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

[Machiavelli]

But he says "At least that is what the testimonies reported." Has this testimonies ever been provided here? (...)

Amanda's MySpace page, and Amanda's diary.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, I do consider irrelevant. Why is this even important?

It's not important, it's only because of the claim of "honour student"; since I think the lable "honor student" tends to have an implication about the academic program one is engaged into.

 

[Supernaut]

Amanda's MySpace page, and Amanda's diary.

I find it inappropriate that you refer to a person you are trying to "damn" by their first name.

She is "Knox", or "Ms. Knox" to you.

 

[Mary_H]

What did she write in her own book about that?

I don't think I've ever used the word in this forum (I can hear the search engine churning) and not even to counter it. I really don't think Amanda needs you to defend her.

I'm interested in the case as in "Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case" much less in their personal lives.

As Machiavelli has explained at great length, their personal lives ARE the case.

 

[Mary_H]

No, she said the black man was beautiful. That is NONE of that. It's like saying the Grand Canyon was beautiful. It doesn't mean you want a relationship with it or want to screw it.

What Machiavelli is saying is that if you assume that the person admiring the Grand Canyon is also proven to be a murderer, this proves that the Grand Canyon is the (albeit unnamed) accomplice!<snip>

LOL!

<snip>Coming up next - Mach expresses surprise at locating bear faeces in the woods at Bear Mountain.

This whole line of argument is low class. In fact, the entire prosecution of Amanda Knox is low class. Perugia seems to be the Italian equivalent of a trailer park.

This has been my argument about their tendency to lie. There are certain social circles in which continual lying is more common than in others.

 

[Bill Williams]

But he says "At least that is what the testimonies reported." Has this testimonies ever been provided here? The name only comes up once in this thread 2 years ago when Bill absolutely shreds the rumor.
Bringing this subject up when trying to deflect the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct is laughable. It just reminds us of when the police stormed Amanda's cell on November 30, 2007 and confiscated her writings. News of this was in the papers the very next day with quotes coming out in the subsequent days. It was also from these confiscated papers that an author acquired the details of Amanda's sex life and included it in a book. That author and publisher were successfully sued. And to wrap it up, one name is conspicuously missing from the list of Amanda's sex partners.

With that fully documented and evidenced, I call Machiavelli's statement a lie.

I did?

I can't remember which I did first. It was either "all the lies Amanda told," or it was "Sex on a train." The very first in depth thing I did on this... remember back then I thought Amanda full value for conviction on calunnia.

The "Sex on a train" thing came up on Sharon Feinstein's blog, which almost crashed under the weight of the "back and forth" of "debate". I said something like, "There was no clean-up, even Judge Massei only posits one in the hall, but offers no evidence," and someone came back with....

..... "Why are you defending your little darling Amanda, who had sex on a train?" That was it. Nothing else. It's what has made this so addictive - there is a never ending supply of factoids.

Now, I fully accept that Knox herself has cleared up this apocalyptic/escatological issue in her book. I accept her at her word.

At the time though, I wasted about two cold nights with nothing else to do to Goggle-search this into oblivion. I found one denial of this in some sort of pre-Nov 2007 email home, where Knox said she and her sister had been harrassed on the journey to Perugia, but had not had sex. (I guess her story remains the same, really.)

But it was part of the learning curve of what those poor people had to deal with after Nov 6th, 2007. No lurid claim was outrageous enough, no matter how unconnected to the actual, horrible crime done to Meredith Kercher.

That this is even being discussed here in 2013 is truly bizarre. What's it got to do with anything? My opinion it is a substitute for the prosecution had nothing else, really.

Then there were, "All the lies Amanda told." I spent a couple of nights, too, crazy-jerk that I am, Googling this - it may have been one of the last times I really searched through the PMF sites. I mean if Amanda had told so many consistent lies, what better place to start than the PMF sites? They must have a list? Or maybe someone like me could compile a list of "alleged lies", using PMF as a source?

