Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

The most amazing things are made up.

Amanda's torture session, evil, deceitful lab techs and all the judges in on the conspiracy.

And Raffy, dont forget Raffy.

tsig I sincerely hope you have not been afflicted with 'human memory fraility' syndrome.
It's reaching pandemic levels at the moment.

Greetings tsig and platonov!
Though I do not follow stories of wrongful convictions much, if at all,
cops and judges everywhere where sadly wrong in their evaluations with regards to the many convictions that have been overturned world wide because they were wrong, here in the U.S. of A., Australia, and elsewhere...

So,
what was your point, again?
That cops and judges are never wrong?

Just wonderin' in Los Angeles,
RW


PS - You folks across the USA are gonna get walloped
by the storm that just hit L.A. over the weekend and this morning,
here's a shot from Surf City aka Huntington Beach today:

Yes, that is the same beach where the U.S. Open of Surfing is held every summer!
Stay warm, another storm is-a comin' your way...

 

[Diocletus]

Hiya!
From watching the 1st Crime Scene video
I saw Flying Squad officer Lorena Zugarini use 2 leg kicks to break open the window to the boyz downstairs flat.

She reached in to apparently try and unlock that door, but could not.
You need a key...

Yesterday,
I was re-reading a few select chapters of Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face",
I found out that there were 2 videographers on the scene to video the police as they investigated the horrible murder and rape of a English college student studying abroad in their town of Perugia. A terrible, bloody crime that must have had authorities under immense pressure to solve it very quickly to re-assure the local citizens, the foreign students and their parents far away.

I found it very odd that after Officer Zugarini kicked open the door window,
and could not unlock the door with her hand,
that the video clip shuts off.

Watch it yourself:
Link:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O4Zh3QxY!MLLxQsnTnxYs-zyAwlsjoak4-yw9QIPILsefu8ZDq08

At 16:29:15,
the cops step away from the door,
a bit perplexed it seems.

Somehow they get inside the boyz downstairs residence,
for at 16:40:31, the next video sequence we get to see shows them inside there.

Why did the cops delete the 11 minute, 16 second scene
of them breaking into and entering the boyz flat?

And delete any video of the kitchen scene on the 1st day of investigation?


Didn't Giacomo, Meredith's new boyfriend,
give her 2 keys to the downstairs flat, to water the pot plants and check on the hurt cat?
These 2 keys were missing.

It's kind of odd when you watch the downstairs Crime Scene,
for on the 1st day, Nov. 2, the videographer does not even show or enter into any of the boys bedrooms, after showing Giacomo's pot plants.

Only the next day, over 24 hours later,
do we get to see inside of their bedrooms, 2 of which have blood in them. Stefano's has blood on the bedspread, with both drops and odd straight lines like from a knife blade, and Giacomo's, (whose door must have been locked, because it was broken into like Meredith's was,) which had wavy bloody lines on the floor...

Link here:
https://mega.co.nz/#!fwo3UbDS!YpT6M0rQJiaKKLy6HjZ8XrfB69YrKpgFCIVGaHckejw


With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the break-in of Giacomo's bedroom on the 1st day?
Heck, might it already have been broken into when the cops entered the boyz downstairs flat?
Who know? The cops do...

With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the kitchen that 1st day?
How come we don't get to see the full kitchen upon the cops entrance inside the downstairs flat and kitchen?

When you watch the video of the girlz upstairs flat from the 1st day,
it shows the cops entering into the the flat thru the foyer, and then shows the girlz kitchen+ kick back area.
It shows all of the girls bedroom, esh, Meredith Kercher is still even lying in her bedroom, under the duvet, surrounded by blood.

But the video from the downstairs Crime Scene has been edited out or deleted to not show us what the cops saw when they 1st went in the kitchen there. Or the boyz bedrooms. Why?


