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

[Briars]

Avoid. Ad hominem. Bait.

Does Ergon claim to be the Messiah?

Stick to your sad position if it helps you. Repeat yourself as you do. I spoke up and as far as I'm concerned you can twist and attack someones beliefs to try to discredit their great reporting. It's not going to work and it just makes you look bad.

 

[Bill Williams]

People can read Bill lets leave it at that shall we.

Perhaps we can take this to PM - I remain absolutely baffled why you won't talk about what Ergon freely admits? He freely admits he's The Messiah.

I remain baffled and will have to live with it, I suppose. If Ergon says he's the Messiah, and I repeat, "Ergon thinks he's the Messiah," how in God's good green earth could Ergon be offended, and why would some random poster in a "skeptics" website think that's twisting things?

PM? Maybe some kind soul out there will take pity on me and PM me as to what I am obviously missing here?

 

[Briars]

Perhaps we can take this to PM - I remain absolutely baffled why you won't talk about what Ergon freely admits? He freely admits he's The Messiah.

I remain baffled and will have to live with it, I suppose. If Ergon says he's the Messiah, and I repeat, "Ergon thinks he's the Messiah," how in God's good green earth could Ergon be offended, and why would some random poster in a "skeptics" website think that's twisting things?

PM? Maybe some kind soul out there will take pity on me and PM me as to what I am obviously missing here?

Your baffled why I won't take you bait and join in on an attack on Ergon? Taking things out of context to join in an irrelevant attack is your mistake , seek council by all means I can't help you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your baffled why I won't take you bait and join in on an attack on Ergon? Taking things out of context to join in an irrelevant attack is your mistake , seek council by all means I can't help you.

Finally - something. You believe I am baiting you. Maybe this should go to PM. Or perhaps not. Whatever.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it wasn't as if they just bumped into each other

Actually if I met Mignini in Perugia I'd introduce myself as well. Its a huge leap to fantasize about a campaign or what ever else Bruce wanted to make up.

Ergon wrote, "For the record, I met PM Mignini once, at his office in Perugia in March, and wrote about our meeting at the time, which you well know." Therefore your quote above is misleading. Ergon also wrote, "Funny how this becomes news after I post full copies of Raffaele Sollecito's 112 calls to the police which shows he was lying." I would like to see someone attempt to back up this claim.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ergon wrote, "For the record, I met PM Mignini once, at his office in Perugia in March, and wrote about our meeting at the time, which you well know." Therefore your quote above is misleading. Ergon also wrote, "Funny how this becomes news after I post full copies of Raffaele Sollecito's 112 calls to the police which shows he was lying." I would like to see someone attempt to back up this claim.

Maybe we should just leave Briars out of it, if he believes postings like this is "baiting". For Pete's sake, it's Ergon saying it!!!

Ergon is leaving quite the public record of what he was up to in Perugia and Rome. I did not know he claimed to have been in Mignini's office.

Does Ergon say at whose invitation? Did Ergon make an appointment? Did he introduce himself as "Ergon"? Did he tell Dr. Mignini that he believes himself to be the Messiah? (Note: why is this considered "twisting" or "baiting"? This is also what he writes about himself.)

I am also assuming that this "became news" principally because Ergon himself, via PMF.NET, published it. Regardless of the 112 calls, would it not similarly be "news" if Bruce Fisher or Peggy Ganong went to visit Dr. Mignini in his office?

I'm begging you. Someone please PM me and tell me what I'm missing.

 

[Briars]

Ergon wrote, "For the record, I met PM Mignini once, at his office in Perugia in March, and wrote about our meeting at the time, which you well know." Therefore your quote above is misleading. Ergon also wrote, "Funny how this becomes news after I post full copies of Raffaele Sollecito's 112 calls to the police which shows he was lying." I would like to see someone attempt to back up this claim.

If you read his actual account at the time . Mignini was in a hurry and it seems they encountered each other on the stairs even. Brief meeting , where Ergon was able to convey his respect. Yes I agree his posting of the calls did get an angry response from Bruce, Information should be shared thank Ergon for that. The calls are curious where unlike the cop, he refers to the intruder as singular. He reassures nothing has been stolen. He hangs up and you can hear him say to Amanda what are you doing? before the cut off. An interesting piece of information as all 911 calls made by suspects are.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Does anyone know whether Giulia Bongiorno commitments as a Mother and Italian parliamentarian will have any impact on the duration of Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal?

