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

[NancyS]

While I agree with you on this in general, I don't think a scream from a party makes sense when compared to Nara's description of it. It also doesn't explain why no one reported it when it happened.

I'd agree, if there had been a murder, most people would report hearing a scream. We always used to have screaming competitions at Halloween parties, they were fairly harrowing and horrible screams - thankfully the police were never called and I don't even remember getting complaints from neighbours

 

[Bill Williams]

While I agree with you on this in general, I don't think a scream from a party makes sense when compared to Nara's description of it. It also doesn't explain why no one reported it when it happened.

Exactly. Yet Briars needs it one way when assessing Curatolo and another way when considering Nara. Can a comprehensive narrative from Briars be far behind? Probably not.

Yet the ISC in its wisdom is telling Florence to pay attention to the screams. Briars is in good company.

 

[Grinder]

I'd agree, if there had been a murder, most people would report hearing a scream. We always used to have screaming competitions at Halloween parties, they were fairly harrowing and horrible screams - thankfully the police were never called and I don't even remember getting complaints from neighbours

Okay now I have to contend with a Halloween screaming contest expert

Certainly your scenario is possible. One would think that the defense could have canvassed the area and found a crack addict or some old neighbor that would testify that screaming had occurred at many times from the 31st to the early hours on the 2nd.

That's a great idea. They should go out this Halloween and record screams or scream themselves and enter it as evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes nothing to reflect sound back except the shape of the terrain and the natural echo of the valley, kind of like a concert hall. Do you think all three witnesses heard another terrifying scream that night that carried through the glass window?

Have you ever heard an echo off an open plowed field? It's actually an interesting effect but relies on the parallel plowed rows of turned earth. The open valley behind the cottage slopes away from the house and offers no surfaces from which the sound will cohesively reflect. Perhaps you are thinking of the echo in a canyon where's the bare rock walls are quite good at reflecting sound.

What witness came forward with an independent report of hearing a scream before the papers were printing that there was a scream and they had time to think about how they could have heard the scream.

Why didn't anyone call the police immediately when they heard such a terrifying scream? Why didn't they call the police when they learned the next day that there had been a murder around the time of the scream they heard? Why didn't they call the police the next week when the papers were running stories about the scream?

None of these witnesses provide collaborating evidence that the scream existed. Rudy is the best source there is for establishing the existence of the scream and even he could be just confirming what the prosecution is already publishing happened to throw the blame on someone else.

 

[Bill Williams]

Okay now I have to contend with a Halloween screaming contest expert

Certainly your scenario is possible. One would think that the defense could have canvassed the area and found a crack addict or some old neighbor that would testify that screaming had occurred at many times from the 31st to the early hours on the 2nd.

That's a great idea. They should go out this Halloween and record screams or scream themselves and enter it as evidence.

I was just about to invent, er, write dialogue with NancyS in the starring role, but I have perhaps pissed you off enough for one day.

Which leads to my real expertise: is it ever really enough.

 

[Dan O.]

Strange you should mention the video. Without it neither you nor the Perugia police are in a position to state anything as a fact about the interrogation.

Even the possibility of the existence of a video or audio recording of the interrogation gives credibility to the written statements by Amanda at a time when she could not have known that there was no recording.

 

[Grinder]

Even the possibility of the existence of a video or audio recording of the interrogation gives credibility to the written statements by Amanda at a time when she could not have known that there was no recording.

Yes. If you mean that her saying she was slapped and called a liar before knowing there was no recording makes it more credible, absolutely.

Her notes were written at a time that she was being held by the people that told he that if she didn't cooperate she would do thirty years and wouldn't see her family. The PGP want the notes to be absolute denials of the signed statements refusing to see that what she wrote was as much as could be done without pissing them off totally.

They also want her to say Patrick wasn't involved, which of course she couldn't know. If she had written a note saying he wasn't involved, the PGP would say it was proof she was guilty else how would she know. The bookkeeper is the lead in this hypocrisy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Since you've repeatably challenged Mach, I ask you what you have expert training in?

A rare foray into self-disclosure.

I am a consumer. That's my expertise and my training. I'm also not stupid, and, no, I'm not asking for your opinion on that.

