Knox and Sollecito FAQs page 1
This is the image which the Kercher family itself prefers to be used of Meredith – Stephanie Kercher some time ago sent messages to various blogs to that effect.
There’s no such thing as a Knox “camp”
Sorry but there is and I’ve been on the end of it.
Initially, a dialogue is struck up and they’re quick to say “I just look at the evidence and the lack of evidence and see that two young college students got caught up in a whole lot of BS thrown at them and thrown in the court room where judges and jurors had misplaced their BS detectors.”
Sounds eminently reasonable, no? A dispassionate soul, keen to just know the truth and non-truth of a matter, disliking BS, taking on board inconvenient truths and all quite gentlemanly.
Except when you do put an inconvenient truth to them, such as the anomaly between Knox’s and Sollecito’s account of their time that evening.
For those who’ve forgotten, she was in one room at the police station, he in the other. He said he’d been alone at home that night – she said she’d been with him all night. Confronted by his alibi, admittedly per the police officer questioning her, she did not hotly insist that the police were talking BS, which she would have done had she really spent the night at his place, but instead she scrambled to come to terms with his “betrayal” of her.
It’s all in the court record.
Now, once you begin putting things like that to Knox supporters, it very, very quickly descends to something else and this is verbatim: “This article by J. Higham is very deceitful,” or “Some sort of perversity must have taken residence in J. Higham’s head.” Now this is an entirely different thing – direct ad hominem without supporting evidence and the natural reaction is WTF?! I thought we were dispassionately discussing the issues a moment or two ago?
A “discussion” or a “debate’ is where one side puts this or that and the other side counters that argument with theirs. One thing I haven’t been accused of is strawmanning or misrepresenting their position but I do draw the line when this happens:
Yesterday I ran a post on Knox and Sollecito at 11:00, UK time. There is then a ten hour window between the post, when Americans are asleep and our midnight here when I am asleep as a rule. There were a few comments until the end of that time frame and even on to 01:00 [morning].
Suddenly, all hell broke loose and let me list the times of many of these – 01:05, 01:36, 01:59, 03:35, 04:32 and so on through the night. Sorry but I have to work and can’t afford these sudden influxes and anyway – WTF were they about?
One was about how bad Guede was as a person – it went on and on and on and I’m waiting for the bottom line. The bottom line was that as he’s such a bad person, his crime was a spur of the moment thing and therefore his crime alone.
Whoa! Hang on a minute. The Supreme Court in the Guede case was pretty scathing about him, it’s true and no one denies he was part of the whole thing but they also made it clear that he was not alone, that there were others involved. So this elaborate build to a lone Guede simply doesn’t wash.
And on that point itself, one of the Knox supporters sent me a quote from the Supreme Court which you’d have to conclude meant the SC didn’t buy that there was more than one. However, I checked with TJMK and PMF as to that quote and was shown the whole quote in which the SC very much did conclude there had been more than one.
Now that was straight-out disinformation by a Knoxer. If I did not have the court record to check back on – and I don’t have it but TJMK and PMF do – if I hadn’t been into the minutiae of this case, perhaps like you, if I couldn’t be a***ed to follow it, I’d have taken what looked like a legit quote onboard as “the truth”.
That was the point where I saw the underhanded tactics of the Knox supporters and wondered why. When one wrote to me: “James are you capable of having an original thought regarding this case or it’s just whatever TJMK says?” I saw how they twist things around. Ordinarily, “original thought” is a fine thing to have – on many issues and in many situations.
It’s anything but desirable in a legal matter.
In fact “original thought” is very much a liability there but people are so sensitive to criticism as a rule that I’m supposed to say: “Of course I have original thought,” to which they can say: “Ah and is all this you’ve written about AK your original thought?”
The Knox supporters read, in this, as extensions of the defences themselves, trying to catch people up by legerdemain, skipping over inconvenient truths, never answering questions directly and I’ve put that alibi anomaly many times and never had it adequately answered. What I have had in reply is: ‘You sound just like a member of the prosecution.” Isn’t that interesting, that projection onto me of precisely what they’re up to.
