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

[Dan O.]

They both slandered on TV and radio as well as libeled but most likely only in England. In the US they would have to prove that statements are lies. In their cases the burden would be higher as public figures and the cost would be significant and the owners of the sites are not wealthy.

I would say there is no way that they will sue unless they just would like to uncover who those people are.

They are only public figures because of the lies. To rule otherwise is tantamount to saying:

A lie repeated often enough is indistinguishable from the truth​

.

 

[Grinder]

They are only public figures because of the lies. To rule otherwise is tantamount to saying:

A lie repeated often enough is indistinguishable from the truth​

.

They have gone on numerous TV shows, written books, promoted the books, have blogs, answer questions on line, ask for dobnations, given interviews etc. At least one movie was made about the murder. Numerous other books were written about them and the murder.

They will have a hard time arguing they are not public figures.

 

[Dan O.]

You hear a horrible scream. One so nasty that you need to drink a tea (in a kitchen with no clocks) and then the next afternoon you look out and see cops all over the place and by evening, latest, you know a girl had been murdered, but you don't call the police. Really?

Months later you go on TV and get a little fame.

Their testimony was worthless.

From Nara's testimony:

QUESTION - Then what time she got up that morning? it is
woke up during the night?
ANSWER - No, after I went back to sleep but always
thinking of that cry was.
QUESTION - Is that morning at what time you got up ?
ANSWER - I got up as I get time, around seven
and a half - eight seconds, so it's not that I've got more than my husband that I need to prepare breakfast or something and then I get up later.
QUESTION - Then what happened that morning?
ANSWER - This morning , while I was cleaning the house I heard the guys who ran down running , said, " lady, lady , they killed a girl there in that little house ," " but from - say - you guys kidding me forever! " " no, no , I tell the truth! ", in fact all courses are going to see , but I did not go because they do not have these things. then after
I went out to fetch the bread ...
QUESTION - What about now ?
ANSWER - It must have been about eleven o'clock and I stopped there,
newsstand and there were these posters already with this , in short, who said this girl , and then I said , "Oh God , I heard then was going girl ."
QUESTION - Excuse me, trying to remember. She looked at the time when he left the house , when they said they had been killed a girl.
ANSWER - Yes.
QUESTION - She looked at the time ? Please note that now was it?
ANSWER - It is difficult to always look forward , have been
******eleven o'clock because I go out so much more at that time.
​

 

[Strozzi]

Imagine if someone were to produce an animation - a serious one - completely accurate in terms of people, movement, and time.

The first part is to depict what really happened based on physical evidence. Rudy drops by to see if any of the guys are around. They aren't. The house is dark. Rudy then throws a rock and climbs in the window, snagging his shoe on the lose TV antenna wire draped along the wall under the window, leaving dust shoeprint on the floor (visible in photos, as pointed out by Hendry). Rudy is surprised by Meredith's return, can't get out the front door, charges into her room and kills her, washes up in the bathroom, goes back to her room to leave his "DNA" over the dying girl, and subsequently leaves, almost bumps into the couple as he goes up the plaza steps, throws the phones in the walled garden, and later goes to the disco.

Then the animation continues with the discovery. Filomena sneaking back in her room to retrieve her laptop (and perhaps her pot stash). Mignini standing in front of the house with the large apartment building right in back of him saying this is the logical point of entry, dismissing that a burglar could climb through the window on the obscure side of the house because at 210 lbs. that is not how he would do it. Police offers smoking and making cell phone calls from right beneath Filomena's window. Stefanoni smudging together any DNA and blood from the sink. Screwing up the footprints. Mignini dismissing medical examiner Lalli because he believes the wounds could have been caused by one assailant.

Then the night interrogations. Giobbi in the control room, joined there later by Mignini as they listen and watch the interrogation on video.

You get the picture!

 

[snook1]

I see Bongiorno heavily criticizing prosecution's arguments already, calling it a
"skillful but unsuccessful execution", as reported on Twitter. The whole quote is:

"Instead of closing arguments, what the prosecution did was an address to the Court defending some evidence of the prosecution that no longer exists. (i.e., it is "defunct")

.

I truly hope they will demolish the prosecution in their closings in December.

