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

[Mary_H]

Grinder we are both getting senile. The yacht is due to me because I said, as a prediction resulting from my deeper understanding of the case that they would not have talked to her about Lumumba prior to the 5th-6th. You have reverted to incredulity on this point despite being shown the evidence that I was right. I will check again but I think Mignini asked Amanda at trial why she had never mentioned Patrick at any point before that night.

What they talked about for all those hours (he speculated - Katy ) was a whole bunch of things other than what she did the night of the 1st. Thus: their lives together in the apartment, their friends and visitors, the morning of the discovery of the body etc

We can infer this from two things:

1. Their inability to recall the details of their evening when first asked about them 4 days later
2. The fact the cops did not want to alert them to their status as suspects.

Just speculation but it will turn out to be true. Another thing is I don't recall either of them writing in their books about having to go over their own activities before the 5th-6th.

This has always been the most important point in the argument against the alleged "changing alibis." There is no evidence (except Amanda's e-mails) of what Amanda and Raffaele and the police said to each other in the days before the interrogations, so there is no basis for anyone claiming A & R changed their alibis. It is entirely possible the police stuck to talking only about Meredith's life in their interviews.

 

[LondonJohn]

No Meredith met Patrick when she visited Amanda on the job. She even showed Patrick how to make a drink..I think it was a Mojito. But it might have been a different drink.

Amanda was afraid of losing the job. But there is no evidence that Patrick had any bad feelings toward Amanda or that he was thinking about hiring Meredith or that Meredith even thought about going to work there. Meredith certainly never told anyone she thought about working there to anyone.

IIRC, the cocktail in question was some sort of Mojito made with vodka instead of rum. Which is to say, in other words, not a Mojito at all. Just as a Bloody Mary made with, say, Cointreau, is not a Bloody Mary!

And regarding Lumumba's sentiment towards Knox, I think that all the available evidence tends to suggest pretty strongly that there was no problem in reality between the two prior to Knox's arrest. The nature of the 1st November text exchange clearly implies that there was no hint of a problem, and the contact between the two between the murder and Knox's arrest also suggests the same.

Once again, I believe that Lumumba employed ex-post facto rationalisation in his subsequent "recollection" that he was on the verge of firing Knox. I think that his mind was poisoned against Knox from mid-November onwards, and that this resulted in a conscious and subconscious desire on his part to malign her.

I think, incidentally, that we can see exactly the same phenomenon taking place among Knox's erstwhile housemates and the English friends of Meredith. Filomena's conversion is perhaps the most stunning of all. It's fascinating - and disconcerting - to hear people claim things like they "always suspected Amanda" when all the evidence shows this not to be the case. Until the police and prosecutors managed to convince them that Knox was one of the prime-mover culprits, at which point it's clear that they chose (consciously or not) to modify their views about Knox to the point of rewriting history. I hope that, at some point, all of these people have had the honesty to at least consider how and why they turned against Knox.

 

[anglolawyer]

This has always been the most important point in the argument against the alleged "changing alibis." There is no evidence (except Amanda's e-mails) of what Amanda and Raffaele and the police said to each other in the days before the interrogations, so there is no basis for anyone claiming A & R changed their alibis. It is entirely possible the police stuck to talking only about Meredith's life in their interviews.

Very likely.

 

[acbytesla]

IIRC, the cocktail in question was some sort of Mojito made with vodka instead of rum. Which is to say, in other words, not a Mojito at all. Just as a Bloody Mary made with, say, Cointreau, is not a Bloody Mary!

I wouldn't go that far LJ. I've made Margaritas with Cointreau and Grand Marnier instead of Triple Sec. I've also made Ice teas with Bourbon, or Rum or Vodka or a combination of the three. Lots of bars will take a traditional drink and add their own personal twist to it.

Substituting Vodka for the Rum would make a difference, but not that major. It wouldn't taste as sweet, but the main ingredients of lime and mint would still be there.

And regarding Lumumba's sentiment towards Knox, I think that all the available evidence tends to suggest pretty strongly that there was no problem in reality between the two prior to Knox's arrest. The nature of the 1st November text exchange clearly implies that there was no hint of a problem, and the contact between the two between the murder and Knox's arrest also suggests the same.

Once again, I believe that Lumumba employed ex-post facto rationalisation in his subsequent "recollection" that he was on the verge of firing Knox. I think that his mind was poisoned against Knox from mid-November onwards, and that this resulted in a conscious and subconscious desire on his part to malign her.