There appears to be a shower curtain and rod,
as noted by Cody Juneau, seen here
on the floor that does not belong there.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9582[/qimg]

Some have speculated that this is from the downstairs kitchen door window.
I do not believe so, the fabric is much too long,
and there is waaay too much fabric material for a 2 1/2 foot wide window, right?

And there is no window curtain seen when Officer Zugarini is kicking in the window or reaching inside.
So where did the curtain and rod come from?

When you view the 1st downstairs video,
there is a chair placed facing the bathtub where a shower curtain might have hung, which was possibly pulled down, which possibly suggests that someone might have thought about getting rid of a body that night or the next morning.*


How come there are 2 keys seen on the boyz kitchen table on Nov. 3rd?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9578[/qimg]
Who keys are these 2?
What do they open?

Are these the 2 keys Giacomo gave to Meredith?
Did someone involved in the Crime Scene downstairs toss these 2 keys away outside and the cops found them?

Lastly,
keep in mind that there was no one home for hours after Amanda + [SIZE="-10"]Raffaele[/SIZE] left that afternoon. Who knows what Rudy Guede was up to before he met up with Meredith that night, heck he mentions that he went downstairs before Meredith got home. And who knows what he did after he left her to die before he went out dancing? For that matter, who even knows where Rudy slept that night after leaving the Domus nightclub. Did he sleep downstairs?

I'm just wondering aloud,
L8, RW




* - I've read on Perugia Shock that there was dark colored car seen in the driveway right before the cops got there, the guy who saw this supposedly testified to it in The Massei Trial. Sfarzo has mentioned that maybe someone came back to dump a body. Rudy's buddy Kokomani drove an old black Golf, IIRC.

Maybe this guy saw something like similar to this that morning:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9581[/qimg]
well, without the other car parked near the spot where Rudy Guede
probably tossed that rock at Filomena's window the night before...


An ETA for ya:
PS - I mentioned this before,
but if your garage was disturbed from how you left it, and it had blood drops and bloody lines in it,
maybe your garage is connected to the break-in into your house...

Here's something very interesting. In the tape of the second day, compare the floor at 18:47:06 (carpet down) against 20:45:26 (carpet pulled up).

How would a damn cat get its blood under the carpet?

And, PS: Somebody check the artwork on Giacomo's wall. I think I see a Picasso poster. Anybody think he might have gone to see a Chagall exhibit, say in May, in Rome?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How can five witnesses, a detective, and Dr. Grigson have conspired against Adams?

The most amazing things are made up.

Amanda's torture session, evil, deceitful lab techs and all the judges in on the conspiracy.

Do you affirm or deny that Stefanoni testified falsely with respect to a number of things (TMB testing, type of quantification method, instances of contamination, etc.)?

The "I don't believe in a big, bad conspiracy" argument comes up in this thread every so often. IMO it is apropos to bring up Randall Dale Adams, whom some believe was wrongfully convicted. Filmmaker Errol Morris said that five witnesses testified falsely against him. In the film "The Thin Blue Line" Randall Dale Adams describes how a detective (Gus Rose?) tried to get Adams to handle a gun believed to be the murder weapon. It requires no great imaginative powers to conclude that Adams' fingerprints on the gun would have been a powerful piece of evidence against him (here may have been other law enforcement misbehaviors, such as cajoling or threatening witnesses). Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams was a monster who should be executed. Now maybe you think that Adams was really guilty because there is no reason for all of these people to be in on a big, bad conspiracy. Would you care to resolve this paradox?

EDT
Detective Rose's...recollection...of the time he interviewed Adams is strikingly different from Adams' version: "I had what I call a casual, friendly conversation with him to start with, to try to size him up, to see what he liked and what he didn't like...." Maybe Detective Rose even offered him chamomile tea.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill
I wont even bother linking to my recent post where I explained the alibi situation.

I will restrict myself to pointing out that as the recent TV interview postdated the appeal docs by several months this is a classic case of what we [well platonov] in cartwheel world refer to as ............(you guessed it)
- Retrocausality.

