Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

What? I said that no mobile phones had GPS in 2007, apart from a few specialist high-end models. And therefore it's extremely unlikely that either Knox or Sollecito had GPS receivers in their mobile phones in 2007. It's very tiresome to keep being misrepresented in this manner: you have been told about this before

Anyhow, I'm done engaging with this sort of intellectually dishonest and goalpost-shifting nonsense now. Toodle-pip!

You can have the last word, as you are so determined to fail to comprehend the pair actually did have their phones switched off, it's a waste of time my explaining why it was stupid. Pip, pip.

 

[Vixen]

So you don't have any credible proof of the missing pages.

The first link has this quote: "This thread shall contain all diaries, statements, letters and e-mails by Amanda Knox. Unfortunately, only a couple of pages of her diary have been released to the general public. The one person who claims to be in possession of the full diary is refusing to share, so here is the only page of what we have:"

I didn't beyond that admission.

The second link only discusses the PRISON diary.

Follain wrote a novel in which he makes up stuff. Does he document this allegation?

Sure, it's not 100% perfect, but it is one of the best books on the market about the crime. t is of an exceptionally high standard.

 

[Bill Williams]

The issue of premeditation is for the judge. The above was not Amanda's original reason (of three) but it's jolly nice of you to offer an "explanation" on her behalf. Neither was the above Raff's explanation. Are you in the habit of covering up for criminals?

Ok.... then NONE of the judges agree with your silliness about the phones. You are arguing FR premeditation. ALL the judges argued against it.

Your theories around the phones are monumentally stupid - for both technical and Italian-judicial reasons.

But every time you repost the silliness, you give another lurker a reason to believe that the final Marasca/Bruno report said that the investigation into this crime was amnesiac and amateurish. You should get some kudos for that - willingly demonstrating the stupidity.

 

[Vixen]

It actually IS good to engage in this sort of debate with someone who doesn't understand the most basic of things, or misrepresents other things on a whim. Lurkers every so often check in here, and then have the ability to see what's what.

Meanwhile, the guilter world is falling apart with outings from the most devastating of sources... it is crumbling from within.

What are you on about? "Outings from the most devastating of sources...?"

What?

 

[bagels]

The issue of premeditation is for the judge. The above was not Amanda's original reason (of three) but it's jolly nice of you to offer an "explanation" on her behalf. Neither was the above Raff's explanation. Are you in the habit of covering up for criminals?

It's the explanation I recall from her book. It's not a meaningful point to me so I didn't put much research into it. Since the crime was not premeditated, incapable of being premeditated, and never considered premeditated by any authoritative body, what the cell phones were or weren't doing before the murder is of literally no consequence. This is the point you seem to have difficulty with.

 

[Vixen]

I've patiently waited for Vixen to explain how the police knew that the phones were turned off. Is there a record from the phone company? Surely it must be part of the record. They must have shown that neither ever turned their phones off at night or very rarely, right?

Amanda's phone being turned off was discovered because she told them she turned it off. IIRC correctly she, being at Raf's, wanted to preserve battery as her charger wasn't at his place.

This is such a silly point since it makes no sense to turn them off. Obviously they knew that when phones are turned on messages sent during the time it was turned off come through and it would be totally obvious when they were sent and that they didn't answer. It is completely clear that had they planned a crime they would have left their phones on at Raf's and hoped that someone would call of text.

What would the PGP say if there were messages left during the murder time and the phones were at Raf's? They sure wouldn't believe that they had been ****** and just didn't answer. They would say they left them home and on. So phones on or off no difference.

I doubt their phones had flight mode.

All phones have flight mode.

Be careful you don't confuse Amanda's testimony at the trial with what she told police originally. She came out with three different stories, once she was asked for an explanation.

