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

[Bill Williams]

No. Abolutely not. He is perfectly able to distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because of the different things that happened, and anyway that's irrelevant, because the date is derived "ex aliunde" (from elsewhere).

The only problem with his testimony is the 30 meters distance.

Let me fix this for you.

No. Absolutely not. He cannot distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because (of his drug dependency he was unable to relate a believable story) of the different things that happened, and anyway that's completely relevant, because the date is derived "ex aliunde" (from elsewhere), meaning that every fool knows the murder happened on Nov 1.

The one problem with his testimony (of many) is the 30 meters distance (but that's only the start).

You're welcome.

 

[Mary_H]

Speaking of contamination..... take a peek at this photo. Now, one does not know when this photo was taken in the evidence collection process... but it seems the only reason to wear protective clothing is that they are still concerned about contaminating a pristine crime scene.... so, take a look at the guy's bootie, and try to estimate the number of times it has been changed... just saying....

Reverend Williams!

 

[Machiavelli]

My read of this is that lacking any of type one or type two, the prosecution has leaned on shifting emphases on various pieces of type three.

Type one, according to the prosecution, includes DNA from the victim being found on a knife that was not the murder weapon, tho' the tests the supposedly resulted in this finding can't be repeated and weren't done professionally. It also includes DNA from one of the defendants being found on a clasp that was out of the police's custody for six weeks, and when found had been moved three feet from where they last saw it. That's the type one total.

Type two, according to the prosecution, includes Amanda Knox's sexual history, Amanda Knox's noise ticket, Amanda Knox's failure to clean a European toilet properly, Amanda Knox's loudness, Amanda Knox's failure to show what they considered appropriate emotion after her friend's death, Raffaele Sollecito's boarding school porn-viewing habits, Raffaele Sollecito's comic collection, and Raffaele Sollecito's habit of carrying a pocket knife.

Type three is whatever sells newspapers.

Those two are innocent.

Your reading misses a few points. Like that you would need an alternative plausible explanation for luminol footprints, or for a bloody footprint on a bathmat; that the autopsy report implies multiple perpetrators; that the obvious physical outlook of the murder scene points to multiple perpetrators with a different modus operandi; that Knox and Sollecito told a neverending load of lies; etc. Things like that.

 

[Strozzi]

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Strawberry, what you will see in this case time and again is the desire of the prosecution and their supporters (and, let me use the phrase, their "fellow travelers") to assign the crime to Knox and Sollecito. That is what you do when you have a need, a desire, for them to be guilty. You willfully interpret physical and other evidence to be proof of guilt even if it is clearly not or if it is ambiguous.

For example, the prosecution wants Knox to have had a relationship with Guede so that they can make the case that they participated together in the murder.

The real facts are that they did not have a relationship. They met each other in group settings twice. Guede once had a drink in a bar where Knox worked and she possibly took his order. Knox once while walking home ran into 3 of the Italian guys who lived downstairs from her and walked back with them as a group together and then she and Kerscher joined all the guys downstairs to smoke pot and chat until late. Guede was with the guys - he was part of the group - but he and Knox had no meaningful communication between themselves. It was not a relationship.

There is no evidence that they had a relationship. No phone calls or texts between them. No witnesses who said either spoke of being in contact with the other. So you create the myth that they could have had a relationship because they lived in the same part of town, that Knox walked regularly from her home to classes through the square where Guede occasionally hung out, that Knox was casually intimate with several men and Guede thought Knox was "hot", or that Knox once wrote an email to friends saying she met a very handsome black man and Guede is black (like 1,000 other black men in Perugia).

To assign the crime to Knox and Guede, Italian-style, you say as Machiavelli does that they could have been in communication with each other, therefore it is possible they had a relationship, therefore it is probable they had a relationship. Therefore, Knox, who barely knew Guede and who could not even remember the guy's name, must have participated with Guede in the murder of her housemate/friend Meredith Kerscher. Assign the crime because the police and prosecutor NEED Knox to be guilty - to vindicate themselves for their investigatory and prosecutorial incompetence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let me fix this for you.(...)

No. He can indeed distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because different things were going on in the Piazza on those two days. He is also perfectly consistent and appears mentally capable (contrarily to Sollecito and Knox, who were inconsistent and claimed mental disease).
His memory is also firmly anchored to the subsequent day, as the police arrived at the cottage.
But questions about remembering the date are irrelevant, because Knox and Sollecito claim they were not there on the previous day.

You decide to not believe him. But it's up to you. I know from your reading of other documentation how poisoned you are by an incredible, grotesque kind of bias.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Maybe the angle of the mountain of different motives is to possibly sway each Judge with a different motive.