There is no post to point to, because you've never explained your position. All you've done is obviscate. Then you return to some insinuation about RS throwing AK under a bus, and don't bother to present anything to substantiate that.

And around it goes.

 

[Desert Fox]

& You didn't try google.
Do you really believe AK is innocent - be honest now

I am sure as possible that Ms Knox is not guilty of the murder of Meredeth Kercher. I also believe that she innocent of the covering up of the crime as well.

 

[platonov]

There is no post to point to, because you've never explained your position. All you've done is obviscate. Then you return to some insinuation about RS throwing AK under a bus, and don't bother to present anything to substantiate that.

And around it goes.

Bill

I do wish that you hadn’t mentioned that I sometimes obviscate. I had hoped that was our little secret. What happens in the woods stays in the woods.

To the matter at hand - Of course there is a post. There are others but that should suffice.

Are you now going to accuse me of travelling back in time to make that post?
You know what we call that around here?
No seriously, do you?

 

[platonov]

I am sure as possible that Ms Knox is not guilty of the murder of Meredeth Kercher. I also believe that she innocent of the covering up of the crime as well.

OK - I believe you. But - Are you applying different probabilities to these two possibilities? Sure vs believe.

BTW I like your sig.

 

[lonepinealex]

Platonov, pretty please...

I'm more interested to know what the guilters think Raffaele is hoping to achieve if he is indeed planning to throw Amanda under the bus. Or has done so already, depending on one's interpretation.

What does Raffaele achieve with this strategy? platonov - any thoughts?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

I do wish that you hadn’t mentioned that I sometimes obviscate. I had hoped that was our little secret. What happens in the woods stays in the woods.

To the matter at hand - Of course there is a post. There are others but that should suffice.

Are you now going to accuse me of travelling back in time to make that post?
You know what we call that around here?
No seriously, do you?

Thank you for at least pointing to the post which you say explains, "the matter at hand."

It is in response to London John's post which is this:

And as has long been understood, it's clear that Sollecito is indeed confusing the night of 1st November with the previous night, 31st October. For one thing, his description of events and movements correlates perfectly with the known movements of Knox and Sollecito on 31st October. And for another thing, his account is directly contradicted by known events on 1st November, most notably the computer interactions and the fact that Popovic spoke with Knox when she (Popovic) called round at around 8.45pm.

Only a fool or a knave would take away from this transcript the "fact" that Sollecito was giving an accurate account of the events of 1st November (and that he subsequently changed his story when he realised that it implicated Knox and, to a degree, himself). Instead, a rational, sceptical analysis of the transcript leads to the strong conclusion that Sollecito had become (with the "help" of the police) confused between evenings, and had grafted actual events from earlier on the 1st (going over to the cottage and having lunch etc) with events from the evening/night of 31st October (when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito).

The matter at hand is that at his un-videorecorded interrogation where he actually did not distinguish between events on Oct 31 or Nov 1, a week previous to the interrogation. The reason for this is that he had no clue that he, himself, was being implicated in the crime. Even when a cop passed him a card the day previous and said, "You need a lawyer," Sollecito thought the idea so absurd he dismissed it.

A guilty-Sollecito at that point would have known the jig was up, and done something drastic well before the interrogation the next night.

He was being asked to distinguish between two evenings the week before - without even knowing why. Al he knew is that some female cops thought Amanda was a cow and a whore.

Read his book.

It is in this context that LondonJohn says, "Only a fool or a knave would take away from this transcript the "fact" that Sollecito was giving an accurate account of the events of 1st November (and that he subsequently changed his story when he realised that it implicated Knox and, to a degree, himself)". Much like your own posts, the PLE wanted confusion to do their heavy lifting for them.

Ok. To this, this is your response:

Thats funny.

