.

If he had come forward straight away or had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the paper he might have some credibility. People usually come forward with very basic information, for example he might have seen a couple of average height and brownish hair - coming forward with detailed information a year later just isn't believable - and even less believable when you consider his lifestyle

I still have no idea why they would lie about this - it would be far easier to say they had gone for a walk that evening, rather than risk getting caught out - or are we just back to them being the most stupid criminals ever.

 

[Grinder]

There is some confusion as to whether there were No buses that night ,or just fewer. People were still in costume apparently. Do you have evidence that Mignini put Curatolo in prison to protect his own interest? Or is this just the conspiracy argument. I'm sure the paper was distributed freely so the 'bum' didn't have to rummage in the garbage. Your quick judgement reminds me of the debate as to whether mentally challenged witnesses can ever be be believed or we should always question their ability to understand what is truth or fiction. Different argument I know but you cannot simply discredit people without careful consideration. Fortunately the SC gets it and Curatolo is not going to be just waved away.

He said disco buses and there were none. He made in sound like Halloween night. If there were all these people around in costume, did he ID them as well so the police could verify his seeing the kids?

Curatolo was brought up for charges from a 2003 crime in 2010 or 11. Mignini didn't announce he was putting Curatolo on ice but that was the effect. Curatolo was totally baffled by being in court. You think it was just a coincidence? Why do you think he needed to be in jail?

Why are you sure the paper was free? Because it is worthless?

Yes it would be a better world if we took mentally ill people's word a face value.

The SC resurrecting Curatolo will just be another element in bringing down this conviction at one venue or another. He admitted being on heroin that very night. He got the scene wrong. He didn't come forward for a year and only then by being badgered by the cub reporter.

 

[anglolawyer]

Wasn't it in response to this from Grinder?

I even provided a link. This place totally sucks!

 

[Briars]

briars

If he had come forward straight away or had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the paper he might have some credibility. People usually come forward with very basic information, for example he might have seen a couple of average height and brownish hair - coming forward with detailed information a year later just isn't believable - and even less believable when you consider his lifestyle

I still have no idea why they would lie about this - it would be far easier to say they had gone for a walk that evening, rather than risk getting caught out - or are we just back to them being the most stupid criminals ever.

I've seen recent pictures on .net with the bench , the lamp and the area where he spotted a couple looking toward the cottage. What is important is that he was aware of a couple who stood out as different from the usual basketball player that hung around. He may have noted general features , height her light hair etc . Again not a place where couples spent time , they came and went and he reading interpreted as they never left.

 

[Grinder]

If he had come forward straight away or had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the paper he might have some credibility. People usually come forward with very basic information, for example he might have seen a couple of average height and brownish hair - coming forward with detailed information a year later just isn't believable - and even less believable when you consider his lifestyle

Of course, but he didn't and a year after they had not one witness found by the police that could challenge their alibi. No video either even though there were a number of public and private systems.

I still have no idea why they would lie about this - it would be far easier to say they had gone for a walk that evening, rather than risk getting caught out - or are we just back to them being the most stupid criminals ever.

Just part of the list. Why wouldn't they say they went there for a romantic view, smoked a little pot and discussed their future.

Why didn't they go to Gubbio? They would have thought cancelling that would look odd.

Why not say they woke up early and played music instead of saying they slept in?

Why didn't they take a tissue and wipe away the blood drops?

Why didn't they throw the bathmat in with the other clothes the PGP are still trying to claim were still warm at noon?

Why would Amanda think she could "control" the investigation?

Why didn't they lock the front door and just leave their "staged" break-in?

Why would they worry about the key need when Meredith had one?

 

[toto]

Question for Machiavelli

I wonder Machiavelli, if you could kindly answer a question I have from perusing earlier posts and a picture of Amanda' clothes on her bed as published by a PGP website quite recently.

If they were the clothes she says she was wearing on the day following the murder (or even if they weren't), Were they taken away and analysed? A yes, no or don't know will do fine, but you could elaborate on whether had they been the clothes whether there would likely to have been any useful evidence on them. Thanks in advance.

 

[NancyS]

I've seen recent pictures on .net with the bench , the lamp and the area where he spotted a couple looking toward the cottage. What is important is that he was aware of a couple who stood out as different from the usual basketball player that hung around. He may have noted general features , height her light hair etc . Again not a place where couples spent time , they came and went and he reading interpreted as they never left.