And that’s what they’re trying on – to reduce this to a squabble between two badly behaved little boys, each point-scoring. They’re quite happy with that scenario if it negates the evidence put in the various posts at this site and by extension, at TJMK and PMF. In fact, they’re not interested in James Higham in the least but in getting at TJMK and PMF who have answers for every point they make. If you doubt that, look at Harry Rag’s answer to Bob M.
Bob M had written:
“Amanda did not tell a pack of ‘lies’. She told one story of her presence with Raffaele at his apartment and a coerced, confused story of being there when Lumumba was supposedly present with the victim. Amanda recanted her accusation, Lumumba was later cleared of any involvement,and Amanda reiterated her presence with Raffaele in his apartment for the entirety of the night of Nov. 1, 2007.” he knows I’ve neither altered nor left out anything in his comment on that.”
Harry Rag replied:
“Raffaele Sollecito claimed in his witness statement that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder. Here is the relevant part of witness statement:
“The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.
Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did.
We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.
At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate.
About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line. I recall Amanda was not back yet.
I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00. I don’t remember well how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same as when we said goodbye before dinner. I don’t remember if that evening we had sex.”
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. They both gave the police at least three different accounts. In other words, they told the police a pack of lies.”
I would add, looking at Knox’s stories, that the very fact that she even changed her story as to who was where, in the light of evidence showing her current story at the time couldn’t be right, even as Bob M concedes: “ Amanda recanted her accusation, Lumumba was later cleared of any involvement,and Amanda reiterated her presence with Raffaele in his apartment” – that that, accusing an innocent man without the least compunction, speaks volumes about Ms Knox.
True it doesn’t confirm guilt in itself, not alone, not without the 140 other points of evidence and more and the Knox defence lawyers, realizing that if they separated each single piece of evidence and allowed it no relation to the others – if you could pour doubt on each single piece in turn, then the cumulative effect would be to cast doubt on the whole, which can then be stated, a priori, at the beginning of any discusssion.
Lawyer Cardiol wrote:
“A key focus-avoidance ploy is to confuse the issue by isolating each element of evidence from every other element and flood discussion of each element with real and imagined reasons-to-doubt the significance of each element.
By doing so, perception of the location of Reasonable Doubt, in the mind of the designated Finder(s)-of-Fact, may be displaced so far away that they conclude that Guilt cannot be reached, and that the Defendant(s) are Not Guilty beyond a doubt that is a Reasonable Doubt.
This defense ploy is being employed more and more in criminal trials, and is much employed in Meredith’s case, or as it has become, Amanda Knox’s case. The Supreme Court of course will totally ignore such legal nonsense.”
And how did they explain away the changed stories? They created “coercion”, police cruelty and intimidation, which has been dealt with many times and will be dealt with again in this series of FAQs.
Very, very difficult to deal with people who have almost the entire American media, a PR firm, the defence lawyers themselves who are professionals at this legerdemain in tow, plus the Knox supporters who sniff around for minor blogs like mine or in fact anyone who doesn’t buy the Knox narrative, who prefers the court record.
Predictable that the Knox camp relies heavily on Hellman who is the very subject of illegality and procedural improprieties in the current appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Why are we even having this dispute in the blogosphere?
It’s a question some of the readers at this blog have raised. One wrote yesterday: “Can we have another Katie Holmes post?” The intent of that comment was clear.
And that’s the thing. To quote a fellow blogger, Tom Paine: “Not only does he [Higham] blog about a wide range of subjects, sometimes individual posts cover a lot of ground! His is a magpie mind and nothing human is alien to him.”
Absolutely. I am not an anti-Knox blogger per se or an anti-NIST WTC7 blogger or an anti-Obama blogger in itself. This blog is pro-real art, anti-PoMo, anti-parachutee, pro-fine jazz, it has co-authors and in short, it has a life outside of Amanda Knox.
However, it can’t let falsehood go unchallenged and in fact, that is the whole point of this blog. Without attacking those things, the raison d’etre of the blog disappears.