 

[Grinder]

Crini is still pushing Curatolo. Hard to believe.

 

[Bill Williams]

After reading what little is available from Crini's case today, including Bongiorno's words that Crini was arguing evidence which no longer exists....

What is there against AK and RS, save for Maresca's plea that unless the two are convicted, the Kerchers can get no closure?

Where's Crini harping on that this had to have been multiple attackers and that the extra attackers had to have been AK and RS? Or can Nencini's court examine stuff Crini does not enter?

So far there's been nothing to justify the ISC quashing the acquittals. On what basis, then, can Nencini convict? Unless the fix is in.

I'm sure Machiavelli will enlighten us.

 

[snook1]

Crini is still pushing Curatolo. Hard to believe.

He is not only pushing Curatolo. From all the reports I've seen today, it seems that Curatolo is, once again, a star witness and really, the most important person. It's 2009 all over again.

This is a farce.

I can't wait for the defense. I really can't.

BTW, I just used Google translator and it turns out that Crini means Horsehair.

 

[Bill Williams]

He is not only pushing Curatolo. From all the reports I've seen today, it seems that Curatolo is, once again, a star witness and really, the most important person. It's 2009 all over again.

This is a farce.

I can't wait for the defense. I really can't.

BTW, I just used Google translator and it turns out that Crini means Horsehair.

Curatolo was booted from the Hellmann court for admitting to being high on heroin the night of the murder... no wait, was it the night before?

This would not be so ridiculous, if it were not for some claiming that marijuana use turns people into homicidal maniacs.

 

[NancyS]

Today sounds like quite a lot of nonsense. If Amanda or Raffaele have any inconsistencies to their stories, the prosecution use them to try and argue that they are lying murderers - and yet they also argue that all the inconsistencies in their witnesses stories make them honest and reliable

 

[JREF2010]

Especially when that's the only one which may not have been due to human interaction (though it could have been). Logically I don't see how it's possible to separate the 21:58 and 22:00 calls from the later one: if the 22:13 interaction was linked to the murder then the earlier calls must have been as well, which would place the TOD - or at least the time of the attack - earlier.

I know its not acceptable by Maresca to include Rudy in this crime...

but Rudy placed the scream of the attack, at 9:20pm- Skype call.
and later he claims he fled the murder scene around 10:30pm per Frank's translation of Matteini questioning to Rudy.

 

[charlatan]

Crini: many trials could not exist if drug addicted testimonies were dismissed

Excellent point, but I don't see how it helps the prosecution.

 

[Strozzi]

I know its not acceptable by Maresca to include Rudy in this crime...

but Rudy placed the scream of the attack, at 9:20pm- Skype call.
and later he claims he fled the murder scene around 10:30pm per Frank's translation of Matteini questioning to Rudy.

Rudy almost collided with a woman and her escort as Rudy was fleeing the scene. Does anyone recall what time that happened?

Machiavelli appears to believe that the black man that Amanda saw and described as "handsome" must be Rudy because there are so few black men in that neighborhood. Does the same logic apply that the black man running up the steps from the murder scene must be Rudy on the basis that "there are so few black men in that neighborhood"?

 

[Grinder]

Today sounds like quite a lot of nonsense. If Amanda or Raffaele have any inconsistencies to their stories, the prosecution use them to try and argue that they are lying murderers - and yet they also argue that all the inconsistencies in their witnesses stories make them honest and reliable

Repeating myself, but Massei actually changed the time Curatolo gave for last sighting based on the disco buses that didn't run that night.

While inconsistencies happen and remembering things perfectly shouldn't be required the fact that none of them came forward for months and those interviewed directly after the crime didn't have anything to say, saw nothing knew nothing.

It would seem this is just part of the Italian culture as the defense doesn't seem to care.

I know its not acceptable by Maresca to include Rudy in this crime...

but Rudy placed the scream of the attack, at 9:20pm- Skype call.
and later he claims he fled the murder scene around 10:30pm per Frank's translation of Matteini questioning to Rudy.

I have read something purported to be the ISC motivation and their idea that Rudi would lie about the time of the scream but not about being present during the murder makes no sense. It certainly shouldn't be used as evidence that the scream, if there was one, happened later.

