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

[acbytesla]

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice.

And also, I add to this the fact that I consider the IIP, the pro-Knox supporters and their media Italian networks as a criminal force, and I defend what I believe should be the sovregnity of a system, and what I believe a defence by the collectivity from the power of criminal mobs should be.

I also believe the racist or prejudicial stance expressed by part of the press and of the American Polupation must be pointed out and fight as a cultural element.

Yes, Americans are prejudiced against people who suck. Usually, that means other Americans. In this case, it's the Italian justice system that sucks.

I think Machiavelli is getting a little paranoid. I'd like to know how he thinks the American press is racist as it pertains to the Amanda Knox case? What I don't get is why he believes he thinks it important to defend "the sovereignty of the system? Does he really believe that the system should be able to behave so unjustly? It's like Machiavelli is saying it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, we have the right to administer justice in whatever we see fit, even if it is unjust.

The truth is, that if the Italians weren't trying to inflict their injustice on a 20 year old beautiful girl from the US, most American's would have a blind eye toward justice in Italy. We have far too much on our plate to care about Italy's justice system.

But the Italians brought this criticism on themselves when they tried to lock up our daughter. And now the gloves are off. We are not really interested in helping the Italians reform their systems and throw a few of their bums out of office. But damn it, if that's what we need to do to end this persecution, we will do it.

I guess Mach doesn't understand America and Americans. We have flaws, a great many of them, but we also have values. Maybe highest among them is freedom of speech and the press. There is a reason that the first amendment to the US Constitution, is the Freedom of Speech, the Press and Religion. Debate and speech are protected above almost everything. Criticizing the government, including the courts is not only the preeminent right and duty of and American citizen, it is the national pastime.

The unfettered right to criticize authority exposes the problems and corruption that inevitably creep into every system and bureaucracy. It makes them accountable to the people. And this is what Machiavelli seems to want to prevent more than anything else. Preventing criticism may make the leaders feel better, but it hampers a society from correcting the inequities and inefficiencies.

What surprises me is that Machiavelli doesn't see this.

 

[Skind]

It is amusing how easily and how often Sollecito lies. In his call he says there has been no furto or theft in the second or third sentence. Well before the cop became " fixated"or mentioned the thief cutting himself and leaving blood in the bathroom. As far as being fixated he only said one thing so he entered through the window and cut himself? Sollecito flustered hesitates, and you can hear him say cosa fai to Amanda then hang up.Sollecito does not take into account that we can listen to the calls just like we can hear at how he once described Filomena's door as being wide open and tried to fix that in his book.

Not surprising. He was being asked to confirm a detail he couldn't possibly have known, unless he saw blood on the window sill or the glass.

Had he confirmed this detail, you can bet it would have been used as evidence of setting up the staging.

 

[Bill Williams]

And what was Raff's deceitful purpose in these alleged "lies"?

Massei says in his motivations report the purpose was that the lack of theft was going to be discovered anyway. Therefore a guilty Raffaele, particularly a Raffaele who'd just participated in simulating a break-in, may as well just admit to it right away.

This whole issue is one of those things with "confirmation bias" built in on both sides. Meaning that where someone comes down on it depends on one's prior decision - are they guilty or not?

By this, I mean this is not going to be one of those factoids which is determinative of guilt or innocence, it is one of those things which either side tries to shoehorn into their own preconceived notion of guilt.....

..... which makes it pretty useless to argue about. That anyone uses it to prove that the cops were right to be suspicious or to prove that Raffaele easily lied, is simply a showcase of confirmation bias.

This whole thing means nothing. If you look at p. 81 of the Massei motivations report the whole thing even for Massei hinges on a speculation anyway....

"At this point, however, the following question naturally arises: if Raffaele Sollecito participated in staging the scene of broken glass and disarray in Romanelli’s bedroom, why say that there had been no theft?"​

What Massei does not do, because he's already found the pair guilty, is to examine the other side of that "if". Starting with this "if", he then proceeds in his reasoning as if it had not started with one! Proof of this is that he doesn't extend his speculation as to why this also would tend to exonerate Raffaele for making what amounts to, really, a random comment based on his assessment of what Amanda was saying.