Readers might change the question around a bit: “How far do you feel that anything the Knox camp writes or that you write or that TJMK writes or PMJ will make the slightest difference to the verdict[s]?
That’s a good question. People do read these posts and make their minds up and it is probably that more than anything which is the point. Of course we can’t directly influence the verdict and nor should we. The days of Pulitzer blogging never really got off the ground although when many blogs or megablogs speak these days speak with one voice, politicians do tend to take notice but they’re politicians and Giovanni Galati is a prosecutor and knows us not from Adam [and Eve].
Personally, I’m quite comfortable with that.
However, equally, I’m not standing by whilst mistruths and disinformation is put out by Knox supporters or by any supporters for that matter, including those for justice for Meredith.
The proof is in the pudding. If I thought for one moment that those wanting justice for the Kercher family were indulging in “cherry-picking” or putting one over us, using misleading quotes, indulging in a campaign of mistruth, they’d not see this blogger for dust and I’m sure that’s so for BR Mull, Ernest Werner and other people who are appalled the way this Knox case has been handled and mired in mistruths by the Knox PR machine and the American press.
And that is the essential difference between the Knox camp and people such as ourselves. The Knox camp has a narrative coming out of CCHQ, they’re well organized, they invent and support lines which just aren’t so [covered in this series of FAQs], whereas we’re a bit like John Kercher and his family – if it looked in the least as if Knox and Sollecito were not guilty, we’d most certainly not be putting our time and effort behind this.
It’s the same very deep anger felt by Dr. Galati – he has no personal stake in this, nor do we. The Kercher family do and so do Knox and Sollecito, very much so.
So why is he so angry, Dr. Galati? Because he sees gross injustice and lies going on here.
That’s why.
That’s why this series will go on.
Comments
Knox supporters have shown that they are heavily into tactical assault and are perfectly happy to waste everyone’s time. I have neither the time nor the inclination for that after last night [or this early morning] but I do have any amount of time for debunking points made by them, when shown to be wrong.
Therefore, this series will go this way:
Comments are left on but, unlike on the blog in general, they’re restricted, in these pages only, to those arguing from the trial court record and from the investigation, plus neutrals and/or regular readers here. Knox trolls are welcome, to the point that their details can be put on the black ban list. If that’s harsh, it is brought on by their tactics which I’m now sick to death of.
I’ll still quote them and not in a cherry picking way and then post the answers to them. They need have no qualms on that score. For example, the point about the strange phone calls after 9 p.m. is one which really does need looking at in detail and I shall do. It shall be posted on. Some of the issues of the DNA will be looked at from the Knox point of view and an attempt made to answer them.
That’s the way I see this thing going.
Amanda can put an end to all of this in about ten minutes. Just go one any one of a dozen talk shows and do a lie-detector. Does anyone know if she has done an independent one for TV ?
QED either way I fancy.
Very good. The problem is that, at their core, FOA and its affiliate blogs are dedicated to defending Knox and Sollecito from the charges against them. They are amateur lawyers and PR people, not amateur journalists or detectives. I’d be just fine with Guede being the lone-wolf killer if that were in any way supported by the facts. The other side has their talking points (see “Bob M” the other day) but when you probe beyond them, good arguments are scarce. Behind it all is the Vast Italian Conspiracy–the untestable notion that it is more likely that Italians conspired to frame Knox and Sollecito than it is they are actually guilty. Knowing this makes it much easier to understand the confusing back and forth in the media and on the internet. People really are trying to sow confusion, not arrive at any logical truth.
Hi brmull,
You can’t have a rational discussion with people who think Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. They come out with the most ridiculous and far-fetched claims: there was a huge, sister plot to frame Knox and Sollecito; an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA floated on a speck of dust and landed with laser-like precision on the exact part of Meredith’s bra that was bent of shape during the attack on her; Meredith’s DNA floated on another speck of dust and landed in a microscopic groove on the knife; Sollecito’s cat turned on his mobile phone and there is an innocent explanation for the numerous lies Knox and Sollecito told.
