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

[CoulsdonUK]

If group think has set in, it is by default. We don't control who posts here. Anyone could come here to argue that Crini did a masterful job of proving the prosecution's case. But they would then face the task of supporting that argument, so for the most part, they don't bother.

It's the same with the Shroud of Turin, 9-11, Wakefield, Bigfoot, and every other topic that draws in cranks. They come to JREF and they get skewered, so they crawl back to cult sites that coddle their delusions.

Using the appeal session on Tuesday as an example one could be left with the impression that the prosecution spoke only of Guede’s unflushed deposit because that was all that was being mentioned here for a number of pages. Gone are days where information was raised then discussed, then again I guess you and others would argue that when pro-guilt group were the dominate group they ignored pro-innocence information etc etc.

From my perspective the question should not be whether the prosecution case was convincing or not, just provide the information and let folks make up their own minds and debate.

 

[Strozzi]

I said that the statement guilty or innocent was unfortunate for Raf. I never said that "nobody would make this kind of mistake" that is a straw man. You do that all the time. The judge would sustain my objection and by now you would be held in contempt of court.

The statement was reasonably looked at by the ILE as suspicious. Of course, they saw or heard that statement and asked how could he know. They answered their own question by saying that he staged the break-in and knew nothing was missing. It would be a classic mistake of someone saying something they could only know if they had been there.

What would your court argument be? "This needs to ignored because the kids are innocent, you fools." "You can't consider that statement because he didn't know you might think he was a suspect." Hey, it just slipped out and it didn't mean anything" "Amanda said 'dunno' and he translated that as nothing"


No, mine's the best - "He had just called his sister and she had told him to say 'nothing' and that's exactly what he did.

This is certainly not the first time in Perugia that someone has called the police to report a break-in or burglary and state that nothing is stolen, and been wrong. If the prosecution cite this as part of "osmosis" evidence of guilt for murder, the defense can easily rebuttal that by pointing out that Rafaelle got it wrong for understandable reasons - he did not live in the house and was not familiar with it's inventory; the laptop, camera, and TV were visible, and that the tenant is an American who speaks poor Italian.

I did read in one of the books about this case (Dempsey?) that upon arriving home Filomena went into her room to check and, coming out, told one of the Postal Police words to the effect that the burglar couldn't be much of a thief as he didn't steal anything. She was wrong. Makeup was stolen, or so goes the claim. If her statement and stolen makeup can be confirmed, then the defense can cite it and say that even Filomena, after checking her room, stated at first that nothing was stolen from her room and then, later, discovered that something was.

Look at how successful the PGP are in sidetracking us. Look how many posts we spend discussing Raffaele's incorrect statement to the police operator about nothing stolen when we should be asking "WHERE'S MACHIAVELLI" now that we need him.

 

[Grinder]

Another question is why were Laura and Filomena so quick to lawyer up,yet not advise Amanda and Raf to do the same?

Well, they work at a law office so they just called a lawyer they knew and didn't have to pay from the first moment. As I understand it, they were more concerned about their lease obligations and responsibilities.

Did they bring the lawyer(s) to interviews with the police? I don't think so.

At the very beginning I'm most surprised that Raf didn't have an attorney

 

[acbytesla]

I said that the statement guilty or innocent was unfortunate for Raf. I never said that "nobody would make this kind of mistake" that is a straw man. You do that all the time. The judge would sustain my objection and by now you would be held in contempt of court.

The statement was reasonably looked at by the ILE as suspicious. Of course, they saw or heard that statement and asked how could he know. They answered their own question by saying that he staged the break-in and knew nothing was missing. It would be a classic mistake of someone saying something they could only know if they had been there.

What would your court argument be? "This needs to ignored because the kids are innocent, you fools." "You can't consider that statement because he didn't know you might think he was a suspect." Hey, it just slipped out and it didn't mean anything" "Amanda said 'dunno' and he translated that as nothing"

No, mine's the best - "He had just called his sister and she had told him to say 'nothing' and that's exactly what he did.