Of course there are records of the phone movements:

From Marco Chiacacerro (_sp???):

MaCh:
It emerged that, unlike …
GCM:
What did you do, first?
MaCh:
We did an analysis of the telephone traffic, and from the analysis of the telephone traffic it emerged that Sollecito had absolutely not received/answered the 23:00 hours phone call as he had declared. From the analysis of the telephone traffic, there then emerged a very strange detail, in the sense that the cellphones …
GB:
(overlapping voices) … continue with the opinions/judgements, with all the opinions/judgements.
GCM:
That which emerged.
MaCh:
A detail/particular emerged ... unlike what …. (overlapped voices).
GCM:
Excuse me. What emerged?
MaCh:
It emerged that normally Sollecito kept his cellphones, and also Amanda Knox, they kept their cellphones on until a late hour, evening, [sic] there is no telephone traffic from 20:40 hours. A thing of this …
MC:
But did this emerge from the declarations or did it emerge from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days?
MaCh:
It emerged from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days.
GCM:
Excuse me. Let me understand. In other words you say: the cellphone was switched off and there was no telephone traffic, these are two different things.
MaCh:
I’m saying, Mr President. Two things. The first, normally Sollecito’s telephone and the telephone of Amanda, were switched on until the late hours. The fatal evening, they were switched off from 20:42 hours until … one [of the phones] from 20:42 onwards and the other from about 20:50 onwards. One. Two, the traffic …
GCM:
Before going on to “Two”, excuse me: “normally” – what does that mean? You had …
MaCh:
We had done a comparative analysis of the telephone traffic of that evening with the telephone traffic of the preceding evenings. Shall we say the habits ...
GCM:
And so the “normally” emerges from this?
MC:
How many evenings? If you recall, or not?
MaCh:
Months, no … honestly, I don’t remember how many [evenings], but months.
MC:
I mean to say, not …
MaCh:
Not three days, no. The telephone traffic habits were evaluated. [This is point] one. [Point] Two, the element that emerged, that contradicted the declarations, I can’t report on the declarations but I can report on the element that contradicted [sic. i.e. provided the contradiction], that in effect no telephone call had arrived at 23:00 hours, as had been declared: on the phone line that was declared to have received that … the recipient of that very phone-call. Another element: no interaction with the computer emerged, unlike what was declared. So there were a few objective elements of comparison from the analysis and from the technical checks that contradicted what had previously been revealed.
MC:
For Amanda Knox, were there incongruities of this type?
MaCh:
Yes, there were incongruities because Amanda Knox was, how to say, contradicted by Sollecito, and then she contradicted herself, if I may …
GB:
President, if we continue in this way, then we might as well do the old [trial] procedure.
GCM:
Excuse me, please.
MaCh:
The elements, these are [sic], Mr President, I don’t know how to do.
MC:
But it is so difficult, however.
MaCh:
Mr President, I really don’t know what to do.
GCM:
Excuse me…
MaCh:
If I have to describe the investigation activity …
MC:
He’s not referring to declarations.
GCM:
Regarding these declarations, you can report on this [sic. i.e. in this instance?], and with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, you reported – citing the telephone traffic and citing the use of the computer. There now, and this is one point. With regard to Amanda Knox, you cannot report the declarations. But you may, however, say – following these declarations – what type of investigations you carried out, and the outcome of these. So, following the declarations given by Amanda Knox, did you do similar investigations, as [those you did] for Sollecito Raffaele on the [phone] records? Or was there nothing to do, except to …?
MaCh:
Mr President, all the necessary checks were made, but in that immediate moment the most important element … that is to say, in [this] place [NdT: i.e. “in this Court”], in this moment, in this place, that is to say, when they were … I said [that] when the arrests were made, I don’t, I don’t know how to do, however, the incongruity of the declarations with the facts that we had found, and with the declarations that Sollecito had previously given us, [this] was the most important element. I don’t know if I have managed to …
GCM:
No, excuse me (overlapping voices). So, with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, we have understood these checking activities were carried out on the declarations made, the verification activities carried out, and [that’s all] very well. With regard to Amanda Knox, if you also carried out … maybe there were no objective elements for possible checking, there were no … or else, there were activities carried out of …
MaCh:
Later, there emerged a series of further elements.
GCM:
Not evaluations on the congruity, incongruity, likelihood, these are evaluations and will be done, there you go, comparably. I’m thinking of the [phone] records, of the use, if she had given indications on the basis of which [you] could carry out investigative activity …
MaCh:
In the moment in which … That is, the arrests were carried out on the 6th, four days afterwards. And the elements that emerged in the immediate after


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Marco_Chiacchiera's_Testimony_(English)

 

[Vixen]

Maybe Vixen is a true-crime author and just makes things up!?

