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

[Ampulla of Vater]

You should not import arguments from other forums. While we all assume that the poster in question is a member here, that is not a proven fact. The article you posted doesn't look like the writings of our Mach. it might have been written by someone who had been banned from this forum and therefore is not permitted to post here and not permitted to be posted here by proxy. If Machiavelli did write that, he can post it here himself. I don't think he wrote it because it looks like the writings of a prosecutors shill.

Oh ********. People post others' positions from all over the internet. Whether it be an article published somewhere or just another opinion posted somewhere, as long as it is on topic. Just leave out the speculation about Yummi=Mach and it is fine.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't mean to brag , but I got right what Massei was saying the first time I read it - that Raffaele called the Carbainieri before the Postal Police arrived. When I read it I noted it for a second reason as well - the way Massei made the correction. Massei worded it to delicately correct the timing issue without calling attention to (repudiating) the prosecution for their glaring error. Massei made it sound like a minor correction, when it was a major error by the prosecution. The true time error made by the police or prosecution was in the range of 20-24 minutes (see below).

There was a robberty/murder in the Washington DC area 8 or so years ago. The murderer stole the victim's ATM card and withdrew cash from an ATM machine. A grandmother and her 14 year old granddaughter visiting Washington DC from Texas as tourists used the same ATM machine 2 minutes later.

The detective investigating the murder matched the ATM cash withdrawl time with the timestamp of a photo which showed the grandmother withdraw cash. She was identified. Police in Texas arrested the grandmother and her 14 year old granddaughter for murder. To effect the arrest of the 14 year old girl, the police went into her school and arrested and handcuffed her for murder in geometry class in front of her classmates (a nice touch, eh?). Of course, she had no idea when the police came into class to arrest her what it was all about. Talk about being stunned!!!

Only later did defense prove that the ATM machine's clock timestamping the cash withdrawl was two minutes off the ATM machine's clock timestamping customer photos. (I hope the grandmother and granddaughter got a massive financial settlement for the negligent detective work which caused them to suffer serious harm.)

The lesson is always to verify if timestamp clocks are accurate. If they are not, as was the case with the timestamp of the video camera in the parking lot across the street from Meredith's cottage which videoed the Postal Police arriving "before" Raffaele called the Carbanieri, when you do calculate the correction don't negligently (or deliberately?) claim it was 10-12 minutes slow when in fact it was 10-12 minutes fast, a difference of 20-24 minutes.

I'm not sure you can blame the police for arresting the Grandmother and the daughter in that case. Continuing to prosecute the case after the evidence became clear is another.

 

[Grinder]

Nice catch Bill! I never noticed that de facto acceptance of the defense presentation which showed by correlating the CCTV video of the Carabinieri arrival with the cell phone times that the CCTV camera timestamp was indeed ~10 min slow.

Perhaps Grinder gave too much weight to the translation of 'according to' thinking that Massei was just representing the defense argument in that passage? The context makes it clear that's not the case, he's saying what his court holds and the reason why and doesn't even deign to represent the prosecution contention, he just dismisses it completely.

Massei on balance accepted that Raf called before the PP actually arrived. My read originally and now (this might have been influenced by reporting during the trial) is that there was no way to prove when the PP arrived exactly and that he gave the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

I in no way will concede that Massei 'debunked' the prosecution's contention. GB did all she could to debunk it.

As I said earlier the author of this 'debunk' likes to color descriptions brightly for his argument's benefit.

de·bunk (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

 

[Grinder]

The contention that Raffaele called the Carabinieri afterward is almost impossible for bunnies to give up on because it, at least in isolation, 'solves' a number of inexplicable things.

Fortunately there's not only the cameras and the cell phone records, and that neither of the Postals noticed these calls as Massei points out, there's also all the other calls Amanda made, especially those to Filomena where she told Amanda to call the police and that she was heading home. They'd been reporting what they found long before, belying any likelihood they were trying to delay the discovery of the murder and only belatedly tried to call the Carabinieri to 'cover up' that they were trying to delay discovery of the murder....that they'd started calling people about long before.

