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

[Poppy1016]

Mach... What the hell did you just say?

3000 more words of gibberish.

 

[Grinder]

Machiavelli will argue these points with his last breath. Why? Because these are thirteen things that Judge Massei found, that completely undercut most of the case Mignini/Comodi brought to trial.

Judge Massei, then, had to reinvent the crime to justify his conviction. Of note is that a pre-meditated crime that Mignini brought, because an accidental, last minute, inexplicable "choice for evil" in Massei's scenario.

They are in no particular order.

1. There was no psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito. (For those who get hung up on this one, try the other ten on for size!)

I'm confused Bill. I thought the term is just PGP bull. It really doesn't mean anything if they killed Meredith.

2. Meredith and Amanda had a normal, unstrained friendship apart from normal household tiffs.

Once again, if there is evidence of murder it doesn't matter. If there isn't evidence then it wouldn't matter.

3. There are no forensic traces of Amanda in Meredith's room.

Well Massei found that the knife had Meredith DNA and Amanda's but I don't think anyone has ever maintained that Amanda's DNA or anything else was found there.

4. There is no "mixed blood" in the cottage in any of the rooms. Massei makes consistent mention of Amanda's "biological material" mixed with Meredith's blood.

Did Mignini contend there was?

5. There is no motive for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved in this, save for an inexplicable "choice for evil".

Okay but motive isn't necessary. I think that OJ was just stealing the drugs.

6. Rudy and Raffaele had had no contact prior to the murder, and Amanda and Rudy had had only fleeting contact in large groups.

Massei didn't say that did he?

7. Raffaele called 112 prior to the Postal Police arriving

Read what Massei said - not really definitive.

8. There is no constant "changing of stories" by Knox about the murder.

Did Massei find that?

9. The climb in through Filomena's window was very doable - Massei argues on other grounds why he thinks Guede didn't go in that route. But it is easy.

Yes.

10. The science before Massei's court do not rule out that the attack was done by one person.

No it didn't but Massei leaned to muliple

11. Massei only posits a theoretical clean-up, then again not in the murder room but in the hallway between Meredith's and the bathroom. He finds no "positive" evidence to suggest a clean-up.

Yes, did Mignini point to evidence of a clean-up?

 

[Bill Williams]

No I shouldn't.

The question is did Mignini make this claim of psychopathy or just a variety of possible reasons that Amanda that stimulated her to murder Meredith?

Massei doesn't exactly undo the phone call issue but rather accepts the defenses version for purposes of the motivations. He doesn't really make a big deal about it one way or the other.

Massei makes the case that the kids except for drug use are okay and hadn't shown major defects. Mach is challenging you to cite where Mignini made the assertions. he doesn't accept Barbie or Follain or Vogt or Dempsey quotes with which I agree.

Can you produce direct quotes from the prosecution on this? Was this just from leaks and tab articles/

Sigh. Some months ago I went through Massei's motivations report and came out of it thinking he'd just acquitted Knox and Sollecito. Well, all except for the beginning and end where he found them guilty as charged.

I listed the points Massei came to which are at odds with Mignini's case. I will leave it to others to either confirm or deny that Mignini in fact said those things, because.... well, I'm feeling ornery and in a contrary mood.

Machiavelli does more than you do, Grinder... he calls me a liar, and a purposeful one at that. I would have thought that if this were so, he'd enjoy providing the citations which prove this, rather than continually simply asserting it.

Believe it or don't believe it, it's your call. If you'd gone to TJMK then you would have found many, many times when guilters themselves cites something Mignini said that hints at some sort of psychopathology.... someone upthread cited that when Knox got her hair cut, she was sent to the prison shrink for her efforts.

The point being - why all this talk about their so-called dysfunctional homes, Curt & Edda's divorce, the effect of Raffaele's mother's death to turn him into a dangerous "knife boy"... true all of that stuff exists in the minds of the haters on obscure websites....