More confusion. Nobody (or hardly anyone) posting here or in the real world believes it’s an accurate account of the later hours of Nov 1.
That not the point – the point is that when (on the 5th) confronted with a discrepancy about the phone call to the cops at 12.51 on the 2nd he withdrew AK’s alibi said he was in his flat from 21.00 till 01.00 but she wasn’t. It doesn’t match up with the events of Oct 31st either but that is irrelevant.

You know nothing about what the cops said to him about the 12:51 phone call. Actually, no one does. The videotape for what the cops presented Sollecito with does not exist. It is simply wrong to say imply that Sollecito cracked because he knew the jig was up - based on the timing of his call to the Carabinieri, vs. the arrival of the postal police.

Your facts don't even jibe with Judge Massei, who wrote in his motivations report that Sollecito called 112 at 12:51, and that the Postal Police arrived, "just before 1 pm."

He withdrew her alibi and blamed her for his earlier lies. And no amount of wittering about cops or calendars can alter that.

You, then, are simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove. I believe this is called begging the question.

The point is this: yes there is "wittering" which alters this.

There is a further issue. Not alone did he withdraw her alibi that night but his lawyers applications to Massei had the effect of making his statements before Matteini on Nov 8[where he kinda gave her an alibi / but kinda didn’t - Judges love that] inadmissible.

"Kinda"? "His statements before Matteini"? You mean statements he made without lawyer's advice because he literally met his lawyers minutes before the Matteini hearing? Those statements should have been thrown out, and would have been in any other jurisdiction because he'd been denied counsel.

Nor did he give her an alibi before Massei at any stage. He did finally before Hellmann in Oct or Nov 2011 but not from the stand.

So? He chose not to testify at all, which was his right. Admittedly, I am somewhat relieved that you are trying to make your own case against him, by simply denying him basic right.

And now after trying to split the defence before Nencini he goes on TV to withdraw the alibi he kinda gave her 4 years after the murder.

There it is again. You simply cannot point to the portion of the TV show where he does this. Yet you continue to assert this. I guess it is true: your side does not need evidence to make assertions.

No doubt the cops and the lack of calendars or his choice of footwear is the reason for all that.
You should probably stick with ‘It’s irrelevant’ or ‘He wasn’t sure if she went out after he fell asleep’.
They don’t work in the real world however.

Huh?

But it brings this full circle. This was supposed to be the post where you "addressed all this", where the "this" was "the matter at hand", which was Raffaele's police-induced confusion of late Nov 5th. I can now see why you never, except for once, point back to it.

You are replying to LondonJohn by asserting, "no it isn't", once again. You simply make assertions, providing no proof, no pointers to anything other than the assertion itself.

The "matter at hand" is left as LondonJohn expressed it, and you've shed no light at all on why LJ's original should not be seen as reality. The reality is - when Raffaele was not allowed to distinguish between those two evenings, things were confused and THAT CONFUSION allowed the PLE to go into Amanda's room and say, "Raffaele's pulling your alibi." He did not such thing.

To requote LJ:

Only a fool or a knave would take away from this transcript the "fact" that Sollecito was giving an accurate account of the events of 1st November (and that he subsequently changed his story when he realised that it implicated Knox and, to a degree, himself). Instead, a rational, sceptical analysis of the transcript leads to the strong conclusion that Sollecito had become (with the "help" of the police) confused between evenings, and had grafted actual events from earlier on the 1st (going over to the cottage and having lunch etc) with events from the evening/night of 31st October (when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito).

That post was Feb 14. It's over two weeks later. You've been knocking THIS from LJ for two weeks?

 

[Bill Williams]

Platonov, pretty please...

I'm more interested to know what the guilters think Raffaele is hoping to achieve if he is indeed planning to throw Amanda under the bus. Or has done so already, depending on one's interpretation.

What does Raffaele achieve with this strategy? platonov - any thoughts?

That's the point, isn't it.

ETA - or that he's been so, so subtle about it that the courts have missed that he's done it, as has Amanda Knox. The only one who seems to know about it is platonov, and he refuses to point to anything except for Nov 5, 2077, and LondonJohn has dispatched that!