The likes of Bruce Fischer seem to think they are omnipotent and omniscient and give a detailed and definitive eyewitness account of what happened when Amanda Knox was questioned on 5 November 2007 despite the fact they weren’t actually present.
Bruce Fischer falsely claims that Sollecito never said Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder even though Sollecito categorically states that she wasn’t there in his witness statement. Unless Fischer has extreme learning difficulties, he must know what he’s claiming isn’t true.
The thing I’m still unsure of is how much is deliberate disinformation and how much the result of not grounding themselves in the court and investigation reports?
To read, for example, the arrival of the postal police, in which there was no mystery, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a different case being discussed.
If for a moment you buy the Knox case that the PP did not arrive until around 13:00, which alone does not gel with the witness statements, let alone their own, then it would achieve their “told the postal police they rang the criminal police”.
However, it falls down with the PP saying the exchange took place at the gate. And how do they discredit the PP? By saying they couldn’t find the house. There’s a bit of a difference between checking a street map to find a location and not knowing what two people in the garden said when you arrived.
It just goes on and on. How about Sophie’s and the other girl’s statements about meeting Knox at the station? Are those girls liars?
Etcetera.
James,
At its core it’s deliberate disinformation. If there were a real good-faith effort to arrive at the truth, after years and years we would be able to stipulate on certain points. Instead we keep going over the same ground. And then there is the leak of (Meredith’s) forensic evidence to FOA, presumably with the understanding that it can only be used to argue for innocence. Ask them for a better photo of something or other. If it doesn’t help their agenda, forget it.
Is John Kercher paying you to write this?
I let Humpty’s comment through and will let all Knoxer’s comments through which show their characters. Humpty’s previous comment [on the 23rd] was:
And as I explained about that – no, I’m not capable of having an original thought on this case because for once, I have to suppress any natural creativity and adopt only what is the case.
What “is the case”? I define it as what the sum total of the evidence led the trial court, after a deliberative process in an atmosphere which is always tilted towards a defendant in Italian justice to a certain conclusion which has stood the test of time.
Hence the nature of the appeals process in Italy, allowing appointees like Hellman and Zanetti, men with no experience of this sort of case, to have the power of acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence and then allows a third court to overturn that.
So whilst we might look askance at the Italian system in the 2nd and 3rd instances, the 1st instance is a court like any other and it prides itself on finding a jsut verdict.
True the prosecution made errors of emphasis, the defence of tactics but that’s always going to be with something newly occurring. By the end of the process though, all of these have been tabbed and noted.
The appeals phase should have been a review of ALL the evidence. Let’s stop and just consider that point. There can be no taking of just two selected pieces of evidence and examining them, giving weight to the defence and letting them lead the court.
In black and white – and not requiring any original thought from James Higham – it is laid down that if the defence introduce certain evidence, the prosecution must be allowed to present counter-evidence.
Many readers are still unaware that permission to do so was refused by Hellman – hence once of the grounds of the the appeal against the appeal.
………..
And so to Humpty’s allegation – of course tongue in cheek, we do have at least a small sense of humour – about whether I am paid by John Kercher – I’m going to take that as a compliment.
John Kercher is a neutral. His daughter was brutally murdered, on the say so of the court, by three people and those three should be behind bars, no question of that.
Do our hearts go out to John Kercher and his family, rather than to the three convicted [and temporarily released in two cases] murderers? Well of course they do, our hearts.
That’s what this is all about and why we are so upset by the tactics of Knox devotees. Where are the Sollecito devotees? The Guede devotees? Where are their PR firms, their book deals for lots of money, their sucking in of almost the entire media in the U.S. into a U.S. versus Italian thing?
Nowhere. Only sweet Amanda has that machine behind her and why? She has a pretty face until you see close-ups. Society almost worships pretty girls. Pretty girls can do no wrong and when they do, the world is shocked, appalled and titillated, e.g. Casey Anthony.
If Guede had been Kurt and Edda’s son, would the same thing have happened?
So no, Humpty – and you’ve been one of the more reasonable ones for the other side – no, I am not being paid. This is a labour of love.