On a completely different vein, Mignini also tried to sneak the issue of "the lamp" into the trial, questioning Amanda during cross-examination about it, trying to leave the impression (while entering no evidence) that Amanda had brought it into Meredith's room to aid in a clean-up.

Massei debunks that too,

As a poster said on another service, Mignini also tried to insinuate that the reason why Raffaele tried to break down Meredith's door was so that he could retrieve the lamp. All the while also saying that Raffaele had only made a half hearted attempt to break down the door, because part of their "master plan" was to make it only seem like they'd tried.

So much of the evidence brought to court was in fact not evidence, but these "osmotic" theories of the prosecution. Crini continued that grand PM tradition by inventing the "pooh in the toilet" motive - at least there was actual pook in an actual toilet on that one.

Psychopathology, strained relationships, Rudy knew Amanda, mixed blood... all that stuff made it into the first trial, and it's actually not quite clear whether a reporter writing about it, heard it in court or over wine with a staffer later in the evening....

Such is the case and the myths that continue even to this day.

Whatever you think of them, Massei is clear on those 11 things - twelve if you count that the lamp was in Meredith's room for no discernible reason, much less one that could be seen as sinister in relation to Knox.

Do with all this what you will. You seemed to get that quote from Massei regarding the kids being "normal" with no problem.

 

[acbytesla]

Here is one that Grinder will love. Amanda said that she had met Rudy, but she did not "know" him. That saying hello in their introduction and taking his drink order once at Le Chic was the sum total of any words that they shared between each other.

 

[Bill Williams]

8. There is no constant "changing of stories" by Knox about the murder.

Did Massei find that?

Massei said that with regard to Knox's "version" of the events of Nov 1 to 2, she was consistent on the important point. "I was not there, I did not do it."

Of course to find her guilty, he's saying that she's lying, but he confirms that this is what she said.

 

[Bill Williams]

The technical definition of what you are doing, Machiavelli, is called "flooding". It is to repeatedly assert that you have done something - "you have been shown repeatedly" - when you have shown no such thing.

You mean, like when you claimed that Massei wrote that Knox and Sollecito suffered of no psychopatology. While this kind of topics you 'find' in Massei themselves are irrelevant, the fact is that Massei never made such assertion (it would be totally irrelevant if he did, he did not, anyway). You merely assert something, while such thing doesn't exist.

Machiavelli. You are inventing things. I did not say that Massei "wrote that Knox and Sollecito suffered of no psychopatology," what I said was that Massei found it as factual that they had no psychopathology.

This is the ready and certain inference from the part even Grinder found in Massei's report.

No you are lying about what I am claiming.

What I really don't understand, though, is why you do this? You've won. Nencini's court has convicted them. I mean, we could get into a real debate on how psychopathology played in Nencini's decision...... I don't thnk it will at all.

Any talk of psychopathology died with Massei's motivations report.

Why is it that you do not go back to your guilter friends, writing as Yummi, and tell them that when they fill hate sites with tales of psychopathology?

No - you'd rather argue semantics with me. And you've already won!!!! That's what I don't get.

 

[RandyN]

I think he is getting ready to present his timeline of the crime, including the time of death, that takes into account events that can be independently verified.

LOL...that would require an honest argument and answer. Something Yummi/Mach has failed to present in all his posts so far.

But I am forever hopeful that this word technician will take a stab at a time line. Something that should be very easy so that it is quite telling that he refuses to do so. Not sorting him out for that since no prosecutor has bothered to do that yet either. Massei embarrassed himself trying and this new idiot Necenni or whatever will do even worse...it is a forgone conclusion. The lies keep piling up and getting crazier with each telling. But the Italians seem too stupid to realize how silly they are actually sounding and appearing.