If LJ has not dispatched that, it reverts back to - why have both the courts convicting him, as well as Amanda Knox, missed that he's NOW saying it?

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's something very interesting. In the tape of the second day, compare the floor at 18:47:06 (carpet down) against 20:45:26 (carpet pulled up).

How would a damn cat get its blood under the carpet?

And, PS: Somebody check the artwork on Giacomo's wall. I think I see a Picasso poster. Anybody think he might have gone to see a Chagall exhibit, say in May, in Rome?

By any chance, was he asked?

 

[platonov]

Thank you for at least pointing to the post which you say explains, "the matter at hand."

It is in response to London John's post which is this:



The matter at hand is that at his un-videorecorded interrogation where he actually did not distinguish between events on Oct 31 or Nov 1, a week previous to the interrogation. The reason for this is that he had no clue that he, himself, was being implicated in the crime. Even when a cop passed him a card the day previous and said, "You need a lawyer," Sollecito thought the idea so absurd he dismissed it.

A guilty-Sollecito at that point would have known the jig was up, and done something drastic well before the interrogation the next night.

He was being asked to distinguish between two evenings the week before - without even knowing why. Al he knew is that some female cops thought Amanda was a cow and a whore.

Read his book.

It is in this context that LondonJohn says, "Only a fool or a knave would take away from this transcript the "fact" that Sollecito was giving an accurate account of the events of 1st November (and that he subsequently changed his story when he realised that it implicated Knox and, to a degree, himself)". Much like your own posts, the PLE wanted confusion to do their heavy lifting for them.

Ok. To this, this is your response:


You know nothing about what the cops said to him about the 12:51 phone call. Actually, no one does. The videotape for what the cops presented Sollecito with does not exist. It is simply wrong to say imply that Sollecito cracked because he knew the jig was up - based on the timing of his call to the Carabinieri, vs. the arrival of the postal police.

Your facts don't even jibe with Judge Massei, who wrote in his motivations report that Sollecito called 112 at 12:51, and that the Postal Police arrived, "just before 1 pm."


You, then, are simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove. I believe this is called begging the question.

The point is this: yes there is "wittering" which alters this.


"Kinda"? "His statements before Matteini"? You mean statements he made without lawyer's advice because he literally met his lawyers minutes before the Matteini hearing? Those statements should have been thrown out, and would have been in any other jurisdiction because he'd been denied counsel.


So? He chose not to testify at all, which was his right. Admittedly, I am somewhat relieved that you are trying to make your own case against him, by simply denying him basic right.


There it is again. You simply cannot point to the portion of the TV show where he does this. Yet you continue to assert this. I guess it is true: your side does not need evidence to make assertions.



Huh?

But it brings this full circle. This was supposed to be the post where you "addressed all this", where the "this" was "the matter at hand", which was Raffaele's police-induced confusion of late Nov 5th. I can now see why you never, except for once, point back to it.

You are replying to LondonJohn by asserting, "no it isn't", once again. You simply make assertions, providing no proof, no pointers to anything other than the assertion itself.

The "matter at hand" is left as LondonJohn expressed it, and you've shed no light at all on why LJ's original should not be seen as reality. The reality is - when Raffaele was not allowed to distinguish between those two evenings, things were confused and THAT CONFUSION allowed the PLE to go into Amanda's room and say, "Raffaele's pulling your alibi." He did not such thing.

To requote LJ:



That post was Feb 14. It's over two weeks later. You've been knocking THIS from LJ for two weeks?

Bill

Bill, Bill, Bill.

There’s no point using LJ’s original argument, which I showed to be nonsense, as a rebuttal to my response. Even LJ who defended his bewilderment over the Britney issue with a belated ‘Oh yes, I knew.’ didn’t attempt a reply to that post.
As for the rest – what can one say.