So at best he saw a couple looking at the cottage on a night when there were disco buses and people wearing costumes - as he thought they were there between 9:30 and possibly until midnight, it seems unlikely they had anything to do with the murder

 

[Grinder]

I've seen recent pictures on .net with the bench , the lamp and the area where he spotted a couple looking toward the cottage. What is important is that he was aware of a couple who stood out as different from the usual basketball player that hung around. He may have noted general features , height her light hair etc . Again not a place where couples spent time , they came and went and he reading interpreted as they never left.

Why do you think his heroin dealing and use was not brought out in the first trial?

He was a homeless junkie that somehow had enough money for his addiction. How do you think he paid for his smack?

He may have noted general features which even if true shouldn't be allowed in court or he noted nothing but was manipulated into testifying over months of being helped to remember.

In no other universe would his testimony be taken seriously except the PGP world.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yet for some reason, Massei assumes that Amanda Knox's "biological material" DOES have a date stamp, because when Meredith's blood is found mixed with it (leaving aside the collection method of wide swabs taken), it is assumed that it could not have fallen unto old samples of Amanda's DNA - afterall, Amanda lived there!

This is the case against Knox and Sollecito. I fear that the ISC is setting up the Florence court to adopt similar reasoning.

Bill, I'm aware there were several Amanda/Meredith DNA mixed samples in the bathroom, but how many Amanda DNA samples were there not mixed, you would think there should have been quite a few.

 

[NancyS]

Of course, but he didn't and a year after they had not one witness found by the police that could challenge their alibi. No video either even though there were a number of public and private systems.



Just part of the list. Why wouldn't they say they went there for a romantic view, smoked a little pot and discussed their future.

Why didn't they go to Gubbio? They would have thought cancelling that would look odd.

Why not say they woke up early and played music instead of saying they slept in?

Why didn't they take a tissue and wipe away the blood drops?

Why didn't they throw the bathmat in with the other clothes the PGP are still trying to claim were still warm at noon?

Why would Amanda think she could "control" the investigation?

Why didn't they lock the front door and just leave their "staged" break-in?

Why would they worry about the key need when Meredith had one?

Exactly - the only explanation is that they were the most stupid criminal geniuses ever

 

[Grinder]

I even provided a link. This place totally sucks!

Originally Posted by Grinder
(...)
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.

Mach - 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 order to protect the murderer.

That was the important breakthrough

Now stop it or no yacht trips for you.

 

[Grinder]

Bill, I'm aware there were several Amanda/Meredith DNA mixed samples in the bathroom, but how many Amanda DNA samples were there not mixed, you would think there should have been quite a few.

Yes one would.

The sample from the bathroom were aided by the collection technique of rubbing rather than dabbing. Were they mixed before the improper gather technique?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, I'm aware there were several Amanda/Meredith DNA mixed samples in the bathroom, but how many Amanda DNA samples were there not mixed, you would think there should have been quite a few.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, so I'll apologize in advance if I muff this one...

Amanda samples "not mixed"? Why on earth would the PLE collect samples of someone who lived there which was not mixed with anything? Wouldn't they concentrate on Meredith samples to see what was mixed in with them?

The issue though, the one which brought laughter in court when the Scientific Police video was shown, was the wide swaths the technicians made, leading many to believe that the mixture occurred only at collection....

Have I understood your question? I don't want to go all Machiavelli on you....

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes one would.

The sample from the bathroom were aided by the collection technique of rubbing rather than dabbing. Were they mixed before the improper gather technique?

I would think the defence would have been right on top of this because they were going to claim that Amanda's DNA was all over the bathroom because she lived there and shared it with Meredith, it would have been nice if they were able to show that, it would not be likely to claim that the mixed samples landed on the only Amanda DNA in the room, you know what I mean.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've seen recent pictures on .net with the bench , the lamp and the area where he spotted a couple looking toward the cottage. What is important is that he was aware of a couple who stood out as different from the usual basketball player that hung around. He may have noted general features , height her light hair etc . Again not a place where couples spent time , they came and went and he reading interpreted as they never left.

Why do you think his heroin dealing and use was not brought out in the first trial?

He was a homeless junkie that somehow had enough money for his addiction. How do you think he paid for his smack?