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know whether Giulia Bongiorno commitments as a Mother and Italian parliamentarian will have any impact on the duration of Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal?

No idea. As a mom she's probably practised at multitasking!

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone know whether Giulia Bongiorno commitments as a Mother and Italian parliamentarian will have any impact on the duration of Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal?

She isn't currently serving IIRC.

But your concern is noted and transmitted to higher authorities.

BTW can someone explain what the big deal is about the 112 calls?

The little I could find seems to be what was already known. Is it being claimed that PMF has uncovered information that Mignini didn't have?

Are the tapes privileged in some way? Were they leaked 6 years after being made?

 

[Diocletus]

Because (i) the spots are TMB-positive for blood, (ii) we have never seen the alleged "cat-positive" blood tests, (iii) many of the spots (about 20) amplified positive for human DNA, and (iv) several of the spots were subjected to electrophoresis and the resulting egrams have been suppressed, specifically, egram nos. 600-604 (from Sollecito's bedding) and 688-89 (lightswitch).

In otherwords, at least some of the "cat blood" samples contain human DNA.

Whoops. I meant to say "Silenzio's bedding". Sorry.

 

[acbytesla]

Frankly, I'm not interested in whether or not Ergon is crazy or not. Even crazy people sometimes have lucid moments. Actually, I'm not interested in any ad hominem attacks such as the attacks on Franks Sfarzo.

Ergon is welcome to believe he is the messiah. That is irrelevant to me. Only the actual discussion regarding the murder interest me.

I know that Ergon is not the messiah. The way that I know this...is that I am God.




Only kidding.

 

[Bill Williams]

BTW can someone explain what the big deal is about the 112 calls?

The little I could find seems to be what was already known. Is it being claimed that PMF has uncovered information that Mignini didn't have?

Are the tapes privileged in some way? Were they leaked 6 years after being made?

Briars calls the content "curious". Ergon regards them as some sort of smoking gun.

The 112 calls used to be useful only as with regard to their timing in relation to the arrival of the postal police. It was a common guilter claim that the calls were made after the arrival of the postal police. The subtext to that was that Raffaele panicked at the arrival of the P.P. and was surreptitiously and awkwardly trying to get it on the record that they'd at least tried to call the caribinieri.

For instance, Massei says the two 112 calls were at 12:51 and at 12:54 pm.

The timing was initially a problem, as Massei relates it, the postal polie themselves believed they got to the cottage at just after 12:30 pm. Yet Massei seems to conclude that this is in error, as he writes, "These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi."

Massei also has Filomena arriving AT 1 pm, so there is not a lot of time, then, for the postal police to be shown around by Amanda and Raffaele alone.

But Massei's point is never the timing of the calls in relation to the Postal Police's arrival: Massei spends time talking about the alleged "difficult-to-repair contradiction" Raffaele was supposedly maintaining in, allegedly, saying one thing to the 112 operator and another to the Postal Police who were (later) on the scene.

None of what Briars describes as "curious" in relation to the transcripts is new. Massei makes reference to most of those points in his motivations, the one which justified the 1st instance conviction. Of note is the "nothing stolen" and the reference that Raffaele made (during one of the calls) that someone had cut themselves on the broken glass in Filomena's room. It is quite clear that Massei uses these things as compelling (to him) to convict them of both a staging and of murder.

If someone can find a reference in Massei to the "timing" being a problem, it will be news to me.

Why Ergon is now saying that this only became "news" upon his own release of the "transcripts" is what is really curious, to me at least.

 

[acbytesla]

Briars calls the content "curious". Ergon regards them as some sort of smoking gun.

The 112 calls used to be useful only as with regard to their timing in relation to the arrival of the postal police. It was a common guilter claim that the calls were made after the arrival of the postal police. The subtext to that was that Raffaele panicked at the arrival of the P.P. and was surreptitiously and awkwardly trying to get it on the record that they'd at least tried to call the caribinieri.

For instance, Massei says the two 112 calls were at 12:51 and at 12:54 pm.