What significance should be attached to the cops’ lies? You would probably agree the cops should not be lying, right? And if they do then it’s like a clock that strikes 13. So, did they plan to interrogate Amanda that night? Giobbi says they did and the large team of superfluous detectives points the same way.
Did they still really regard the obviously guilty pair as persons informed of the facts and not as suspects? They already had much of the 140 pieces of overwhelming evidence by the time of these interrogations.
Was Mignini there at all times or did he lie about that too? If you read the Bible (AKA Follain) it seems he was. Oh dear, oh dear.
And why was it they didn’t record the interrogations? They couldn’t afford it or the machinery was broken or some such. Well, what of it? It was only the biggest murder case to hit Italy (never mind Perugia) in decades. And a legal requirement if they were suspects Or is that a lie too? They did record the interrogations but then unfortunately lost the tapes, like they lost other relevant recordings, hard drives, negative controls, EDF files etc etc.
Gee. So many lies coming from people who shouldn’t be lying at all. I would be interested in your thoughts since you are so interested in lies.
@Clive,
Amanda Knox testified that she wasn’t called to the police station on 5 November 2007.
Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”
Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”
Do you have a verbatim quote from Giobbi saying they planned to interrogate Knox that evening?
Could you also provide some actual proof the police lied?
Thanks in advance.
Well, first, is it disputed? I’m not running around all over the place looking for the source of this well known quote unless you dispute that he said it. So, do you Harry?
When replying, please favour me with your real name and let’s have no more hiding behind childish online names shall we? You wish to be taken seriously after all I am assuming.
Thanks in advance.
Beautiful – keep this sort of “proof” coming, guys.
@Clive,
I’ve never seen a verbatim quote from Giobbi claiming that the police planned to interrogate Knox on 5 November 2007. I don’t believe you have either. This explains why you’re unable to provide one. You still haven’t provided any proof that the police lied either. I expect you to support every claim you make with some kind of proof such as a reference to an official court document or court testimony. At the moment, it feels like I’m discussing the case with a dim-witted high school student who hasn’t learnt to support his opinions with facts.
Thanks for that Harry. So, I assume:
a) you do dispute that he said he was ‘mathematically certain’ he ordered both of them into the questura (even though that’s not quite what you can bring yourself to say for some reason), and
b) you are too afraid to supply your real name and prefer to hide behind your ridiculous online name. Fine, just so long as we know where we stand on that.
If my assumptions are wrong, please clarify. Thanks in advance.
Oh, and if there is a good reason why only some of my posts are getting through I’d be interested to know what it is.
I’ll get back to you on this one point.
The question of Mignini has been answered ad nauseam and that’s why this FAQs was set up – to not have to go over it all again and again. This point is in the text of Part 2, coming soon.
Meanwhile:
# If Knox was with Sollecito on the night, as she claims, then where were they, as he disputes she was with him? If she wasn’t with him, as he claims, then where was she? This point has never been answered.
# If the postal police claim K&S told them at the gate they’d phoned the criminal police already but in fact went into her room after that to make the first recorded call to the police, does that mean they lied to the postal police? Or were the postal police lying? Why should the postal police wish to lie, seeing as they had nothing to do with the investigation and at that point, were concerned with two mobile phones?
Who is the liar here? Similarly, when Knox claimed Patrick was guilty, was she lying? When she claimed she was not at the supermarket next morning, was she lying? When she later admitted Patrick was not guilty and in fact she had lied, was that lying? Is Knox a truthful person? Is she a good person?
@Clive,
I’ve never seen a verbatim quote from Giobbi claiming that the police planned to interrogate Knox on 5 November 2007 and you haven’t provided one. Amanda Knox tesified that she wasn’t called to the police station. Furthermore, you still haven’t provided any proof that the police lied.
James wrote; “# If Knox was with Sollecito on the night, as she claims, then where were they, as he disputes she was with him?”
You demand evidence and then write this type of crap? What was Sollecito asked and what was his reply?
He was asked if he could be certain Amanda was with him while he was sleeping and he replied no. This is NOT him disputing she was with him. And please don’t waste anyone’s time with the 9pm to 1am quote either. Clearly they confused him on dates and he was recalling the timeline from the evening before.
