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

[Bill Williams]

This is something that Machiavelli tries to fudge on, too. The point is, that even Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report denies "mixed blood." Massei is very careful on this point - he continually says, "Amanda's biological material" mixed in with Meredith's blood - all outside the murder room.

If this was not true, why is not Crini harping on about it in this latest trial? Heck, Crini has to make up, inventing out of whole cloth, the thing about the pooh - in six years, no one has even hinted that Rudy's pooh in Filomena's toilet would be the stresser that causes Amanda to go off and kill Meredith.... and Crini simply makes it up!

Wasn't it NancyS who commented that while others are nitpicking Raffaele's 112 call and whether or not he lied about "nothing was stolen".... these nitpickers are ignoring what is really real, in real live courtrooms in Florence as we type?

Why is not "mixed blood" or "Raffaele lied in his 112 call" getting ANY play from Crini? Today? In 2013? This whole thing has long since not been about the murder... the murder is solved, Rudy did it. Obviously. He broke in through Filomena's window, as Channel 5 (UK) demonstrated. He even admits to being on the loo before Meredith got there... who let him in if he didn't break in? (And so far this is just Rudy's account!!)

The Daily Mail is covering this.... in Nov 2013... read the comments' section of the Daily Mail these days. Most in the U.K., readers of tabloids!, admit that the trial process is a complete sham. For pete's sake, if the Daily Mail is bowing to the blatantly obvious......

Briars is arguing 112 calls from 6 years ago. Machiavelli is arguing Westphalian sovereignty of nations.

Who are you going to believe? Briars and Machiavelli or your lying eyes?

Crini has brought up the big lie about the open closed ajar door. The lie in the book about his 112 call is less important but does indicate his ability to change the truth into a favourable light as Nancy said. You are very much in your own fantasy if you believe comments by FOA who post everywhere are an indication as to what the trial outcome will be.

Briars - it's amazing following this thread. Crini has defied the ISC quashing of the acquittals... and you're bringing up the "door ajar" canard?

Briars, please at least for once address something put to you. The ISC based its quashing of the acquittals, in part, on the fact that BOTH the Massei court and the Hellmann court did not pay enough attention to the "sex-game gone wrong" motive. Yes, Massei debunked that too....

What does the new prosecutor do with it? He invents, out of whole cloth, the "pooh in the toilet" stresser, which can only be called a stresser because even Machiavelli admits that Crini saw no motive for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved with this.

Let's at least start with that. At least as part of the public record that we both can agree upon.

Crini has departed from the ISC's "marching orders". Crini is the prosecutor.

And you're talking about Raffaele's 112 call and the "door ajar" canard?

Did Crini advance "mixed blood"? No. Did the RIS Carabinieri put in a report to the court removing the kitchen knife from the crime? Yes.

What did Crini do? He then said, with NO evidence entered into court to demonstrate it (he just asserted it), that the kitchen knife is a match for the outline on the sheet.

Why would Crini say that? It's been six years and even Mignini/Comodi didn't say that. No one has said that until Crini uttered the words in court....

... well, it's because Crini as all but conceeded that the RIS Carabinieri report removes the knife as evidence. Crini is throwing a Hail Mary pass to try to convince the Nencini court to bring the knife back into play.

And you and I are arguing 112 calls and "door ajar"? Raffaele could be the biggest liar in the world and this is not the point.....

.... the point is, there's no reason at all to even suspect him of murder!

 

[acbytesla]

Crini has brought up the big lie about the open closed ajar door. The lie in the book about his 112 call is less important but does indicate his ability to change the truth into a favourable light as Nancy said. You are very much in your own fantasy if you believe comments by FOA who post everywhere are an indication as to what the trial outcome will be.

There is a difference between recall and deception. The real answer is that they remembered this differently. But of course that doesn't make them guilty, so you aren't interested.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

I'm not sure you're paying attention to his rhetoric.

He didn't say anything about the sovereignty of the Italian nation. He spoke of the "sovereignty of a system."

This is the system that is busy holding Berlusconi's feet to the fire. For good reason - the man is a swine.