Truly, there were none.... ok, ok, there were 13. The Machine had assembled 10, and I found an obscure hater-page that repeated some of The Machine's whoopers, and added three more new ones.

I've got the list kicking around somewhere. Truly, of these thirteen lies (IMO all of them excruciatingly arguable), twelve were lies allegedly told by Raffaele. I wondered why it was that Raffaele was not being pegged as the prevaricator here.

And I'll award ten points for the only lie Amanda was supposed to have told!!! That's right, the one about Lumumba, which at the time (IIRC) I actually DID regard as a lie, before eventually changing my mind on that one.

I will look for that list if anyone is bored enough, and has nothing else to do.

Truly - now I'll, risking this because Machiavelli has called me a liar here lately, and the mods have not removed the offending post - but no matter, I think any one of us here could assemble a list of perhaps 13 whoppers told by.... well, you know who.

Except that they are couched, really, in a lot of language designed to allow retreat.

So two mainstays of the guilter narrative: sex on a train, all the lies Amanda told. You know, I'm a fairly decent guy, and I occasionally tell a real whooper.... mostly because of my ethnic background... which I hope is a comment which can get past the mods. I admit it.

I'm sure that if I'd been caught up in a criminal mess like this, and they'd isolated my partner in another room, and kept coming in telling me the whoopers he was telling (or that they claimed he was telling!), I'd probably come out with a few of my own. I really don't know, because I've never really been under that much pressure to save my skin in an unprecedented experience for me.

Truly, many will not be surprised to read this - Amanda told surprisingly few "lies" in any meaningful interpretation of that concept. Raffaele? Maybe one or two as a scared kid, but he later more than redeemed himself by steadfastly NOT lying about being Amanda's alibi, at the risk of himself going to jail for 25 years (indeed, he served four, so this was not a theoretical concept for him!)

Which leads me to a question for Machiavelli - an honest one, now that we've all dropped shields...

Can you, Machiavelli, account for Raffaele NOT ratting out Amanda, and himself escaping 25 years in jail, from a "guilt" perspective.

I'm asking because I cannot imagine the AK and RS of your scenario keeping loyal to each other. Esp. Raffaele. Why would a Raffaele NOT take a deal with the prosecutors to turn on the most hated woman in Italy? If Raffaele had done that in 2009, or more importantly in early 2010 when he'd already been convicted..... facing an appeal... no one would even know who he is right now.

They barely know who he is anyway? But why would a guilty Raffaele, knowing that Amanda was also guilty, not take a deal?

I promise - I will not pre-accuse you of dietrology on this, until I read your answer....

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

You continue to write claims which you have not substantiated. You claim there is documentation showing the negative controls were documented as deposited into the case file on October 8th. Here you also assert Vecchiotti's report is incorrect in that it states Stephanoni "is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohol," yet you state this is found in the October 4th transcript.

I don't have the negative controls; but the question about whether negative controls were deposited into the case file on October 8th is secondary, in my opinion, as I explained, with respect to the evidence that Vecchiotti and Conti did not do any attempt to verify them.
As for the files being "documented as deposited", I still don't have the whole transcript of the 8. (maybe I can find it) but I have excerpts, and there is the judge's (Judge Micheli's) declaration that they will be deposited, and there is Comodi's statement, and there is also a quote of these transcripts by Comodi in another hearing.
But it is obvious anyway that the topic of negative controls, and their depositing with the court, was a topic of discussion at the preliminary hearing, they were discussed by Stefanoni in her main testimony of Oct 4. Vecchiotti just couldn't ignore that, if she ever read the transcripts.

