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

[anglolawyer]

Guys rarely notice details like this, I think they are looking at other things.

Quintavalle is a guy.

 

[acbytesla]

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..

You don't like the law, do you?

Leave it to a poor or dishonest lawyer to define the law as such.

A great and honest lawyer tries to simplify the law and arguments. For example, take Gary Spence. He is considered to be the the best American trial lawyer in the country. He is deliberate in being direct, straight forward and attempts to simplify the law and the arguments as much as possible. You are doing the opposite. You are trying to use the law and make arguments that are designed to deceive and confuse.

But maybe that is the difference. In America a trial like this would be before a jury of the defendants peers. Average everyday lay people who almost always are trying to drill down to the truth. Spence and trial lawyers in the US are focused on their audience which are lay people. They take what is complex and complicated and break it down so their audience understands. Your method seems to be an attempt to appeal to the professional jurists as they lead the jury. You turn the simple into the complicated and complex.

It's as if the purpose is to create a veil of complexity to veil the truth. Above all do not let the common man know what is happening. Because if they did they would hang you all!!!

 

[Grinder]

And you're right - committing the murder while naked does not fit with running off into the night. Micheli pitched that fable, but Massei did not.

It doesn't fit with Nara or Dramis as she just solidified Nara.

Having pulled the timing of Curatolo because it was based on the disco buses that weren't, now Nara's would be pulled because of the speed with which Amanda would have needed to shower and change.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would have to dig, but the question of what Amanda wore on Nov. 1 was settled very early in the investigation. Filomena and Popovic both described similar attire, and it matched what is seen on Amanda's bed in the photos.

So, for Amanda to have participated in the murder, she would have had to change or remove her clothes beforehand, or else avoid getting blood on her clothes because none was found when they were finally examined, or else discard the clothes and replace them with something almost identical.

I can see why nobody on the prosecution side wants to discuss this. It's like Meredith's phone connecting with a different repeater at a few minutes past 10 pm - a detail that can be overcome, perhaps, but not without mental gymnastics.

But no gymnastics are required to reconcile the photos and testimony with Amanda's claim that she went home on the morning of Nov. 2, showered, and changed into fresh clothing.

And you're right - committing the murder while naked does not fit with running off into the night. Micheli pitched that fable, but Massei did not.

I have been seeing stuff about a 'missing' sweatshirt, as described by F. The 'missing' sweatshirt turned out to be lying on Amanda's bed. Can that possibly be true? Can it really be true the cops were hunting high and low for a swaetshirt that was ON HER *********** BED? Somebody please clarify.

 

[Grinder]

Quintavalle is a guy.

I suppose you're going to take credit for exposing that truth as well

Go look at 7355

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have been seeing stuff about a 'missing' sweatshirt, as described by F. The 'missing' sweatshirt turned out to be lying on Amanda's bed. Can that possibly be true? Can it really be true the cops were hunting high and low for a swaetshirt that was ON HER *********** BED? Somebody please clarify.

They knew it was there. It's shown in the Nov. 2-3 photos, and they turned the place upside-down sometime after those photos were taken.

They also knew that the murder room was drenched in blood that would have gotten onto the clothing of anyone who was involved, such that it would certainly have been discarded. So, that is what they told the media even though it was false.

Ghirga and dalla Vedova could not have known that Amanda was innocent when they started. They knew that most criminal defendants are not innocent. They weren't about to encourage the police to examine evidence that might incriminate their client. By March 2008, they understood the situation, so they asked that the clothing be retrieved and tested.

 

[anglolawyer]

They knew it was there. It's shown in the Nov. 2-3 photos, and they turned the place upside-down sometime after those photos were taken.

They also knew that the murder room was drenched in blood that would have gotten onto the clothing of anyone who was involved, such that it would certainly have been discarded. So, that is what they told the media even though it was false.

Ghirga and dalla Vedova could not have known that Amanda was innocent when they started. They knew that most criminal defendants are not innocent. They weren't about to encourage the police to examine evidence that might incriminate their client. By March 2008, they understood the situation, so they asked that the clothing be retrieved and tested.

As I said upthread, what have the lawyers to do with it? Investigate thoroughly, solve the crime and prosecute.

 

[anglolawyer]

I suppose you're going to take credit for exposing that truth as well

Go look at 7355

This is all because Bill said he liked you better than me

 

[acbytesla]

Greetings from Los Angeles, Machiavelli!
And thanks for the response.

Care to dig up any info in them "documents" you have on The Marco vs Marina discussion?
I know it's late in Italy, I can wait...


How come Marina could recall the name of the Ace bleach,
their location, and the amount inside the bottles right after this murder with such precision?
Because it was very recent, still fresh in her mind?
Check this out:

How come the Italian law enforcement did not even know that Marina,
with her precise memory, also worked for Marco?

And how come she could say for certain that Amanda Knox was not in the Conad store
on the morning of Nov. 2, 2007?

Let me answer this for Mach. Marina being questioned all about Raffaele and Amanda had the opportunity immediately to think about both Amanda and Raffaele. Had Amanda been in the store that morning she certainly would have told the police about it when they were asking her questions about Raffaele and Amanda and the bleach.

 

[Supernaut]

<snip>
And you're right - committing the murder while naked does not fit with running off into the night. Micheli pitched that fable, but Massei did not.

