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

[Bill Williams]

Before we proceed, can you do me a kindness and answer a question?

On principle, no. I owe you no answer on this topic.

Fair enough. Whereas you owe me nothing (yes I agree wtih you) it does, though, speak to you not wanting clarity. I was just wondering why, after spending all that time and resisting saying ANYTHING at all about the clothing - because it's things like that which expose the incompetence of the PLE - you eventually did make what in Watergate terms was called, "a limited hangout." Meaning you address part of the issue in a meaningless way, so as to be able to avoid the totaly criticism of bein evasive.

Yet, your post upon rereading actually said nothing, as Grinder has pointed out to you in his follow-up questions. (What is truly disturbing in all this is that I am beginning to like Grinder. Thanks a lot, Machiavelli: I much preferred being at odds with Grinder. Couldn't you at least cut me a break on THAT one!)

I am not "retreating" at all - but I note that you like to wishfully repeat that I "retreat".
I provide information only because you changed topic. First, you were making wild assertions about what the police collected and analyzed and other things.Then, you made wild assertions about what information I have. You wildly asserted I have no information on the topic. It is a further unfounded claim. What information I have is a different topic, and if I want to disprove your wild claim on this new topic, I may just show I have some information that you seem to not have.
I am not discussing about the information itself, I am not disclosing the evidence. I am still, just responding with a counter-hint to a further unfounded new claim on your part.

I made assertions? Wow.... please go back and read the posts. I asked why the clothes had lain on that bed for weeks not collected or analyzed. Others then joined in and made other similar observations about other crucial pieces of evidence, including Meredith's jacket which ended up put in the hamper for weeks.

I made no assertions other than that the clothes lay there uncollected. You refused to even acknowledge that, and demanded that I put the whole issue into some sort of osmotic context. I regard the demand to put it into an osmotic context as actually a way to diminish the importance of the PLE's glaring error.

"Counter-hint"? Wow. now there's an investigative word!!!! What we need here is more hints!

What would really help is if you had a comprehensive narrative of this crime which included the two students, who even you admit Massei was right in saying they had no predisposition to commit this crime.

If you had just answered the question fully at the beginning, rather than retreating, you would not have embarrassed yourself so.

Just in case you purposely avoided answering (known as a retreat) forgot what Grinder asked:

Do you know when these tests were done? Were the results available to the prosecution, defense and the media well before Quintavalle came out of the closet on his claims?

Were those photo of her bed just as available as the famous picture of the bloody bathroom?

How many of the witnesses were brought forward by the same intern reporter?

Do you have a list of reporters and the people each "found" for the prosecution?

 

[acbytesla]

I was about to point out the glaring double standard Machiavelli employs. Machiavelli is also very enthusiastic of protecting the PLE over their handling of Mr. Guede. Why is that?

It simple, he has his nose up Mignini's backside. He discredits Tremantano as well, believes Rudy when Rudy claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele committing the crime even though it is self serving and contradicts his earlier stories, as well as makes no sense at all.

The reality is that the prosecution's story forces a guilter to suspend all logic to come to their conclusion. There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING logical about the double DNA knife being involved in the crime.

There is nothing logical, absolutely NOTHING logical about Raffaele after a week of dating Amanda joining to commit murder. And there is nothing logical about the two of them joining with Rudy to commit murder. Not only would their meeting that night be a wild coincidence, just the clumsiness of the conversations between them would have had to be absurd. Raffaele barely speaks any English at this time, Rudy from my understanding knows much less English than Raffaele, and Amanda speaks little Italian.

I like how the ISC has now seized on the idea of a sex orgy gone wrong. It's a monster reach, but in reality it is all they could seize on. That's because there is absolutely no motive of any kind for Amanda and Raffaele. It's actually a naive and beyond moronic idea in reality. It's a wild fantasy that comes more from a cheap trashy book than anything else. It's the idea that sex is so wanted that kind upstanding people would change radically from who they have been for 20 years to force a companion at knife point to have sex.

Sure rapes happen, no doubt and they happen at our universities and colleges too often. Date rape is real. But this idea of a group rape of Meredith by three relative strangers who can hardly communicate with each other is teenage male nonsense.

I continue to ask me, what is more absurd, the MOF case or the Meredith Kercher murder case?

 

[Dan O.]

What about the translator? She speaks both Italian and English and assumes the role of mediator. Could she have been there at the basketball court to help with the communications?

 

[anglolawyer]

What about the translator? She speaks both Italian and English and assumes the role of mediator. Could she have been there at the basketball court to help with the communications?