In context the contention is ridiculous.

The gymnastics needed for the late call theory are of Olympic quality. The whole idea that they would call Filomena but not the police in order to control the investigation is just crazy.

They should have gone to Gubbio and waited for a call or text.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei on balance accepted that Raf called before the PP actually arrived. My read originally and now (this might have been influenced by reporting during the trial) is that there was no way to prove when the PP arrived exactly and that he gave the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

I in no way will concede that Massei 'debunked' the prosecution's contention. GB did all she could to debunk it.

As I said earlier the author of this 'debunk' likes to color descriptions brightly for his argument's benefit.

de·bunk (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

Have it your way. It amounts to the same thing..... "debunk" works for me. If semantics is something that you adhere to like a fundamentalist adheres to the Bible, I'll go with... "Massei on balance accepted that Raf called before the PP actually arrived." Which is what, after all, was in contention.

I told you your mileage would vary. Apparently, though, not very much.

 

[Grinder]

I've read all the old Haloscan posts and he first appeared around May 2008 before they moved to another board (not pmf).

Great. Haloscan.. I'd forgotten the name. I thought he had appeared earlier and I think he commented on the PI early as well but those comments are gone. I was reading there and Shock but not Haloscan.

May is well after Marriott and I think the Knox family started media visits in February.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh ********. People post others' positions from all over the internet. Whether it be an article published somewhere or just another opinion posted somewhere, as long as it is on topic. Just leave out the speculation about Yummi=Mach and it is fine.

I'm pretty sure that Yummi is Mach as well. Not that I care. As to who Harry Rag is, I am not sure.

 

[acbytesla]

As I recall you weren't following the case at the beginning. It is well known that the Knox family hired Marriott within days of the arrest.

Harry Rag didn't start, as has been demonstrated by others, for over a year.

The picture was taken in the early afternoon on the day of discovery and wasn't made into anything until after they were arrested.

The press conference was not the problem. The problem were the leaks and the exploitation of social media by the news media.

Well to say I wasn't following the case is a mistake. To say that I had taken the time to evaluate the evidence more in depth would be more correct.

That they hired Mariott within days of the rest to help with the press requests. This is different than mounting a PR sleaze barrage by the prosecution.

And yes, the press conference was and is part of the problem. It amounts to the police bragging that they had solved the crime before a single bit of evidence was analyzed.

 

[GreyFox]

Yes: Nara peed.

Good Stuff ! LOL

 

[GreyFox]

So let me get this straight.... 3 people raping one girl and when she screams they have to cut her throat to stop her ? Kind of kills the mood doesn't it. How are 3 people going to reach climax when they seem to have killed her before they even got started.

In a group rape someone would definitely have had a hand over her mouth...for sure. 6 hands vrs 2 . You wouldn't need to kill her until after they are done with her. There would have to be more evidence inside the victim than one finger in that case.

On the other hand if Rudy's acting alone with a knife to her throat and she screams...well...
Question : would Vaseline hinder dna transfer ?

I'd bet money that stain is made up of three things that would define the truth:
Rudys Semen
MK pooh
Vaseline

Testing the stain could be a game changer. I don't care what the judge says. Defense should have insisted on it. Is it reason to prevent extraditing her ? Ammo for an appeal ?

 

[codyjuneau]

Does Crini say what happened next? 'Cuz I really really really wanna know....

.
It's just a teaser. You will have to buy Yummi's book when it comes out.

'Crini the Pooh'
.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not sure you can blame the police for arresting the Grandmother and the daughter in that case. Continuing to prosecute the case after the evidence became clear is another.

If you don't blame the police for their failures they will continue to screw up causing significant harm to others. The police owe the grandmother and daughter complete restitution for damages caused by their failure to verify the information before jumping into action. Furthermore, the judge that rubber stamped the arrest warrant based on the unverified information needs to have the officers that presented the information investigated for fraud or if they didn't present a lie to get the warrant the judge himself needs to be removed from the bench. There needs to be effective safeguards to prevent abuse of police powers and that case clearly demonstrates that those safeguards broke down.

