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

[Poppy1016]

The problem with this is there is zero credible evidence Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage that night, so that leaves Guede there by himself or Guede with one or more accomplices.

I've eliminated Amanda and Raffaele as suspects because of the lack of evidence suggesting they were not at Raffaele's apartment as they stated, something I could never do with John and Patsy Ramsey, because they were in the house when JonBenet was murdered. Clearly I think they are innocent, though.

John Ramsey did it.

 

[RandyN]

Motive, not rational motive.

It is curious that he ignored Locard. I agree with that.

What makes you think that he ignored Locard?

I think the towels were key pieces of evidence that he used to attempt to cover his traces. Unfortunately, the crack (or on crack perhaps) CSI team allowed the bloody towels to rot and render DNA identification impossible. Guede used the towels to make a walkway to and from and inside the bathroom to help hide his activities there. 2 or three towels are all that was necessary. He took them into the killing scene to sop them with blood in order to hide his traces...ala Locard.

Plus this guy is not likely a mental giant going by the facts we understand about his other crimes plus his friends statements.

Add the fact that his own family called him a compulsive liar...another sign he is not too clever...a smart liar remains mostly unknown. Not this genius.

I suppose someone could check his recent school transcripts...they probably have his GPA ....sigh. Probably a Doctor in Italy by now.

 

[Poppy1016]

I wonder why Raffaele Sollecito is not back in jail already?
Bail?

I bet PM Mignini,
who had Raffaele 1st placed in solitary confinement and then incarcerated for a whole year before trial, is pissed about this.

Any ideas why Raff is not behind bars as we debate?
RW

His guilt has not been finalized is the answer I suppose. But then again he spent 4 yrs in prison with his guilt not finalized. Who knows.

 

[Poppy1016]

What makes you think that he ignored Locard?

I think the towels were key pieces of evidence that he used to attempt to cover his traces. Unfortunately, the crack (or on crack perhaps) CSI team allowed the bloody towels to rot and render DNA identification impossible. Guede used the towels to make a walkway to and from and inside the bathroom to help hide his activities there. 2 or three towels are all that was necessary. He took them into the killing scene to sop them with blood in order to hide his traces...ala Locard.

Plus this guy is not likely a mental giant going by the facts we understand about his other crimes plus his friends statements.

Add the fact that his own family called him a compulsive liar...another sign he is not too clever...a smart liar remains mostly unknown. Not this genius.

I suppose someone could check his recent school transcripts...they probably have his GPA ....sigh. Probably a Doctor in Italy by now.

He is a burglary technician.

 

[RandyN]

No, I can go one better. Amanda stole her money then realised Meredith would know it was her and went home with Raf to launch a pre-emotive strike with a humongous 31cm (more than a foot) knife machete and, sure enough, Meredith had discovered her money was missing and immediately solved the crime and accused Amanda and got murdered. And Rudy was there. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Oh wait. That is the theory!

Don't forget the poop. That is not as easily dismissed as Nencini wishes it to be.

 

[JREF2010]

John Ramsey did it.

You need more proof, like a Superwitness! ...like a testimony from a drug addict bum whose high on heroin.

 

[Poppy1016]

You need more proof, like a Superwitness! ...like a testimony from a drug addict bum whose high on heroin.

But the super witness in this case actually supplied an alibi for AK/RS.

 

[RandyN]

Perfectly natural and reasonable theory. Very difficult to think of a similarly plausible one involving Raf and Amanda. If he didn't want the phones ringing he could have turned them off. He stole her money and phones (cards too?) and then, as you say, thought twice about the phones.

Does Nencini really say Amanda stole the money because how else could Rudy know the amount?

Don't know... but it is perfect Italian logic. I bet Yummi can explain this one in a thousand words or more.

 

[JREF2010]

They are reporting over at IIP that Nencini's conclusion that Amanda lied about receiving Patrick's text while at Sollecito's place is a screw up, based on an internal contradiction in Massei's report.

Bottom line: Nencini says that Amanda couldn't have been at Sollecito's when she received the text; but in fact, the cell tower does service Sollecito's place.

You'll never make it in Italian Law if you keep on about facts and science, you need more fiction, creative thinking, even sprinkle in some absurdity to get a good crazy retarded thriller theory going.

 

[RandyN]

I haven't read the motivation yet. Somehow I just can't get myself to read this nonsense. I'm sure I will, but not yet. I just don't get this. You really have to put logic aside to come up with these crazy theories. They really seem to not care about any evidence that proves their theories. I've been catching bits and pieces of the motivation and it makes me sick. The part that they found a Woman's size 35 footprint in the bedroom flabbergasts me. This is something that I had never heard before. I remember someone arguing that some very unidentifiable smudge was her shoe print, but I find it hard to believe that one would believe that. It looked like a fuzzy smudge to me.

This report is certainly not translated yet right?

Forget Goog translate...that is just too much headaches for her that makes me unComfortable.

 

[JREF2010]

But the super witness in this case actually supplied an alibi for AK/RS.

Thats what a Superwitness does in Perugia, you see its really so complex no one can understand it.

 

[RWVBWL]

I wonder why Raffaele Sollecito is not back in jail already?
Bail?

I bet PM Mignini,
who had Raffaele 1st placed in solitary confinement and then incarcerated for a whole year before trial, is pissed about this.

Any ideas why Raff is not behind bars as we debate?
RW

His guilt has not been finalized is the answer I suppose. But then again he spent 4 yrs in prison with his guilt not finalized. Who knows.

If I did not follow this case so closely, I would find it strange that a convicted murderer is allowed to live life free still!

Mr. Sollecito, on trial for murder, did not even have to show up in court for his verdict to be read at his Appeals Trial? And he wasn't handcuffed and immediately led away to a jail cell when convicted again?