If I were looking for a sleep deprivation expert, I would perhaps find it comforting to know that the person I was going to had personal experience in the subject. 1 Point Machiavelli.

Then I find out his chief clinical method is to read things I have written. Minus 4 points Machiavelli.

Then I find out he has this wacky theory that someone who'd just had her roommate murdered - instead of seeing her stressed and with perhaps post-traumatic shock (which to me, a consumer, makes me assume her sleep would be effected.... but what do I know?)

...... instead, he has this wacky theory that at 11:30 pm (at night!) this 20-something who didn't speak the language, actually arrived refreshed and ready and with the capacity to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators, in a 6 hour interrogation through the night.

My expertise is my check-book. Would I buy services from this sleep/sleep-deprivation expert?

If you would, it's your money. Briars and Leila (I'm assuming) would.

 

[Briars]

It's telling that you write what you believe is plausible.

There was an actual test to determine what Nara could have heard. It determined that she probably did not hear the scream....

Paul Ciolino Investigates Witness Nara Capezzali
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo

I suppose you'll say he's on the payroll of the PR team. But try to make it all the way through the 3 1/2 minutes....

The actual test was (rather than your imagining): Looking directly on top of the house..... minute 2:18 is the test to see if they could hear people running from the cottage. Next, Nara herself contradicts what the police claim she said... she could not tell, "one or two or three" screams.

She did not know the time of the "sounds", presumably of footsteps. "But she was clear about one thing. 'She says she was never interviewed by the police.'"

The police only saw the witness (Nara) on television. "Not one cop has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time."

"We're being told this is one of the pillars against Amanda Knox?" "Pretty weak pillar."

Once again, manufactured evidence.

My bet is that for the Florence trial, like Quintavalle before her, Nara will suddenly remember all sorts of things.

Talk about unscientific from a noted big supporter of the defendant. He tried the apartment above Nara's and thinks he hears something maybe running! Why not have the enlisted teens scream or at the very least yell, Nara is sure she heard the scream and the footsteps. You are wrong she was less certain whether there were 2 or 3 people not 2 or 3 screams. It would be difficult to distinguish between two or three people. She also very well may have opened the window after the scream. 12 degrees C is not what I would call very cold. Are you disputing that moist air causes sound to travel further Bill or not?

 

[Bill Williams]

Talk about unscientific from a noted big supporter of the defendant. He tried the apartment above Nara's and thinks he hears something maybe running! Why not have the enlisted teens scream or at the very least yell, Nara is sure she heard the scream and the footsteps. You are wrong she was less certain whether there were 2 or 3 people not 2 or 3 screams. It would be difficult to distinguish between two or three people. She also very well may have opened the window after the scream. 12 degrees C is not what I would call very cold. Are you disputing that moist air causes sound to travel further Bill or not?

Yikes. I thought it was up to the person making the claim to demonstrate it. Then again, this is guilterland we're in. Knox is guilty. Prove she isn't.

Yes, it was unscientific. Yet from an evidentiary point of view, there was Nara saying that she'd never been interviewed by police. Don't you at least want to check that out? Probably not. So this unscientific exercise was about 100% more than the police ever did... I mean, is it not up to the prosecution to do this kind of testing to prove she COULD have heard something?

The allegation is that the police got her story off of the TV.

Do the police have to prove ANYTHING in your view? You now want me to disprove a claim about humidity and sound travel YOU are making. So I guess it is up to me to prove everything.

You job is to make claims. Your claims must be regarded as rock solid. Why? Because they are claims you make. If anyone wants to dispute your claims, they have to prove otherwise.

Yet when Saul Kassim and John Douglas dispute your claims... they are called frauds and PR shills. Same with Paul Ciolino in the video.

Wow. I'm convinced.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briars. I'm beginning to suspect that you make your determination of who is a PR shill and who isn't based solely on the conclusion they arrive at, regardless of how they arrive at it. It's just a suspicion.

 

[Grinder]

Bill,

Since you continue to address me and post less than accurate "facts", I will continue to do my duty of correcting all the mistakes on the Internet.