The physical circumstantial evidence is weak but the "witness" evidence is pathetic.

 

[Grinder]

Crini: many trials could not exist if drug addicted testimonies were dismissed

Excellent point, but I don't see how it helps the prosecution.

Who said the first quote? I doubt that "many" trials could not exist if "drug addicted testimonies were dismissed"

I don't know what a drug addicted testimony is but if the meaning is a drug addict's testimony it doesn't describe Curatolo that not only was a long time heroin addict but stated that he was most certainly high on heroin the night in question.

His testimony would have more credibility even if high had he told the story the next few days after the murder.

 

[Grinder]

Rudy almost collided with a woman and her escort as Rudy was fleeing the scene. Does anyone recall what time that happened?

Machiavelli appears to believe that the black man that Amanda saw and described as "handsome" must be Rudy because there are so few black men in that neighborhood. Does the same logic apply that the black man running up the steps from the murder scene must be Rudy on the basis that "there are so few black men in that neighborhood"?

!0:15-10:30 and I thought the same thing. It must have been Rudy using Mach's logic but he will say that Rudy wasn't a North African.

 

[snook1]

Excellent point, but I don't see how it helps the prosecution.

Who said the first quote? I doubt that "many" trials could not exist if "drug addicted testimonies were dismissed"

I don't know what a drug addicted testimony is but if the meaning is a drug addict's testimony it doesn't describe Curatolo that not only was a long time heroin addict but stated that he was most certainly high on heroin the night in question.

His testimony would have more credibility even if high had he told the story the next few days after the murder.

It was Crini.

I think it wasn't a good day for the prosecution. I'll wait for Tuesday, he will cover DNA issues and then Maresca and Pacelli will speak. As people said at IIP, hopefully they both will be ranting about Amanda, The Witch as they used to at last trials. This way we will move even further from the discussion about evidence, which is something that Crini started today. He, in fact, did talk about the knife, bra clasp, luminol prints,TOD and witnesses but there was no scenario, no timeline, no story, no version. There was nothing that could be regarded as a credible or reliable scenario as to what happened.

 

[Dan O.]

... Then the night interrogations. Giobbi in the control room, joined there later by Mignini as they listen and watch the interrogation on video.

You get the picture!

We've had most of that for years. I think we could even fill in some of the details if we put our collective heads together.


Not to detract from the factual nature, it would be nice to have an addendum with things that could have happened. Like a snip if Mignine talking about recording interviews on his pocket recorder and then a flashback to the control room where we can see that little recorder in Mignini's pocket with the red light on.

 

[Strozzi]

We've had most of that for years. I think we could even fill in some of the details if we put our collective heads together.


Not to detract from the factual nature, it would be nice to have an addendum with things that could have happened. Like a snip if Mignine talking about recording interviews on his pocket recorder and then a flashback to the control room where we can see that little recorder in Mignini's pocket with the red light on.

Rather than an animation, there is ample information to assemble a (non-animated) serious documentary using publicly available photos, videos, testimony, tabloid headlines, etc. to tell the true story of the investigation and prosecution. With a narrated voice-over.

How long would it take to assemble visuals and accompanying commentary for a two-hour documentary? A month? With a dozen people contributing? I lack the technical skills and software to assemble it but will contribute by identifying materials and submitting materials to be included.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Rudy almost collided with a woman and her escort as Rudy was fleeing the scene. Does anyone recall what time that happened?

Machiavelli appears to believe that the black man that Amanda saw and described as "handsome" must be Rudy because there are so few black men in that neighborhood. Does the same logic apply that the black man running up the steps from the murder scene must be Rudy on the basis that "there are so few black men in that neighborhood"?

The witness (Alessandra Formica) took the stand and said the person who she saw was not Guede.

She is a credible witness. She was in the company of someone else who also saw this person. She also saw the people with the broken-down car. She went to the police immediately.

The timing wasn't right for this person to have been Guede. It was around 10:30, well after Guede would have fled the scene, after the time when Meredith's phone received a text message from a tower that does not usually serve the cottage.

I think it's a red herring. But it may explain why the police seem to have been looking for a black suspect from the outset, before the physical evidence led them to Guede.