In Perugia, the officer that collected the carpark video did not himself verify the timestamp on the camera. It came out in the trial that this was hearsay from the carpark attendant. But before this came to light, the officer lied multiple times indicating that he personally compared the camera time to the Internet time, perpetuating the ruse that the officers had arrived before Raffaele called the police. Mignini was clearly aware of the truth and knew that the ruse had failed when he interrupted to ask the critical question that finally brought out the truth.

That the lie had been allowed to persist for so long and is still out there in some circles is why this episode should be officially investigated. Was the officer alone in fabricating this lie or was the prosecution a willing participant when it was presented to the court until it became clear that the defense was on to the truth?

 

[Grinder]

Inspector Battistelli recalls that when he arrived with assistant Marzi ‚they told us they were waiting for the police because they had found the door open [85] when returning to the house in the morning and the window broken, and they took me to see the broken window in Romanelli’s room‛ (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). Neither of them asked him to break down the door of Meredith’s room (page 114). Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith’s door was locked (page 118).

Appears Battistelli debunked the phone call order theory.

 

[Strozzi]

I'm not sure you can blame the police for arresting the Grandmother and the daughter in that case. Continuing to prosecute the case after the evidence became clear is another.

I think experienced police detectives or persecutors should have realized that they had two pieces of clock evidence: 1) the ATM's timestamped cash withdrawal and 2) the ATM camera's timestamped photo. The detective should have verified that the clocks which gave the same time were in true or false synch. The two clocks read the same time, but one was two minutes off and showed different people in the image. (if I recall correctly, the actual murder's photo was recorded and time stamped by the ATM camera 2 minutes off the cash withdrawal time stamp.)

And I can't understand why the child who was traveling with her grandmother was assumed to be involved even if she stood near her grandmother at the ATM. The murder did not take place at or very near the ATM.

Thirdly, the murder and ATM cash withdrawal both occurred in a Maryland suburb of Washington DC. Maryland issued arrest warrants and extradition requests to police in Texas for the arrest and extradition of the grandmother and 14 year old girl, both of whom lived in Texas. So to compound things, they were arrested by Texas police working with an extradition request from Maryland. The Texas police had no knowledge of the Maryland detective's evidence or basis for the charge, so had no way to consider the evidence to know if it was reasonable. Texas just had the Maryland arrest extradition order and Maryland extradition request to go on. (Premonition of what is to come in attempted extradition of Amanda???)

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh ********. People post others' positions from all over the internet. Whether it be an article published somewhere or just another opinion posted somewhere, as long as it is on topic. Just leave out the speculation about Yummi=Mach and it is fine.

I confirm Machiavelli(JREF)= Yummi(on PMF/TJMK), I am the one who wrote the comment.

I meant to describe the motive believed by Crini as he explained it. I agree with it.

I was trying to saying that the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.
It is actually a rather common motive.

 

[Diocletus]

I confirm Machiavelli(JREF)= Yummi(on PMF/TJMK), I am the one who wrote the comment.

I meant to describe the motive believed by Crini as he explained it. I agree with it.

I was trying to saying that the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.
It is actually a rather common motive.

I love these Italian kooks who come up with this stuff.

It reminds me of literature classes in college where everyone would put on airs, sit around, and make up elaborate symbology that the author never thought of. At least we knew we were discussing fiction.

 

[Diocletus]

It is actually a rather common motive.

That's true. Why, somebody was killed around here just the other day for taking a smelly dump. I can't imagine what would have happened if he hadn't flushed--they probably would have whacked his whole family. Maybe his friends, too.

 

[Kaosium]

The beginning refers to Raf changing his account. He doesn't dismiss in the aside but mentions the defenses contention in the aside.

No, you're mistaken, he does more than mention the defense contention he says the court holds that and then gives the only reason he thinks necessary. He doesn't merely attribute the argument to the defense, he agrees with it. I suspect this is an artifact of translation, the way PMF rendered it, "According to" may give the impression you are contending, but try replacing that with 'In accordance with' (because the court is in accord with the defense on this issue) and you can see it makes more sense.

