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

[Bill Williams]

She chose to never talk about this man. She also choses to never talk about her contacts the suspect drug-dealer. She also choses write, in her book, a recollection of facts in which she omits to tell about the first time when she said that Meredith used to lock her door sometimed while Filomena was not there.

There are things that Knox just chooses to not talk about.

Just like she can choose not to sleep? She must be Wonder Woman to you!

 

[moodstream]

Actually I only report about Knox's style.
I'ts not that I chose to say "black man" - it is Amanda Knox who chose to write "black man" instead of "man" in her diary. This, by the way offers a piece of information that reduces wuite dramatically the potential number, among young men that one can meet as regular frequentators of Via Garibaldi area.

You are accuse me of being the styler, and of carefully chosing what to say and what not to say. But the fact is, Amanda Knox does not tell the name of this acquaintance, which means there is choiche she is making about what to say and what not to say.
You could revert your accusation against Amanda Knox. Knox is hiding the answer? It's a legitimate question. She tells and writes details about everythig in her diaries. She even makes a list of sexual partners. She makes several lists of encounters and acquaitences for the police. She speaks about details of Meredith's death that she shouldn't even know. She tells about habits of locking the door just for shower, about details of putting cloths in the washing machine, she tells about memories she says she doesn't believe, she really talks a lot. She chose to never talk about this man. She also choses to never talk about her contacts the suspect drug-dealer. She also choses write, in her book, a recollection of facts in which she omits to tell about the first time when she said that Meredith used to lock her door sometimed while Filomena was not there.

There are things that Knox just chooses to not talk about.

No. I am addressing your use of this material as 'third rate evidence'. Knox wrote in a diary about meeting a good looking man, and meeting here is an introduction. More correctly Knox is writing that she was introduced to someone. She is writing this in her diary. This is Knox's choice - to write this in her diary.

To anticipate that you are going to use it to speculate about Knox having sex with Guede is not a choice she is making. It is you who [mis-] use this writing in an attempt to smear Knox, and it would only have significance to someone ignorant of the source, someone who did not know you were dreaming this all up out of some diary entry about some guy she basically saw on the street. Good grief!

The same for styling the sentence. She isn't waiting for you to read your thoughts into it! She isn't writing for your benefit. It is a *diary*!!! Her diary. Again, your writing for the benefit of readers who don't know this. People who are not aware of how irrational your claim is - that Knox should anticipate that you want to know if she is having sex with Guede, and should respond to this in her diary so you can read it later.

You are styling the sentence to smear Knox. The speculation from a diary entry that she met a good looking black man that she could be having sex with Guede, because he is black is racist. Neither is evidence, not even conjectural.

There is no evidence here, third rate, fourth rate, or any other. This is just a smear campaign. You are the author of this smear campaign. It's not to your credit.

 

[js202]

Actually Maresca asked repeatedly the judge to send away the public. In fact Pratillo Hellmann was sloppy, indifferent, appeared reluctant to send away the public. He made them step out the door. But several people could see.

You should blame Pratillo Hellmann not Maresca.

Interesting. On the contrary, I had always perceived Maresca's ghoulish gesture as that of an amoral scoundrel acting out of desperation because he perceived that, in Hellmann's courtroom, superstition, innuendo and incompetence were being replaced with cool-headedness and Cartesian logic.

Somehow, I doubt your interpretation of events.

 

[Machiavelli]

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. (...)

But you need to have a court document in order to enter it as evidence. Here it comes out the drug dealers had their preliminary hearing in 2011. One of them chose the short track trial and was convicted.
So you have a prelimary hearing document about a cocaine dealing connection in 2011.
Before that, you only had police investigation papers. Prosecutors won't enter police investigation papers, even less from another case.

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

But because in 2011 the Prosecution General simply filed a recourse to the Supreme Court.
You mean before? On the appeal? But the appeal is not really a trial... you must understand that, on an appeal, ony those topics indicated among the reasons for appeal can be discussed. You are not supposed to make the case again on appeal. You only discuss about parts of the judge decisions you were unsatisfied with from the first instance.

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.

Formally, it is not part of the Knox-Sollecito case.
However this connection of Amanda Knox is part of another case, which is a case about three suspect drug dealers that has to do with a cocaine dealing network.

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

Actually I went a little beyond, and said that the court records in fact offer the proof of the contrary, they record that Mignini put forward a scenario of non-premeditated sex-game-gone wrong, which is not compatible with any satanic or ritualistic scenario.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting. On the contrary, I had always perceived Maresca's ghoulish gesture as that of an amoral scoundrel acting out of desperation because he perceived that, in Hellmann's courtroom, superstition, innuendo and incompetence were being replaced with cool-headedness and Cartesian logic.

Somehow, I doubt your interpretation of events.

Well you may read the 2011 transcripts of maresca and the prosecution's arguments, then.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni's guidelines for when to change gloves

So he handled the kitchen knife with clean new gloves, and without wearing any bloody clothes or anything that kind.
And in fact, he did not transfer any DNA of Meredith or of others to any other item. He handled a bag containing boxers worn by Knox - a "bloody item" - but no DNA of Knox was transferred on the other items.

Are you saying that he did not follow Stefanoni's own guidelines for when the team changed or did not change gloves?

 

[Poppy1016]

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.

Can you make his testimony line up with the time of death?

 

[Diocletus]

The video with the scene of violence was never made public, just like the autposy report which was discussed behind closed doors, as an act of respect for Meredith Kercher and her family.