This is classic guilter. Start out with an "if", which is based on one's bias.... then halfway through the reasoning lose track that you'd started with an "if". It then leads to folk like Briars talking as if Raffaele being a liar on this subject is true.

This is nice work if you can get it.

 

[Briars]

And what was Raff's deceitful purpose in these alleged "lies"?

He is trying to explain why he said there was no theft. He writes it was after the officer growled at him and was fixated on the thief being cut. This account in his book is false as anyone can hear or read in the transcripts. When people go out of ther way to explain by changing something it shows they know it to be a problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Machiavelli is getting a little paranoid. I'd like to know how he thinks the American press is racist as it pertains to the Amanda Knox case? What I don't get is why he believes he thinks it important to defend "the sovereignty of the system? Does he really believe that the system should be able to behave so unjustly? It's like Machiavelli is saying it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, we have the right to administer justice in whatever we see fit, even if it is unjust.
The truth is, that if the Italians weren't trying to inflict their injustice on a 20 year old beautiful girl from the US, most American's would have a blind eye toward justice in Italy. We have far too much on our plate to care about Italy's justice system.

But the Italians brought this criticism on themselves when they tried to lock up our daughter. And now the gloves are off. We are not really interested in helping the Italians reform their systems and throw a few of their bums out of office. But damn it, if that's what we need to do to end this persecution, we will do it.

I guess Mach doesn't understand America and Americans. We have flaws, a great many of them, but we also have values. Maybe highest among them is freedom of speech and the press. There is a reason that the first amendment to the US Constitution, is the Freedom of Speech, the Press and Religion. Debate and speech are protected above almost everything. Criticizing the government, including the courts is not only the preeminent right and duty of and American citizen, it is the national pastime.

The unfettered right to criticize authority exposes the problems and corruption that inevitably creep into every system and bureaucracy. It makes them accountable to the people. And this is what Machiavelli seems to want to prevent more than anything else. Preventing criticism may make the leaders feel better, but it hampers a society from correcting the inequities and inefficiencies.

What surprises me is that Machiavelli doesn't see this.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Machiavelli on this. Italy, as well as all sovereign countries who subscribe to Westphalian concepts of national sovereignty, simply has a right to do what it will in the manner which it decides.

There are two caveats to this... Italy has signed over partial sovereignty to the ECHR, as have other European nations. This is just like Italy has partly signed over monetary sovereignty in the use of the Euro.

What many people miss, though, is the signing of things like extradition treaties is NOT the signing over of legal sovereignty. Extradition treaty is only a legal framework which both countries agree to, so that if both legal systems (not to mention political systems!) line up in a certain fashion, then extradition can be possible. Not mandatory, just possible.

But at base, each national justice system actually DOES have the right to act unjustly. Machiavelli is defending that. On his return to JREF following his tweeting from the courthouse (quite brave of him actually!) he's done a fairly decent sashay....

.... he first says he's here to defend the intgrity of Giuliano Mignini, but then says "check that" the issue is larger, he's here to defend Italy's national sovereignty.

It seems to me that as an issue of rhetoric, Machiavelli is being deceitful. He wants to get on the record that he believes Mignini to be an honest person, but then claim it's really a bigger issue...

.... that even if he is dishonest, it's none of America's business anyway. Why else would one play the sovereignty card, and deal it off the bottom of the deck.

Pay attention to Machiavelli's rhetoric.

That was a nice sashay, Machiavelli.... classic Machiavelli double-speak. Orwell would be proud.

 

[Bill Williams]

He is trying to explain why he said there was no theft. He writes it was after the officer growled at him and was fixated on the thief being cut. This account in his book is false as anyone can hear or read in the transcripts. When people go out of ther way to explain by changing something it shows they know it to be a problem.