First, my argument isn't a strawman, Dan O speculated to a possible answer. I don't think the defense should need to answer this, because it doesn't mean anything. It's not me saying "that the kids are innocent", it's "so what"?

It doesn't demonstrate a deliberate deception. It doesn't demonstrate that Raffaele was privy to knowledge of the murder that he shouldn't have had that time. All it shows is that Raffale may have jumped to a conclusion that turned out to be inaccurate.

The PGP question of "how could he know?" is irrelevant, if for no other reason than Raffaele was wrong.

 

[Grinder]

Using the appeal session on Tuesday as an example one could be left with the impression that the prosecution spoke only of Guede’s unflushed deposit because that was all that was being mentioned here for a number of pages. Gone are days where information was raised then discussed, then again I guess you and others would argue that when pro-guilt group were the dominate group they ignored pro-innocence information etc etc.

From my perspective the question should not be whether the prosecution case was convincing or not, just provide the information and let folks make up their own minds and debate.

I have only seen a little of the 7 hours or whatever he presented. I think the poop remark has made the most impression here because it was new and sounded absurd. It also is yet another reason for why Meredith was killed and didn't follow the ISC sex-game gone wrong theory.

I imagine that most of the presentation was all the same ****.

Bring up anything you think should be discussed.

 

[Grinder]

First, my argument isn't a strawman, Dan O speculated to a possible answer. I don't think the defense should need to answer this, because it doesn't mean anything. It's not me saying "that the kids are innocent", it's "so what"?

Tesla it does mean something. You did make a straw man argument. You seem incapable of separating your emotions from rational argument.

You claimed I was saying that "nobody could make that kind of mistake" but I never made that claim so that makes your statement a straw man.

You don't think the defense should need to do anything because the kids are innocent. Now if one doesn't assume they are innocent the remark "nothing is missing" was legitimately suspicious and clearly was unfortunate.

The defense need not address the statement other than saying it was unfortunate but isn't the evidence they need to convict.

It doesn't demonstrate a deliberate deception. It doesn't demonstrate that Raffaele was privy to knowledge of the murder that he shouldn't have had that time. All it shows is that Raffale may have jumped to a conclusion that turned out to be inaccurate.

The PGP question of "how could he know?" is irrelevant, if for no other reason than Raffaele was wrong.

If he had murdered Meredith it would have been deliberate deception. Or as Cuki might say, if he had staged the burglary but not murdered it would evidence of involvement.

You start with proven innocence and then say "see it didn't mean anything because they are innocent".

Are you seriously saying that police should ignore statements like his and just assume they are mistakes?

 

[Grinder]

This is certainly not the first time in Perugia that someone has called the police to report a break-in or burglary and state that nothing is stolen, and been wrong. If the prosecution cite this as part of "osmosis" evidence of guilt for murder, the defense can easily rebuttal that by pointing out that Rafaelle got it wrong for understandable reasons - he did not live in the house and was not familiar with it's inventory; the laptop, camera, and TV were visible, and that the tenant is an American who speaks poor Italian.

Silly. If I came home and found a broken window and searched the house and determined that nothing was missing that would be a bit different than coming into a place where there was a break-in and I didn't know the place well.

It was an odd answer and it is reasonable for those going for guilt to mention it. It is not the smoking gun.

I did read in one of the books about this case (Dempsey?) that upon arriving home Filomena went into her room to check and, coming out, told one of the Postal Police words to the effect that the burglar couldn't be much of a thief as he didn't steal anything. She was wrong. Makeup was stolen, or so goes the claim. If her statement and stolen makeup can be confirmed, then the defense can cite it and say that even Filomena, after checking her room, stated at first that nothing was stolen from her room and then, later, discovered that something was.

And that's supposed to be the same as Raf quickly looking in and telling 911 nothing was stolen?

 

[MDDVS]

How can statement that is equally compatible with guilt and innocence be suspicious or proof of guilt?

 

[Strozzi]

Another question is why were Laura and Filomena so quick to lawyer up,yet not advise Amanda and Raf to do the same?