In the real world ....even the wrongful prosecution world, they at least take a try at this. The Italians don't bother. They talk and pretend there is evidence but always come up short when called upon to provide the actual evidence. In fact they hide behind wordy nonsense when called out for the corruptions in this case. Stefanoni lies. Mignini lies. Comodi lies. Faked evidence. Faked witnesses.

It will all eventually come out. It always does. For now lets sit back and see if Yummi/Mach has the pride and knowledge to reply with a time line like you asked for. I'm betting he does not. He does not because he can not! Simple really.

Just a shallow empty argument about nothing. That is what I expect. And I will be correct as usual. How about it Yummi?

 

[Grinder]

Here is one that Grinder will love. Amanda said that she had met Rudy, but she did not "know" him. That saying hello in their introduction and taking his drink order once at Le Chic was the sum total of any words that they shared between each other.

But Rudy said he knew her in the Skype call. They were introduced and then went back to the boys' apartment where they spent more than hour partying.

At first FOA claimed they had never met - Dempsey may have reported that but not worth looking.

If she murdered Meredith with Rudy, I wouldn't expect her to admit they hung out. Would you?

 

[RandyN]

Here is one that Grinder will love. Amanda said that she had met Rudy, but she did not "know" him. That saying hello in their introduction and taking his drink order once at Le Chic was the sum total of any words that they shared between each other.

This is also confirmed by the fact that she could not remember his name on 2,3 Nov when she was asked to name the visitors to the house...and she mentioned this dude who visited the guys downstairs. MK boyfriend introduced Guede to this house. He was also a druggie. I am amazed that he was not fleshed more thoroughly in this investigation...of course they had the case solved and closed already by then so....can you say IDIOTS!

 

[RandyN]

Machiavelli, do you work in theater?

Interesting side note....Paul Russell did at one time work in theater. He was also fired from a job producing a docu comissioned by CH 5 about this case in the early days for failing to present a balanced story. Apparently the producers didn't want a story from some guy speaking while his head was far, far up inside Miginis butt. So he wrote Darkness Depending.. he did meet his partner inside Migninis errrr bemind.... A Vogt. The rest is easily traceable history.

 

[Bob001]

OJ is innocent. It was Jason.

When I read that I thought it was a joke about the immortal star of the endless "Friday the 13th" movies. But there is an author who quite seriously contends that OJ Simpson's son Jason is the real killer, and that OJ has knowingly protected him. The author doesn't explain why the authorities don't buy it, but it wouldn't be the first time the cops didn't follow up on a lead.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/11/new-book-says-oj-didnt-do-it-evidence-points-to-son/
http://www.amazon.com/O-J-Innocent-...8631&sr=8-1&keywords=o.j.+simpson+is+innocent

 

[Bill Williams]

But Rudy said he knew her in the Skype call. They were introduced and then went back to the boys' apartment where they spent more than hour partying.

At first FOA claimed they had never met - Dempsey may have reported that but not worth looking.

If she murdered Meredith with Rudy, I wouldn't expect her to admit they hung out. Would you?

You missed Massei's point about this then, which makes it all the more important to list these until the cows come home. Even Massei says that Raffaele and Rudy had never met, and that Amanda and Rudy had the most inconsequential meetings, once in Le Chic and once downstairs, always in groups. Never seen together.

Whatever it is you're trying to get to stick to FOA's, Massei's point is clear. And look what Machiavelli does with this. Machiavelli wants us to think that Rudy and Amanda knowing each other is "compatible" with the overall drug scene of Perugia - his stated point is he wants to rebuff any claim that Knox was somehow "better" than Rudy, in a socical standing sense.

No one claims that! And the point actually has nothing to do with the horrible murder either.

But there you go, Grinder, trying to leave the door open on some lingering suspicion that Rudy and Amanda knew each other more than anyone knows.

Well.... Massei nixed that in 2010 with his motivations report.

Giacomo Silenzi..... remembered that Rudy had asked for information about Amanda Knox and that he had showed interest in her.