As for Vecchiotti's claim that Stefanoni "is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohol", you can see that this conflicts with the Oct 4. transcript. Given that the Oct. 4. 2008 hearing transcript was made public by Amanda Knox on her blog, something she is sntitled to do, this transcript is now public so I assumed that everybody already knew its content, more or less. Now, I recall reading about it, possibly more than once, but to find all snippets I should go through the whole dacument again; now I happen find one place where this is said, at p. 162:

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.
That's not a crime.
Just not everybody has this relational style. Knox decided to take her stay in Europe as an experience of exceptional freedom from boundaries, inhibitions and control, something somehow typical. A very typical phemomenon of behaviour change that seems to happen with North American students in a more extreme manner in average, compared students from elewhere.

Amanda really seems to like men. Where did the evidence come from that she was attracted to Meredith, as you have suggested in the past?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli believes that it is a certainty that Knox was implicated in (present for and involved in) the killing. It is a "fact", according to Machiavelli. So the rest are just his "connecting the dots" to explain the basis for a relationship and how it came to be that Knox had Guede over to her flat for sex the evening of the murder. Just fantasy and innuendo.

Machiavelli still won't reply to my recent questions asking if his "behavior analysis" methodology also means that the following is possible:
1) That Rudy fits the profile of a burglar who could break into the flat alone?
2) That if a burglar did throw the rock and climb in the window, the burglar would likely be a slender, agile male between 15 and 40 years old like Rudy?
3) That from what is known or suspected of Rudy's other burglaries, when Rudy enters a property he seems to be in no hurry to exit. He takes his time. He makes himself at home, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4) He fits the profile of someone who carries a knife during a burglary and might pull it out and have it in hand ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

Unfortunately I will have to answer previous questions on some other day.
I still have points to talk about previous to this one, even some previous ones risen by you.
For example I would like to talk about the knife collection, starting from factual aspects as you reported them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I do consider irrelevant. Why is this even important?

It's not important, it's only because of the claim of "honour student"; since I think the lable "honor student" tends to have an implication about the academic program one is engaged into.

Is Knox charged with some sort of academic crime? Plagarism? Did she falsify documents from Washington State to get into the university at Perugia?

Give your head a shake.

 

[Supernaut]

To be clear;

I always refer to Rudy Hermann Guede as "Guede" - I will NEVER humanise him by using his first name.

I find it REPULSIVE to read "Machiavelli" using Amanda Marie Knox's given name in his rhetoric.

 

[Mary_H]

"Clever". You're not saying that they actually had sex on the train, but only later, in Florence. But you phrase your statement in such a way that it reads, in casual parsing, that she ... had sex on the train.

Back in 1984 I got off with a girl sitting next to me on a flight to Australia, under the blankets handed out on the leg between Jakarta and Melbourne. It was exciting!

I mean, REALLY exciting.

PM me if you want a blow-by-blow account, Mach, you old perv.

Once my husband and I took the train from Seattle to LA. In Oregon, a family of skiers boarded -- two parents, with mostly teenagers. An attractive teenage girl was sitting behind us, and one of the teenage boys sat next to her. They made love all night, to the extent that two or three times my husband had to ask them to keep the moans down.

The next morning, as the family gathered their things together, one of the boy's sisters yelled at her mother, in shock, "They're holding hands under that blanket!" As if that was all they had been doing. Interestingly, the boy turned out to be kind of hideous-looking, in a completely acne-covered way. He definitely would not have been able to get away with it if he had boarded in the daylight.

I saw the girl walking through the LA terminal later, though, looking none the worse for wear.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't have the negative controls; but the question about whether negative controls were deposited into the case file on October 8th is secondary, in my opinion, as I explained, with respect to the evidence that Vecchiotti and Conti did not do any attempt to verify them.
As for the files being "documented as deposited", I still don't have the whole transcript of the 8. (maybe I can find it) but I have excerpts, and there is the judge's (Judge Micheli's) declaration that they will be deposited, and there is Comodi's statement, and there is also a quote of these transcripts by Comodi in another hearing.
But it is obvious anyway that the topic of negative controls, and their depositing with the court, was a topic of discussion at the preliminary hearing, they were discussed by Stefanoni in her main testimony of Oct 4. Vecchiotti just couldn't ignore that, if she ever read the transcripts.

As for Vecchiotti's claim that Stefanoni "is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohol", you can see that this conflicts with the Oct 4. transcript. Given that the Oct. 4. 2008 hearing transcript was made public by Amanda Knox on her blog, something she is sntitled to do, this transcript is now public so I assumed that everybody already knew its content, more or less. Now, I recall reading about it, possibly more than once, but to find all snippets I should go through the whole dacument again; now I happen find one place where this is said, at p. 162:

You mean Stefanoni lied about cleaning her lab? Lied under oath?

Does that not make Stefanoni a criminal?

 

[Machiavelli]

To be clear;

I always refer to Rudy Hermann Guede as "Guede" - I will NEVER humanise him by using his first name.

I find it REPULSIVE to read "Machiavelli" using Amanda Marie Knox's given name in his rhetoric.

Judges sometimes call Rudy Hermann Guede just "Rudy".
I don't find it repulsive to use human names to indicate humans.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once my husband and I took the train from Seattle to LA. In Oregon, a family of skiers boarded -- two parents, with mostly teenagers. An attractive teenage girl was sitting behind us, and one of the teenage boys sat next to her. They made love all night, to the extent that two or three times my husband had to ask them to keep the moans down.

The next morning, as the family gathered their things together, one of the boy's sisters yelled at her mother, in shock, "They're holding hands under that blanket!" As if that was all they had been doing. Interestingly, the boy turned out to be kind of hideous-looking, in a completely acne-covered way. He definitely would not have been able to get away with it if he had boarded in the daylight.

I saw the girl walking through the LA terminal later, though, looking none the worse for wear.

Did you keep track of a blip in the LA murder rate?

 

[Mary_H]

Unfortunately I will have to answer previous questions on some other day.<snip>

That would not happen to be on a cold day in hell, would it?

 

[Mary_H]

Did you keep track of a blip in the LA murder rate?

Good point, Bill.

 

[Strozzi]

Paranoia

No lurid claim was outrageous enough, no matter how unconnected to the actual, horrible crime done to Meredith Kercher.

Mignini, Commodi, and the Perugia police leadership thrive on demonizing their opponents. It enables them to portray themselves as the good guys fightng evil and cunning criminals. It also gives them a basis for an explanation when something doesn't work out in their favor.

Mignini even complained about the American public relations conspiracy he had to fight back against.

Anyone see any parallels with paranoia?

 

[Supernaut]

Once my husband and I took the train from Seattle to LA. In Oregon, a family of skiers boarded -- two parents, with mostly teenagers. An attractive teenage girl was sitting behind us, and one of the teenage boys sat next to her. They made love all night, to the extent that two or three times my husband had to ask them to keep the moans down.

The next morning, as the family gathered their things together, one of the boy's sisters yelled at her mother, in shock, "They're holding hands under that blanket!" As if that was all they had been doing. Interestingly, the boy turned out to be kind of hideous-looking, in a completely acne-covered way. He definitely would not have been able to get away with it if he had boarded in the daylight.

I saw the girl walking through the LA terminal later, though, looking none the worse for wear.

Oh yeah - I can tell you, in the "cold light of day" (literally, it was early morning in Melbourne when we landed), as the two of us met our relatives, we were pretty much mortified after our 12-odd hours of canoodling.

But it's a fond memory - we wiled away what would have otherwise have been a pretty boring nite-flite.

I never saw her again.

Ok - I've got to clarify, it did involve some sleeping: I liked having her head on my shoulder.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh yeah - I can tell you, in the "cold light of day" (literally, it was early morning in Melbourne when we landed), as the two of us met our relatives, we were pretty much mortified after our 12-odd hours of canoodling.

But it's a fond memory - we wiled away what would have otherwise have been a pretty boring nite-flite.

I never saw her again.

I have a feeling it's much more common than Machiavelli realizes.