The timing was initially a problem, as Massei relates it, the postal polie themselves believed they got to the cottage at just after 12:30 pm. Yet Massei seems to conclude that this is in error, as he writes, "These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi."

Massei also has Filomena arriving AT 1 pm, so there is not a lot of time, then, for the postal police to be shown around by Amanda and Raffaele alone.

But Massei's point is never the timing of the calls in relation to the Postal Police's arrival: Massei spends time talking about the alleged "difficult-to-repair contradiction" Raffaele was supposedly maintaining in, allegedly, saying one thing to the 112 operator and another to the Postal Police who were (later) on the scene.

None of what Briars describes as "curious" in relation to the transcripts is new. Massei makes reference to most of those points in his motivations, the one which justified the 1st instance conviction. Of note is the "nothing stolen" and the reference that Raffaele made (during one of the calls) that someone had cut themselves on the broken glass in Filomena's room. It is quite clear that Massei uses these things as compelling (to him) to convict them of both a staging and of murder.

If someone can find a reference in Massei to the "timing" being a problem, it will be news to me.

Why Ergon is now saying that this only became "news" upon his own release of the "transcripts" is what is really curious, to me at least.

I've never understood why the PGP find Raffaele's "mistaken" report "that nothing is missing" as an indication of guilt. I can see given the overall condition of the cottage that Raffaele might think that way. Can't they? Yes, Raffaele doesn't know what may or not be missing behind Meredith's locked door, but the simple fact that it is locked while the house appears to have been broken into but somewhat valuable things are still there and Amanda probably telling him that nothing seems to be missing shows why he would say that to the police. After all, Meredith's rooms appears to still be secure given the locked door.

Over and over and over again, I hear these points by the guilters which somehow in their minds are some kind of indication of Raff and Amanda's guilt and I'm left going "huh"?

How and why do they make these grand canyon leaps of logic??

 

[Briars]

I've never understood why the PGP find Raffaele's "mistaken" report "that nothing is missing" as an indication of guilt. I can see given the overall condition of the cottage that Raffaele might think that way. Can't they? Yes, Raffaele doesn't know what may or not be missing behind Meredith's locked door, but the simple fact that it is locked while the house appears to have been broken into but somewhat valuable things are still there and Amanda probably telling him that nothing seems to be missing shows why he would say that to the police. After all, Meredith's rooms appears to still be secure given the locked door.

Over and over and over again, I hear these points by the guilters which somehow in their minds are some kind of indication of Raff and Amanda's guilt and I'm left going "huh"?

How and why do they make these grand canyon leaps of logic??

Why do you think Sollecito instead of answering the cop says hey what are you doing? to Amanda just before the hang up in the first call. Why do you think he mentions the "closed" door in an ominous way three times in two calls? He didn't call Meredith once back at the cottage , even though he saw her purse. Strange calls with Amanda listening, joining in and possibly interrupting the first call. You're not going to honestly look at the calls in a critical manner , no problem no one really expects you to. They remain an interesting and important account. Thanks again man from Atlan!

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you think Sollecito instead of answering the cop says hey what are you doing? to Amanda just before the hang up in the first call. Why do you think he mentions the "closed" door in an ominous way three times in two calls? He didn't call Meredith once back at the cottage , even though he saw her purse. Strange calls with Amanda listening, joining in and possibly interrupting the first call. You're not going to honestly look at the calls in a critical manner , no problem no one really expects you to. They remain an interesting and important account. Thanks again man from Atlan!

The only thing ominous or strange is your description. You are looking at these events thinking you can read the tea leaves. There is nothing really interesting or important about them unless you are willing to give them more power than they have.

In fact Briars, these are perfect examples of confirmation bias. I look at them honestly KNOWING that these points can be looked at as easily innocently or in your perspective as something sinister. That's why I ignore them. It is isn't really evidence of anything.

 

[Briars]

The only thing ominous or strange is your description. You are looking at these events thinking you can read the tea leaves. There is nothing really interesting or important about them unless you are willing to give them more power than they have.

In fact Briars, these are perfect examples of confirmation bias. I look at them honestly KNOWING that these points can be looked at as easily innocently or in your perspective as something sinister. That's why I ignore them. It is isn't really evidence of anything.

pretty much what I expected ,your old standby reply.

