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

[acbytesla]

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?

I disagree. I think you answer the questions that are put to you and the question that is important to you has been answered. That you think they should alter their approach is your opinion. Not the world's.

My guess is that you are not open to their answers. That you have your own agenda and that is to paint them as guilty without a shred of evidence and you instead are using the typical guilter ephemeral nonsense.

Is that your agenda?

 

[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.

Why aren't you answering the direct question?

 

[kwill]

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

First, as others have said, they don't have control over what gets aired and what doesn't, so you don't know that they "haven't talked about that night at all."

Second the time frame matters a great deal, because they have physical evidence (computer/human interaction) and a competent witness (Raffaele's friend who stopped by to say she didn't need a ride after all) that shows they were at his flat during the time the murder must have happened (based on the fact that the timing of Meredith's last meal was known and the fact that the entire said meal was still sitting in her stomach when she died.)

So, once more, 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.

You seem to think that it's their own fault people think they're guilty because they just don't talk about the night of the murder. I'd say they can't do a thing about the people who think they're guilty no matter what they say, or how many times they say it, or in what language or context. They were wrongfully accused, wrongfully imprisoned, abused by the press, and are now the subject of a concentrated and determined hatefest.

None of this is their fault, and there's not a bloody thing they can do about it.

 

[griffinmill]

I disagree. I think you answer the questions that are put to you and the question that is important to you has been answered. That you think they should alter their approach is your opinion. Not the world's.

My guess is that you are not open to their answers. That you have your own agenda and that is to paint them as guilty without a shred of evidence and you instead are using the typical guilter ephemeral nonsense.

Is that your agenda?

All I know is that if I'm innocently charged of murder, I'm not going to waste a public interview hoping I get the right questions.

I'm going to state emphatically what my alibi is. Knox and Sollecito never do this. Over and over again.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Why aren't you answering the direct question?

-

It must mean Bill's guilty. Pop psychology is just so... stupid,

d

-

 

[kwill]

All I know is that if I'm innocently charged of murder, I'm not going to waste a public interview hoping I get the right questions.

I'm going to state emphatically what my alibi is. Knox and Sollecito never do this. Over and over again.

So awesome. You would be able to manage all this so much better than they do, but you won't answer a simple question.

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?

 

[AmyStrange]

Ignorance

-

All I know is that if I'm innocently charged of murder, I'm not going to waste a public interview hoping I get the right questions.

I'm going to state emphatically what my alibi is. Knox and Sollecito never do this. Over and over again.

-

So if you already know the answer, why do you need an answer to your question?

The answer by the way to your question is that, you have never been interviewed for TV or you would never have said, "Knox and Sollecito never do this."

What you would have said instead is, "the TV show that interviewed them never shows them answering this question."

That's the real answer.

Your answer is, well it's born of ignorance,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Why aren't you answering the direct question?

I did.

It just seemed that if you were not a troll, you've have a shot at this line of thinking yourself.

Why have you not answered despite repeated opportunities to clear your name. It's not rational.

And this is only one medium we're talking here. If you've written a book on the subject, please let us know.

They teach this at law school.

Most specifically, during what time period should they be claiming an alibi? Should it be when the disco buses were running, because that was the previous night? Should it be when Nara heard screams, because she didn't do anything about that for a year. Should Knox have an alibi for when Qunitavalle sees someone in his store, because he waited a year as well....

Can you deny you're doing this just to divert from Machiavelli's statement, "You cannot steal from dead people"? one would think they'd take every opportunity to put a denial in every post.

I think that since you do not, you actually agree with Machiavelli. Why don't you ever answer this when put directly to you?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why aren't you answering the direct question?

Work with us a little here.