Logical fallacy: the non sequitur.

 

[Vixen]

Ok.... then NONE of the judges agree with your silliness about the phones. You are arguing FR premeditation. ALL the judges argued against it.

Your theories around the phones are monumentally stupid - for both technical and Italian-judicial reasons.

But every time you repost the silliness, you give another lurker a reason to believe that the final Marasca/Bruno report said that the investigation into this crime was amnesiac and amateurish. You should get some kudos for that - willingly demonstrating the stupidity.

The judges did not argue against it. Rather, there was no reason to argue for it as it was already categorised as first-degree murder, in the American parlance, as it involved sexual assault.

Ad hominem is all you seem capable of. There is nothing silly about examining phone records at all.

I do not recognise Bruno-Marasca report. It is a crock of ****.

 

[Vixen]

It's the explanation I recall from her book. It's not a meaningful point to me so I didn't put much research into it. Since the crime was not premeditated, incapable of being premeditated, and never considered premeditated by any authoritative body, what the cell phones were or weren't doing before the murder is of literally no consequence. This is the point you seem to have difficulty with.

LOL. If it's from her book, it must be true.

Any idea why she has been summonsed to appear before the criminal courts next month...?

ETA When you adamantly declare "the crime was in no way premeditated" you are concurring the pair were responsible and are arguing it must have been impromptu and therefore a lesser crime.

 

[bagels]

LOL. If it's from her book, it must be true.

Any idea why she has been summonsed to appear before the criminal courts next month...?

Can you explain to me how, after turning off their phones, they contacted Rudy Guede to start their murder plan?

 

[bagels]

ETA When you adamantly declare "the crime was in no way premeditated" you are concurring the pair were responsible and are arguing it must have been impromptu and therefore a lesser crime.

Yes, it's called conceding the point for the sake of argument. A useful tool in debate. If Amanda did it, she did not pre plan it. Unless she spontaneously decided to add a new accomplice at the last second, and this accomplice spontaneously decided to join up. Psychotic dream logic reality.

 

[Vixen]

Can you explain to me how, after turning off their phones, they contacted Rudy Guede to start their murder plan?

Plenty of opportunity. They went to the town centre circa six. When Amanda responded to Patrick, she was pinged in via Pergola.

Amanda gives you a strong half-truth herself, when she said she met Patrick at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana.

So, you see, mobile phone not needed. Besides, Rudy lived very nearby Raff.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, it's called conceding the point for the sake of argument. A useful tool in debate. If Amanda did it, she did not pre plan it. Unless she spontaneously decided to add a new accomplice at the last second, and this accomplice spontaneously decided to join up. Psychotic dream logic reality.

What? If Amanda did it, then it wasn't premeditated. How so? If Amanda can sleep with strange men within hours of meeting them, I am sure taking drugs with them is no big deal.

 

[bagels]

Plenty of opportunity. They went to the town centre circa six. When Amanda responded to Patrick, she was pinged in via Pergola.

Amanda gives you a strong half-truth herself, when she said she met Patrick at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana.

So, you see, mobile phone not needed. Besides, Rudy lived very nearby Raff.

The cell tower she pinged services Raff's apartment. But let's construct a timeline:

5:45 they were both seen by an independent witness in Raff's apartment.

6:27 A 2 hour movie is launched on Raff's computer.

8:18 Amanda gets her text she's not needed at work

8:40 Amanda is seen by an independent witness inside Raff's apartment.

So throughout the entire evening, when it is possible to corroborate their location, it is in the apartment. Popovic, the independent witness, visits twice, never calls first, and catches them home both times.