What did he change?

 

[Briars]

Honor Bound. The cop was fixated on the thief being cut he growled at me I didn't know how to respond so I said there had been no theft. Big lie and changing of the call. In reality after taking down the location and names the cop says calmly so someone broke in and there was a theft?. Sollecito no there was no theft. Sollecito would have you believe that only after many questions by an aggressive fixated cop did he say there was no theft which is simply not true and is easy to confirm.

 

[katy_did]

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

It's not incorrect, you're misreading or perhaps jumping to conclusions about what I wrote. I never claimed the man on the phone was the first one to say there was no theft, I pointed out that he was the one to bring up the question of a theft on both occasions, and that Raffaele was simply responding:

POLICE: Furto in abitazione eh?
RS: No, non ... non c'è il furto...

POLICE: Cosa hanno asportato?
RS: Eh non hanno portato via niente...

I also disagree that he wasn't asked the first time, since the first quote from the police certainly sounds like a request for confirmation to me (and, apparently, to whoever did the transcript on the TMMK site).

In fact the policeman jumps to the conclusion there's been a theft despite the fact Raffaele never once says anything is missing, and continues to assume it's a theft even after having specifically been told it wasn't. Sounds a bit suspicious to me (or who knows, maybe he was just drawing a logical - if incorrect - conclusion based on the information available to him at the time).

 

[acbytesla]

.... that even if he is dishonest, it's none of America's business anyway. Why else would one play the sovereignty card, and deal it off the bottom of the deck.

Pay attention to Machiavelli's rhetoric.

That was a nice sashay, Machiavelli.... classic Machiavelli double-speak. Orwell would be proud.

It is none of our business....until it involves American citizens and then it very much is America's business.

 

[acbytesla]

Honor Bound. The cop was fixated on the thief being cut he growled at me I didn't know how to respond so I said there had been no theft. Big lie and changing of the call. In reality after taking down the location and names the cop says calmly so someone broke in and there was a theft?. Sollecito no there was no theft. Sollecito would have you believe that only after many questions by an aggressive fixated cop did he say there was no theft which is simply not true and is easy to confirm.

I can't see how you can say whether or not it is or isn't true since none of us were there for this conversation.

Frankly, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. That it is not only NOT "easy to confirm", but impossible to confirm or refute.

 

[Bill Williams]

Honor Bound. The cop was fixated on the thief being cut he growled at me I didn't know how to respond so I said there had been no theft. Big lie and changing of the call. In reality after taking down the location and names the cop says calmly so someone broke in and there was a theft?. Sollecito no there was no theft. Sollecito would have you believe that only after many questions by an aggressive fixated cop did he say there was no theft which is simply not true and is easy to confirm.

Briars. You have a right to believe what you believe, and you have a right to assert what you wish to assert.

But I still do not get what your point is here? You're taking some random, on-the-spot something-or-other and trying to make it sound "suspicious", and you still have not answered, "suspicious of what?"

Antony asked upthread....

And what was Raff's deceitful purpose in these alleged "lies"?​

To my ears it sounds like Raffaele was dependent on Amanda here to say what was or what was not out of the ordinary. What guilters seem to forget was the language barrier, even between Raffaele and Amanda. To my ears it is simply some 24 year-old kid being pressed for precise information, when it's not his information to give...

.... at worst he makes a mistake. To me it's the height of confirmation bias (either way, actually!) to say any more about this little episode.

The more either of us harp on about this minor episode, suggests all the more that there really isn't much of a case to be made here....

For instance, even if Raffaele was lying... for instance - say that an innocent Raffaele had been told by Amanda that something was missing, and he lied about that to the police...

With no forensically interesting DNA presence of Raffaele in the murder room, and NO DNA presence of Amanda in the murder room...

... how is even a bald faced lie suggestive of guilt? Are you accusing Raffaele of theft or of murder?