Don't the Courts and law enforcement realize the brutality of the crime Raffaele Sollecito is convicted of?
Don't they believe that he might be a danger to society?

Raffaele Sollecito is free to kill again as we debate this murder.
Would you let your daughter travel to Italy to study there?
Would you feel safe if this happened in your town?

Weird country, Italy.

 

[GWCarver]

Bingo! Everything one needs to understand about the Italian judicial system.


In fact we can see that same idea here when we read Yummi arguments/statements. Same exact principle and style. Back up one ridiculous statement with ten more equally absurd ideas.

Soon...if you allow yourself to be tricked into interacting, you will be mush and the original idea is left way back in the dust. I see no benefit in interacting with nonsense like that...unless one needs to understand the psychology of what's going on in these arguments.

Its silly...like Necenini reasoning, or Massei or Mignini or Comodi etc....stupidity so obvious and gross that it has to be a joke...a put on...but it is not! And that is extremely hard to wrap ones mind around.

It all should be treated as the joke it is. Called out as absurd... so insulting and corrupt and wrong and yet...look how far the world has let them get. Sad and sinful really.

I've given this some thought, and it just doesn't seem to me this entire story can be made into a movie unless it is a comedy/drama, something along the lines of "American Hustle". The truth is just too strange to be presented in a straightforward fashion, IMO. The audience won't believe it.

 

[RandyN]

Actually he wasn't known to carry a knife. He took a knife from the nursery presisely because he didn't carry one and wanted the protection. He did carry a little hammer but people called him Baron not Maxwell

His background wasn't that chaotic at least not for number of years. I don't believe that Massei would have found any psychopathy in him either.

So under this scenario the motive would be...?

Cite? I didn't think so.

Meanwhile lets totally discount this guy. "Bartender Christian Tremontano is awaked in the middle of the night by someone in his apartment. He goes downstairs to find Rudy Guede walking through his apartment going through his things. First, Rudy holds a chair up against Christian, then he pulls a knife from his pocket and threatens him. Finally, he flees the scene. Christian reports the break in to police officer, Monica Napoleoni. She asks him to come in to the police station to file an official complaint. Later, when Christian arrives at the police station, the line is too long and he gives up the idea considering he hadn't been injured and nothing had been stolen. He later sees Rudy at two bars. Incredibly, one is the bar where he works as a bartender and he has him thrown out by the bouncer."

Also where is it made clear that Guede only had the one knife in Milan? You are guessing about these things. I can guess too. I say Guede had 5 knives in his possession and since we have no access to the police report I am right and you are wrong! Besides the vehicle hammer has a cutter for seat belts on it too...so that's 6 knives.

And don't start with that apple crisp stuff...do they even grow apples where you live?

 

[RandyN]

But if screaming was the motive then that could be the motive for anyone including the kids.

Yep and then one might expect to find DNA of the kids on, in and about the body of the silenced screamer...no? Or are we gonna go with 36b and the bra clasp? Oh and the luminol blobs?

 

[anglolawyer]

What makes you think that he ignored Locard?

I think the towels were key pieces of evidence that he used to attempt to cover his traces. Unfortunately, the crack (or on crack perhaps) CSI team allowed the bloody towels to rot and render DNA identification impossible. Guede used the towels to make a walkway to and from and inside the bathroom to help hide his activities there. 2 or three towels are all that was necessary. He took them into the killing scene to sop them with blood in order to hide his traces...ala Locard.

Plus this guy is not likely a mental giant going by the facts we understand about his other crimes plus his friends statements.

Add the fact that his own family called him a compulsive liar...another sign he is not too clever...a smart liar remains mostly unknown. Not this genius.

I suppose someone could check his recent school transcripts...they probably have his GPA ....sigh. Probably a Doctor in Italy by now.

FWIW I don't think that's what the towels were for at all nor that he used them that way. He just wanted all the blood to go away.

 

[RandyN]

John Ramsey did it.

No it was the son we never hear about.

Also... Jason Simpson killed Nicole and Ron...he was wearing OJ's Bruno Maglis. Semi employed chef with a whole set of razor sharp knives in his Jeep as he moved from job to job.

 

[Bill Williams]

His guilt has not been finalized is the answer I suppose. But then again he spent 4 yrs in prison with his guilt not finalized. Who knows.

The reason he was held for four years was one of three fold.... flight risk, reoffending ppossibility, or tampering with evidence. For some reason both ISC and Nencini believe he's none of those.

 

[RandyN]

FWIW I don't think that's what the towels were for at all nor that he used them that way. He just wanted all the blood to go away.

Well you have to ignore the semi-print on the blue bath mat then. And you must explain the lack of a bloody drips and yet uncleaned up but clean floor in the bathroom then.

WTH time do you get up? Are the birds awake yet?

 

[anglolawyer]

I was discussing the case with someone on Facebook and she kept telling me C-V had been 'refuted' but could not explain how. I concluded she must have meant 'rejected' because I have not seen any reversal of the findings set out in their report. I have not seen or heard of the evidence that shows they were wrong when they recorded 36B tested negative for blood and humans etc was negative for quantification (contrary to Stef's evidence) not amplified in a way that made sense etc etc etc

I know Conti-Vechiotti are very bad people who were bribed and that she, particularly, felt bitchy towards Stef and so on, but what happened to these facts? Was the Carabinieri's test on 36I in reality a kind of symbolic thing like the priest turning wine into the blood of Our Saviour? Did it mean, 'there! Those sloppy independent experts! We finished their work for them and now they can be consigned to eternal ignominy and damnation. May the priestess Patrizia resume her rightful place on her plinth.'

What happened to the facts?