Secret evidence and court proceedings, eh?

 

[Diocletus]

Actually I went a little beyond, and said that the court records in fact offer the proof of the contrary, they record that Mignini put forward a scenario of non-premeditated sex-game-gone wrong, which is not compatible with any satanic or ritualistic scenario.

It was a Halloween initiation rite, that's what he said.

 

[Strozzi]

As I said I would, I have made another donation to the legal defense of Raffaele Sollecito who is falsely accused of a crime he did not commit.

The legal defense donation site URL is http://www.gofundme.com/3bct8o

 

[Poppy1016]

Could someone tell me when the luminal tests in the cottage were done? I thought I read that they were done around the same time the clasp was found. Is this correct?

 

[christianahannah]

Actually I only report about Knox's style.
I'ts not that I chose to say "black man" - it is Amanda Knox who chose to write "black man" instead of "man" in her diary. This, by the way offers a piece of information that reduces wuite dramatically the potential number, among young men that one can meet as regular frequentators of Via Garibaldi area.

You are accuse me of being the styler, and of carefully chosing what to say and what not to say. But the fact is, Amanda Knox does not tell the name of this acquaintance, which means there is choiche she is making about what to say and what not to say.
You could revert your accusation against Amanda Knox. Knox is hiding the answer? It's a legitimate question. She tells and writes details about everythig in her diaries. She even makes a list of sexual partners. She makes several lists of encounters and acquaitences for the police. She speaks about details of Meredith's death that she shouldn't even know. She tells about habits of locking the door just for shower, about details of putting cloths in the washing machine, she tells about memories she says she doesn't believe, she really talks a lot. She chose to never talk about this man. She also choses to never talk about her contacts the suspect drug-dealer. She also choses write, in her book, a recollection of facts in which she omits to tell about the first time when she said that Meredith used to lock her door sometimed while Filomena was not there.

There are things that Knox just chooses to not talk about.

Do you find anything said or written by Rudy or his acquaintances or Amanda's acquaintances which point to this previous meeting or to more meetings between Rudy and Amanda?

 

[kwill]

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.

This is very sad, isn't it? They did nothing wrong, except trust that the authorities would of course see that they were innocent.

Of course, it's also not the end. Amanda is only 26 years old, and she's shown herself to be a strong, resourceful, thoughtful woman who has not let this silly, wasteful, tragic thing destroy her. I like her chances for the future.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you find anything said or written by Rudy or his acquaintances or Amanda's acquaintances which point to this previous meeting or to more meetings between Rudy and Amanda?

Ha! Good question. I somehow doubt the prosecutor is sitting on evidence that Amanda was in contact with Guede.

In any case, Amanda testified. The prosecutor could have asked her about any of this - contact with drug dealers, who was the man she mentioned on MySpace, etc. - if they thought it was relevant. She can't be expected to anticipate and respond to malicious innuendo put out by anonymous people on the Internet.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is very sad, isn't it? They did nothing wrong, except trust that the authorities would of course see that they were innocent.

Of course, it's also not the end. Amanda is only 26 years old, and she's shown herself to be a strong, resourceful, thoughtful woman who has not let this silly, wasteful, tragic thing destroy her. I like her chances for the future.

Yep. So do I.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Could someone tell me when the luminal tests in the cottage were done? I thought I read that they were done around the same time the clasp was found. Is this correct?

Yes, it was later that same day, Dec. 18 2007.

 

[moije2]

Ha! Good question. I somehow doubt the prosecutor is sitting on evidence that Amanda was in contact with Guede.

In any case, Amanda testified. The prosecutor could have asked her about any of this - contact with drug dealers, who was the man she mentioned on MySpace, etc. - if they thought it was relevant. She can't be expected to anticipate and respond to malicious innuendo put out by anonymous people on the Internet.

If it was a certain poster in regards to the defense failing to inquire or question during trial about something, he would have said that they had every opportunity to ask and they either failed or didn't see it as important, so it their fault. So I suppose the same could be said here. So why it is being discussed? Pure speculation. Of questionable quality.

 

[Poppy1016]

Yes, it was later that same day, Dec. 18 2007.

Thank you sir. Are there any reasons given for the long delay before the luminal testing?

 

[kwill]

She tells and writes details about everythig in her diaries. She even makes a list of sexual partners.

Seriously? I just lost interest in your contributions. Carry on.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thank you sir. Are there any reasons given for the long delay before the luminal testing?

I don't think anyone has ever explained, but it's easy enough to figure out what happened.

Put yourself in their situation. They arrested three people and told the public they were the ones who did it, in a messy, drug-addled, homicidal "sex game." That ought to leave plenty of evidence, right?

But when they got their forensic test results, they found nothing inside the murder room for any of the three. They found Amanda's DNA in the bathroom sink and Raffaele's DNA on a cigarette butt in the kitchen.

And they found a bloody hand print and DNA matching a fourth individual whose name they had never mentioned.

Meanwhile, Lumumba turned up an unbreakable alibi.

They were looking at the total destruction of their credibility. So they went into damage control mode. They replaced Lumumba with Guede as the third participant in the sex game and blamed Amanda for the confusion. They came up with a flaky DNA result on the knife from Raffaele's apt. And then they went back to the crime scene, disregarding the fact that it had been trashed beyond redemption, in a desperate quest for anything that would prop up their accusation. The luminol was part of that quest.