This had happened towards the middle of October. He had asked for this
information from him, from Marco and from Stefano. This happened when he had gone to their place. Amanda was there with them and Rudy had noticed her. On this occasion Meredith was there too. Rudy had asked whether Amanda was involved with a guy or not

Acc. to Massei, Silenzi then recounts how Rudy had come over, downstairs, uninvited and was in the same room as Amanda. Amanda went upstairs with someone else.

Both Silenzi and Stefano Bonassi testiify to a good relationship "between the girls".

Giorgio Cocciaretto.... Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.

That's about it regarding Massei and his opinion on how many times Amanda and Rudy had met.

Massei bases his finding that Rudy and Amanda committed this crime together mainly on the basis that Knox was a keyholder, and Massei rules out both that Meredith would have let Guede in and that Rudy broke in.

Massei does NOT rule the way he does because of some pre-existing relationship.

 

[RandyN]

But Rudy said he knew her in the Skype call. They were introduced and then went back to the boys' apartment where they spent more than hour partying.

At first FOA claimed they had never met - Dempsey may have reported that but not worth looking.

If she murdered Meredith with Rudy, I wouldn't expect her to admit they hung out. Would you?

Nope.

But Rudy had the benefit of access to every report and news story mentioning AK and RS duh... between 1 Nov and the time of the recorded Skype conversation. In fact there were other Skype conversations, its just that they were before Gicomo went to police. Don't ask me for cites because you already know its true.

Knox could not think of Guedes name when listing visitors. Was this a clever deception or another idiotic episode in your opinion?

 

[Bill Williams]

But Rudy said he knew her in the Skype call. They were introduced and then went back to the boys' apartment where they spent more than hour partying.

At first FOA claimed they had never met - Dempsey may have reported that but not worth looking.

If she murdered Meredith with Rudy, I wouldn't expect her to admit they hung out. Would you?

Of course Rudy knew her. Massei is clear that Rudy had inquired with Silenzi and others about Knox. But the point is, she did not know him, except in extreme passing.

Guede knew Knox enough to say in the skype call that she'd had nothing to do with the murder.

 

[RandyN]

When I read that I thought it was a joke about the immortal star of the endless "Friday the 13th" movies. But there is an author who quite seriously contends that OJ Simpson's son Jason is the real killer, and that OJ has knowingly protected him. The author doesn't explain why the authorities don't buy it, but it wouldn't be the first time the cops didn't follow up on a lead.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/11/new-book-says-oj-didnt-do-it-evidence-points-to-son/
http://www.amazon.com/O-J-Innocent-...8631&sr=8-1&keywords=o.j.+simpson+is+innocent

Yep the son Jason...he was a professional chef who always kept his razor sharp knife set in his vehicle because he was not employed at one restaurant. He was accused by GF's of crazy, scary, abusive behavior.

For kicks look up the reading of the not guilty verdict and check out Jasons reaction and face. It was Jason. He was wearing OJ's Bruno Magli shoes that OJ likely had cast off.

 

[RandyN]

NOPE, I don't think the evidence against him was false or tainted. That to me is the only way possible in my mind that could show him to be innocent. The DNA evidence would have to be planted and those photos would have to have been Photoshopped and transferred to negatives.

OJ had the motive and left a "true mountain" of evidence. Very different than the Knox case. And I think his lawyers have always thought he was guilty too. But they got a hell of a lot of promotion getting OJ off. They had bona fides for life after getting him off.

Nope...Jason had a motive and he left a mountain of evidence. OJ is certainly guilty of trying to cover up for what his son did. His son did not like the fact that OJ divorced wife was seeing other men...I don't think OJ really cared since he could get tons of women without much effort at all. Jason OTOH was a scary loser who abused and was reported by every girlfriend.

Jason wore the ugly assed shoes, dropped the gloves...he lived in OJs guest houses. He called OJ after the deed and OJ rushed over there...so OJ is guilty but not of murder.

