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

[Bill Williams]

My goal is to see what YOU say about it. You choose not to say anything, either to confirm or deny.

Truth is that you've called Nadeau an approximate reporter in similar circumstances. That you refuse comment about Vogt, even to deny it, says all I need to hear.

I have to say Bill, you and LJ are certainly tenacious when it comes to getting a point across. I tend to agree with all these points.

It's because he continues to post as if these things are not issues. It's as if one ignores a real, live issue long enough it takes on the appearance of being a non-issue.

Machiavelli/Yummi is even more tenacious than me. He's been spreading the same BS for years. That's why it is important to become clear in one's own mind what they're asking of him - and not to be distracted by the spin Machiavelli wants to put on things.

Witness his whole thing (above) about claiming that it is Vecchiotti who is "cheating", or that it is Vecchiotti who is "the criminal."

This is distraction extraodinaire..... it's as if he repeats it enough, it suddenly becomes true (or at the very least distracts other posters in trying to defend Vecchiotti from what is an absurd contention to begin with. Why even dignify it with a response. It's a diversion, and that's all Machiavelli needs to accomplish.) This "method" in fact was the problem from the beginning with the sluttification of Amanda Knox and the selling of the Foxy Knoxy myth.

Have you read any of the current tweets? One has to do with Raffaele's visit to Meredith's grave. One tweeter said something akin to, "I would not be surprised if he buried a note with her saying, 'Ha ha, we got away with murder'." Suddenly that becomes the fire for all sorts of vulgar comments against Raffaele which suggest that, afterall, he'd gone only to be disrespectful.

That's Machiavelli's methodology. He hides behind innuendo. He's said that it would not surprise him if Rudy Guede had been Amanda Knox's pimp... given that he believes there's a student-culture there of girls trading sex for drugs. This becomes part of Machiavelli's vilification of Knox through innuendo... but the point is...

.... then other guilter/haters start accepting as fact that Knox and Rudy had a prior relationship, and that Knox was of morals loose enough to have been a prostitute.... this is the kind of innuendo which swirled around the blogosphere in the early days - and still does. There's just been a new blog spring up which criticizes Knox for having a Meredith Memorial on her own webpage.... as if Knox does not have the right to grieve the loss of a friend through horrible circumstances. It wastes people time when they have to debunk this garbage, but then that's the point, to waste time debunking it....

But Machiavelli's methodology continues. He posts for week that Mignini had never advanced a Satanic Rite theory of this crime. Truly, I could care less WHAT Mignini ever advanced - the man is looney-tunes. I actually have no interest in either proving or disproving this - as witnessed by my posts.

My issue with that one is:

- why all of a sudden does Mignini write a letter to the editor in 2013 debunking this? What's at issue for Mignini, in 2013, to want to fight this rear-guard action? (Machiavelli provided the answer/documentation to that one - it has to do with what Spezi is writing ahead of Spezi's own court dates.... so, I drop it. Why? Because Machiavelli briefly dropped the, "Prove he ever said that!" demand by addressing the real issue - why is this even being talked about in 2013? Machiavelli himself addressed it, I dropped it. This point is the very model of what I hope to accomplish by reading what Mach. has to say about Vogt... which he refuses to do...)

- related to this, Machiavelli claims to have original transcripts which prove Mignini had never advanced a Satanic Rite theory. I dropped this only when Machiavelli had to throw one of the early procedural judges under a bus.... but the point is that Machiavelli claimed to have proof in his possession proving me wrong, and simply did not post it. He said something about that it would be bad manners to post it. WTF!? But I dropped it because, back to the point, this says buckets about Machiavelli's methodology irrespective of what Mignini claimed was the motive behind this horrible killing. It says that Machiavelli will throw ANYONE under a bus, even Mignini-friendly judges, all for the purpose of protecting Mignini and/or Vogt. Those are the only two he doesn't toss under public transport.