They are both apprentice lawyers working for the same law firm. I think Filomena called her boss or office colleague who is a lawyer and, voila, she had a lawyer. He/she reportedly got to the house before Filomena did.

The interesting thing is why did she call a lawyer so quickly upon learning that a burglar had broken in through her window? Was she worried that her laptop with priviliged legal information had been stolen? Was she worried that the police were in her room and might find her drugs?

Or was Filomena more worried when Amanda said Meredith isn't answering her phones and her door is locked?

 

[yimyammer]

It wasn't a statement of service it was something blurted out if to held against..

How do we know this?

I find it hard to believe that this statement was initiated by Raf as I would expect him to be attempting to communicate with Amanda what she noticed to the police on her behalf (since he wouldn't know what was missing and she doesn't speak Italian fluently) and in the process of trying to communicate between each other with neither being fluent in each other's language, they would likely simplify their words not knowing or expecting them to be torn apart at some later date.

I can see Raf asking Amanda if she noticed anything missing or simply asking is anything missing and her replying that she didn't noticed anything missing.

Since Raf's presumed goal was to simply get the police on the premises, he might have replied in a more concise way with the police by merely answering no when they asked if anything was missing.

Do we have a transcript or recording of the actual conversation?

While it could be suspicious if we were privy to exactly what was said between all parties, I have yet to see any exact transcripts of how this conversation took place that would enable me to draw such nefarious conclusions.

But I admit I come from a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, so I tend to give them the benefit of doubt, especially considering the language barrier and extreme likelihood of misunderstandings taking place.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla it does mean something. You did make a straw man argument. You seem incapable of separating your emotions from rational argument.

You claimed I was saying that "nobody could make that kind of mistake" but I never made that claim so that makes your statement a straw man.

You don't think the defense should need to do anything because the kids are innocent. Now if one doesn't assume they are innocent the remark "nothing is missing" was legitimately suspicious and clearly was unfortunate.

The defense need not address the statement other than saying it was unfortunate but isn't the evidence they need to convict.



If he had murdered Meredith it would have been deliberate deception. Or as Cuki might say, if he had staged the burglary but not murdered it would evidence of involvement.

You start with proven innocence and then say "see it didn't mean anything because they are innocent".

Are you seriously saying that police should ignore statements like his and just assume they are mistakes?

With all due respect Grinder, we will have to agree to disagree, You can claim it means something all day long and twice on Sunday. And clearly the PGP agrees with that point. I don't see it that way and I wouldn't see it that way if we were talking about OJ Simpson or Gary Ridgeway or Charlie Manson either.

This was my point earlier. If you think it is suspicious, you probably will continue to think it is suspicious and my melodic voice or sage argument will likely not make any difference. I don't think it is the least bit suspicious and find it absurd that anyone would find it to be.

Now, I'm not saying that to mock you or anyone else, I just don't see what you see. I am also confident that a great many people (who's minds are not made up already) would agree with me. Maybe not all, but certainly a high enough percentage of people to at least have a jury be deadlocked on that point.

 

[Grinder]

They are both apprentice lawyers working for the same law firm. I think Filomena called her boss or office colleague who is a lawyer and, voila, she had a lawyer. He/she reportedly got to the house before Filomena did.

I don't think so. He may have arrived at the police station first, but not the cottage.

The interesting thing is why did she call a lawyer so quickly upon learning that a burglar had broken in through her window? Was she worried that her laptop with priviliged legal information had been stolen? Was she worried that the police were in her room and might find her drugs?

Are you sure she called before the murder was discovered?

 

[Grinder]

How do we know this?

I find it hard to believe that this statement was initiated by Raf as I would expect him to be attempting to communicate with Amanda what she noticed to the police on her behalf (since he wouldn't know what was missing and she doesn't speak Italian fluently) and in the process of trying to communicate between each other with neither being fluent in each other's language, they would likely simplify their words not knowing or expecting them to be torn apart at some later date.

I can see Raf asking Amanda if she noticed anything missing or simply asking is anything missing and her replying that she didn't noticed anything missing.