While I believe that they convinced Amanda of things that weren't true and had her sign them, I don't think we have to know exactly why or convince anybody of it. Forest/trees. You put out a six hour interrogation when in fact it was more like 3 hours before the 1:45 statement was completed. Is it really crucial that you don't exaggerate and double the time? No, but why not just stick to the facts. I hate reading the PGP pointing to these and making even bigger ones.

The main point is that the why (motive) and the how (Reid/sleep/yelling/shock) don't really mean much. What matters is the what, they got her to tell them what they wanted to be told.

When the discussion goes off on these tangents (forest/trees) the salient points are obscured. The simple fact is that the police were able to get her to name Patrick and that is the linchpin of the entire case.

I believe that had she not made the statement that most, if not all, of the witnesses would not have appeared out of nowhere. I think the accusation is the overarching issue. If the recording that you promised would be released by now was released, the case would be over.

When will that recording be released?

 

[christianahannah]

Please make up a conversation on the 19th with Q that reasonably could end with him not telling Volturno that he had seen Amanda.

His testimony had her in the bleach area of his store. The papers had shown her and Raf as being arrested.

Frankly it is very hard to believe that he wouldn't go to the police shortly after their arrest voluntarily, well before the 19th, and tell them that he had seen her at 7:45 in the morning and she had looked at cleaning supplies.

I believe that by the 19th her alibi was public including the late morning departure from Raf's.

I don't have to make up a conversation. Their conversation is included in the testimony.

Why some people become overly involved in helping with investigations and others are reticent to do so I cannot say. There could be many reasons. Quintavalle testified as to why he didn't say more at the time and why he did say more later.

And while the papers had shown Raffaele and Amanda arrested he was unaware of that fact until he was told by an employee and then he bought a paper (or papers).

I'm not sure what papers Quintavalle would have perused before the 19th. Probably not the British tabloids nor the U.S. newspapers (where some of what was written early was not altogether factually correct). Are you sure the details of Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis were in the Italian papers by the 19th? I know parts of their police statements were (which were very different from what they would later state or testify to).

 

[Grinder]

Talk about unscientific from a noted big supporter of the defendant. He tried the apartment above Nara's and thinks he hears something maybe running! Why not have the enlisted teens scream or at the very least yell, Nara is sure she heard the scream and the footsteps. You are wrong she was less certain whether there were 2 or 3 people not 2 or 3 screams. It would be difficult to distinguish between two or three people. She also very well may have opened the window after the scream. 12 degrees C is not what I would call very cold. Are you disputing that moist air causes sound to travel further Bill or not?

She hears the most terrifying scream of her life. She hears people running very shortly thereafter. She is so upset she makes herself a cup/pot of tea. She doesn't mention opening a window.

Yet she never notices a clock. She doesn't call the police at the time. She doesn't call the police the next or the day after when she is made aware a murder occurred across the street.

A year later she comes out to the world with her testimony by going on TV not the police or prosecutor.

You don't have a problem with this? Your funny

 

[Grinder]

I don't have to make up a conversation. Their conversation is included in the testimony.

Why some people become overly involved in helping with investigations and others are reticent to do so I cannot say. There could be many reasons. Quintavalle testified as to why he didn't say more at the time and why he did say more later.

And while the papers had shown Raffaele and Amanda arrested he was unaware of that fact until he was told by an employee and then he bought a paper (or papers).

I'm not sure what papers Quintavalle would have perused before the 19th. Probably not the British tabloids nor the U.S. newspapers (where some of what was written early was not altogether factually correct). Are you sure the details of Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis were in the Italian papers by the 19th? I know parts of their police statements were (which were very different from what they would later state or testify to).

Fine. I'm not sure of what exactly was in the Italian papers but IIRC much of the british tab content came from Italian papers especially early on.

He may not have known immediately but certainly by the 19th he did.

Perhaps since you are capable of translating, you could provide the dialog I asked you to create but actually exists. I think it is just a recounting but I'm not sure.

I could look for what was in the british papers but that wouldn't count. For me he has no credibility.

This is from a Nov. 7th Italian paper

Raffaele Sollecito’s statement begins at 10.40 pm on Tuesday. “I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”.