- related to this is also Barbie Nadeau. This is closely related to Machiavelli simply refusing to talk about Andrea Vogt's latest claim, a claim favourable to innocence to Amanda and Raffaele, BTW. Regardless of what Mignini ever once proposed about motive, Nadeau writes in "Angel Face" that Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case as co-prosecutor IF Mignini went to trial with the Satanic Rite theory. It is simply not the point to argue the veracity of Nadeau's claim, but it is simply factual that she made the claim. Point here is that Machiavelli, eventually and through persistence, claimed that Nadeau was simply a sloppy reporter. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that, given that at one point Barbie and Andrea were Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber as reporters on this case, almost joined at the hip. Now Machiavelli, who rarely says a bad word about guilters calls Nadeau a liar for the Satanic Rite claim (also calling John Kercher "mistaken" when Kercher writes exactly the same thing....), but eventually corrects himself by calling Nadeau an "approximate reporter". I'm sure that's a term better than calling Nadeau an outright liar.

- Finally, Machiavelli, who himself is in the courtroom on Nov 6 tweeting, is in the same physical space as Andrea Vogt who herself is tweeting. Andrea also writes that the RIS Carabinieri report basically validates what Conti & Vecchiotti reported to the Hellmann court, and this means that C&V's conclusions are now before the Nencini court (albeit, the Nencini court has yet to rule on where the C&V report fits into the "osmotic" evaluation of the evidence.)
​

I am asking Machiavelli if this now makes Andrea Vogt an "approximate reporter", that's all. It's not any more complex than that. If he can claim to have documentation proving the contention wrong, that Andrea did NOT report this about C&V, then Machiavelli has shown more than enough talent to produce the counter evidence, rather than just say, in effect, "no comment". He's not even saying that it would be impolite to produce counter evidence, he's just refusing to comment. Period.

Sure he dresses it up a bit, but that's what he's saying, really. "No comment". Fair enough. He has that right.

He didn't say "no comment" when he claimed to have the documentation to prove that Mignini had never advanced a Satanic Rite theory of this crime. He just said he had the documentation, but that it would be impolite to produce it!!!! WTF!!!??

When he said that Knox herself could choose not to sleep, I called that assertion absurd. What was at issue with that one was that he claimed Knox went into the Late Nov 5th interrogation rested and fully able to pull the wool over the interrogator's eyes about this crime.

When I said that this was bollocks, he challenged me to produce evidence to prove him wrong!!!!! I learned my lesson there... the issue is not to produce evidence to counter silly theories from Machiavelli... the issue was to get him to say something...

"No comment" would have served him better on that one, I must say. Yet he refrained from his right to silence, with no meaning allowed or impugned to the silence. He spoke.

What did he say? No Comment? No, he commented all right. He said that Knox could choose not to sleep and that he'd noted this in examining her writings between Nov 1 and Nov 5.

He should have elected "no comment". When challenged to produce his own credentials for heaping a ludicrous assertion on top of an absurd assertion.... he then went on to confess his own problems with sleep issues, which he said made him the equivalent of a lay-expert on the subject. (A third silliness, on top of something ludicrous, all to hide the original absurd assertion.)

You see, this is not about what Andrea Vogt did or didn't say. It is Machiavelli's methodology, and he's taking a very unique approach to Andrea Vogt.

After all the silliness with Satanic Rites, Barbie Nadeau, Knox choosing not to sleep (people who trade sex for drugs do that, you know!), or what the RIS Carabinieri said in court on Nov 6, where both Andrea Vogt AND Machiavelli were by virtue of their tweets (and other evidence in my possession).....

My question is (once again) not about Vogt nor Nadeau, nor the RIS Carabinieri, or whether Vecchiotti is a criminal or not...

It's about how Machiavelli approaches things here. No one has to provide documentation on how Machiavelli approaches things.... he freely obliges.

I'm just wondering why he says, "no comment" about Vogt. That's all.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

.
I agree with what you are saying Rolfe. However I don't think we should assume rare events are coincidences merely because coincidences are known to happen. Part of the reason humans have developed this trait of questioning rare events is because sometimes they are the result of a cause/effect that is important for our survival as a species if we can figure out the association.

In this case the police have given an explanation that implies an extraordinarily unlikely coincidence. These are the same police that have hidden evidence, and demonstrated incompetence and dishonesty throughout the investigation and trial.