Harry, that issue is now closed. Clive wrote back to me here that he’ll search around for it and if he can’t find it, he’ll withdraw. Sigh.
See, this is the rubbish the Knoxers write and then call “crap” on people who are quoting from the record. I’ve already in the last post got the exact quote by Sollecito. You’re directly contradicting what he said in testimony.
This is the sort of thing you people are doing and why we have this FAQ. We are not going back over it again, just because you come in and assert something which is on the record is not on the record.
One last time, for the benefit of general readers:
There it is in black and white so what does that do to your assertions and ad hominem. Try this on again and you’ll be taken apart again. That’s why I’m welcoming all this from Knoxers.
There comes a point, you see, and this about Sollecito’s testimony is a good example, where people like Francisco come in mouthing off about crap and liar etc. without a shred of testimony to back them up. All it took was me to quote that and there was the end of it.
Stop lying, Knoxers and start acting decently.
How’s this, from a post at PMF.net dated 30 May 2009 (here’s the link -http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=148&p=11562&hilit=giobbi#p11562
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 12:46 am Post subject:
Frank has a new post:
Giobbi: ” I gave the order.”
“Bring them here together.”
Comments allowed for a while. Oh, and his translation of Oopla is et voila
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ … order.html
The blog has been removed from the net for some reason. Anyway, this is a contemporaneous report of what was said in the trial itself. Good enough guys?
On the Mignini point, for the benefit of general readers, the reason the Knoxers must have Mignini interrogating her all night is so that they can prove police duress and therefore her testimony cannot be taken as gospel, i.e. they wish to undermine their own girl’s testimony to prove Mignini’s brutality.
Actually, Knox herself confirmed she wasn’t called to the questura. Mignini simply happened to be on overnight duty.
At trial she confirmed this and defences didn’t try to prove differently. Now that is also on the record but what Knoxers are relying on is that you don’t know that. Most of them have never looked either.
Search TJMK for the 6-7 posts on Mignini interviews with Linda Byron and Drew Griffen. Andrea Vogt also interviewed Mignini. This is why things are in black and white, “on paper”, so that they can’t come in and assert false things, at the same time charging that anyone disagreeing is asserting false things.
No we will keep doing this on any point they care to raise. As I’ve said multiple times, the purpose is to 1. show up the Knoxers for what they are and 2. set the record straight.
…………
Mignini is the investigator the Knox camp has to vilify in order to dismiss his case. It’s one thing the defence doing this but Knox’s parents’ PR firm and they coopted the U.S. media to do their dirty work for them:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/open_letter_to_cnn_head_ken_jautz_reports_as_terrible_as_drew_griffins/
Italy was well aware of it and flabbergasted at the lies. And what is Mignini really like? Judge for yourself:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/bbc_interview_mignini_comes_across_as_fair_decent_funny_and_quite_sane/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dear_ken_jautz_of_cnn_Full_CNN_Interview_With_Mignini_that_cnn_should_1/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dear_ken_jautz_of_cnn_full_cnn_interview_with_mignini_cnn_should_2/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dear_ken_jautz_of_cnn_full_cnn_interview_with_mignini_that_cnn_should_/
James, I didn’t come here mouthing off, I cited facts. Deal with it. Jovana Popovic testified to stopping off at Raffaele’s place twice the evening of the 1st – at 17:45 and again at 20:40. Both times she saw Amanda there.
What you’ve quoted above claims;
“Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did.
We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.”
This timeline is factually IMPOSSIBLE because of Jovana’s eyewitness testimony.
So you see, I DO have the testimony to back it up. I’d also suggest that you already knew this but continue to repeat an obvious confusion on the part of Sollecito. What Sollecito recalled were the events from the prior evening.
Right, let’s take that one by one:
No you didn’t. You opened with:
You were putting your hypothesis and not citing his testimony in the least. You were interpreting it: “This is NOT him disputing she was with him.” That is an interpretation, it is not anything from the record.