I think, incidentally, that we can see exactly the same phenomenon taking place among Knox's erstwhile housemates and the English friends of Meredith. Filomena's conversion is perhaps the most stunning of all. It's fascinating - and disconcerting - to hear people claim things like they "always suspected Amanda" when all the evidence shows this not to be the case. Until the police and prosecutors managed to convince them that Knox was one of the prime-mover culprits, at which point it's clear that they chose (consciously or not) to modify their views about Knox to the point of rewriting history. I hope that, at some point, all of these people have had the honesty to at least consider how and why they turned against Knox.

I agree with all this. I don't think for a second before Patrick was arrested did he think anything bad about Amanda. Although I get the impression that he had hoped that Amanda would have been a better cocktail waitress when it was busy, since he cut her hours on the busy nights.

I thought it was interesting what Amanda said "In Waiting to Be Heard, Patrick kept trying to fix her drinks." He told her several times that the most important part of her job was to have fun. I think that made Amanda kind of uncomfortable, probably because Amanda thought of herself at work and this didn't fit her image of what you do on the job. Now Patrick might have been plying with her alcohol trying to seduce Amanda. But I don't think that is why he did that.

He's the owner of a bar. He's the host. I've worked in bars where that was par for the course and other places where it was frowned upon. Keep in mind that while Amanda had been a Barista in a coffee shop she was still underage...at least in the US. This is Amanda learning on the job.

But NO WAY in hell did he want Amanda NOT to flirt with the customers. In fact I guaranty that he was fine with Amanda being friendly with the customers. "Have fun" he told her.

 

[Caper]

I've been a bit down on the case since watching that BBC doc. I've always said that the case for innocence needs a in-depth documentary on the case. I've seen the 20/20's or the 48 hrs..... but I've yet to see a documentary even as close as effective as that bbc doc...... there should be a documentary about how misleading that documentary.... you can't tell me they tried to be fair.... they only tried to look fair. I could totally see if you are not familiar with the case, how you could watch that and come away with thinking they are guilty.... in fact I can't see how you wouldn't.

 

[Mary_H]

IIRC, the cocktail in question was some sort of Mojito made with vodka instead of rum. Which is to say, in other words, not a Mojito at all. Just as a Bloody Mary made with, say, Cointreau, is not a Bloody Mary!<snip>

I wouldn't go that far LJ. I've made Margaritas with Cointreau and Grand Marnier instead of Triple Sec. I've also made Ice teas with Bourbon, or Rum or Vodka or a combination of the three. Lots of bars will take a traditional drink and add their own personal twist to it.

Substituting Vodka for the Rum would make a difference, but not that major. It wouldn't taste as sweet, but the main ingredients of lime and mint would still be there.<snip>

I have had a problem with Reuben sandwiches. Twice now I have been served Reubens with mustard. In both cases I complained and was told the chef liked to put his personal twist on dishes. In both cases, they could not grasp the concept that when you put mustard on a Reuben, it is no longer a Reuben.

 

[acbytesla]

I have had a problem with Reuben sandwiches. Twice now I have been served Reubens with mustard. In both cases I complained and was told the chef liked to put his personal twist on dishes. In both cases, they could not grasp the concept that when you put mustard on a Reuben, it is no longer a Reuben.

LOL.

I understand Mary. There is the traditional recipe. But the recipe isn't written in stone. One of my good friends grew up working and learning how to cook from his parents in a very traditional French restaurant. His mother was French and his father learned to cook at the Cordon Bleu in Paris. He would complain about the very thing you are mentioning. That far too many chefs will fool around with a classic dish. But I catch him doing it all the time despite his protestations.

But that's what I like about eating out. Surprises. If it is a good restaurant, they'll tell you that's what they do there, but offer to make another one for you without the mustard.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just thought I would post this again and claim another yacht:

2 MIGNINI: Why did you speak about Patrick only in the
3 interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn't you mention him
4 before? You never mentioned him before.
5 AK: Before when?
6 MIGNINI: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on
7 Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and
8 then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in
9 the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name
10 of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?
11 AK: Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name
12 to me.

So, there's that.

Yesterday, Katy was arguing that a letter Amanda wrote on 9th Nov 2007 could be used to show that the cops did not know her 'see you later' message was directed to Patrick. So how about this, also from her testimony?

AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they
23 said "Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I
24 said I don't think I did, and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is 25 your telephone, and here's your message saying you wanted to meet 26 him!" And I didn't even remember that I had written him a
27 message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying
28 that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing.
144
1 Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to
2 me, and she was telling me "Okay, either you are an incredibly
3 stupid liar, or you're not able to remember anything you've
4 done." So I said, how could that be? And she said, "Maybe you saw
5 something so tragic, so terrible that you can't remember it.
6 Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg..."
7 THE COURT: The interpreter said this to you?

But later we get these two passages.