The irrefutable evidence required to determine whether or not the bomb threat phone call was a coincidence is easily available. All that is required is the phone record for that phone call. What could be easier to obtain? Has anyone, other than the prosecuting team seen that phone call record? Has anyone asked for it? Does anyone other than the prosecuting team know the exact time the phone call was made? Has anyone seen the police log regarding the investigation? When did the police arrive, when did they leave?

Even if the call was a coincidence, the times of the call, the police arrival, length of stay, results of their investigation could still be significant to the investigation of Meredith's murder.

Is anybody even curious?

Charlie, do you know the answer to any of these questions?

My own, very strong opinion is that it was NOT a kid's prank, but show me irrefutable proof (the phone record) and I will change my opinion.
.

I don't have much detail about this, but if you think it's relevant to the case, what is your theory as to how it fits in?

That is ultimately the way I decide on this stuff. I think I'm pretty good, because I more or less know the well-worn paths of crime. The Meredith Kercher crime scene does not look like the final act of an elaborate plot. It looks like one screwed-up hombre, acting on impulse with no master plan, who smashed his way in and killed a girl. I need a clear story, that adds up and has solid factual support, to convince me otherwise.

I follow quite a few cases. Here's one: housewife missing, leaves behind five kids. Husband says she went to the store to rent a video. But the security camera doesn't show her arriving at the store.

Instead, her car is found abandoned in a parking lot, 12 miles away.

Husband's alibi for time frame of disappearance: "I went hunting in another state, but when I got there, I suddenly realized hunting season doesn't open for another week."

Good thing she turned up alive, eh?

 

[Rolfe]

.I agree with what you are saying Rolfe. However I don't think we should assume rare events are coincidences merely because coincidences are known to happen. Part of the reason humans have developed this trait of questioning rare events is because sometimes they are the result of a cause/effect that is important for our survival as a species if we can figure out the association.

Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that we can't tell whether or not something is a coincidence just by looking at it. Any event or piece of evidence may or may not be a coincidence, and this has to be decided by looking at the evidence in detail.

If a detailed investigation reveals that the "incredible coincidence" was in fact exactly that, we have to be prepared to accept that conclusion. This is where human nature comes a cropper. All too often, people refuse to accept that something like this is indeed a coincidence, no matter how strong the evidence that shows it was a complete red herring.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's one: housewife missing, leaves behind five kids. Husband says she went to the store to rent a video. But the security camera doesn't show her arriving at the store.

Instead, her car is found abandoned in a parking lot, 12 miles away.

Husband's alibi for time frame of disappearance: "I went hunting in another state, but when I got to there, I suddenly realized hunting season doesn't open for another week."

Good thing she turned up alive, eh?

Here's mine, though we mustn't discuss it any further, this is merely another example.

Bomb brings down airliner, and it is discovered that clothes manufactured and sold in Malta were wrapped around the bomb. A separate finding in the same case was that baggage transfer records at Frankfurt appeared to show an unaccompanied and undocumented item being transferred from a flight from Malta to the doomed plane. Subsequently, it was discovered that a man fingered as a possible suspect by the CIA was at the airport on Malta when that flight departed.

Unfortunately for everyone concerned, including the man who was jailed for ten years, and the x-ray operator at Frankfurt who was blamed for not spotting the bomb in the hypothetical transferred suitcase and who subsequently died a hopeless alcoholic, full analysis of the recovered debris from the plane shows that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not Malta.

The difficulty is that the three-way coincidence of the clothes purchase, the baggage transfer records, and the presence of a credible suspect in the "right place at the right time" is too much for a lot of people to get over.

Answers on a postcard....

Rolfe.

 

[Kestrel]

Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that we can't tell whether or not something is a coincidence just by looking at it. Any event or piece of evidence may or may not be a coincidence, and this has to be decided by looking at the evidence in detail.

If a detailed investigation reveals that the "incredible coincidence" was in fact exactly that, we have to be prepared to accept that conclusion. This is where human nature comes a cropper. All too often, people refuse to accept that something like this is indeed a coincidence, no matter how strong the evidence that shows it was a complete red herring.

