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

[Bill Williams]

Now he's going to complain about making an innocent observation, only to get attacked.

And have his observation answered.

And despite being answered, still has the same wondering.

There'll be another round for sure.

 

[kwill]

Are there any television interviews you can think of where they directly state their alibi?

Both of them published books that describe in detail what they were doing during the days before the night of the murder, during the day of the murder, during the night of the murder, during the days after the murder, and then of course what they were doing for four years in prison while waiting for someone to notice that there was no reliable evidence to suggest that they spend the night of the murder together at Raffaele's flat, just as they had for the previous 5 or 6 nights.

Hundreds of thousands of people have read those books, including many of the media stars who then went on to interview them on television. What questions were they asked? "How do you feel about being alive and knowing that Meredith is dead?" is one example.

I'd be interested, like Dan O, to know what time you'd like them to claim an alibi for.

Is it 8-9? 9-10? 10-11? Some other time?

 

[griffinmill]

Both of them published books that describe in detail what they were doing during the days before the night of the murder, during the day of the murder, during the night of the murder, during the days after the murder, and then of course what they were doing for four years in prison while waiting for someone to notice that there was no reliable evidence to suggest that they spend the night of the murder together at Raffaele's flat, just as they had for the previous 5 or 6 nights.

Hundreds of thousands of people have read those books, including many of the media stars who then went on to interview them on television. What questions were they asked? "How do you feel about being alive and knowing that Meredith is dead?" is one example.

I'd be interested, like Dan O, to know what time you'd like them to claim an alibi for.

Is it 8-9? 9-10? 10-11? Some other time?

Simple question: If you were innocently convicted of murder, would you stress where you were at the moment of the crime, or just vaguely cry "injustice"?

That's the crux. Since the verdict (and well before), Knox and Sollecito have been very reluctant to state where they were in television interviews, and therefore why they are innocent. It's clear they don't want to talk about the facts of the case.

If if it was me, that's the only thing I would would want to talk about, and I would never let an opportunity pass to affirm my alibi. They don't do the most obvious thing, which makes me very suspicious.

 

[kwill]

Simple question: If you were innocently convicted of murder, would you stress where you were at the moment of the crime, or just vaguely cry "injustice"?

Repeating myself:
I'd be interested, like Dan O, to know what time you'd like them to claim an alibi for.

Is it 8-9? 9-10? 10-11? Some other time?

The answer matters.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think he's trying to take our minds off that Machiavelli said you cannot commit theft from a dead person.

 

[griffinmill]

Repeating myself:
I'd be interested, like Dan O, to know what time you'd like them to claim an alibi for.

Is it 8-9? 9-10? 10-11? Some other time?

The answer matters.

But they don't talk about that night at all. What difference does the time frame make if they don't talk about it?

Again, why don't these innocent people ever state their alibi in interviews? By my count, Knox said she was with Sollecito in the Sawyer interview in 4/13. But she has never repeated it, and Sollecito has never corroborated it publicly since.

Why is that?

 

[Kaosium]

Simple question: If you were innocently convicted of murder, would you stress where you were at the moment of the crime, or just vaguely cry "injustice"?

I dunno, I'd hope I'd do what my lawyer told me to do. I also would hope it wouldn't involve making a lot of TV appearances begging for my life, but if so I'd probably answer the questions put to me and try to get it over with before my fake smile turned back to a frown. It must really suck to have so many people think you're murderous scum if you're not.

That's the crux. Since the verdict (and well before), Knox and Sollecito have been very reluctant to state where they were in television interviews, and therefore why they are innocent. It's clear they don't want to talk about the facts of the case.

Huh, and here I thought Amanda was being criticized for talking too much about the facts of the case and not saying "I'm innocent" enough; I heard a comedian say that at least, and the appearances I've watched I've been annoyed by the myriad details because I know those already and they're really not that interesting.