Don't know if the humour was intended, but anyway - LoL.

 

[acbytesla]

Ghirga and dalla Vedova could not have known that Amanda was innocent when they started. They knew that most criminal defendants are not innocent. They weren't about to encourage the police to examine evidence that might incriminate their client. By March 2008, they understood the situation, so they asked that the clothing be retrieved and tested.

That is a very interesting take Charlie. I never thought of it that way, but that is right on. Very good observation.

The approach has to be different when you come to the realization that there is NO WAY your client could be guilty as opposed to they probably are guilty or if you have no idea. If you are 100 % convinced that your client is innocent, you want to uncover it all, otherwise your afraid of the next piece of evidence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It doesn't fit with Nara or Dramis as she just solidified Nara.

Having pulled the timing of Curatolo because it was based on the disco buses that weren't, now Nara's would be pulled because of the speed with which Amanda would have needed to shower and change.

Massei's story is that Guede ran off after the murder but Amanda and Raffaele stayed behind.

While Amanda and Raffaele were carrying out these actions, Rudy immediately left by S. Antonio street until he reached the steel stairs of the car park, and climbing these stairs made the noise heard by Capezzali. The latter, in fact, declared that first she heard the noise on the steel stairs and then she heard the shuffling noise, as of someone walking on leaves and gravel, a shuffling which was, therefore, produced by someone who had just exited from the house on Via della Pergola and was on the gravel path, where, because of the autumnal season and the presence of trees (see photo 5 of file 1 of photographic evidence) there must also have been leaves.

Massei is careful to wend his way through a maze of problems and address them in some fashion:

- Amanda carried the big knife in her purse for personal protection, which explains why it was at the crime scene.

- She interrupted her love-making to participate in the murder, which implies that she was naked, which explains why there was no blood on her clothing.

- Meredith toyed with her phone, which explains the random pushing of buttons just before 10 pm.

- The police detected a signal from the Strada Vicinale tower when they were at the cottage, so it is possible that tower relayed a text message shortly after 10 pm.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is a very interesting take Charlie. I never thought of it that way, but that is right on. Very good observation.

The approach has to be different when you come to the realization that there is NO WAY your client could be guilty as opposed to they probably are guilty or if you have no idea. If you are 100 % convinced that your client is innocent, you want to uncover it all, otherwise your afraid of the next piece of evidence.

It is much simpler than this. Your client tells they are not guilty, or involved in any way in our case, and your moves and advice follow from your instructions. No need to believe anything.

 

[Dan O.]

I have been seeing stuff about a 'missing' sweatshirt, as described by F. The 'missing' sweatshirt turned out to be lying on Amanda's bed. Can that possibly be true? Can it really be true the cops were hunting high and low for a swaetshirt that was ON HER *********** BED? Somebody please clarify.

Meredith was missing a sweatshirt. Rudy mentions wrapping a sweatshirt around his pants to hide where they were wet. Could this be the missing sweatshirt you are referring to?


ETA: Republica 2007-11-12: "it remains a mystery to the disappearance of Meredith Kercher a sweatshirt that she used to wear and is not to be found again."

Rudy's German diary (pg 4): "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt."

 

[Grinder]

It is much simpler than this. Your client tells they are not guilty, or involved in any way in our case, and your moves and advice follow from your instructions. No need to believe anything.

Are you saying lawyers don't believe in anything?

 

[anglolawyer]

Are you saying lawyers don't believe in anything?

I am saying we don't need to. Strategy follows from client's instructions. It's important. Italy might be different, as with everything else.

 

[Grinder]

I am saying we don't need to. Strategy follows from client's instructions. It's important. Italy might be different, as with everything else.

Are you saying that given Amanda told them she was completely innocent that they would act on that without reservation? They would test the clothes and if damning evidence came out that wouldn't be the lawyers' problem.

Would a lawyer hedge at all to protect his client in case they were guilty?

Serious questions, no smilies.

 

[anglolawyer]

Are you saying that given Amanda told them she was completely innocent that they would act on that without reservation? They would test the clothes and if damning evidence came out that wouldn't be the lawyers' problem.

Would a lawyer hedge at all to protect his client in case they were guilty?

Serious questions, no smilies.

Sure.

ETA subject to instructions, of course.

ETA (again) of course the default setting is: the prosecution must prove its case and no evidence is no evidence. Not testing Amanda's clothes is the same as testing them and finding nothing.

 

[anglolawyer]

Meredith was missing a sweatshirt. Rudy mentions wrapping a sweatshirt around his pants to hide where they were wet. Could this be the missing sweatshirt you are referring to?


ETA: Republica 2007-11-12: "it remains a mystery to the disappearance of Meredith Kercher a sweatshirt that she used to wear and is not to be found again."

Rudy's German diary (pg 4): "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt."

Never heard that one before.

 

[Supernaut]

. Now that you know that those were the clothes she was wearing the night Meredith was murdered, do you accept your own theory that this is evidence that Amanda is innocent or do you ignore logic and switch to Massei's theory of a naked attack?

No, Amanda is guilty as hell, and she did it all alone, no help from Raff or Rudi either, she planted Rudi's evidence, she's a she devil like they say. Really?

Who's a clever boy?