Since Raf's presumed goal was to simply get the police on the premises, he might have replied in a more concise way with the police by merely answering no when they asked if anything was missing.

Do we have a transcript or recording of the actual conversation?

While it could be suspicious if we were privy to exactly what was said between all parties, I have yet to see any exact transcripts of how this conversation took place that would enable me to draw such nefarious conclusions.

But I admit I come from a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, so I tend to give them the benefit of doubt, especially considering the language barrier and extreme likelihood of misunderstandings taking place.

I too would like to see the actual transcript.

If he didn't say what we have been led to believe then of course it changes the whole thing.

They need to proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that doesn't mean that a statement that could be explained can not be considered as part of the case for guilt.

When this was first reported it definitely looked suspicious. People with innocence hindsight may not be able to see what it looked like to investigators and prosecutors in real time.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Using the appeal session on Tuesday as an example one could be left with the impression that the prosecution spoke only of Guede’s unflushed deposit because that was all that was being mentioned here for a number of pages. Gone are days where information was raised then discussed, then again I guess you and others would argue that when pro-guilt group were the dominate group they ignored pro-innocence information etc etc.

From my perspective the question should not be whether the prosecution case was convincing or not, just provide the information and let folks make up their own minds and debate.

I have posted the police evidence files, others have posted transcripts and additional information, and we have gone over all of it with a fine-toothed comb. The current topic is Crini's presentation to the court. That is what is relevant now.

Are we ignoring important points made by Crini? If so, what are they?

Most of what I have seen is a rehash of stale accusations without evidence, like the cleanup. Where pray tell is the evidence of this cleanup? The prosecution has been harping on this for years, and I have yet to see evidence. It's certainly not apparent in the crime scene photos we have pored over for countless hours. We're not going to suddenly accept it because yet another lawyer makes the same, baseless claim. Without supporting evidence, it's not worth going through a discussion we have had here at great length.

Therefore we are discussing the only new ideas put forth, and the theoretical dispute over Guede's defecation is one of them. The other is Crini's claim about the recent test apparently showing Amanda's DNA on the knife, which comports with an earlier finding no one has ever disputed. He says this is proof it was the murder weapon, because the DNA was in a place where it wouldn't be found if she used the knife to prepare food, but would be found if she used it as a murder weapon.

I say this is pure garbage being tossed out by a lawyer who doesn't have a case. My view reflects the consensus of people here who have studied the case. If the consensus is wrong, and we are all missing something, please present your argument. Explain why we should give serious thought to Crini's reasoning, as opposed to the authority and power that stand behind him, which we all recognize.

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect Grinder, we will have to agree to disagree, You can claim it means something all day long and twice on Sunday. And clearly the PGP agrees with that point. I don't see it that way and I wouldn't see it that way if we were talking about OJ Simpson or Gary Ridgeway or Charlie Manson either.

This was my point earlier. If you think it is suspicious, you probably will continue to think it is suspicious and my melodic voice or sage argument will likely not make any difference. I don't think it is the least bit suspicious and find it absurd that anyone would find it to be.

Now, I'm not saying that to mock you or anyone else, I just don't see what you see. I am also confident that a great many people (who's minds are not made up already) would agree with me. Maybe not all, but certainly a high enough percentage of people to at least have a jury be deadlocked on that point.

Sage hahahaha.

If you told someone the circumstances without prejudice most people would say that it raises suspicion. I think you came to this case well after this news was first reported. It clearly didn't look good back then.

Try to picture someone making a declarative statement about something only the perp could know and think whether that would be suspicious or not. Now I assume as spaced as Raf was that he would have known not to say that Meredith's phones and money were missing.

Using your style, it is clear that Amanda didn't check for stolen things since she didn't check for her money.

Why did Filomena need to check her room as Raf had already determined nothing was missing? Why didn't he and Amanda tell everyone nothing was missing no reason to look?

The answer raised reasonable suspicion and falls on the side of guilt. It is not proof of guilt but on balance goes against.

 

[acbytesla]

Sage hahahaha.