If if it was me, that's the only thing I would would want to talk about, and I would never let an opportunity pass to affirm my alibi. They don't do the most obvious thing, which makes me very suspicious.

Can you provide an example of someone who was accused of murder and went out to ask for support who did that repeatedly? Do the McCann's continually say they were drinking 50 yards away or whatever it is?

Can you imagine someone might not do or think like you do but might be innocent regardless?

 

[RandyN]

First of all: "tell me again" is a rude request. I am not supposed to tell things twice.
Second, Guede was not carrying a knife. He had a knife in his rucksack, and the bag was inside a building. There is no crime in this. Carrying a knife means carrying on your person or in a vehicle from a location to another.
Anyway I made a mistake: because, re-reading the article. I thin the unjustified carrying of a knife refers to the carrying of the kitchen knife back from the cottage to the apartment.

Last, not only Guede could not be charged or prosecuted, but also the main point is that a prosecution on those alleged charges would have been irrelevant, because it could not be used in the Kercher case. The Milan episode obviously could not be prosecuted by Mignini because Milan is a different jurisdiction. He was caught with stolen items in Milan: this means only a Milan proseutor could deal with this.
But also, most important, you are talking about charges related to other deeds totally independent from the Kercher murder, therefore they cannot have an influence in the case. If Guede already had established criminal records, then those criminal records could be used, but only to argue against mitigation, not to increase the penalty (anyway Mignini and Comodi already managed to obtain the highest penalty, that was 30 years, they could not obtain more on that charges).
But Guede did not have any criminal record. Above all, he had no criminal record for rape and violence. Also, no theft was proven to be committed in the house; not even drawers were searched.

The point you and Milan and Purugia police miss (no you only pretend to miss) is that there would be no Kercher case if Milan and Perugia police had done their jobs and arrested a caught red handed armed burglar named Rudy Guede!

Meredith would be alive and AK and RS would never have been wrongly accused. This is what the Italians are trying to hide. Was Guede a police informant? Probably since his easy treatment on at least two documented cases (Milan and Kerchers murder) seem to indicate a strange illogical unexplainable effort to go easy on the "poor" "dirty black". So sure Guede is an informant. So was Toto if we follow that logic. How else could he possibly be involved as a witness in three separate murder cases? Or is that co-incidence?

No matter what the SC rules. There are provisions for retrial in this case just as in the case from 2000 where Hellmann was a part of a three judge panel that overturned a fully "finished" murder conviction. What can you tell us about that case Yummi?


Inside a building (the school) without permission and without a key (he picked the lock) and in possession of items stolen from the school (money, knife etc) and also in possession of tools of burglary (glass breaking hammer) and in possession of items known to be stolen from others and that had a considerable value (grand theft) armed with a deadly weapon (the knife he stole and others we have not heard about perhaps?)

In any sane country this is a felony at least. That means jail and a trial. But no... Guede walks... meanwhile you brag that RS and AK were guilty of carrying a knife...but Guedes knife was in a bag you illogically state...but so was AK knife in a bag according to that idiot Massei right?

Your judicial system is a mess from bottom to top. this case illustrates that perfectly. The ECOHR will find it impossible to ignore the numerous human rights violations that made it impossible for these two to get a fair trial.

No small point will be the fact that a high appeal judge and panel found the two completely innocent. That this was overturned without errors of law is another separate case against the ISC for violations. Italy will comply or be forced out...which do you think they will choose? Or are you hoping just a fine will cover it? Because in this matter it will not! Too many people saw what you did...

Please toss Sollecito in jail now! You will get a picture of how the people feel then. Fools! Corrupt criminal fools! Not one Italian hero? One honest man? One mother who is not a cowering fool? No one will stand up to declare that the emperor has no clothes?

Good for you... you will be sucked into the abyss of your own making.

 

[acbytesla]

Simple question: If you were innocently convicted of murder, would you stress where you were at the moment of the crime, or just vaguely cry "injustice"?