Let's suppose for the sake of the argument that you have, in fact, watched every interview they have ever done. Let's further suppose that you comprehended and remembered every part of all such interviews, as opposed to zoning out and missing the bit where they talked about their alibi (as you seem to have done in reality). Let's suppose they never once mentioned their alibi. Let's go even further and suppose that the reason why they never mention their alibi in the versions you see is that they never actually talked about it, not because they talked about it and it ended up on the cutting room floor.

What now? What follows? What do you conclude from this?

The reason I ask is that we've seen a pattern that pro-guilt posters here are absolutely awful at posting joined-up thinking. They can't explain how a chain of normal human logic leads to a firm conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Instead they cast about for any tiny thing they can misconstrue as suspicious and say something like "Never mind the extremely strong scientific evidence that proves those two to be innocent, can you explain this tiny thing? Because if I can find one tiny thing you can't explain, that overrules any amount of scientific evidence." I'd hate to think you were doing that, so I'd love it if you could explain your reasoning.

The funny thing is, there's so much nonsense in the prosecution case that even if Knox and Sollecito talked for hours I bet that you could still find something they didn't talk about, whether it's Mignini's history of paranoid conspiracy theories, the nonsensical three knife theory, Stefanoni's constant dishonesty and incompetence or any number of other things. If they spent all their time talking just about their alibi someone could come along and argue that they must be avoiding the topic of the kitchen knife. If they spent all their time talking about the kitchen knife someone could come along and argue that they must be avoiding the mixed DNA. If they talked about that then the pro-guilt community would find something else. There's no end to the potential for dishonest arguments.

 

[Poppy1016]

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.

How about proving their guilt instead of making them prove their innocence. That is how it is supposed to work you know.

 

[kwill]

Work with us a little here.

Let's suppose for the sake of the argument that you have, in fact, watched every interview they have ever done. Let's further suppose that you comprehended and remembered every part of all such interviews, as opposed to zoning out and missing the bit where they talked about their alibi (as you seem to have done in reality). Let's suppose they never once mentioned their alibi. Let's go even further and suppose that the reason why they never mention their alibi in the versions you see is that they never actually talked about it, not because they talked about it and it ended up on the cutting room floor.

What now? What follows? What do you conclude from this?

The reason I ask is that we've seen a pattern that pro-guilt posters here are absolutely awful at posting joined-up thinking. They can't explain how a chain of normal human logic leads to a firm conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Instead they cast about for any tiny thing they can misconstrue as suspicious and say something like "Never mind the extremely strong scientific evidence that proves those two to be innocent, can you explain this tiny thing? Because if I can find one tiny thing you can't explain, that overrules any amount of scientific evidence." I'd hate to think you were doing that, so I'd love it if you could explain your reasoning.

The funny thing is, there's so much nonsense in the prosecution case that even if Knox and Sollecito talked for hours I bet that you could still find something they didn't talk about, whether it's Mignini's history of paranoid conspiracy theories, the nonsensical three knife theory, Stefanoni's constant dishonesty and incompetence or any number of other things. If they spent all their time talking just about their alibi someone could come along and argue that they must be avoiding the topic of the kitchen knife. If they spent all their time talking about the kitchen knife someone could come along and argue that they must be avoiding the mixed DNA. If they talked about that then the pro-guilt community would find something else. There's no end to the potential for dishonest arguments.

That's a quality post right there. Nicely done.

 

[acbytesla]

All I know is that if I'm innocently charged of murder, I'm not going to waste a public interview hoping I get the right questions.

I'm going to state emphatically what my alibi is. Knox and Sollecito never do this. Over and over again.

You're entitled to your opinion. My bet is that they both worked with experts on giving interviews and my bet is that they were told. "Be yourself and answer the questions that are put to you."

My guess is their experts are more knowledgeable than you or me.

But hey, that's only my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions don't you? They are like noses, we all have them. Actually it's not noses, but I'm not going to say something that the moderators don't like.