If you told someone the circumstances without prejudice most people would say that it raises suspicion. I think you came to this case well after this news was first reported. It clearly didn't look good back then.

Try to picture someone making a declarative statement about something only the perp could know and think whether that would be suspicious or not. Now I assume as spaced as Raf was that he would have known not to say that Meredith's phones and money were missing.

Using your style, it is clear that Amanda didn't check for stolen things since she didn't check for her money.

Why did Filomena need to check her room as Raf had already determined nothing was missing? Why didn't he and Amanda tell everyone nothing was missing no reason to look?

The answer raised reasonable suspicion and falls on the side of guilt. It is not proof of guilt but on balance goes against.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't know what was going on in Raffaele's mind. That said, I don't see how it can be interpreted as a suspicious, unless you are of a suspicious mind. You wouldn't give it a moments notice if Meredith wasn't dead behind that bedroom door. At worst, you could say it was curious. It certainly isn't proof of anything. Just an unanswered question that is boring.

Now, obviously we have a different take and I doubt either of us are going to change the others mind. One of is all right and one of us is all wrong. You can decide for yourself. I'll do the same.

GTG to the store to get some supplies. Have a great Thanksgiving Grinder. Almost time for football and turkey!!!

 

[Bill Williams]

They are both apprentice lawyers working for the same law firm. I think Filomena called her boss or office colleague who is a lawyer and, voila, she had a lawyer. He/she reportedly got to the house before Filomena did.

The interesting thing is why did she call a lawyer so quickly upon learning that a burglar had broken in through her window? Was she worried that her laptop with priviliged legal information had been stolen? Was she worried that the police were in her room and might find her drugs?

Or was Filomena more worried when Amanda said Meredith isn't answering her phones and her door is locked?

Filomena lawyered up mainly because she was afraid that with the damage to her room, and with the likelihood that the cottage would be inaccessible for the foreseeable future, that she'd be on the hook for paying for the damage and/or rent on a place she could not occupy. It was only peripherally related to the crime itself - I for one find NO suspicious reason for Filomena doing this....

.... except that if Amanda had done this, that would be seen as evidence of her selfishness and not mourning properly for Meredith.

 

[Antony]

The statement was reasonably looked at by the ILE as suspicious. Of course, they saw or heard that statement and asked how could he know. They answered their own question by saying that he staged the break-in and knew nothing was missing. It would be a classic mistake of someone saying something they could only know if they had been there.

No it wasn't. Only a Mickey Mouse police force would interpret the statement as anything other than what it was.

The thing is, they were completely out of their depth in investigating a murder, and they were looking to "solve" the crime the easy way from the off. Within days, the idiot police were wrongly identifying Meredith's image on CCTV as Amanda returning to the cottage when she insisted she hadn't, and criticising her for not crying at the "right" times and eating pizza.

Maybe it's possible to argue that they didn't set out to frame people they knew to be innocent, but at the very least they were totally reckless as to whether their chosen suspects really had anything at all to put them in the frame.

 

[Bill Williams]

Using the appeal session on Tuesday as an example one could be left with the impression that the prosecution spoke only of Guede’s unflushed deposit because that was all that was being mentioned here for a number of pages. Gone are days where information was raised then discussed, then again I guess you and others would argue that when pro-guilt group were the dominate group they ignored pro-innocence information etc etc.

From my perspective the question should not be whether the prosecution case was convincing or not, just provide the information and let folks make up their own minds and debate.

I have posted the police evidence files, others have posted transcripts and additional information, and we have gone over all of it with a fine-toothed comb. The current topic is Crini's presentation to the court. That is what is relevant now.

Are we ignoring important points made by Crini? If so, what are they?
Most of what I have seen is a rehash of stale accusations without evidence, like the cleanup. Where pray tell is the evidence of this cleanup? The prosecution has been harping on this for years, and I have yet to see evidence. It's certainly not apparent in the crime scene photos we have pored over for countless hours. We're not going to suddenly accept it because yet another lawyer makes the same, baseless claim. Without supporting evidence, it's not worth going through a discussion we have had here at great length.