That's the crux. Since the verdict (and well before), Knox and Sollecito have been very reluctant to state where they were in television interviews, and therefore why they are innocent. It's clear they don't want to talk about the facts of the case.

If if it was me, that's the only thing I would would want to talk about, and I would never let an opportunity pass to affirm my alibi. They don't do the most obvious thing, which makes me very suspicious.

When you're doing an interview griffin, you address the questions put to you.

To the best of my knowledge they have addressed every question made to them. Have you seen one where they have DODGED a question? I haven't. I challenge you to find one.

You know, you can go on Facebook and ask either of them questions.People have pointed out where they have answered where they were that night.

They have told everyone where they were countless times. In interviews, in their books and on the witness stand. The simple fact that they aren't repeating it over and over again is suspicious to you? It isn't to me. Not everyone feels the need to hear them repeat that over and over and over.

 

[AmyStrange]

Interesting what other people think is strange...

-

I can't find any video of such a statement. So if you know of one, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I find it strange that anyone accused of murder would not explicitly state their alibi on televised interviews which are designed to win public support.

-

You realize these TV interviews are edited and the interviewee has no control over what gets asked or put out over the air? You realize that right?

But really, that's where you draw the line for strange?

d

ETA : your attitude is compatible with someone who believes that unless they bring up their alibi all the time, that proves they're guilty.
-

 

[griffinmill]

@ kaosium: you didn't answer the question of why Knox or Sollecito have failed to state their alibi in numerous public interviews.

Innocent people would not neglect this, you will disagree.

 

[Planigale]

But also, most important, you are talking about charges related to other deeds totally independent from the Kercher murder, therefore they cannot have an influence in the case. If Guede already had established criminal records, then those criminal records could be used, but only to argue against mitigation, not to increase the penalty (anyway Mignini and Comodi already managed to obtain the highest penalty, that was 30 years, they could not obtain more on that charges).

But Guede did not have any criminal record. Above all, he had no criminal record for rape and violence. Also, no theft was proven to be committed in the house; not even drawers were searched.

I assume the last sentence refers to the apartment where the murder happened? I thought that AK and RS were convicted of theft (perhaps a poor translation of the crime?), in addition to staging as a separate offence. Since they were convicted at least the first court thinks theft was proven. Although obviously the second court did not. I keep asking perhaps Machiavelli knows was the theft, sexual assault, carrying a knife and staging charges presented in the last trial and was AK / RS found guilty of these in addition to murder?

As has been said one cannot draw the conclusion the draws were not searched, it just means who ever did it did not leave things in such a mess (although I thought Filomenas room was a mess?) that one cannot prove it. If the draws were emptied on the floor that would be evidence of searching, but there can be no evidence of not searching.

Finally I would say we all must either exclude prior behaviour or accept it is relevant. One cannot say that witnesses attesting to a series of break ins by RG in the weeks before the murder, including stealing mobile phones, carrying a knife and threatening someone with a knife is irrelevant; whilst claiming carrying a pocket knife with no history of violence, or organising an April Fool's day prank is relevant. I do accept that the prosecutors did not feel pursuing these minor crimes relevant given the extent of the evidence against RG for murder.

I personally believe there is evidence that RG was engaged in a pattern of criminal behaviour involving high risk break ins (given how often he was caught) involving him making himself at home in the place he broke in. That he did threaten a woman with a knife. I suspect there are other break ins where he was not caught, and ones where he was caught which were not reported or the victims did not come forth to make a statement. I think the identified cases are likely to be the tip of an iceberg. Whether this was a spree or not really depends on how one defines spree.

I do understand that had the prosecution charged RG with breaking and entering this would have destroyed their case against AK / RS. They presumably felt that there was no realistic prospect of RG proving the break in was staged as part of his defence.

What does seem odd however is that AK & RS were charged and convicted of theft and sexual assault in the first court case and RG not charged with either crime despite the evidence against him for these crimes being stronger.