Judge 1 says Guilty based on the sex crime orgy satanic theory, while Judge 2 votes guilty based on the non-premeditated accidental theory, while Judge 3 agrees with Crini and the Poop Motive because he doesnt like a picture he saw in the Daily Mail of Amanda and Raffaele, and Judge 4 votes guilty because they read the Massei and think Rudy was the main evil and the two followed his evil....etc..etc..

"Throw enough s*&t at the Judges and see what sticks..." motive for the Persecutors..

Is that how you find the truth and convict the right people? of course not.

They don't need to be swayed. They are going through the motions of a trial. I assume they will render a guilty verdict because that is what the high court has instructed them to do.

Then they can put out a warrant, knowing the US probably won't extradite her, and that way they can blame America. Amanda is just like the fighter jocks and the CIA agents! Their political faction will lap it up. It's exactly what they want to hear. Michael Winterbottom will make his movie about the guilty American girl and her evil PR machine versus the wise and incorruptible Italian magistrates. Machiavelli will blather on about the subtleties of the legal code and the superior understanding of Amanda's character he has gleaned from media reports.

Raffaele will have to hide out in the Caribbean.

 

[Strawberry]

Strawberry, what you will see in this case time and again is the desire of the prosecution and their supporters (and, let me use the phrase, their "fellow travelers") to assign the crime to Knox and Sollecito. That is what you do when you have a need, a desire, for them to be guilty. You willfully interpret physical and other evidence to be proof of guilt even if it is clearly not or if it is ambiguous.

For example, the prosecution wants Knox to have had a relationship with Guede so that they can make the case that they participated together in the murder.

The real facts are that they did not have a relationship. They met each other in group settings twice. Guede once had a drink in a bar where Knox worked and she possibly took his order. Knox once while walking home ran into 3 of the Italian guys who lived downstairs from her and walked back with them as a group together and then she and Kerscher joined all the guys downstairs to smoke pot and chat until late. Guede was with the guys - he was part of the group - but he and Knox had no meaningful communication between themselves. It was not a relationship.

There is no evidence that they had a relationship. No phone calls or texts between them. No witnesses who said either spoke of being in contact with the other. So you create the myth that they could have had a relationship because they lived in the same part of town, that Knox walked regularly from her home to classes through the square where Guede occasionally hung out, that Knox was casually intimate with several men and Guede thought Knox was "hot", or that Knox once wrote an email to friends saying she met a very handsome black man and Guede is black (like 1,000 other black men in Perugia).

To assign the crime to Knox and Guede, Italian-style, you say as Machiavelli does that they could have been in communication with each other, therefore it is possible they had a relationship, therefore it is probable they had a relationship. Therefore, Knox, who barely knew Guede and who could not even remember the guy's name, must have participated with Guede in the murder of her housemate/friend Meredith Kerscher. Assign the crime because the police and prosecutor NEED Knox to be guilty - to vindicate themselves for their investigatory and prosecutorial incompetence.

Yes, I can see an awful lot of bias and selective blindness on the pro-guilt side. Maresca seemed to be counting on it in his speech today accusing Knox of "extreme sex", and also of raising funds in Meredith's name on her website. Its nonsense, but will he be listened to?

Do people here who have been following this case have any predictions about what way this court will rule?

 

[Machiavelli]

Strawberry, what you will see in this case time and again is the desire of the prosecution and their supporters (and, let me use the phrase, their "fellow travelers") to assign the crime to Knox and Sollecito. That is what you do when you have a need, a desire, for them to be guilty. You willfully interpret physical and other evidence to be proof of guilt even if it is clearly not or if it is ambiguous.

For example, the prosecution wants Knox to have had a relationship with Guede so that they can make the case that they participated together in the murder. (...)

A sexual meeting between Knox and Guede is something that belongs to my personal speculation as to a scenario that explain the crime. It is not a prosecution argument.
The prosecution never attempted to deal with an explanation of details about the meeting between Knox and Guede. This kind of things are not really important in a courtroom, they matter only to those people who want to know about "explanations", about what people think about "narratives of the crime". They are relevant to discuss with those people who depict the personality of the accused as "incompatible" with such kind of scenarios/situations.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Your reading misses a few points. Like that you would need an alternative plausible explanation for luminol footprints, or for a bloody footprint on a bathmat; that the autopsy report implies multiple perpetrators; that the obvious physical outlook of the murder scene points to multiple perpetrators with a different modus operandi; that Knox and Sollecito told a neverending load of lies; etc. Things like that.