Rolfe.

The incredible coincidence in the Knox case is the bomb threat to the villa just outside of Perugia.

That odd coincidence may explain why Meredith's phones were found in the villa garden. If Rudy was making his way home outside the city walls, the timing is just about right for him to be near the villa when the police responded to the call about the bomb threat. Hearing the sirens, Rudy realizes that the phones link him directly to the murder so he tosses them over a wall.

 

[Dan O.]

Something to bake your noodle on is: would the phones still have been found if there hadn't been a bomb threat?

 

[Mary_H]

I disagree as regards the accusations of police abuse, simply because no matter how bitter and/or fired up Lumumba may have been, there's no way he couldn't have understood the potential consequences to him of falsely accusing the police of such extreme acts.

There also is no way he couldn't have understood the potential consequences of accusing the police of such extreme acts at all -- especially if they were true, as in Amanda's case.

On the other hand, I strongly suspect he felt he had a free hand to lay into Knox with all guns blazing: he would have nothing to fear from her as a private citizen who was sitting in a prison cell. In addition, since he obviously believed her to be guilty of participating in Meredith's murder, he would have felt few qualms about "embellishing" his recollections about such a vicious murderer....

The whole first part of the article is just so contrived, and completely opposes Amanda's much more believable description of working in what was essentially a hell hole. And I don't think anyone has ever settled the question of the extent of Patrick's English language skills versus the author's Italian language skills, or whether Patrick had ever actually met Meredith or whether Patrick's wife had ever actually met Amanda, etc. etc. It's BS.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>As I said earlier Chris commented he hadn't thought of hard it would be to dispose of the knife and other evidence. Hello, the phones were found.

The question is, did Guede want the phones to be found?

I can think of a dozen ways to hide a knife if I don't want it to be found. And if I didn't mind if it's found, then, yes, I would clean it well enough to remove my DNA.

 

[Mary_H]

Something to bake your noodle on is: would the phones still have been found if there hadn't been a bomb threat?

Kestrel's (and someone else's) idea of Guede taking the opportunity of the cops' presence does make more sense than Guede calling in the bomb threat himself (or having someone else do it).

Yes, they would have been found, because they were found by family members walking in the yard, which presumably would have happened bomb threat or not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vogt has just confirmed her inbuilt bias and lack of journalistic objectivity with an update piece on her website, posted yesterday (Sunday 11th):

http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

In this "update" on the BSU FOI request rejection, Vogt repeats, virtually word-for-word, the canard promoted on the main pro-guilt websites that focuses on one narrow reason for denial: the alleged "trade secrets" angle.

Vogt essentially sets up a strawman in which she only considers this "trade secrets" reason for BSU's denial, then makes an argument (supported, incidentally, by a very strange single-issue anti-trade-secrets blogger's piece...) that there was no "trade secrets angle".

And then, in a breathtaking piece of sophistry, Vogt not only concludes that a "trade secrets" defence by BSU was improper and wrong - she then adds in that she let the appeal time limit lapse for legitimate reasons, and implies heavily that if she HAD appealed, the refusal would have had to have been overturned!

Vogt virtually ignores completely the first-stated - and quite clearly the most relevant and important by some margin - reason given by BSU for refusal of her request: all these communications and consultations are covered by attorney/client privilege. I believe she mentions it once in brackets, as an afterthought.....

In effect, even if she were correct about the validity of refusal on "trade secret" grounds, there would still be zero chance of her ever getting what she asked for - on the even more important grounds of attorney/client privilege. Which renders her entire argument both moot and misleading. Oh, and that's before we even get to the other two grounds given by BSU for refusal

Here's what Vogt wrote - in my opinion it's a clear attempt to deceive by pretending that the FOI request was refused solely on the grounds of a "trade secrets" defence, and a clear implication that Vogt is communicating that she would have won an appeal if she'd filed it in time:

BSU, however, denied a public records request to review materials related to the efforts, calling the research an economic trade secret.

When I initially received BSU’s records request rejection for “trade secret” reasons, I thought the university’s position was questionable, but the deadline to file an appeal in Ada County District Court passed while I was in Italy. I decided to post the FOIA rejection in October (see below) because two Northwest members of Congress were holding a congressional hearing on the case and it seemed relevant that an American university might be withholding potentially pertinent information. It has been gratifying to see a legal opinion from an important firm like Orrick–a group of trade secret lawyers with 13 office across the U.S., Asia and Europe–take up the matter.

In my view, this blatant piece of strawman arguing and deception by implication only goes to further cement Vogt's reputation as a "journalist" of extremely low standing, who's fully prepared to bend and overlook facts in the pursuit of a biased agenda.


ETA: I note belatedly that Vogt's original FOI request appears to have included, as one of the requested search terms for Hampikian's emails, the name "Hellman". If that's the case, it would appear that star-reporter Vogt doesn't even know how to spell the name of the appeal lead judge (Hellmann) correctly

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel's (and someone else's) idea of Guede taking the opportunity of the cops' presence does make more sense than Guede calling in the bomb threat himself (or having someone else do it).

No, I believe Rudy got rid of the phones when he saw the police coming. The phones were a direct link between him and a murder victim. So he tossed them over a wall into what looked like a ravine. Not hoping they would be found, but just to get rid of them. What Rudy didn't know is that beyond the wall was a tended garden.

Meredith's keys may still be in that same garden.

 

[Mary_H]

No, I believe Rudy got rid of the phones when he saw the police coming. The phones were a direct link between him and a murder victim. So he tossed them over a wall into what looked like a ravine. Not hoping they would be found, but just to get rid of them. What Rudy didn't know is that beyond the wall was a tended garden.

Meredith's keys may still be in that same garden.

Okay, I see what you mean.

 

[Diocletus]

Vogt has just confirmed her inbuilt bias and lack of journalistic objectivity with an update piece on her website, posted yesterday (Sunday 11th):

http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

In this "update" on the BSU FOI request rejection, Vogt repeats, virtually word-for-word, the canard promoted on the main pro-guilt websites that focuses on one narrow reason for denial: the alleged "trade secrets" angle.

Vogt essentially sets up a strawman in which she only considers this "trade secrets" reason for BSU's denial, then makes an argument (supported, incidentally, by a very strange single-issue anti-trade-secrets blogger's piece...) that there was no "trade secrets angle".

And then, in a breathtaking piece of sophistry, Vogt not only concludes that a "trade secrets" defence by BSU was improper and wrong - she then adds in that she let the appeal time limit lapse for legitimate reasons, and implies heavily that if she HAD appealed, the refusal would have had to have been overturned!

Vogt virtually ignores completely the first-stated - and quite clearly the most relevant and important by some margin - reason given by BSU for refusal of her request: all these communications and consultations are covered by attorney/client privilege. I believe she mentions it once in brackets, as an afterthought..... In effect, even if she were correct about the validity of refusal on "trade secret" grounds, there would still be zero chance of her ever getting what she asked for - on the even more important grounds of attorney/client privilege. Which renders her entire argument both moot and misleading.

Here's what Vogt wrote - in my opinion it's a clear attempt to deceive by pretending that the FOI request was refused solely on the grounds of a "trade secrets" defence, and a clear implication that Vogt is communicating that she would have won an appeal if she'd filed it in time:




In my view, this blatant piece of strawman arguing and deception by implication only goes to further cement Vogt's reputation as a "journalist" of extremely low standing, who's fully prepared to bend and overlook facts in the pursuit of a biased agenda.

I wouldn't be too hard on her. She's a simpleton.

Also, her reporting has zero impact on the world. She's shouting into the wind and no one is listening. I'd be surprised if she's even making any money off of her stories at this point--may explain her professed lack of interest in the case.

 

[NancyS]

The question is, did Guede want the phones to be found?

I can think of a dozen ways to hide a knife if I don't want it to be found. And if I didn't mind if it's found, then, yes, I could clean it well enough to remove my DNA.

I think most people would want to get rid of the knife - as most people (apart from the Pro-Rudy lot at PMF) must be aware that you can match the knife to the wounds. If you were really mad enough to keep it, I would of expected some obsessive cleaning and boiling it in water etc. etc.

Can I ask a question about the time of death evidence - I checked back through my old medical and physiology books and it seems fairly basic undergraduate science that food will pass from within the stomach to the duodenum within 2-4 hours (with 4 being the very limit). How wasis thepresented in court - did the pathologist give his best estimate for the time of death or am I missing something?

 

[acbytesla]

Kestrel's (and someone else's) idea of Guede taking the opportunity of the cops' presence does make more sense than Guede calling in the bomb threat himself (or having someone else do it).

Yes, they would have been found, because they were found by family members walking in the yard, which presumably would have happened bomb threat or not.

We're they both turned off? I am sure that they were, but I swear I read that one of the phones were actually ringing in the yard. Probably just a false memory planted in my brain..

 

[acbytesla]

I wouldn't be too hard on her. She's a simpleton.

Also, her reporting has zero impact on the world. She's shouting into the wind and no one is listening. I'd be surprised if she's even making any money off of her stories at this point--may explain her professed lack of interest in the case.

Hey, watch out. I think she may be Mach's squeeze.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
When I initially received BSU’s records request rejection for “trade secret” reasons, I thought the university’s position was questionable, but the deadline to file an appeal in Ada County District Court passed while I was in Italy. I decided to post the FOIA rejection in October (see below) because two Northwest members of Congress were holding a congressional hearing on the case and it seemed relevant that an American university might be withholding potentially pertinent information. It has been gratifying to see a legal opinion from an important firm like Orrick–a group of trade secret lawyers with 13 office across the U.S., Asia and Europe–take up the matter.

In my view, this blatant piece of strawman arguing and deception by implication only goes to further cement Vogt's reputation as a "journalist" of extremely low standing, who's fully prepared to bend and overlook facts in the pursuit of a biased agenda.

Well, she definitely has an agenda -- to make Hampikian look bad and, by extension, the defense.

"... it seemed relevant that an American university might be withholding potentially pertinent information."

What information? The only thing pertinent would be that they know that the defendants are guilty but they refuse to reveal it. If they have that information, why doesn't the prosecution?

ETA: I note belatedly that Vogt's original FOI request appears to have included, as one of the requested search terms for Hampikian's emails, the name "Hellman". If that's the case, it would appear that star-reporter Vogt doesn't even know how to spell the name of the appeal lead judge (Hellmann) correctly

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I wouldn't be too hard on her. She's a simpleton.

Also, her reporting has zero impact on the world. She's shouting into the wind and no one is listening. I'd be surprised if she's even making any money off of her stories at this point--may explain her professed lack of interest in the case.

In fairness, she did post the actual letter explaining all the reasons why her request was turned down.

Surrogate issues like this are a good way for the guilters to keep the outrage simmering. They had a good run with Frank the uncongenial house guest. Now they can dwell on this for awhile. As you say, nobody else cares.

 

[Mary_H]

We're they both turned off? I am sure that they were, but I swear I read that one of the phones were actually ringing in the yard. Probably just a false memory planted in my brain..

I think that's right -- the son heard one phone ringing when Amanda was calling Meredith. The mother was already on her way to the station with the other phone.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hey, watch out. I think she may be Mach's squeeze.

I dread to think about the "approximate sex" they might be having......

But in answer to the question that your post itself was in answer to, I do wonder just which constituency Vogt is actually writing for now. It's obvious that no reputable media outlet is going to pick up this sort of misleading, ill-researched, opinion-led codswallop, so what does she hope is going to happen with it?

My actual best guess is that she is now betting the house on the slim chance of Knox and Sollecito crashing and burning, and that she may consequently end up being venerated as some sort of "Bernstein and Woodward-lite" intrepid investigative journalist.

That's the only "strategy" I can think of to explain her stance. After all, she must be at least intelligent and media-savvy enough to realise that she's never going to sell this sort of stuff until and unless Knox/Sollecito ultimately stand convicted and condemned, and that if (when) Knox/Sollecito are acquitted and exonerated, her work on this case will be consigned to the dustbin of history marked "embarrassingly wrong".....