It is also the system that is pushing back on the US for unleashing spies to abduct people off Italian streets and send them to Arab torture chambers... which is understandable.

But this brings us to the central problem of political ideology. Machiavelli spoke of a dichotomy. The evils opposed by the magistrates are quite real. So that means the magistrates are good, right? And if they're good, that means what they do is good. And people who object to what they do are bad, a criminal mob.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world was really that simple?

 

[Briars]

Congrats.... Sounds like BS to me.

Complimenti Crede nelle parole di un'uomo qui cambia la sua storia spesso ma trove che e impossible di conoscere un altra lingua!

 

[kwill]

I really can't get over how easily Mignini lies in that interview.

It was broadcast on CNN, in May, 2011. He had plenty of time to get his facts correct, but he doesn't.

Mignini: In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed.

There was no mixed blood of Amanda and Meredith. Why does he get away with saying that?

Or how about this one, referring to the interview which couldn't be taped because making a transcript would have been too expensive:

CNN: Was she [Amanda] asked to imagine what might have happened?

Mignini: No, absolutely not. Either you saw a person or you didn’t. I can’t ask someone what they imagine because it would be a question that doesn’t mean anything, that I even don’t understand.

This one is Mignini repeating what he certainly knows is a lie.

Because he knows that the translator testified that she spontaneously brought up a story about having a memory loss after a trauma during the interview. She claims that she only did so to "cultivate a rapport."

It's not believable. The translator was clearly lying when she insisted that the purpose of this was not to encourage Amanda to think that she herself was also having a memory loss and thus tell the police "what they already knew."

He's a liar.

 

[Briars]

Who is ever deemed guilty on one point?This is a worn out strategy with this group.

 

[acbytesla]

Complimenti Crede nelle parole di un'uomo qui cambia la sua storia spesso ma trove che e impossible di conoscere un altra lingua!

Congrats, you can cut and paste.

 

[davefoc]

Do I have this right?

Sollecito told the emergency operator there was no theft and then the emergency operator pressed him on the issue and then Sollecito said again there was no theft.

The alleged lies of Sollecito are:
1. There actually was a theft and Sollecito was wrong and somehow he knew this wasn't true so his claim to the emergency operator was a conscious lie.

2. In his book Sollecito claims that he only stated that there was no theft to the emergency operator only after the emergency operator asked him if there had been a theft. The lie here is that Sollecito is intentionally hiding the fact that he stated there was no theft before the emergency operator asked him.

 

[Briars]

Briars, you still have not told us what your point is.....

Sure I did Bill you just have your own tape running and can't hear but that is pretty typical . I really only wanted to comment on Sollecito's words in his book as I haven't read them before. They are not truthful to the recorded tapes, fact, so make of it what you will or rather what you won't. I also wanted to post a big thank you to Machiavelli and his excellent tweets from court.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But Briars is mistaken and Raffaele is right. The operator asked if there was a theft, Raffaele answered, he couldn't know there was a theft of money and phones.

Briars needs to provide a quote and a translation.

 

[acbytesla]

Briars, Let me quote the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

"And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? .........Here's a good idea -.......... have a POINT.

It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!"

 

[Katody Matrass]

Meanwhile, Mignini the clown is caught in actual lies. He escaped criminal conviction by procedural loopholes but he's facing trial again.

Meanwhile the thugs of Perugian flying squad are removed from their posts with very serious evidence of criminal activity hanging above their heads.

Meanwhile, Comodi the liar is caught siphoning public money out and is facing trial.

 

[Skind]

Hello those calls have been recorded and are posted everywhere skind

I know, that's how I know the responder - not Sollecito - was the one that raised the issues first.

That's also how I know it was the same responder and that it was the responder who was persisting with the issue about the bleeding.