I guess in your theory, their unexplained outings just happens to occur between each time stamped event so we can't verify them.

BTW did you know that Rudy Guede was caught on CCTV by the cottage at 7:51? Now this interesting to think about. What could he possibly be doing there? If we're assuming an Amanda murder conspiracy, the answer has to be nothing. Because at this time nothing is happening. Amanda still thinks she'll be working until late in the evening. Raffaele still thinks he has to give his friend a ride. So what on earth is Rudy doing at the cottage? I mean, he can't know the big plan is happening tonight yet. Is it just a coincidence he happens to be hanging out by the place he'll only later learn he'll be committing murder in? Is he psychic? A time traveler?

But let's consider the PIP theory, that the murder was the result of an interrupted burglary. Then this mystery appearance explains itself self evidently. He is scouting his burglary target, it doesn't matter that Amanda is still working that night, because she's not involved at all. This also explains why the break-in in Filomena's room looks exactly like his break-in at the law office, because he is responsible for both of them. The PGP simply explain these anomalies with a shrug of the shoulder and leave them as the world's most spectacular coincidences. Rudy just happens to be scouting the cottage as if he was a burglar by chance before he knows Amanda will be free and recruiting him to murder Meredith at that very cottage. Amanda just happens by an astonishing stroke of a good fortune to stage her accomplices idiosyncratic and unusual break-in style. Wow!

 

[Bill Williams]

The judges did not argue against it. Rather, there was no reason to argue for it as it was already categorised as first-degree murder, in the American parlance, as it involved sexual assault.

Ad hominem is all you seem capable of. There is nothing silly about examining phone records at all.

I do not recognise Bruno-Marasca report. It is a crock of ****.

Ad hominem? The **convicting** judges ALL argued for non-premeditation; as it relates to the reason why the knife made it to the cottage.....

Both Judge Massei and Judge Nencini in their reports **invent** reasons for Knox to innocently grab the knife (at the time they say she decided to bring the kitchen knife with her, while still at Raffaele's).

Stop reading at this point. I need to check that you understand the significance of what the two **convicting** judges said. So far, this has nothing to do with the Bruno/Marasca report.

Given that both **convicting** judges posit a theory that the knife left Raffaele's place with, so far, no intent to kill..... what then is the **guilty** reason why - prior to this that either of them would have turned off their phones.

Are you following this? If while at the cottage they had no intent to kill, no reason to kill, no motive to kill - what relevance is examining phone records - none of which (as put to you dozens of times) would record the turning off of phones; other than voice being sent to voice-mail?

It is not ad hominem to point out that you are the only one suggesting that their handling of the phones while at Raffaele's bolsters (in your mind) intent to kill. Or even intent to do harm.

To repeat **no judge**, convicting or acquitting, believes this was a premeditated crime.

Okay, let's address ad hominems once this has sunk in. There are many ad hominem remarks possible given your continual refusal to deal with the obvious - mainly that you are undercutting the only two courts to convict. In short, you do not believe they discharged their duties properly.

You believe, "Rather, there was no reason to argue for (premeditation) as (the murder) was already categorised as first-degree murder". This in the face of the convicting judges actually **arguing AGAINST** what you say they had no reason to argue for. LOL! There are many ad hominems possible to speculate on why someone would post such a bizarre statement, but I will leave that for the lurkers themselves to decide.

 

[Vixen]

The cell tower she pinged services Raff's apartment. But let's construct a timeline:

5:45 they were both seen by an independent witness in Raff's apartment.

6:27 A 2 hour movie is launched on Raff's computer.

8:18 Amanda gets her text she's not needed at work

8:40 Amanda is seen by an independent witness inside Raff's apartment.

So throughout the entire evening, when it is possible to corroborate their location, it is in the apartment. Popovic, the independent witness, visits twice, never calls first, and catches them home both times.

I guess in your theory, their unexplained outings just happens to occur between each time stamped event so we can't verify them.