Therefore we are discussing the only new ideas put forth, and the theoretical dispute over Guede's defecation is one of them. The other is Crini's claim about the recent test apparently showing Amanda's DNA on the knife, which comports with an earlier finding no one has ever disputed. He says this is proof it was the murder weapon, because the DNA was in a place where it wouldn't be found if she used the knife to prepare food, but would be found if she used it as a murder weapon.

I say this is pure garbage being tossed out by a lawyer who doesn't have a case. My view reflects the consensus of people here who have studied the case. If the consensus is wrong, and we are all missing something, please present your argument. Explain why we should give serious thought to Crini's reasoning, as opposed to the authority and power that stand behind him, which we all recognize.

The key points which are unique to Crini are:

- that the pooh in the toilet was the stresser that sparked the murder
- that "sex-game gone wrong" from the ISC as a point of review is not important to the prosecution
- that the kitchen knife matches the outline on Meredith's sheet (When it obviusly does not, and particularly when Crini presented no evidence that it did!)
- that T.O.D. could be early OR late, again calling into question the ISC's use of Curatolo and Nara as re-reviewable witnesses.
- that there is no premeditation (although Crini doesn't address at all the reason for Amanda carrying the kitchen knife).
- despite the pooh, there is essentially no motive for this crime. This agrees with Massei's judgement, but is a de facto repudiation of Mignini as well as the ISC who seems to regard sex-games as being premeditated. Certainly Mignini had all this as premeditated because Mignini had them delaying their murder of Meredith one night from Oct 31 to Nov 1.​

What Crini's summary does mainly is draw into question main points used by the ISC to quash the acquittals. And once again - which seems to be a problem in Italy - Crini simply gets to make up things, with no, none, nada, niente, zilch, zero evidence to back it up. I think that's why the pooh-thing is so laughable.... the evidence is actually that once, and once only, Meredith tried to school Amanda on the use of a brush to guard against racing-stripes.

That's the evidence. Now Crini is, with no other evidence to support it, trying to turn a piece of crap left by Rudy in Laura and Filomena's toilet into a reason why Amanda would kill Meredith. All this in the face of testimony at the 2009 trial that Amanda and Meredith actually got along.

It's not the crap per se. It simply highlights the "reasoning" being used to vilify two innocents.

CoulsdonUK - you're looking for some debate. What's your view of all this?

 

[acbytesla]

I have posted the police evidence files, others have posted transcripts and additional information, and we have gone over all of it with a fine-toothed comb. The current topic is Crini's presentation to the court. That is what is relevant now.

Are we ignoring important points made by Crini? If so, what are they?

Most of what I have seen is a rehash of stale accusations without evidence, like the cleanup. Where pray tell is the evidence of this cleanup? The prosecution has been harping on this for years, and I have yet to see evidence. It's certainly not apparent in the crime scene photos we have pored over for countless hours. We're not going to suddenly accept it because yet another lawyer makes the same, baseless claim. Without supporting evidence, it's not worth going through a discussion we have had here at great length.

Therefore we are discussing the only new ideas put forth, and the theoretical dispute over Guede's defecation is one of them. The other is Crini's claim about the recent test apparently showing Amanda's DNA on the knife, which comports with an earlier finding no one has ever disputed. He says this is proof it was the murder weapon, because the DNA was in a place where it wouldn't be found if she used the knife to prepare food, but would be found if she used it as a murder weapon.

I say this is pure garbage being tossed out by a lawyer who doesn't have a case. My view reflects the consensus of people here who have studied the case. If the consensus is wrong, and we are all missing something, please present your argument. Explain why we should give serious thought to Crini's reasoning, as opposed to the authority and power that stand behind him, which we all recognize.

Clearly Crini doesn't cook and prepare meals. 36I is exactly where one would grip a knife and one of the most likely places to find the DNA of someone who is using the knife. In reality, Amanda's DNA on the handle and on the part of the blade near the handle is only proof that Amanda had used the knife...to cut bread or celery or parsley or chicken or beef or pork..etc...etc. etc.