 

[Bill Williams]

Talk about unscientific from a noted big supporter of the defendant. He tried the apartment above Nara's and thinks he hears something maybe running! Why not have the enlisted teens scream or at the very least yell, Nara is sure she heard the scream and the footsteps. You are wrong she was less certain whether there were 2 or 3 people not 2 or 3 screams. It would be difficult to distinguish between two or three people. She also very well may have opened the window after the scream. 12 degrees C is not what I would call very cold. Are you disputing that moist air causes sound to travel further Bill or not?

She hears the most terrifying scream of her life. She hears people running very shortly thereafter. She is so upset she makes herself a cup/pot of tea. She doesn't mention opening a window.

Yet she never notices a clock. She doesn't call the police at the time. She doesn't call the police the next or the day after when she is made aware a murder occurred across the street.

A year later she comes out to the world with her testimony by going on TV not the police or prosecutor.

You don't have a problem with this? Your funny

C'mon, Briars..... this has to be serious. Grinder is taking my side on something. Or is it me taking his side?

I agree with Grinder.... what is it about the way the PLE used Nara's "testimony" that you do not find funny?

No wonder you do not put things on to a timeline. Particularly a comprehensive theory. Grinder's "theory" has the proper timeline... the night of the murder Nara thought the "scream" and footsteps to be so blood-curdling that she did................

........................................................... nothing.

Let's start with that as the first item on the timeline. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[NancyS]

Talk about unscientific from a noted big supporter of the defendant. He tried the apartment above Nara's and thinks he hears something maybe running! Why not have the enlisted teens scream or at the very least yell, Nara is sure she heard the scream and the footsteps. You are wrong she was less certain whether there were 2 or 3 people not 2 or 3 screams. It would be difficult to distinguish between two or three people. She also very well may have opened the window after the scream. 12 degrees C is not what I would call very cold. Are you disputing that moist air causes sound to travel further Bill or not?

It's the sort of testing that should have been done though. People claim all sorts of stuff following crimes and will often exaggerate and exaggerate until they almost convince themselves. Police will usually have to sort through all kinds if evidence and try to work out what is real, what is relevant and what is exaggerated or attention seeking nonsense.

People make up all sorts of nonsense just for attention

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,

Since you continue to address me and post less than accurate "facts", I will continue to do my duty of correcting all the mistakes on the Internet.

While I believe that they convinced Amanda of things that weren't true and had her sign them, I don't think we have to know exactly why or convince anybody of it. Forest/trees. You put out a six hour interrogation when in fact it was more like 3 hours before the 1:45 statement was completed. Is it really crucial that you don't exaggerate and double the time? No, but why not just stick to the facts. I hate reading the PGP pointing to these and making even bigger ones.

Well, I checked the video of the interrogation, and Raffaele's account that he signed his "confession" at 3:30.

Amanda's book is clear that things went on well past 1:45 am, and that it (really) is impossible to confirm or deny the "set in stone" time of 1:45, other than this was the time noted on the first memorandum.

So it is, I think you're being more liberal with the "facts" than me. What I think we know for sure is that Amanda went in at 11:30 pm, and came out about 6 am. Raffaele went in circa 10"30 pm, and signed his "confession" at 3:30 am.

So who's exaggerating. I really do think you should just ignore me, really I do.

 

[Bill Williams]

The main point is that the why (motive) and the how (Reid/sleep/yelling/shock) don't really mean much. What matters is the what, they got her to tell them what they wanted to be told.

When the discussion goes off on these tangents (forest/trees) the salient points are obscured. The simple fact is that the police were able to get her to name Patrick and that is the linchpin of the entire case.

I believe that had she not made the statement that most, if not all, of the witnesses would not have appeared out of nowhere. I think the accusation is the overarching issue. If the recording that you promised would be released by now was released, the case would be over.

When will that recording be released?

I agree 100%. There is no sentence there I disagree with, not even in a vain attempt to try to unnecessarily piss you off. Although it is tempting. I just hope agreeing with you (seriously, I am!) will piss you off enough.

 

[Grinder]

Repeat as I added this to a post up-thread

This is from a Nov. 7th Italian paper

This should put to rest that Q didn't know about the time line.

Raffaele Sollecito’s statement begins at 10.40 pm on Tuesday. “I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”