AK: Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me
3 questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a
4 policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know
5 her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain
6 people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was
7 holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone
8 into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who 9 did you want to meet?" Then there were others, for instance this
10 woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was
11 standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really
12 surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the
13 interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was
14 standing around me, so I didn't see who gave me the first blow
15 because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and
16 saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.

AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the
25 message --
26 THE COURT: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what? 27 AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me 28 that I knew, and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't
153
1 want to tell because I didn't remember or because I was a stupid
2 liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were
3 literally shoving in my face saying "Look what a stupid liar you
4 are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I didn't even
5 remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter
6 next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you
7 don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try,
8 try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing
9 "Remember, remember, remember," and then there was this person
10 behind me who -- it's not that she actually really physically
11 hurt me, but she frightened me...

What seems to be happening is she is collecting memories from different parts of the interrogation, dumping them on the court room floor and leaving us to sort it all out. The memories are jumbled up. Some are strong, some not. They are not necessarily accurate. They could result from an evolving memory or confusion. But, assuming these fragments are reliable we can imagine the later two actually recall an element which precedes the first one. At one point the cops are trying to get her to say the name (which they already know, of course) but then the cops themselves cross the line and tell her they know it's Patrick.

ETA so the 'who are you protecting' thing must have preceded the part (assuming it happened at all) when the cops buckled and told her it was Patrick she was protecting.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I read somewhere a couple of weeks back that Raffaele stated that the prosecutor nor his own defence team asked him to make a statement or testify before or during the 1st Level trial, is this accurate?

Just seems curious given Amanda did both.

 

[anglolawyer]

I read somewhere a couple of weeks back that Raffaele stated that the prosecutor nor his own defence team asked him to make a statement or testify before or during the 1st Level trial, is this accurate?

Just seems curious given Amanda did both.

I think your understanding is correct.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think your understanding is correct.

Oh right, I must be missing something it seems a bit odd for Raffaele to be commenting now.

I wonder what his defence team’s trial strategy was, I assume they advised him not to testify.

Maybe they thought Amanda harmed herself in some way by testifying.

 

[Desert Fox]

OK..you made me look it up... Page 41. The pay was 5 Euro an hour...which was $7.25 US/

One problem I see is that in Europe people are less expected to tip.
In the US, much of her income would be made from tips.
How does she get those tips, by flirting.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh right, I must be missing something it seems a bit odd for Raffaele to be commenting now.

I wonder what his defence team’s trial strategy was, I assume they advised him not to testify.

Maybe they thought Amanda harmed herself in some way by testifying.

I wish I knew. I have no theory that explains why Raffaele is complaining that no one wanted to question him. It's his case! He gives orders to the lawyers, not the other way round. I infer that, acting unprofessionally, they never communicated this to him.

Nor do I understand Bongiorno's allegedly scathing critique of Mignini, delved when summing up to Hellman, I think, for his failure to schedule Raff for cross. What, if anything, stopped her putting him up?

Baffling.

 

[JREF2010]

I've been a bit down on the case since watching that BBC doc. I've always said that the case for innocence needs a in-depth documentary on the case. I've seen the 20/20's or the 48 hrs..... but I've yet to see a documentary even as close as effective as that bbc doc...... there should be a documentary about how misleading that documentary.... you can't tell me they tried to be fair.... they only tried to look fair. I could totally see if you are not familiar with the case, how you could watch that and come away with thinking they are guilty.... in fact I can't see how you wouldn't.

I agree, it was like watching a Nazi propaganda movie for WW2.

It was mainly Vomit and the Pignini, with Commode spewing her biased bs, shes an insult to intelligence.

The depressing reality is this case is declining backwards to the darkness, where witch hunts go, Matteini's and Edgardo Giobbi's applying some twisted gut instinct over DNA, ignoring science and spewing even the Raffaele called the police after they arrived shctick again.

The Hate Mongers are obviously happy they "won" with the Nencini Fast Food trial.

 

[Desert Fox]

I've been a bit down on the case since watching that BBC doc. I've always said that the case for innocence needs a in-depth documentary on the case. I've seen the 20/20's or the 48 hrs..... but I've yet to see a documentary even as close as effective as that bbc doc...... there should be a documentary about how misleading that documentary.... you can't tell me they tried to be fair.... they only tried to look fair. I could totally see if you are not familiar with the case, how you could watch that and come away with thinking they are guilty.... in fact I can't see how you wouldn't.

We need the bigger guns if possible. . . .Frontline

Edit: As they usual do bigger issues, problems with the Italian legal system.

 

[platonov]

More of a squawk than a howl.

Sorry being a little naive I did not think you would cheat. What you originally said was...