I now regret giving you the link to the post you claimed didn’t exist. Its the servers I feel sorry for

 

[platonov]

That's the point, isn't it.

ETA - or that he's been so, so subtle about it that the courts have missed that he's done it, as has Amanda Knox. The only one who seems to know about it is platonov, and he refuses to point to anything except for Nov 5, 2077, and LondonJohn has dispatched that!

If LJ has not dispatched that, it reverts back to - why have both the courts convicting him, as well as Amanda Knox, missed that he's NOW saying it?

Bill

Retrocausality again I’m afraid.

BTW I doubt Britney missed it

 

[MichaelB]

RWVBWL,

I wish you wouldn't use Barbie Nadeau's book as a cite or credible source about anything to do with this case. Her book is a complete and utter fabrication that she cooked it all up in her head.

We have all the trial transcripts now and you can find out exactly what people said and did.

Also the crime scene video is in youtube if that takes it easier.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCmrgId-zK_7ykuqsOqyqtQ

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Hi P,

Couple of questions.

.

Lastly, and I hate to ask, what doe "FWIW" stand for? I'm guessing "From What I 'blank' ", but I can't fill in the blank. I've resisted asking anyone before, but you don't seem to mind answering simple questions.

For What It's Worth

 

[Desert Fox]

OK - I believe you. But - Are you applying different probabilities to these two possibilities? Sure vs believe.

BTW I like your sig.

I am not sure that I will not get hit by an asteroid on my way home. . .I effectively believe in nothing with absolute certainty.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

Bill, Bill, Bill.

There’s no point using LJ’s original argument, which I showed to be nonsense, as a rebuttal to my response. Even LJ who defended his bewilderment over the Britney issue with a belated ‘Oh yes, I knew.’ didn’t attempt a reply to that post.
As for the rest – what can one say.

I now regret giving you the link to the post you claimed didn’t exist. Its the servers I feel sorry for

Just a correction platonov.

You asserted it was nonsense. You offered no proof, other than a second layer of assertions. You are 100% entitled to your opinions and assertions. You simply are not entitled to facts, or claiming that your assertions are factual simply because of your ability to assert them - repeatedly.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Hiya!










There appears to be a shower curtain and rod,
as noted by Cody Juneau, seen here
on the floor that does not belong there.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9582[/qimg]

Some have speculated that this is from the downstairs kitchen door window.
I do not believe so, the fabric is much too long,
and there is waaay too much fabric material for a 2 1/2 foot wide window, right?

And there is no window curtain seen when Officer Zugarini is kicking in the window or reaching inside. So where did the curtain and rod come from?

When you view the 1st downstairs video,
there is a chair placed facing the bathtub where a shower curtain might have hung, which was possibly pulled down...

RW,
I do think it is a window curtain because of the size of the rod. That is a skinny rod, just like you would use for a small window. Also, when making curtains, the rule of thumb is the material should be 2.5 times the width of the window if they are going to hang gathered.

 

[platonov]

I am sure as possible that Ms Knox is not guilty of the murder of Meredeth Kercher. I also believe that she innocent of the covering up of the crime as well.

OK - I believe you. But - Are you applying different probabilities to these two possibilities? Sure vs believe.

BTW I like your sig.

I am not sure that I will not get hit by an asteroid on my way home. . .I effectively believe in nothing with absolute certainty.

If you don’t wish to answer – fine.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am sure as possible that Ms Knox is not guilty of the murder of Meredeth Kercher. I also believe that she innocent of the covering up of the crime as well.

OK - I believe you. But - Are you applying different probabilities to these two possibilities? Sure vs believe.

BTW I like your sig.

I am not sure that I will not get hit by an asteroid on my way home. . .I effectively believe in nothing with absolute certainty.

If you don’t wish to answer – fine.

You are playing word games. . . . .
I am as sure as possible that Amanda Knox had nothing to do with Meredeth Kercher's murder either as her killer or having anything to do with a clean up.