 

[Poppy1016]

Amanda Knox in her book Waiting to be heard, also states the strangeness, after seeing the chaos in Filomena's room (page 68)

"Oh my God, someone broke in!" I shouted to Rafaelle, who was right behind me. In the next instant, I spotted Filomena's laptop and digital camera sitting on the desk. I couldn't get my head around it. "That's so weird," I said. "Her things are here. I don't understand. What could have happened?"

This case is very confusing. In Raf's account, it seems that he discovered the break in, and in Amanda's account, it seems as though she discovered the break in. Of course they are both innocent. There are just a lot of curious stories within the main story.

 

[Briars]

What are you talking about the calls are recorded for all to hear. You can can hear exactly when Solllecito says there has been no theft. There is no growling no fixation on anything Sollecito gives a false account of the call and his timing of when he said there was no theft period.

 

[Briars]

My last post was for Acby

 

[Briars]

Sollecito initially said upon arrival it was the first thing he saw her door wide open and the mess. Amanda had said the door was closed when she showered. Big problem Sollecito adjusted the situation and said the door was ajar and he pushed it open. I'm glad Crini has brought up this importance difference.

 

[moije2]

Massei says in his motivations report the purpose was that the lack of theft was going to be discovered anyway. Therefore a guilty Raffaele, particularly a Raffaele who'd just participated in simulating a break-in, may as well just admit to it right away.

This whole issue is one of those things with "confirmation bias" built in on both sides. Meaning that where someone comes down on it depends on one's prior decision - are they guilty or not?

By this, I mean this is not going to be one of those factoids which is determinative of guilt or innocence, it is one of those things which either side tries to shoehorn into their own preconceived notion of guilt.....

..... which makes it pretty useless to argue about. That anyone uses it to prove that the cops were right to be suspicious or to prove that Raffaele easily lied, is simply a showcase of confirmation bias.

This whole thing means nothing. If you look at p. 81 of the Massei motivations report the whole thing even for Massei hinges on a speculation anyway....

"At this point, however, the following question naturally arises: if Raffaele Sollecito participated in staging the scene of broken glass and disarray in Romanelli’s bedroom, why say that there had been no theft?"​

What Massei does not do, because he's already found the pair guilty, is to examine the other side of that "if". Starting with this "if", he then proceeds in his reasoning as if it had not started with one! Proof of this is that he doesn't extend his speculation as to why this also would tend to exonerate Raffaele for making what amounts to, really, a random comment based on his assessment of what Amanda was saying.

This is classic guilter. Start out with an "if", which is based on one's bias.... then halfway through the reasoning lose track that you'd started with an "if". It then leads to folk like Briars talking as if Raffaele being a liar on this subject is true.

This is nice work if you can get it.

Nice post Bill.

And the fact that people are still talking about the "nothing stolen" guilter talking point is amazing. It was manufactured into something to be suspicious about, putting the players of this drama into the insane position of acknowledging the "issue" of his words - which should have been of no import - and then being criticized in how he addressed the alleged "inconsistency". You really cannot use enough inverted commas! The whole conversation about the suspiciousness of his words was tiresome and almost nonsensical. Let's focus on Grinder's focus on the word suspicious. Let's be real. Everything at a crime scene, and particularly the people on site, are to be suspected. That word means nothing in this context. That it continued to be a source of suspicion is due only to the fact that they <already> suspected him. Then the bass ackward jump in logic to conclude that RS knew something that only a stager could know to be true, that was in fact <not> true, and impute guilt to that. Great thinking. The origins in such contortions can only be seen in pre-ideation toward guilt. Uh, confirmation bias.

And Bill, your pointing to the Massei report big "if" with dangling participle of logic was perfect. There is no logic to complete that thought.

 

[Briars]

Briars. You have a right to believe what you believe, and you have a right to assert what you wish to assert.

But I still do not get what your point is here? You're taking some random, on-the-spot something-or-other and trying to make it sound "suspicious", and you still have not answered, "suspicious of what?"

Antony asked upthread....