Try to be serious Dan, will you? Do you (or does anyone) know whether Rudy's kebab story was checked out? And is it definitely or only maybe/probably him in the car park video? Those data points might confirm his time line, which is enormously at odds with the prosecution's. Just where and how exactly does Rudy fit in to the prosecution reconstruction? We know A & R paused in the square from 9.30 to sometime between 11 and 12, with Rudy nowhere to be seen. Was Rudy making out with Meredith for 2-3 hours? That's not the prosecution case either. It really ought to be within JREF's powers to summon witnesses to come here and explain these things, starting with Mig, then the ISC judges. Of course, Mach, standing in for those guys, is too chicken **** (or smart) to give it a go. He knows it can't be done without re-writing everybody's evidence.

Ah well. A snippet from Katy's translations: among his recollections Quintavalle proved that A & R had been in his shop two weeks before he saw Amanda on the 2nd. Which is impossible.

 

[Machiavelli]

I made assertions? Wow.... please go back and read the posts. I asked why the clothes had lain on that bed for weeks not collected or analyzed.(...)

You asserted that the clothes on the bed were not collected.
(And you used this as an argument to allege investigators's "incompetence").

The problem is just that you make these assertions. You make these statements. But you don't want to explain what information exactly you are putting forward, what is your source, your proof.

I want you to deal with them. You need to express fully what you are talking about. Or concede that you are making unfounded statements.

I think your method is a paradigm of what is not intellectually honest - this is why I refuse to second your "questions" - I think it's better to point out that they are not honest. You are not expressing your information transparently. As a consequence, I am not going to answer exhaustively or transparently myself. I want you to put forward transparent statements, information and questions.

 

[acbytesla]

What about the translator? She speaks both Italian and English and assumes the role of mediator. Could she have been there at the basketball court to help with the communications?

Not just at the basketball court. Imagine how this could have went down in Meredith's bedroom. The guys are both Italian and totally unfamiliar with each other, total opposites. Rudy, uneducated who spends all his time playing basketball, working as a hired landscapser. Raffaele, a total computer nerd who is more comfortable programming than anything else. Then you have Amanda and Meredith both with very marginal Italian skills who understand each other better than they do the guys.

The idea in Mignini's fantasy world is that Amanda is some kind of wicked femme fatale who manipulates these two young guys to kill her new friend and roommate for no discernible reason. Never mind she'd need a translator to do it!!!! All the while Meredith, another smart beautiful woman is somehow helpless and doesn't have a clue what is going on?

Excuse the British expression, given that I'm a Yank. But "not bloody likely"

Personally I think the key that positively proves this theory to be STUPID is Meredith's clothes. Clearly Meredith's throat is cut while she is fully dressed. Not exactly some kind of coercive sex scene.

Let me add one more point. Remember this is supposed to be some kind of conspiracy between Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda...but where did they meet? At the Piazza as the junkie testified? If that is true...why didn't Toto say that he saw Rudy with them? No, Toto said he saw Amanda and Raffaele together at 9:30 to 11:00, never Rudy!!! And you would think that Toto would recognize Rudy far easier than Amanda and Raffaele as Rudy hung out at that basketball court, But Amanda and Raffaele didn't.

BOLLOCKS!!!!

Sorry Anglo, I didn't read your post until after I wrote this. Clearly you're thinking along the same line as me when it comes to how absurd Rudy hooking up with Amanda and Raffaele in the plaza and Toto didn't see him!!! Our minds are on the same track with that.

 

[acbytesla]

You asserted that the clothes on the bed were not collected.
(And you used this as an argument to allege investigators's "incompetence").

The problem is just that you make these assertions. You make these statements. But you don't want to explain what information exactly you are putting forward, what is your source, your proof.

I want you to deal with them. You need to express fully what you are talking about. Or concede that you are making unfounded statements.

I think your method is a paradigm of what is not intellectually honest - this is why I refuse to second your "questions" - I think it's better to point out that they are not honest. You are not expressing your information transparently. As a consequence, I am not going to answer exhaustively or transparently myself. I want you to put forward transparent statements, information and questions.

Not intellectually honest, Machiavelli??? Surely ye jest. You're the most intellectually dishonest person I've encountered. You twist the facts in so many pedantic and sophist ways, I'm always left shaking my head going "huh"? Every one of your posts is an avalanche of multisyllabic words strung together that seems as if you are just reading from a legal dictionary. Direct and coherent is NOT your strong point..

 

[JREF2010]

Try to be serious Dan, will you? Do you (or does anyone) know whether Rudy's kebab story was checked out? And is it definitely or only maybe/probably him in the car park video? Those data points might confirm his time line, which is enormously at odds with the prosecution's. Just where and how exactly does Rudy fit in to the prosecution reconstruction? We know A & R paused in the square from 9.30 to sometime between 11 and 12, with Rudy nowhere to be seen. Was Rudy making out with Meredith for 2-3 hours? That's not the prosecution case either. It really ought to be within JREF's powers to summon witnesses to come here and explain these things, starting with Mig, then the ISC judges. Of course, Mach, standing in for those guys, is too chicken **** (or smart) to give it a go. He knows it can't be done without re-writing everybody's evidence.