 

[Bill Williams]

pretty much what I expected ,your old standby reply.

So? You gave absolutely no reason, really, to suspect that the transcript of the 112 call(s) was (as you put it), "an interesting and important account."

It's reather refreshing to read a consistant reply to these non sequitors.... drawing inferences without saying what those inferences lead to, and then claiming it's an "an interesting and important account."

For instance, you ask:

Why do you think Sollecito instead of answering the cop says hey what are you doing?

The issue isn't why acbytesla thinks that is "interesting and important," the issue is why YOU think that is interesting and important. You simply do not say, leaving the impression it is self-evident.

It isn't.

You also ask, without providing your own answer:

Why do you think he mentions the "closed" door in an ominous way three times in two calls?

Although your use of the word "ominous" suggests that you find it..... ah, er.... ominous. Yet you do not say why this is ominous.

You also call the calls "strange", again without saying why....

Strange calls with Amanda listening, joining in and possibly interrupting the first call.

This is not self-evident at all..... except that someone happening upon this scene and trying to make sense of it for some remote operator will probably sound strange, because the scene in from of them (not knowing about the murder) is, well..... strange.

You have not established anything, except a restatement, rally, of your initial belief, that the two have something to hide. And you use these calls as an "an interesting and important account," to prove what you've assumed in evaluating them to begin with. This is established by your words, "ominous" and "strange" without saying why, really, that they are that.

And you call disagreement with your position a "standard reply".

Well, yes in fact it is a standard reply to someone who has not proven anything.

As Grinder asked many postings ago: all of this was known 6 years ago...... so why are you thanking The Man from Atlan? As if he's somehow revealed the Oracle at Delphi when all this back and fourth....

..... your own confirmation bias, as well as the standard reply to it, was known almost six years ago? All of it?

Massei at least gives it a go to provide his own reasons for (wrongly) assuming this is suspicious. He calls it "Raffaele's attempt to repair the story as more becomes known," or other such nonsense.

Another equally probable explanation is that no one, really, knew what the scene in front of them was until Meredith was (sadly and tragically) found.

 

[Grinder]

Raf's nothing is missing remark certainly is at best unfortunate. Regardless of the door being locked it is a reasonable question to ask how could he have known that nothing was stolen. Having said that it is also reasonable that on discovery of the broken window the two of them looked around and surprisingly concluded that nothing seemed to be missing, which made the scene even more ominous. There was the missing make-up, so something was missing.

I would still like to know what new information was revealed by Ergon. Briars please do me the courtesy of explaining that.

I see nothing odd about Raf saying to Amanda as he was disconnecting, "what are you doing." Could you explain what is odd about that in any way? I'm sure that I've started talking before hitting the end call button many a time. Haven't you?

What strikes me, is the importance the PGP give to so many minor after the crime issues. There is no sign of any significant clean-up yet they spend hours discussing the cost of the bleach under the sink. They are sure that Vulturno smelled bleach but have no concern that there was no sign of it when the CSI applied luminol. I poured bleach into tub and left it for hours and yet only a few hours later on coming home no scent at all. Did Volturno find the source of the scent? No, but so what? Right PGP?

No evidence of being part of the murder then claim they must be involved in some way.

Curatolo gets the day wrong in every way, no problem because he said it was the night before the police in white space suits showed up. Duh, nine months after everyone in the world knew the killing happened the night before the police arrived en masse.

Curatolo said it was just before midnight when he left and the kids were there but that presented a problem for the ILE so they adjusted the time based on when non existent disco buses weren't there.

As I've said many a time, how would the PGP deal with a heroin addict coming forward a year after the crime and saying he was high on heroin, but remembers seeing the kids in Raf's apartment at 10 the night of the murder, which he was sure was the night because the disco buses weren't running?

When the great one produces the recordings of the interrogations, that will perk up interest.

 

[acbytesla]

pretty much what I expected ,your old standby reply.

Your reply is what I would expect. You believe if add the words ominous and strange as an adjective that I should think of those events as strange and ominous? They are not. Real physical evidence is required. not metaphysical evidence. Why don't you see that?

I get that you think they are guilty, but none of these events are in the least bit suspicious unless you come to the party already thinking they are guilty.