First call
POLICE:
Carabinieri Perugia
RS:
Hello good morning, listen ... someone has practically entered our house breaking the window and he made a big mess...there is a locked door. The street is…
AK:
[Background] Via della Pergola.
RS:
Via della pergola 7.
POLICE:
Via..
RS:
Della Pergola 7, in Perugia.
POLICE:
Residence of mister...?
RS:
Ehmm... .. Amanda ..
POLICE:
Eh??
RS:
The...people...who live in ..ehmm .. they are a group of students.
POLICE:
Give me name and mobile number of one of the tenants.
RS:
Amanda.
POLICE:
Yes..
RS:
The last name K, N...
POLICE:
Yes...
RS:
O, X.
POLICE:
Yes
RS:
The mobile number ... ehhh.
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes, yes. I'm taking the number.

[Long pause]
RS:
348
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
46
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
73
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
590
POLICE:
590?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.
POLICE:
Just a moment please.

[Music plays for 5 seconds]
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
So listen, they entered .. they broke the window .. and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by signs... that there are drops .... that there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered. .. because the window's broken ... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm...this ...

[Raffaele Sollecito hangs up the phone]
POLICE:
Hello??


Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.
POLICE:
Someone's been in the house and broke the window?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Then they went into the bathroom.
RS:
I don't know, if you come here perhaps ...
POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is one of the doors is closed, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
A door's closed? Which door's closed?
RS:
The door of one of the flatmates who isn't here. We don't know where she is.
POLICE:
Were these blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?
RS:
The blood stains are in the bathroom.
POLICE:
Oh in the bathroom. And there's this closed door. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?
RS:
Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.
POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
Is this OK with you?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Goodbye.

The police responders line of questioning is actually fairly reasonable. The police are trying to determine whether the burglar is injured or whether there is a chance it could have been the flatmate. At this time, it could even have been the flatmate that broke in. It would not be unheard of for a student town like Perugia to have multiple breakins every year due to drunk students forgetting their keys.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sure I did Bill you just have your own tape running and can't hear but that is pretty typical . I really only wanted to comment on Sollecito's words in his book as I haven't read them before. They are not truthful to the recorded tapes, fact, so make of it what you will or rather what you won't. I also wanted to post a big thank you to Machiavelli and his excellent tweets from court.

"Truthful" or "mistaken" or "out of context"? Which? My point is that your confirmation bias is showing. I' STILL not sure what your point is, if you still claim to be making only an observation. Please help us out here, and answer Antony's question... you've neglected to do that.

If you then believe Machiavelli's tweets from court, then you accept that there was no motive to this crime. Unless Machiavelli was lying about what Crini said. And you accept that the knife from Raffaele's matched the outline on the sheet... a new one in the annals of this case.

Machiavelli is lost in this... no wonder he brings up Italian sovereignty in the hopes that no one will notice that Crini does not have a case and is going through the motions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Who is ever deemed guilty on one point?This is a worn out strategy with this group.

I'm still trying to figure out why it is you're ON this point?

 

[toto]

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.

Yes there is a discrepancy on who opened the door. Clearly they weren't conniving together when writing their books! In my job I have almost been convinced by two friendly and trustworthy colleagues that I hadn't done something the day before when I was "certain" I had. I was almost convinced they were right because they were so insistent, and with some trepidation I asked a third party who would know the facts, and I was in fact correct. This was just a day later. God knows what my memory would have been a few days later, or a week or so, let alone a few years. I really think that some people having a certain arrogance in thinking that because we have transcripts and thousands of words of primary and secondary sources, that that means that the participants have, or should have, total recall of all the details, and everything must dovetail together, and any deviation or misstatement is automatically a sign of guilt.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

The content of Sollecito's phone conversation is exquisitely uninteresting, regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent. It's far too disconnected from the commission of the crime to have probative value, and to think otherwise is to lead yourself up a garden path. It has however sent me back to the relevant part of Honour Bound, where I find the following:

Battistelli slowed her down just enough to ask if it was normal to find the door locked. Filomena told him no, absolutely not, unless Meredith was away in England.

I clearly remember hearing this before, so I'm confident it isn't disputed. To me it raises the question: how would Filomena have known this? Was she in the habit of walking in on Meredith unannounced? She would certainly need to have been to have formed so emphatic a view on the subject after only a few weeks of her living there.