Yes, she testified that and he testified otherwise – so what does that make him? So you need to be careful whom you’re supporting here because you’ve just sunk Sollecito. Who exactly are you arguing for – Knox or Sollecito?
On the strength of that, you are supporting Knox. Why? Why not support Sollecito? I wrote in the post above:
Therefore:
So you do. You have Popovic’s testimony which no one is disputing and I have included it in the timeline post. It sinks either Sollecito or Knox, whichever one is lying. One of them has to be and Popovic suggests it is Sollecito by her testimony.
The rest is your surmise and interpretation. What I wrote about pretty girls – that is also interpretation and can be disputed. Testimony though cannot because it is on the record.
Ok, things are predictably coming thick and fast. Much info is coming in and Knoxers are again flooding the comments queue. If you look at Clive’s latest, it quotes PMF:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=148&p=11562&hilit=giobbi#p11562
Frank has a new post:
Giobbi: ” I gave the order.”
“Bring them here together.”
That was written by a Knoxer and looks pretty conclusive, right? Looks like Clive is right and Giobbi ordered Knox.
Except for one problem. When you go for substantiation to the blog, to find from where the testimony came, surprise, surprise – it ain’t there, is it eh?
The blog has been removed. So what Clive is left with is surmise. That’s all. And who made the surmise? Someone in the PMF forum using a sympathetic Knox photo.
Every item put forward so far by the Knoxers has come to nothing. And still the 2 questions remain which I’ve asked ad nauseam, including on this thread.
This is precisely what many of us have been saying about the Knoxers for so long. It doesn’t convict Knox, it doesn’t release her. It’s nothing to do with the make or break of the trial.
But it does show the shoddy arguments put by the Knoxers. If I’ve been able, with such little effort to debunk what they’ve put up so far, imagine what an expert can do.
………..
Yet another charge was made by them against me, that I am cherry picking. I have already explained this at the top of the post. I showed that their “flooding”, mentioned by Cardiol and no experienced by me, cannot possibly have me answering every comment when there have been 22 comments in the queue in the last twenty minutes.
………..
Now I have just spent the last hour dealing with this. I have a life. It is 18:44 here and the fish is waiting to cook. Amanda Knox is not going to feed me nor deal with the friends who are trying to make contact and whom I agreed to talk with. I need to shop, to pick up potatoes – that sort of thing.
This is why the flood must be slowed, to allow some sort of sanity and rationality into the process. I’ll come back to this as and when I can.
Yet I have not shied away from Francisco’s point and have not doctored his comment in any way. Ditto with Clive. What I have done is slow the process down to give me time to reply. In other words, I’ve stopped the flood long enough to give rational answers.
When you deal with Knoxers and their flooding, this is the only way to approach anything like a real debate.
@Clive,
You wrote:
“The blog has been removed from the net for some reason. Anyway, this is a contemporaneous report of what was said in the trial itself. Good enough guys?”
This quote is from Frank Sfarzo. It hasn’t been corroborated by anyone else. He falsely claimed that he was a film professor and a journalist and boasted about telling “bullshits”. This is not good enough.
Amanda Knox categorically stated in court that she wasn’t called to the police station on 5 November 2007.
Frank sometimes has some interesting information, but he’s also a mentally disturbed individual who curiously ran out of money as soon as the Knox entourage decamped to Seattle.
If Giobbi did indeed testify, “I gave the order: Bring them here together” then obviously that order wasn’t understood because Knox testified she came on her own.
I am very doubtful of the verity of Frank’s claim because in the same paragraph he says the interview was videotaped, and neither Knox nor Sollecito nor anybody in a position to know has ever alleged this. So we’re back to the Vast Italian Conspiracy which only Frank seems to be privy to.
Harry, BR Mull, I need to play fair. Bob M has just come up with the old one about only Guede’s prints in the bloody bedroom, which we’ve answered – amazing how they recycle all the old arguments, they’re answered, they wait and then recycle all the old arguments again. Is it to try to wear us out?
We need to have a rest for a while. I need to shop and eat. We can come back to this later.