PMF translators are not infallible.

I repeat that not accepting a prosecution idea is not debunking. I wouldn't expect the judge to debunk and when someone characterizes it that way they are attempting to strengthen their argument.

What, are you the hyperbole police?

Close enough for government work in my view, although I would put it as a dismissal as opposed to debunk because he doesn't even represent the prosecution argument or the 'facts' they mustered in support of it, he just gives one of the very good reasons it couldn't be true. Note that it appears Italian courts are especially adverse to video and photographic evidence as that's not easily represented in the Motivations reports which are what the court almost exclusively relies on, perhaps explaining why he chose that falsifier and didn't try to explain the defense presentation that used the CCTV cameras and cell phone records.

However by his timeline it's apparent he incorporated it due to the times he gives the calls and the arrival of the postal police, as per the defense presentation.

However, the question that the police officer in the second phone call to 112 at 12:54 pm again put forward, relative to what had been taken (‚what have they taken?‛ page 77, hearing of February 14, 2009), also elicited a similar response from Raffaele Sollecito ("they have not taken anything"); it ought to have made him realise that to so quickly exclude the theft of any object would make the staged scene not as believable and could highlight the difficult-to-repair contradiction that is emphasised above: how could Raffaele Sollecito have excluded the possibility that something had been taken from Filomena’s bedroom? And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary​

What you highlighted is his tortured sentence, and why I refer to the prosecution contention as being 'dismissed in a parenthetical aside.'

I didn't say anything about mixed blood, but even there he didn't debunk or call the contentions spurious or really specious. He basically said that contention wasn't proven and wasn't needed for conviction.

He doesn't even present the prosecution 'facts' which would be necessary to allow for a differing interpretation, that's an abject dismissal of the entire contention.

The non-convicting judge, Hellmann, said Amanda was guilty of calumnia and that Rudy lost his shoe during the attack. I would never say that Hellmann debunked the idea that Rudy washed blood of his pants.

Hellman was in an entirely different position, he doesn't have to prove anything beyond doubt, but come up with another plausible explanation for the set of facts, which he lays out. What's at issue with the arrival of the postal police is the basic fact of when they arrived on the scene in reference to the calls to the Carabinieri and the prosecution's 'facts' don't even get mentioned because Massei realizes they're not true.

You can't find any support (i.e facts) in Massei for the contention Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the Postals arrived, even though the police presented some in court (at length!) because Massei realized those 'facts' were in fact mistakes or lies by the police and/or prosecution.

That's not the same as having a differing interpretation of what the facts mean.

 

[Bill Williams]

I confirm Machiavelli(JREF)= Yummi(on PMF/TJMK), I am the one who wrote the comment.

I meant to describe the motive believed by Crini as he explained it. I agree with it.
I was trying to saying that the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.
It is actually a rather common motive.

So just so that I understand:

1) motive, in this case, is important

2) you no longer subscribe to former "theories of the crime", namely the theory put forward by either Mignini or Massei.​

Please correct me if I am wrong. For instance, when Massei said that this was Rudy Guede's crime in which AK and RS participated only as a "choice for evil", you now disagree with Massei's reasonings.

Why did you defend Judge Massei for so long?

 

[AmyStrange]

I confirm Machiavelli(JREF)= Yummi(on PMF/TJMK), I am the one who wrote the comment.

I meant to describe the motive believed by Crini as he explained it. I agree with it.
I was trying to saying that the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.
It is actually a rather common motive.

-

Of course you do, and yet you don't see Rudy's past burglaries as consistent with a non-staged break in. Ha ha ha.

You guys should really change the name of your website from "True Justice for Meredith Kercher" (TJMK) to "Gettin' That W(B)itch Amanda Knox" instead, 'cause that's what's really going on with you guys.

The day you guys seriously complain about Maresca projecting that death photo of Meredith during the last trial is the day I MIGHT begin believing that what you are doing is really about finding justice for Meredith, all you want to do is express your hate for Amanda and love for Rudy.

Please (I beg you) prove me wrong,

d

-