In fact, the crime scene and the autopsy report show exactly what happened and in no way suggest multiple perpetrators. They show that Meredith was attacked by one individual with a small knife in his right hand. That's probably why Mignini's expensive reconstruction is buried in a vault, and it's definitely why I would love to get my hands on it.

 

[Diocletus]

No. He can indeed distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because different things were going on in the Piazza on those two days. He is also perfectly consistent and appears mentally capable (contrarily to Sollecito and Knox, who were inconsistent and claimed mental disease).
His memory is also firmly anchored to the subsequent day, as the police arrived at the cottage.
But questions about remembering the date are irrelevant, because Knox and Sollecito claim they were not there on the previous day.

You decide to not believe him. But it's up to you. I know from your reading of other documentation how poisoned you are by an incredible, grotesque kind of bias.

LMAO. The heroin addled super witness is the perfect representative for this whole case. I think that most Italian judges are on heroin. You know, because it makes them more reliable.

 

[Diocletus]

A sexual meeting between Knox and Guede is something that belongs to my personal speculation as to a scenario that explain the crime. It is not a prosecution argument.
The prosecution never attempted to deal with an explanation of details about the meeting between Knox and Guede. This kind of things are not really important in a courtroom, they matter only to those people who want to know about "explanations", about what people think about "narratives of the crime". They are relevant to discuss with those people who depict the personality of the accused as "incompatible" with such kind of scenarios/situations.

Personally, I think that alien sex is a strong likelihood here.

 

[Diocletus]

I have a question.

If drugs and stress are enough to cause a rape/murder, then why can't they cause a false accusation?

 

[kwill]

Your reading misses a few points. Like that you would need an alternative plausible explanation for luminol footprints, or for a bloody footprint on a bathmat; that the autopsy report implies multiple perpetrators; that the obvious physical outlook of the murder scene points to multiple perpetrators with a different modus operandi; that Knox and Sollecito told a neverending load of lies; etc. Things like that.

Okay. I know you're already read the alternative plausible explanations, and I know that you don't find them plausible. (Footprint on the bathmat not identifiable, luminol footprints evidence of nothing given that Amanda lived in the cottage, autopsy doctor said single attacker was possible, physical outlook of murder scene easily explained by single attacker, and the defendants consistently gave the exact same explanation for what they had done on the night of the murder -- stayed in, had dinner, watched a movie, went to bed. The only deviation from that explanation happened when the police were able to carry out illegal, unrecorded, late night interrogations which were so problematic that they could not even be included in the prosecution's case.)

There is no Type One evidence. That's because there couldn't be, because A & R were not present in the cottage that night. The mistake they both made was in thinking -- poor innocents!-- that they couldn't possibly be suspected of doing something they hadn't done . . . which is why they stayed in town and didn't ask for lawyers of their own.

 

[Grinder]

This will be never mentioned by a prosecutor in the Knox-Sollecito case, because their trial was concluded in 2009.
This proccedings for drug dealing are subsequent, they are from 2011.

The prosecution cannot enter this element as evidence in 2011 or 2013, insofar as this does not belong to those evidence chapters that were re-opened on appeal after request by defence or prosecution.

But my friend you said that they exchanged calls at the time of the murder and the fact that she had his number led to his being uncovered and charged.

The case didn't go to trial until 2 years after those calls were made between the drug dealer and Amanda according to you.

Why didn't they enter this into evidence? Perhaps because if the connection existed at the time at all, he wasn't anything but a student.

Why couldn't the prosecution ask for this "evidence chapter" to be examined?

In essence you are saying that this has nothing to do with the case and there is no official reports linking this guy and Amanda.

Remember when you made the point that since Satanic Rite didn't appear in any court records it never happened?

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli, we just began Part 7 of this blog. I want to take a moment for a "time out" and tell you that I am very glad that you are here arguing with us about this important case. We disagree on many issues, but I appreciate what you contribute. Sometimes I envision you as the lion tamer - the master wielding the chair keeping 10 hungry cats at bay.

I hope that better things come out of this case for all of the people involved and for Italy.

My posts may annoy you sometimes. I appreciate you looking past it and responding to me.

Your English is excellent - really superb. My compliments to your parents, teachers, and to you as a serious student. If I recall correctly, you may have lived in Ohio as a child. If I may ask, how long did you live in the U.S. and how old were you then?

 

[toto]

No. He can indeed distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because different things were going on in the Piazza on those two days. He is also perfectly consistent and appears mentally capable (contrarily to Sollecito and Knox, who were inconsistent and claimed mental disease).
His memory is also firmly anchored to the subsequent day, as the police arrived at the cottage.
But questions about remembering the date are irrelevant, because Knox and Sollecito claim they were not there on the previous day.