Ah well. A snippet from Katy's translations: among his recollections Quintavalle proved that A & R had been in his shop two weeks before he saw Amanda on the 2nd. Which is impossible.

was Rudy doing what? while the delusional Heroin addict story goes....

maybe Migninni can envision Rudy on Merediths cell phone outside the cottage at 10:13pm too ..of course the Heroin Bum couldn't see Rudy.

Toto cant respond since he died while in police custody. An odd coincidence being he'd never mentioned any illness in court, he just lived his life on as a bum, then within a extremely short amount of time he expires while in jail for a crime he wasn't even sure of.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not intellectually honest, Machiavelli??? Surely ye jest. You're the most intellectually dishonest person I've encountered. You twist the facts in so many pedantic and sophist ways, I'm always left shaking my head going "huh"? Every one of your posts is an avalanche of multisyllabic words strung together that seems as if you are just reading from a legal dictionary. Direct and coherent is NOT your strong point..

The clothing on the bed is one of many points he doesn't want to examine. The police didn't want to examine it either, which is why they told reporters it was missing.

Massei, faced with the fact that it was not missing, had no choice but to contend with the implications. That is why he came up with a crazy story in which Amanda and Raffaele broke off their lovemaking to help Guede rape and kill Meredith.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159.

Items 150 and 159 are indeed recorded as a pair of blue jeans and leather from a brown jacket found on the bed...

...in Guede's apartment.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Items 150 and 159 are indeed recorded as a pair of blue jeans and leather from a brown jacket found on the bed...

...in Guede's apartment.

^^THIS^^

Now who's being intellectually dishonest Machiavelli? Surely with all of your knowledge of this case, you would not have mistakenly claimed the clothes were from someone else. That means it was intentional, to cover for ILE's incompetence.

 

[Grinder]

Try to be serious Dan, will you? Do you (or does anyone) know whether Rudy's kebab story was checked out? And is it definitely or only maybe/probably him in the car park video?

Great questions. Did the PLE go back to the car park and ID the person that was caught in the video. If it was an innocent person, one would think they might well walk there more often. If it was Rudy that adds to the timing issues for the ILE. Added to the now defunct Curatolo disco bus timing they really are left hanging.

Ah well. A snippet from Katy's translations: among his recollections Quintavalle proved that A & R had been in his shop two weeks before he saw Amanda on the 2nd. Which is impossible.

Are we sure that wasn't lost in translation? I thought it was a few days before that he had seen her.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The problem is just that you make these assertions. You make these statements. But you don't want to explain what information exactly you are putting forward, what is your source, your proof.

I want you to deal with them. You need to express fully what you are talking about. Or concede that you are making unfounded statements.

I think your method is a paradigm of what is not intellectually honest - this is why I refuse to second your "questions" - I think it's better to point out that they are not honest. You are not expressing your information transparently. As a consequence, I am not going to answer exhaustively or transparently myself. I want you to put forward transparent statements, information and questions.

Textbook example of PGP projection.

 

[Mary_H]

There is quite a bit revealed in the appeals (translations by katy_did)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061923&postcount=2470
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061940&postcount=2472
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202366&postcount=4101
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202895&postcount=4119

I don't see anything in there about a scarf.

 

[Bill Williams]

I made assertions? Wow.... please go back and read the posts. I asked why the clothes had lain on that bed for weeks not collected or analyzed.(...)

You asserted that the clothes on the bed were not collected.
(And you used this as an argument to allege investigators's "incompetence").

The problem is just that you make these assertions. You make these statements. But you don't want to explain what information exactly you are putting forward, what is your source, your proof.

I want you to deal with them. You need to express fully what you are talking about. Or concede that you are making unfounded statements.

I think your method is a paradigm of what is not intellectually honest - this is why I refuse to second your "questions" - I think it's better to point out that they are not honest. You are not expressing your information transparently. As a consequence, I am not going to answer exhaustively or transparently myself. I want you to put forward transparent statements, information and questions.

The one retreat you did make was to make reference to items 150 and 159. These items, as noted upthread, are items found in Guede's apartment. This is what you typed:

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159. The sweater was not analyzed since apparently did not have blood-like stains.
The scarf fits the description by Quintavalle.

And you have the gall to call someone else intellectually dishonest!!!! Apparently all this is too hard for you. For the record this whole thing started on or about June 26 here on JREF - 10 days ago. Ten days. And it was you who brought up the issue of the clothes on the bed. Here's how it went.