BTW did you know that Rudy Guede was caught on CCTV by the cottage at 7:51? Now this interesting to think about. What could he possibly be doing there? If we're assuming an Amanda murder conspiracy, the answer has to be nothing. Because at this time nothing is happening. Amanda still thinks she'll be working until late in the evening. Raffaele still thinks he has to give his friend a ride. So what on earth is Rudy doing at the cottage? I mean, he can't know the big plan is happening tonight yet. Is it just a coincidence he happens to be hanging out by the place he'll only later learn he'll be committing murder in? Is he psychic? A time traveler?

But let's consider the PIP theory, that the murder was the result of an interrupted burglary. Then this mystery appearance explains itself self evidently. He is scouting his burglary target, it doesn't matter that Amanda is still working that night, because she's not involved at all. This also explains why the break-in in Filomena's room looks exactly like his break-in at the law office, because he is responsible for both of them. The PGP simply explain these anomalies with a shrug of the shoulder and leave them as the world's most spectacular coincidences. Rudy just happens to be scouting the cottage as if he was a burglar by chance before he knows Amanda will be free and recruiting him to murder Meredith at that very cottage. Amanda just happens by an astonishing stroke of a good fortune to stage her accomplices idiosyncratic and unusual break-in style. Wow!

You are factually incorrect about Raff and Amanda being home the entire evening. They were in town about six-ish and were both very evasive to police later about it. Raff affirmed they did not need to go to the shops for provisions.

The fact Rudy was there 8-ish and then went away to have a kebab underpins the fact he was waiting for someone . If he was a real burglar he would have broke in then. The PIP's claim he used a boulder weighing 9kgs because he wanted to make as much noise as possible to see if anyone responded, whilst he hid behind a bush. He obviously did not because he came back later and is seen following in either Mez or Amanda in a grainy cctv circa 9:00pm.

An independent witness said he saw all three together smashed out of their heads, crouched behind the bins as though waiting in ambush for someone, with Amanda waving a large knife and Raff chasing him aggressively because he declined to hire his car to Rudy for €259.

The above are all established facts, albeit subject to testing at trial.

Your "burglar interrupted" hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis which none of the courts accepted. If Rudy was a real burglar, he wouldn't need to stage a burglary scene.

The defence lawyer Beretti tried to claim it was easy to scale the nine-foot wall and embarrassed himself when he was left dangling by his fingertips on the window ledge. "I'm too short!" he said.

Well, Rudy was even shorter.

 

[Vixen]

Ad hominem? The **convicting** judges ALL argued for non-premeditation; as it relates to the reason why the knife made it to the cottage.....

Both Judge Massei and Judge Nencini in their reports **invent** reasons for Knox to innocently grab the knife (at the time they say she decided to bring the kitchen knife with her, while still at Raffaele's).

Stop reading at this point. I need to check that you understand the significance of what the two **convicting** judges said. So far, this has nothing to do with the Bruno/Marasca report.

Given that both **convicting** judges posit a theory that the knife left Raffaele's place with, so far, no intent to kill..... what then is the **guilty** reason why - prior to this that either of them would have turned off their phones.

Are you following this? If while at the cottage they had no intent to kill, no reason to kill, no motive to kill - what relevance is examining phone records - none of which (as put to you dozens of times) would record the turning off of phones; other than voice being sent to voice-mail?

It is not ad hominem to point out that you are the only one suggesting that their handling of the phones while at Raffaele's bolsters (in your mind) intent to kill. Or even intent to do harm.

To repeat **no judge**, convicting or acquitting, believes this was a premeditated crime.

Okay, let's address ad hominems once this has sunk in. There are many ad hominem remarks possible given your continual refusal to deal with the obvious - mainly that you are undercutting the only two courts to convict. In short, you do not believe they discharged their duties properly.

You believe, "Rather, there was no reason to argue for (premeditation) as (the murder) was already categorised as first-degree murder". This in the face of the convicting judges actually **arguing AGAINST** what you say they had no reason to argue for. LOL! There are many ad hominems possible to speculate on why someone would post such a bizarre statement, but I will leave that for the lurkers themselves to decide.

As I said before, nobody needed to concern themselves with premeditation because it was already classified as first degree murder (I won't be rude and put it in bold). In the same way, Masssei and Nencini decided the motive needn't be complex, it could be simple and even for "futile motive", as that was all that was needed to convict.

They didn't need to look at diminished responsibility or reasons of insanity for the same reason. The defense could have argued it, but declined, probably because the sentencing would have been even worse.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I said before, nobody needed to concern themselves with premeditation because it was already classified as first degree murder (I won't be rude and put it in bold). In the same way, Masssei and Nencini decided the motive needn't be complex, it could be simple and even for "futile motive", as that was all that was needed to convict.

They didn't need to look at diminished responsibility or reasons of insanity for the same reason. The defense could have argued it, but declined, probably because the sentencing would have been even worse.

I fully understand you said this before. You simply do not understand this, do you?

"Nobody needed to concern themselves with premeditation"!?!? Why then did both Massei and Nencini have to invent reason for the knife innocently coming to the cottage?

Please keep posting this way. You are supplying all the ad hominem needed.

 

[bagels]

You are factually incorrect about Raff and Amanda being home the entire evening. They were in town about six-ish and were both very evasive to police later about it. Raff affirmed they did not need to go to the shops for provisions.

The fact Rudy was there 8-ish and then went away to have a kebab underpins the fact he was waiting for someone . If he was a real burglar he would have broke in then. The PIP's claim he used a boulder weighing 9kgs because he wanted to make as much noise as possible to see if anyone responded, whilst he hid behind a bush. He obviously did not because he came back later and is seen following in either Mez or Amanda in a grainy cctv circa 9:00pm.

An independent witness said he saw all three together smashed out of their heads, crouched behind the bins as though waiting in ambush for someone, with Amanda waving a large knife and Raff chasing him aggressively because he declined to hire his car to Rudy for €259.

The above are all established facts, albeit subject to testing at trial.

Your "burglar interrupted" hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis which none of the courts accepted. If Rudy was a real burglar, he wouldn't need to stage a burglary scene.

The defence lawyer Beretti tried to claim it was easy to scale the nine-foot wall and embarrassed himself when he was left dangling by his fingertips on the window ledge. "I'm too short!" he said.

Well, Rudy was even shorter.

So they were spotted by Popovic, then rushed into town for no reason, then rushed back to start the movie, then rushed back out, then rushed back to be spotted by Popovic again? This is your theory, unsupported by anything, and it makes no sense, but you claim it is "factual" for some reason?

Rudy isn't seen with Meredith on CCTV at ~ 9pm. I don't know what you're referring to there. Sounds like something you've dreamed up.

Rudy used a large (4kg) rock to smash the window because this was his MO. Here are quotes about the rock used to smash the glass at his law office break-in from testimony from the victim: "very heavy porphyry" "a big rock that we found there at the spot"

He scouted early in the evening and noticed nobody home. He came back, still no sign of anybody home, so he concluded it was safe to rob the place. Of course Rudy didn't stage a break-in. He actually did break in, for real. Your difficulty in understanding this point in bizarre. Here's the side of the building he climbed at the law office. And here's the cottage wall being climbed in about 5 seconds.

As for Koko's "testimony", I've already conceded that I don't contest it. Go ahead and rest your case on it

 

[Grinder]

Vixen the phone log testimony is very vague and seems to be saying that in the few days before the murder they received calls late at night. In that Amanda worked some of those nights, those nights would of course involve late night calls. The cop says months at one point, what's that all about.

Do you have the phone logs showing exactly when they turned phones on and off? When did they charge their phones? Did they turn them off when in class?

Amanda told about her phone being turned off early on. The issue is centered on the 11pm call from papa Raf.

ETA - Are you asserting that Raf's defense team's experts stated that the phone could just have been in a spot that didn't receive a signal, when the police had produced records showing definitively that the phones had been turned off?