You decide to not believe him. But it's up to you. I know from your reading of other documentation how poisoned you are by an incredible, grotesque kind of bias.

Slightly paraphrasing Hellmann, is it true that Curatolo stated on 28th March, 2009, that on the evening when he saw the two youths there were a lot of masks, young people joking about and that there was pandemonium and people that were messing about a bit and that it was a holiday period?

And did he later confirm the presence of masks, of young people joking about and pandemonium at the hearing of 26th March 2011 in front of Hellmann's Court, responding affirmatively to Bongiorno's question and also recalling (at both the hearing of March 28th, 2009 and in Hellmann's court Court of 26th March, 2011) that there were the buses taking the young people to the discotheques? I don't need you to criticise Hellmann but to acknowledge that Toto seems to be talking about Halloween night. Is it true that he admitted to be a heroin user and that he wasn't sure as to whether his current conviction had been confirmed by the Supreme Court? With all the best will in the world most juries would have to see his testimony as utterly worthless, surely?

 

[Bill Williams]

No. He can indeed distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because different things were going on in the Piazza on those two days. He is also perfectly consistent and appears mentally capable (contrarily to Sollecito and Knox, who were inconsistent and claimed mental disease).
His memory is also firmly anchored to the subsequent day, as the police arrived at the cottage.
But questions about remembering the date are irrelevant, because Knox and Sollecito claim they were not there on the previous day.
You decide to not believe him. But it's up to you. I know from your reading of other documentation how poisoned you are by an incredible, grotesque kind of bias.

Where does this stuff come from.

This are baseless assertions.

The whole point (relating to the highlighted part) is that neither Knox nor Sollectio were ever id'ed by Curatolo - not in any meaningful sense, of a heroin addict being used as this kind of witness.

Your reasoning is revealed - if AK and RS "claim" they weren't there the previous day... it is YOU who believe they are liars. Why is this, then, the one thing, according to you, that they're telling the truth about?

Amongst other things, this is confirmation bias in the raw. You even make suppositions on the basis of their truth telling, based on the conclusion you start with..... confirmation bias does not include starting with a conclusion and then sorting out the "factoids" accordingly.

Unless you're a guilter.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli, we just began Part 7 of this blog. I want to take a moment for a "time out" and tell you that I am very glad that you are here arguing with us about this important case. We disagree on many issues, but I appreciate what you contribute. Sometimes I envision you as the lion tamer - the master wielding the chair keeping 10 hungry cats at bay.

I hope that better things come out of this case for all of the people involved and for Italy.

My posts may annoy you sometimes. I appreciate you looking past it and responding to me.

Your English is excellent - really superb. My compliments to your parents, teachers, and to you as a serious student. If I recall correctly, you may have lived in Ohio as a child. If I may ask, how long did you live in the U.S. and how old were you then?

Ditto.

 

[Bill Williams]

MAry_H! Not THAT kind of bootie.... sheesh!

 

[kwill]

Amanda has put up excerpts of Crini's work in English at her blog.

Wow.

Drug addicted or not, Curatolo is sure about his tale, which places the two defendants at a time compatible [with the time of the murder] – there is the problem of the date, that we will face later – at Piazza Grimana. So, as it is done with every witness, there is [the problem of] quality [of the witness] … once we got rid of the aprioristic evaluation [namely that Curatolo is unreliable because drug addicted], because what is aprioristic is always wrong, but even more in this case since it can be overcome by many other a priori, much more cogent than the one the Court of Appeal of Perugia relied on. So, once we got rid of the a priori, we have to look at the matter of fact. Because a witness could say “it seems to me”. Here instead we have no “it seems to me”, we have a precise memory.

Got that? Curatolo has a precise memory. Except then Crini has to deal with the precise memory of there being kids with masks and buses going to the disco. He dismisses the precise memory when it comes to masks and buses, but leans heavily on it when it comes to the weather and the fact that when Curatolo sees the police, he remembers the young people arguing the night before.

Except that it wasn't the night before, because there were masks and buses. Therefore ignore the masks and buses part of the precise memory and focus on the night before the police in white suits part of it. This is what Crini is trying to sell. One half of the same man's testimony is utterly unreliable, and the other is perfect.

It's hard to believe an adult would actually try this in public.

Yo, Crini. Your eyewitness was a habitual user of a well-known narcotic. The word "narcotic" means "sleep-inducing," so I would have to ask if it's possible that he slept through the evening of the murder and remembered that he saw an argument on the night of the masks and buses (Halloween) and then the next moment of alertness wasn't the following morning but the one after that . . . Nov 2nd, when the police were there in the white suits.

He could thus have a precise memory of two things that were not consecutive, but rather separated by an extra day.