Originally Posted by platonov View Post
So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault

To which I replied

FWIW RG was not charged or convicted of sexual assault of MK despite evidence of sexual contact (I do not know if the family were agreeable to this); AK and RS were charged with sexual assault (although there is zero evidence of sexual contact) the family seem agreeable to this. Whilst I cannot reference family views this is clearly the prosecution view and the family seem supportive of the prosecution approach in general.

You then asked for the evidence which I referenced.

Now you try and change the question to homicide with sexual aggravation a completely different offence from sexual assault. I am happy to agree AK, RS and RG were all charged with homicide with sexual aggravation. Will you agree that RG was not charged with sexual assault and AK and RS were charged with sexual assault which is what I originally asserted and you asked to evidence.

This is why I asked for a specific question so you would not try and weasel out of an error by trying to pretend you asked a different question in the first place.

Cheating eh

Like editing a post halfway through a sentence.
No what I originally said was

This (for the noobs) is whats known in JREF parlance as JAQing off.

So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault /murder of MK. OK.
Lets see the evidence for this.

Thats how it works in skeptical parlance on JREF, even in cartwheel world – you make the assertion, you back it up with evidence.

But apparently you cant - Hence the retreat into JAQing off.
[I'm open to correction on this - we shall see]

If your not prepared to own your argument – dont make it.

The context is quite clear. Its not a list of charges – its a response to Dan O

Nor were AK & RS charged with sexual assault but were [Charge C IIRC] charged with complicity with RG with RG as the material executor in forcing MK to submit to sexual acts etc etc.

I'm quite sure RG (for his part) was in his trial charged with sexually aggravated homicide.

Now if you want to use this distinction of your own invention* to in defending Dan O's original comment/ JAQing off then knock yourself out .

*That as regards the sexual component of the murder RG was undercharged relative to AK & RS – part of The Italian/ black conspiracy against the white race no doubt.

So lets see the evidence for this / the charge against RG - but full quotes please, we don’t want any more misunderstandings or mendacious edits.

The 'broken window complexity' was just a dumb argument – this is dumb & mendacious.

It might be wiser to try one JAQing off post and then retreat into silence as Dan O did.

 

[Desert Fox]

An important point is that Rudy shows all the classic signs of being a lone rapist type.
Does not show signs of somebody who would work with others.
There seems to be a buildup from previous activities.

 

[Samson]

Cheating eh

Like editing a post halfway through a sentence.
No what I originally said was







The context is quite clear. Its not a list of charges – its a response to Dan O

Nor were AK & RS charged with sexual assault but were [Charge C IIRC] charged with complicity with RG with RG as the material executor in forcing MK to submit to sexual acts etc etc.

I'm quite sure RG (for his part) was in his trial charged with sexually aggravated homicide.

Now if you want to use this distinction of your own invention* to in defending Dan O's original comment/ JAQing off then knock yourself out .

*That as regards the sexual component of the murder RG was undercharged relative to AK & RS – part of The Italian/ black conspiracy against the white race no doubt.

So lets see the evidence for this / the charge against RG - but full quotes please, we don’t want any more misunderstandings or mendacious edits.

The 'broken window complexity' was just a dumb argument – this is dumb & mendacious.

It might be wiser to try one JAQing off post and then retreat into silence as Dan O did.

Platonov, I've read a lot of posts here, yours are the most incomprehensible. Keep up the dodgy work. Are your children imperilled?

 

[Vibio]

I have no theory that explains why Raffaele is complaining that no one wanted to question him.

Oh, I do: it's called "lying"

What seems to be happening is she is collecting memories from different parts of the interrogation, dumping them on the court room floor and leaving us to sort it all out.

Oh dear. Try harder.

 

[Diocletus]

Cheating eh

Like editing a post halfway through a sentence.
No what I originally said was







The context is quite clear. Its not a list of charges – its a response to Dan O

Nor were AK & RS charged with sexual assault but were [Charge C IIRC] charged with complicity with RG with RG as the material executor in forcing MK to submit to sexual acts etc etc.

I'm quite sure RG (for his part) was in his trial charged with sexually aggravated homicide.

Now if you want to use this distinction of your own invention* to in defending Dan O's original comment/ JAQing off then knock yourself out .

*That as regards the sexual component of the murder RG was undercharged relative to AK & RS – part of The Italian/ black conspiracy against the white race no doubt.

So lets see the evidence for this / the charge against RG - but full quotes please, we don’t want any more misunderstandings or mendacious edits.

The 'broken window complexity' was just a dumb argument – this is dumb & mendacious.

It might be wiser to try one JAQing off post and then retreat into silence as Dan O did.

As far as I recall, Knox and Sollecito were charged with something called group sexual violence, which is basically a group rape.

Was Guede charged with this same crime? I'm not talking about aggravation, I'm talking about a principal charge.