 

[Kaosium]

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

I don't know that it's true, the first one checked showed your original assertion was false. There's very little time it's even possible they were at the cottage when Meredith was still alive that isn't accounted for, so to state her alibi for that time all she would have to say is she was watching a movie or snuggling with Raffaele; every one I've seen she's said that.

What exactly do you want to hear?

Innocent people would not neglect this, you will disagree.

Anyone who knows that she and Raffaele had only known each other 6 days and either didn't know or had barely met Rudy Guede who still thinks it's likely they were guilty of spontaneously conspiring with him to murder Meredith for no discernible reason knows so little about human behavior they couldn't know what any 2 random innocent people would do.

That would be the crime of the century and to believe it you'd need real evidence and a clean investigation, not a botched arrest on bogus or mistaken evidence and then catching an athletic burglar who'd left traces all over the scene while the three arrested had left absolutely nothing. That is until desperate police went back to a trashed crime scene six weeks later and found some contamination level DNA and false positives away from the murder site they lied about.

It's much more likely that police and prosecutors stuffed it up and don't want to admit it. If they were innocent they'd be forthcoming with the data like TMB negatives, the DNA electronic data files and other information the defense needs. That they're not coughing those up and then saying how very sorry they are they didn't before in every appearance is a better indication they're not innocent.

 

[Dan O.]

Why aren't you answering the direct question?

I don't see any reason to answer. Your initial claim was soundly refuted and you just moved the goalpost and continued the claim. You refuse to address the questions put to you. So I'm going to reciprocate and refuse to view your posts.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

It is entirely rational. It is the job of the prosecution to prove defendants committed a crime; it is not the job of the defense to prove defendants did not commit a crime. The onus falls on the prosecution, while everything coming from the defense is optional. In this case, the alibis are not the story -- the ongoing persecution of the defendants is the story.

As many posters have shown, Amanda and Raffaele have stated their alibis publicly many times. Certainly any interested viewer such as yourself can turn to other media if they find their questions were not answered on TV.

If you think it is odd that the defendants have not stated their alibis, then surely you must find it odd that the prosecution has offered multiple scenarios and multiple motives for the crime.

 

[bolint]

what time you'd like them to claim an alibi for.

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

From 20:00 to 12:34 next day.

That simple.

 

[Mary_H]

That's a quality post right there. Nicely done.

I completely agree. I especially like this part:

<snip>The reason I ask is that we've seen a pattern that pro-guilt posters here are absolutely awful at posting joined-up thinking. They can't explain how a chain of normal human logic leads to a firm conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Instead they cast about for any tiny thing they can misconstrue as suspicious and say something like "Never mind the extremely strong scientific evidence that proves those two to be innocent, can you explain this tiny thing? Because if I can find one tiny thing you can't explain, that overrules any amount of scientific evidence." I'd hate to think you were doing that, so I'd love it if you could explain your reasoning.<snip>

 

[kwill]

From 20:00 to 12:34 next day.

That simple.

So, 10 pm to half past midnight is the time you want to know where Amanda and Raffaele were?

Meredith was already passed on by that time, judging by the timing of her last meal and the contents of her stomach. Why does it matter where A & R were then?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

From 20:00 to 12:34 next day.

That simple.

Er, hang on. When exactly do you think Meredith died? Because if they killed her at 12:34 the next day they must have had a time machine.

 

[acbytesla]

From 20:00 to 12:34 next day.

That simple.

So you think that Meredith could have been murdered at any time during that period? Pretty sad. Even the prosecution hasn't provided that wide a window for Meredith's time of death. The state of her digestion means nothing to you. Neither does Rudy's testimony.

But here's the thing. Can you prove that they were at the cottage any time up until the next morning? That really is the question. Is there any CCTV showing them approaching cottage that night like there is of both Rudy and Meredith. Also, since there was a car parked right outside their cottage from for a couple of hours that night, why didn't anyone see them going to the cottage? It would have been impossible for Amanda and Raffaele to get past them without being noticed.

Or don't you believe that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution?