Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Mignini made it go away. He had this report in January 2008 about how Federico 'would have' supplied drugs to Amanda ('would have'?) and 'allegedly' had sex with her. Parenthetically speaking, how do you verify that someone allegedly had sex with someone else? He tossed it, no doubt realising it was garbage that would be detrimental to his case.

So this is the basis of the crap you have been peddling about a drug dealer having her number on his phone? You are the biased one, Mach. This tittle-tattle that never made it into court is a test of your objectivity which you failed. She was tested for drugs and nothing serious was found. Please reconcile that fact with the scurrilous rumour-mongering. It's the entire case in cameo.

These are just further speculations on a thin pillar, pure innocentisti-style "climbing on glass".
Nobody cares if someone had sex with someone else. But Knox herself admitted ho have spent a night with Federico and having thoughts about sex with him (despite she changes his name), any reasonable person can just assumes one dones't call drug dealers to talk about literature. Federico pleaded gulty of giving drug in exchange for sex and was friends with a transexual prostitute. But who cares what Knox did through bed sheets.

The fact that this report was not used in the 2009 trial is just normal, your assumption that it would be "used" if it was true is just based on fudamental ignorance about the system. Police reports are not usable in court, certainly not those from an open investigation about another case, but anyway they would add nothing to the prosecution case.
Ths is in fact true: they are worthless for the accusation; such elements are totally unnecessary for any person who acknowledged the evidence. Whilst they are irrelevant to the guilters side, however - this is why they are delightful - they are damaging to the pro-Knox side and to their narrative which is intended to portray her as "innocent" "good kid" "little angel" and "immune" from shady drug/sex connections, as well as "different" and "nothing to do" with Rudy Guede.

Please note it is not just the drug dealer having her number on his phone, it is her having his number on his phone and, aboe all, a number of phone calls among the two numbers.

 

[Vibio]

Remember my comments about some of the posters at perugiamurderfile? Bill Williams is the mirror image equivalent.

Now Machiavelli is saying that this forgery....

 

[js202]

Even though no one was claiming that, Machiavelli got all offended that Knox's Seattle-background was being claimed as "too good" for even considering the possibility of her being linked to Rudy in some way.

I'll make this claim, no problem.

Though Knox's reputation - amongst those who actually have known her her whole life, not psychotic prosecutors nor idiots on the internet trumping up idiocy - as a liberal and open-hearted individual would predispose her to be friendly and/or kind to the likes of Guede, the notion that she would intimately consort with such a shady, marginal figure is unlikely in the extreme. It is just as unlikely that Meredith would have had a "date" with the prevaricating scumbag and thief, Guede.

Of course, this doesn't even address the mere fact that there is no evidence to prove any meaningful association between Knox and Guede, much less Sollecito and Guede.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Young person in town famous for its drug use - a town where drug use is so ubiqitous that even 'reliable' prosecution witnesses are on heroin - and yet according to police testing Amanda never took drugs. She must have been the only one to Just Say No!

No "police test" ever determined that Knox "never took drugs".
Such allegation of yours is a lie.

The test did not and cannot determine anything like that.
Knox admitted to having smoked hashish basically over the whole afternoon and evening of Nov. 1 until night, and nobody knows anything about what other substances Knox might have taken.

 

[Bill Williams]

As for my understanding, a "pimp" is a person who earns money from the work of prostitutes, and supervises their activity.

This means, no way Rudy could be considered "Knox's pimp".

While a pimp earns money, a person who instead pays money or goods (like drug) to a prostitute in exchange for sex, at best he might be considered a customer. Certainly not a pimp.

However there is no evidence Knox was a prostitute; a prostitute is a profesional, not someone who is having fun. If ever Knox took part in a trade abut sex in exchange of anything, this must have been at an amateurish level. There is also no conclusive evidence Guede was a dealer (while instead Kokomani was, and was there the night of the murder).
But anyway the kind of activity Knox did concerning drug or sex is of no interest, neither to authorities nor to me.

The topic that might be of interest - not to the guiters, not toe me and not to authorities, but instead to the innocentisti and their narrative, since undermines the innocentisti "myth" about Knox's persona ("different" from Rudy Gude and "nothing to do" with him nor with drugs or druggie envronments) and context she actually lived in - this topic is her phone contacts, it's about the kind of people she attended.

It is also plain obvious that if you attend drug dealers, it's because of drugs, or at best because you like to have casual sex or "friendship" with drug dealers. And this is not drug dealers in general, we are talking about the very same smal group which Guede was part of.

Any attempt of drawing a line in the sand between Knox, on one side, and Guede or his world ("different", "nothing to do", "improbable"), that was a pillar in the inocentisti world view, obvously fies in the face of reality.

This "clarification of yours" I will attest is consistent with your last know position on the matter. Thank you for at least not moving the goalposts on this.

As for the highlighted part, this is not obvious at all. At this point you are also accusing Meredith, Laura, Filomena, as well as the British friends Meredith met of being in this drug world, potentially exchanging sex for drugs.... all the while without any proof or suggestion they had - Amanda included.

It's why we on this side of the fence say it is simply insufficient to claim that this is "compatible with" an item that goes into Cassazione's "osmostic" understanding of this crime.

The thing which makes this un-osmotic, is that you've also lumped in Filomena, Laura, Meredith herself with all this. Indeed, Meredith was watering the marijuana plants from downstairs in the cottage.

Was Meredith's boyfriend the "drug dealer"? And for pete's sake, where's all the cocaine that is suddenly being discussed? Amanda Knox is perhaps the only one of that group who can prove that she'd not been involved in cocaine, because the Republic of Italy owned access to her body at that point as far as determining if she'd taken cocaine....

Your scenario is simply unbelievable, and that's even before considering its relevance to a murder case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Remember my comments about some of the posters at perugiamurderfile? Bill Williams is the mirror image equivalent.

I have no idea what you're referring to. But it was a nice dodge from considering the issue at hand.

 

[Vibio]

--they are damaging to the pro-Knox side and to their narrative which is intended to portray her as "innocent" "good kid" "little angel" ...

I didn't even need this to know the criminal Amanda Marie Knox is a wierdo: the testimony of the others about her police station antics and the apparent glee she was displaying were evidence enough for me.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
As for the highlighted part, this is not obvious at all. At this point you are also accusing Meredith, Laura, Filomena, as well as the British friends Meredith met of being in this drug world, potentially exchanging sex for drugs.... all the while without any proof or suggestion they had - Amanda included.

These people are not known for having exchanged phone calls with drug dealers, neither for picking up drug dealers on trains.
But anyway Meredith is the victim while Filomena and Laura have an alibi. Knox instead has multiple inconsistent false alibies, and she is also contradicted by her former boyfriend who also admits to having told a false alibi, changed testimony etc.

 

[tsig]

To be fair, the intent is not debate. The intent is to highlight in yellow one item in the post, and then make a smart remark about it.....

It's the highlighting in yellow which gives it away....

How do you know what others intend?

 

[NancyS]

No "police test" ever determined that Knox "never took drugs".
Such allegation of yours is a lie.

The test did not and cannot determine anything like that.
Knox admitted to having smoked hashish basically over the whole afternoon and evening of Nov. 1 until night, and nobody knows anything about what other substances Knox might have taken.

So the police were so incompetent that they didn't do hair strand testing

Although Bruce over at IIP seems to be fairly sure that they did - are you saying that this was never done?

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh, you really are going all out to rival Mignini as erotic fiction writer of the year

If this wasn't such a depressing mud-slinging act of sluttification, it would be laughable for its lack of evidence and utter ridiculousness.

Young person in town famous for its drug use - a town where drug use is so ubiqitous that even 'reliable' prosecution witnesses are on heroin - and yet according to police testing Amanda never took drugs. She must have been the only one to Just Say No!

The whole basis of Barbie Nadeau's slutty book, was that the drug and sex-fueled college town atmosphere of Perugia caught this naive, virtual-teenager off guard. Even Judge Massei makes mention of this being, "in a place devoid of her normal moral compass," as the *only* "motive" Knox could have had to participate in what he called Rudy's crime of lust.

Nadeau seemed particularly fascinated by three-somes amongst the students as the context into which this naive Seattleite came unprepared.

It was Mignini, and now Machiavelli (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) who are the only ones really sluttifying this up. Mignini floated all this in court in 2009, and no one believed him, not even the convicting judge.

The $64,000 question is - why now? Why is Machiavelli pushing something not even the prosecution(s) pushed?

I believe it has something to do with Mario Spezzi recently being vindicated. We will hear nothing from Machiavelli on that.

 

[Vibio]

I have no idea what you're referring to.

Of course you wouldn't (even though I provided a quote).

"Now Machiavelli is saying that this forgery......."

Note what Bill Williams does: the document IS a forgery. No ifs ands or buts.

Then he goes on to explain for us what MACH is REALLY saying etc.

It's tedious and boorish. I can see why he is mostly ignored.

 

[tsig]

...led you to believe we were 'debating' ?

I thought we were doing gymnastics what with everyone leaping to conclusions and running in circles.

 

[Vibio]

Refering to Bill Williams:

How do you know what others intend?

That's Bill Williams' modus operandi.

We have to sit through his explanations of what other posters are REALLY saying.

 

[Bill Williams]

No "police test" ever determined that Knox "never took drugs".
Such allegation of yours is a lie.

The test did not and cannot determine anything like that.
Knox admitted to having smoked hashish basically over the whole afternoon and evening of Nov. 1 until night, and nobody knows anything about what other substances Knox might have taken.

So the police were so incompetent that they didn't do hair strand testing

Although Bruce over at IIP seems to be fairly sure that they did - are you saying that this was never done?

Doing a hair test is "compatible with" normal police practise in this regard. But then again, so is id'ing a presumed semen stain underneath a potential rape victim's hips.

I smell a new round of excuses for the PLE not doing normal police practice. Maybe Machiavelli will claim that the defence would not allow a drug test.

Yet one was done, and none was entered into court as being done.

That speaks volumes.

One final thing - Machiavelli has reversed the burden of proof on the authenticity of the Questura document, saying that it up to those who claim it is a forgery now have the burden of proof.

Maybe, Machiavelli in suggesting that a drug test was not done now has the burden of proof in proving that one was not done.

 

[NancyS]

These people are not known for having exchanged phone calls with drug dealers, neither for picking up drug dealers on trains.
But anyway Meredith is the victim while Filomena and Laura have an alibi. Knox instead has multiple inconsistent false alibies, and she is also contradicted by her former boyfriend who also admits to having told a false alibi, changed testimony etc.

Meredith's father was known to mix with the wild tabloid desks of Fleet Street, where cocaine is as common as coffee! Just read what his friend Piers had to say

Mignini seems to think that heroin makes you reliable, which is totally consistent with the kind of nonsense my drug dependent clients say - can I infer from this that he is possibly a user?

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course you wouldn't (even though I provided a quote).

"Now Machiavelli is saying that this forgery......."

Note what Bill Williams does: the document IS a forgery. No ifs ands or buts.

Then he goes on to explain for us what MACH is REALLY saying etc.

It's tedious and boorish. I can see why he is mostly ignored.

.... except by you. I guess my ego can be salvaged a little on that basis....

 

[Machiavelli]

If "personal use of drugs is not a matter of police investigation", then why did they drug test Knox and Sollecito at all?

Oooops.

Why supporters seem dumb? Drug use is never interesting per se. You ask why they had blood/drug tests etc. But Knox and Sollecito were arrested! And it was for another crime, not for drug assumption. They had blood tests because they were taken into prison. Drug test can be done if there is a potential relation between drugs and the crime they are accused of, in order to understand the context of a crime (if there is some peculiar long lasting substance like meth derivatives, who knows). But otherwise the police does not investigate personal habits, it's not a matter of interest.

(Oh and by the way, anyone why proposes an argument that it would have been irrelevant for police and prosecutors to know whether or not Knox and Sollecito were consuming significant quantities of hard drugs around the time of the murder is either an idiot or a liar)

It would be impossible to know.

(Oh and by the way, if people (whether police, prosecutors or commentators) are trying to suggest or imply that Knox (and Sollecito?) was a habitual user of cocaine - or for that matter any substance harder than weed - in the days and weeks around the murder really ought to have, y'know, evidence to support that claim. Evidence such as positive drug tests perhaps. Oh, wait.....)

Actually, there is no need to suggest nor prove anything. It is only worth taking note that Knox attended and exchanged phone calls with a cocaine dealer who worked in Perugia center. There is nothing you need to add to this.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's his modus operandi.

We have to sit through his explanations of what other posters are REALLY saying.

Touché.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, there is no need to suggest nor prove anything. It is only worth taking note that Knox attended and exchanged phone calls with a cocaine dealer who worked in Perugia center. There is nothing you need to add to this.

It would also seem interesting to know that they talked about drugs with these fictitious exchanges.

For instance, what if this was an officer at the school in which she attended, and no one knew that this officer had been a "dealer" on the side? Does simple communication with him, no matter the subject, condemn someone?

However, this, "It is only worth taken note," is part of the way your side "proves" things. This "taking note" then can be used as part of the larger osmotic nature of the crime, can it not?