And what was Raff's deceitful purpose in these alleged "lies"?​

To my ears it sounds like Raffaele was dependent on Amanda here to say what was or what was not out of the ordinary. What guilters seem to forget was the language barrier, even between Raffaele and Amanda. To my ears it is simply some 24 year-old kid being pressed for precise information, when it's not his information to give...

.... at worst he makes a mistake. To me it's the height of confirmation bias (either way, actually!) to say any more about this little episode.

The more either of us harp on about this minor episode, suggests all the more that there really isn't much of a case to be made here....

For instance, even if Raffaele was lying... for instance - say that an innocent Raffaele had been told by Amanda that something was missing, and he lied about that to the police...

With no forensically interesting DNA presence of Raffaele in the murder room, and NO DNA presence of Amanda in the murder room...

... how is even a bald faced lie suggestive of guilt? Are you accusing Raffaele of theft or of murder?

Bill I'll simplify my comment for you so you can't get off track. Why did Sollecito pretend that he mentioned the lack of theft only after the officer growled and confused him over the idea that the thief was cut. Is this a true account by evidence of the call or not?

 

[NancyS]

Sollecito initially said upon arrival it was the first thing he saw her door wide open and the mess. Amanda had said the door was closed when she showered. Big problem Sollecito adjusted the situation and said the door was ajar and he pushed it open. I'm glad Crini has brought up this importance difference.

Nobody's memory is precise - and the same event will always be described differently by different people - and will usually change every time they tell the story as we are all extremely susceptible to suggestion from others and often exaggerate are own part to make ourselves appear more important. Trying to determine guilt in this way shows a total lack of understanding about how memory works.

I've spoken about this a few times, but I regularly take medical histories and I'm always amazed at the huge variations between the stories of all involved - and how much the story will evolve over time. It was always hugely embarrassing when a patient tells you something that he later denies and claims to have no recollection of mentioning when he is reviewed by the Consultant

Also great post above Bill - the language difference is going to have a huge impact. Raffaele was translating for Amanda and this is always going to lead to inaccuracies and misconceptions - this has nothing to do with guilt

I do find it interesting how people seem so obsessed with the minutiae of everything they said or did, but have no interest in the glaringly obvious indicators of their innocence.

Nearly all 20-year olds are a bit chaotic and often don't handle situations in the most mature way. If I came home to find my house door open now I would be very concerned, but thinking back to student days, I probably would have acted in a similar way to Amanda as you are so used to people coming and going in the house. At university, I remember a group of four boys having their house burgled whilst they were all home. One of them left the door open and am opportunist walked in and stole their TV etc. - they didn't notice anything as were all in their rooms - I'd loved to have seen them explain that to the Italian police

 

[NancyS]

Bill I'll simplify my comment for you so you can't get off track. Why did Sollecito pretend that he mentioned the lack of theft only after the officer growled and confused him over the idea that the thief was cut. Is this a true account by evidence of the call or not?

He's probably a fairly normal person and doesn't have a precise photographic recollection of what was said - when pushed, he tries to remember exactly what happened and possibly confabulated slightly to fill in the gaps. It's all very normal and it is why anyone who has to take histories is trained to avoid leading questions and leading language and to always remain aware that you are only ever getting a general sense of what happened and not a 100 % accurate description

 

[moije2]

Bill I'll simplify my comment for you so you can't get off track. Why did Sollecito pretend that he mentioned the lack of theft only after the officer growled and confused him over the idea that the thief was cut. Is this a true account by evidence of the call or not?

Grrrr. You would believe anything said by him is an indicator of guilt and any loose association of factoids will work in that regard. And you are free to believe that all day long. RS comments before, after, during the call to Italian 911 about the theft has meaning only because you think he is guilty.

This is so tiresome.

I know some of you folks are retired and have all day to sit at your computer generating anywhere from high quality commentary to useless drivel. I don't have that luxury and I have to sneak peaks at this between real life activities. I would appreciate it if you could keep up the quality so my entertainment time is better spent.

Another great post Bill.