Perhaps Machiavelli can answer another question, the convictions for theft etc. seemed to add nothing to the sentence as if they run in parallel, but the defamation charge is added on as if running in series, how do the judges decide which crimes are added on?

 

[Sonia]

With the luxury of a microphone, I'm a little unimpressed that neither she nor Sollecito are publicly telling the same story, and ignore actually talking about the details of their alibi.

The details of their alibi? They had been a couple for about a week and were in a state of romantic and sexual infatuation. Smoking a joint, having sex, and hanging out cuddling and watching videos pretty much covers it. They were a very young man and woman who were enjoying their free time by spending most of it together in bed.

Do you remember what it was like to be young with a new lover? Blissed-out, loved-up, sexual pair-bonding is the order of the day. What else is there to say? Anyone who's been there will understand.

 

[Bill Williams]

@ kaosium: you didn't answer the question of why Knox or Sollecito have failed to state their alibi in numerous public interviews.

Innocent people would not neglect this, you will disagree.

If nothing else, you may have solved the mystery of why Nencini ruled to convict. He watched all the television footage and then concluded as you do - innocent people ALWAYS state their alibi.

However we have you on a technicality... this was not a reason the ISC used to quash the Hellmann acquittals.

So the ISC must be dupes. On that we agree... you'd think that the ISC would have raised this omission on every occasion, too.... judging by the trollish logic you're using.

 

[griffinmill]

When you're doing an interview griffin, you address the questions put to you.

To the best of my knowledge they have addressed every question made to them. Have you seen one where they have DODGED a question? I haven't. I challenge you to find one.

You know, you can go on Facebook and ask either of them questions.People have pointed out where they have answered where they were that night.

They have told everyone where they were countless times. In interviews, in their books and on the witness stand. The simple fact that they aren't repeating it over and over again is suspicious to you? It isn't to me. Not everyone feels the need to hear them repeat that over and over and over.

So when you're innocent of murder, and sentenced to 25 years, and facing an extradition fight, and also improbably have people lining up to interview you, you're going to assume the general public has read your book to explain what you were doing on the night of the murder?

 

[Bill Williams]

But they don't talk about that night at all. What difference does the time frame make if they don't talk about it?

Again, why don't these innocent people ever state their alibi in interviews? By my count, Knox said she was with Sollecito in the Sawyer interview in 4/13. But she has never repeated it, and Sollecito has never corroborated it publicly since.

Why is that?

Why is it that you've not stated your reason for repeating this over and over again? You'd think that someone who found this so important would state the reason.

I think you did once. But now you have our attention and I don't know why someone with a non-trollish motive wouldn't want to repeat it again and again.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Truth about Rudy Guede

The truth about Rudy Guede:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/merediths-killer-rudy-guede/

 

[griffinmill]

Why is it that you've not stated your reason for repeating this over and over again? You'd think that someone who found this so important would state the reason.

I think you did once. But now you have our attention and I don't know why someone with a non-trollish motive wouldn't want to repeat it again and again.

Just waiting for a reason I can understand from the Amanda/Raff faithful why neither has publicly stated an alibi for the night in question on television despite numerous televised interviews and increasing stakes.

They seem to think that explaining themselves is unimportant, as if their books or previous testimony suffices. This is not rational.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Why is it that you've not stated your reason for repeating this over and over again? You'd think that someone who found this so important would state the reason.

I think you did once. But now you have our attention and I don't know why someone with a non-trollish motive wouldn't want to repeat it again and again.

-

g is trying to prove guilt with more speculative psychological crap, instead of real evidence,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Just waiting for a reason I can understand from the Amanda/Raff faithful why neither has publicly stated an alibi for the night in question on television despite numerous televised interviews and increasing stakes.

They seem to think that explaining themselves is unimportant, as if their books or previous testimony suffices. This is not rational.

-

You've never done a TV interview have you?

How do you know they haven't stated their alibis over and over, but it was always edited out?

d

-