He may have noted general features which even if true shouldn't be allowed in court or he noted nothing but was manipulated into testifying over months of being helped to remember.

In no other universe would his testimony be taken seriously except the PGP world.

I sometimes think that PGP want to stun us with all these astounding absurdities, just so that not all of them are thrown out. They might get to the point of saying, "Hey, you can't throw out ALL the absurdities, in fairness you have to leave us with a few!"

I, for one, hope Briars keeps defending Curatolo. And by this I do not mean that the man as a person should be vilified... it's in the narrow consideration of his value as a witness in a murder trial. A key witness. A witness without whom there is no prosecution case!

Was it Machiavelli who said that he shouldn't be discriminated against because of his drug-dependency issue? I can't remember.

It shows the level at which PGP need to cling to have any evidence at all. But Briars is right about one thing, the ISC seems to have ruled that Curatolo is to be reconsidered and listened to.

I feel better already.

 

[RoseMontague]

Post a picture. I think that belongs to the cottage (I bet it was off in November, improbable Meredith switches on the garden lights in tha season but who knows). These lamps are most on the other side, they may illuminate a bit the facede with Filomena's window, and they are not tall.
If you were a neutral observer, you should consider comparatively the balcony and the window, and, and you would realize there is no comparison in exposure. The balcony is not visible. Not compared to Filomena's window. And it's not only a matter of position, distance from potential viewers, side of the house and illumination; all these things are incomparable between the two ways, they are strikingly more favorable on the balcony. But it is also a matter of the nature of the place itself. Being on a balcony is not like being seen climbing into a window. The balcony is far, a person there does not attract any attention and there is even always an angle to hide completely, the spot is intrinsically favorable and safe.

The lamp appears to be for the downstairs door so people can see where they are walking at night to get to the door and see their keys to unlock the door. It looks to me like it would easily illuminate the balcony. I don't know if it was on or off, it's funny to me that if you think this would be a better and more hidden access for a burglar that you would not ask. I can find no mention that ILE even posed the question.

I have a similar one near my front door on a timer that cuts on at night, some come on automatically at night, some via motion detectors and some are controlled by a switch inside.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is some confusion as to whether there were No buses that night ,or just fewer. People were still in costume apparently. Do you have evidence that Mignini put Curatolo in prison to protect his own interest? Or is this just the conspiracy argument. I'm sure the paper was distributed freely so the 'bum' didn't have to rummage in the garbage. Your quick judgement reminds me of the debate as to whether mentally challenged witnesses can ever be be believed or we should always question their ability to understand what is truth or fiction. Different argument I know but you cannot simply discredit people without careful consideration. Fortunately the SC gets it and Curatolo is not going to be just waved away.

Holy cow. You admit there is confusion. And this is the witness you are staking the case against Knox and Sollecito on?

I honestly don't think you vette what you say. First Machiavelli admits that Knox and Sollecito were suspects almost from the beginning, and now you admit there could have been confusion.

You do realize, don't you, that Curatolo only has legitimacy as a witness (drug-dependent or not) if there is no confusion as to Oct 31 and Nov 1?

And no fair consulting a calendar. They wouldn't let Raffaele have one, so why should you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, so I'll apologize in advance if I muff this one...

Amanda samples "not mixed"? Why on earth would the PLE collect samples of someone who lived there which was not mixed with anything? Wouldn't they concentrate on Meredith samples to see what was mixed in with them?

The issue though, the one which brought laughter in court when the Scientific Police video was shown, was the wide swaths the technicians made, leading many to believe that the mixture occurred only at collection....

Have I understood your question? I don't want to go all Machiavelli on you....

No, that may be a fair answer, I just would have thought the defense would want to show that Amanda's DNA was all over the room, but I suppose they can't tell the police what to collect. However, wouldn't they collect many samples, maybe trying to get Raff's or Rudi's or Patrick's DNA even.

What I would really like to know, I've been reading over at PMF as well your aware and now I'm curious, what is it that the PIP's say is why Quintavalle's testimony is not reliable. I myself felt hos testimony was unreliable as well until I started reading up on it over there. He listed the cloths she was wearing when she was in his shop that morning, but those are the same cloths she left on her bed later that morning, how would he know that before the trial, I doubt anyone would have posted a picture even of them before the trial.