Not that I regard this as any mystery. What Filomena was doing was stating a trivial falsehood, because she had a far bigger fish to fry than being pedantically accurate in her every utterance -- namely, persuading the guy from the postal police to break down Meredith's door. That's just how even the most very honest of people happen to communicate with respect to trivial points of detail which don't have anything to do with the objective they're trying to achieve.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I'm not sure you're paying attention to his rhetoric.

He didn't say anything about the sovereignty of the Italian nation. He spoke of the "sovereignty of a system."

This is the system that is busy holding Berlusconi's feet to the fire. For good reason - the man is a swine.

It is also the system that is pushing back on the US for unleashing spies to abduct people off Italian streets and send them to Arab torture chambers... which is understandable.

But this brings us to the central problem of political ideology. Machiavelli spoke of a dichotomy. The evils opposed by the magistrates are quite real. So that means the magistrates are good, right? And if they're good, that means what they do is good. And people who object to what they do are bad, a criminal mob.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world was really that simple?

I prefer my own analysis of Machiavelli's rhetoric... but, hey, note how far one comes from actually adjudicating the facts of the horrible Kercher murder!? That's the point.

Either way, Machiavelli is saying, with regards to the Kercher murder and the unjust prosecution of two innocents, "oh look, squirrel!"

Machiavelli is clinging to a world of simplistic good and evil. But c'mon Charlie.... you have to admit it is rhetorical "bait and switch" to first assert Mignini's honesty, and then start talking about the "sovereignty of a system," which is part of the larger national sovereignty?

Crini has smaller problems. The RIS Carabinieri have removed the kitchen knife as evidence, and Crini is now trying to get it back into evidence saying it's a match for the sheet outline. Crini is also defying the ISC by saying, no, it was not a sex game gone wrong, it was the "Amanda and Meredith" were fighting scenario, this one sparked by Rudy's pooh in the toilet.

There's all sorts of rhetoric flying around... sure Berlusconi is a swine. Perhaps we could agree to that over wine with Machiavelli.... but what's that got to do with Machiavelli's basic rhetorical method, which is "bait and switch"?

 

[Bill Williams]

Not that I regard this as any mystery. What Filomena was doing was stating a trivial falsehood, because she had a far bigger fish to fry than being pedantically accurate in her every utterance -- namely, persuading the guy from the postal police to break down Meredith's door. That's just how even the most very honest of people happen to communicate with respect to trivial points of detail which don't have anything to do with the objective they're trying to achieve.

Filomena is the ONLY one in that pre-door-opened scenario to focus on what was right... everyone else, including Raffaele, Amanda, Battistelli, all the friends, AND the 112 operators were holding in suspicion the wrong things.

Out of everyone, Filomena was the ONLY one to put 2 + 2 together properly. Meredith would NOT be without those phones. For those phones to be outside of Meredith's possession, combined with THIS locked door.....

..... meant that the door needed to be knocked down.

Briars is suspicious about Raffaele's speech in the 112 call. If Briars was on site, real-time, he'd be regarded as a complete distraction by the ONLY person rightly reading the tea-leaves at an otherwise chaotic scene. "Quit it with the call, will you, we need to see what's behind that door!"

True, once it was established it was a murder scene, and not a burglarly per se, Filomena also read the tea leaves properly. She needed a lawyer to help her with potential liability about damage as well as rent due if the cottage was to be behind crime-scene tape for the next few months. She also needed, then, to go get her laptop from behind that tape, as well as (allegedly) making sure they'd find no marijuana in her room when searching it.

Out of everyone there, Filomena was perhaps the only one thinking clearly, as upsetting as everything was.

 

[kwill]

To me it raises the question: how would Filomena have known this? Was she in the habit of walking in on Meredith unannounced? She would certainly need to have been to have formed so emphatic a view on the subject after only a few weeks of her living there.

Not that I regard this as any mystery. What Filomena was doing was stating a trivial falsehood, because she had a far bigger fish to fry than being pedantically accurate in her every utterance -- namely, persuading the guy from the postal police to break down Meredith's door. That's just how even the most very honest of people happen to communicate with respect to trivial points of detail which don't have anything to do with the objective they're trying to achieve.

That makes perfect sense. Nicely done.