Message #6419

Hmm. No one tackled you on this. The reason Raffaele's defence did not ask for the stain to be tested is they feared the result would be fixed by the mafiosi conducting the prosecution case. You think it very fine to mock them for this ('they were afraid!') not realising you have fallen in with a bunch of fascistic thugs. They had good reason to be afraid. Their client was (and still is) being framed for murder.
(...)

But if you start from the assumption that the whole investigating police and judicial authority are a system of fascistic thugs and that thei are violating the law, then any other argument becomes unnecessary. If you assume that as true, you should not make any further point.

Bill makes arguments about evidence (clothes, window etc.) and this to me implies one can respond pointing out other actual arguments - without your arbitrary assumption - which can be consdered and are in the opposite direction.
It is obvious that it you also add a prejudicial axiom that makes the judicial system guilty and the defendant become unfairly persecuted by definition, such a priori would alter all terms of the logical equation and no argument would be possible, you would decline every aspect on reality along with it.

Message #6443

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.

I knew AngloLawyer was at the root of this. He was asking you why the (alleged) semen stain has not been tested. You seemed completely unaware of Judge Massei's reasoning, that even if it had turned out to be semen, semen bears no time stamp. (Apparently Amanda's biological material in her own home does, but that's another issue.) Yet Anglo also pointed out that Raffaele and his own lawyer feared that the prosecution might cook the results.

With Massei siding with Stefanoni on every issue and not allowing independent review, it sounded like a relevant fear Raffaele had!

You were trying to convince AngloLawyer that he was prijudiced against the Italian legal system to begin with. Then you brought up the clothes.

Then I asked you why the clothes had not been collected and tested. I mean, they were right there on Knox's bed.

For ten days you tried to stall with a demand for an osmotic assessment of the clothes, what my own a prioris were about them.

THEN you made reference to clothes collected at Rudy's apartment!!!!!!!

I'm about to declare you the winner, out of sheer stubbornness. Yet, since it was that fake lawyer, AngloLawyer, who started all this, I shall declare him the winner.

I have wasted 10 days of my life arguing with a man, Machiavelli, who gives double standards a bad name. And it is Anglo's fault.

I now like Grinder better.

 

[Dan O.]

Try to be serious Dan, will you? Do you (or does anyone) know whether Rudy's kebab story was checked out?

Other than taking a sample of the remnants from the toilet I have heard nothing further. There are some fragmented stories of where Rudy went and who he met that night. These mostly have the feel of establishing an alibi after the fact.

And is it definitely or only maybe/probably him in the car park video?

The interesting thing about the purported car park video sighting is that even though the video would confirm Rudy's story, Rudy claims it is not him. I don't know if there is a problem with the timing that worries Rudy or if it's the existence of the jacket which is now probably in a German landfill wrapped around a pair of bloody pants, a bloody knife and a pair of size 11 shoes.

 

[js202]

Items 150 and 159 are indeed recorded as a pair of blue jeans and leather from a brown jacket found on the bed...

...in Guede's apartment.

The stench of such lies and misdirection is absolutely disgusting, but of a piece from the Perugia crew.

 

[Dan O.]

Items 150 and 159 are indeed recorded as a pair of blue jeans and leather from a brown jacket found on the bed...

...in Guede's apartment.

Link: www.injusticeinperugia.org/test_results_index_translated.doc‎

And just when I was thinking that maybe this Machiavelli character has information that we should worry about.

But Hey, we've all made mistakes from time to time, Google translate can be atrociously misleading if one isn't careful to cross check the information. It's one of the drawbacks of trying to follow a case that is predominately in a foreign language. Now, if Mich were a native Italian speaker he wouldn't deserve such slack.

 

[anglolawyer]

Other than taking a sample of the remnants from the toilet I have heard nothing further. There are some fragmented stories of where Rudy went and who he met that night. These mostly have the feel of establishing an alibi after the fact.



The interesting thing about the purported car park video sighting is that even though the video would confirm Rudy's story, Rudy claims it is not him. I don't know if there is a problem with the timing that worries Rudy or if it's the existence of the jacket which is now probably in a German landfill wrapped around a pair of bloody pants, a bloody knife and a pair of size 11 shoes.

Thank you Dan. i knew you would know what is to be known.

What osmotic principles does Italy use to decide when to believe a liar and when not? The frustrating thing about Rudy's tale is he time stamps the beginning but not the end, when he took a dump. Maybe Rolfe (where is Rolfe?) should tell us how long it takes for a kebab to induce a bowel movement.

 

[Supernaut]

Items 150 and 159 are indeed recorded as a pair of blue jeans and leather from a brown jacket found on the bed...

...in Guede's apartment.

The stench of such lies and misdirection is absolutely disgusting, but of a piece from the Perugia crew.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."