 

[Wildhorses]

I have not read Knox's book.

There was a lawyer -- Matt something -- who attracted attention on Amazon and started a thread on IIP. His take on the book was that Knox refused to follow the advice of her legal team.

He said her lawyers recommended she not testify, but she insisted. He said they warned her to not make spontaneous statements, told her not to write, etc. He watched her amazing testimony before Massei and thought it totally belied the impression it was in her best interest to make: that of young girl easily bewildered by police interrogators, as opposed to a competent, feisty-ish Italian-speaker who could hold her own.

This man enraged a few people. I wasn't crazy about his approach or his conclusions. BUT I was inclined to believe Knox and her family were not easy clients. Why? Because I think on some level they all believed Knox was PROTECTED BY INNOCENCE.

According to Saul Kassin, that belief is common among the wrongly accused. It is certainly an understandable belief in the case of kind-hearted, hardworking Seattle girl who wouldn't hurt a flea.

Nevertheless, it IS what got her into trouble in the first place. I don't hold her responsible for it. We are taught at our mother's knee to trust the police -- and innocent people rarely have occasion to learn otherwise. But just because it's understandable, doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems. Ask Saul Kassin.

The Beatles sweatshirt was a mistake. But I see it as the tip of the iceberg because that's the only way I can make sense of it. Amanda and her family thought she was PROTECTED BY INNOCENCE. That if she said her piece and presented her peace-and-Beatle-loving self, the judge would see the light. They believed she was too innocent to have to play the game. We saw the Beatle's shirt: maybe someday we'll know more about what her lawyers advised backstage.

BTW, I agree that ULTIMATELY the innocent are protected by innocence. The truth will out. The question is when: Twenty years? Ten years? Two years? You play the game to speed the process.

I agree the sweatshirt had no bearing on the outcome of the first trial. But it did reinforce an undesirable image. And as I said, IMO it was a symptom of understandable -- but probably not helpful -- belief that the good guys always win.

 

[acbytesla]

Nope...Jason had a motive and he left a mountain of evidence. OJ is certainly guilty of trying to cover up for what his son did. His son did not like the fact that OJ divorced wife was seeing other men...I don't think OJ really cared since he could get tons of women without much effort at all. Jason OTOH was a scary loser who abused and was reported by every girlfriend.

Jason wore the ugly assed shoes, dropped the gloves...he lived in OJs guest houses. He called OJ after the deed and OJ rushed over there...so OJ is guilty but not of murder.

I've already gone way off topic on this. One way or another. OJ is guilty.

But Amanda is innocent..see..I'm back on topic.

 

[RandyN]

How did the wearing of a t-shirt in 2009 influence the ISC in 2013 to make rulings on evidence based on its "osmotic nature"? Name one thing cited by the ISC which belongs to Knox's behaviour since, say, Nov 7, 2007?

It didn't...

Grinder and LJ simply wish to avoid working on a reasonable argument to explain how the Italian judicial system screwed and continues to screw up this case so badly in spite of overwhelming evidence that RS and AK had nothing at all to do with this murder and in fact the evidence is overwhelming that Rudy Guede alone robbed, raped and murdered poor Miss Kercher.

Mignini wore nice suits every day...and yet he is either correct or is perhaps a lying cheating corrupt maniac who has a demonstrated tendency to "over-think" a case. Which do you think is closer to reality? Please include a mention of the double body swap theory of Mignini if defending this well dressed man.

 

[Desert Fox]

It will all eventually come out. It always does. For now lets sit back and see if Yummi/Mach has the pride and knowledge to reply with a time line like you asked for. I'm betting he does not. He does not because he can not! Simple really.

Somehow they both managed to survive four years in prison without being destroyed. another ten or more is something else. Eventually, history will probably declare them innocence but that is a long time.

Besides, look at Cameron Todd Willingham. . .Executed for arson that he is very unlikely to have committed.