• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a case with many similarities to this one, Debra Milke in Arizona is one step away from total freedom, after being exonerated by the Arizona courts. She'd spent 22 years on death-row for the murder of her son; which she did not do.

Now the issue of compensation will come up. What is the level of compensation the State of Arizona owes her?

But out come the haters: one hater says, "Remember the lost little boy -- and don't pay Milke."

Remind you of any of the bizarre websites which claim to be speaking for the victim?
 
You once promised that you would tell us what Raffaele had said. You never delivered on it.

My bet is that you were waiting in the wings with Ergon's translation of what he thought Raffaele had said in one interview - that Knox had been with Rudy for five days.

Even the good folk of PMF cleared that one up, and it's been crickets since.

Truth is - at every stage of this process since Nov 5/6, 2007, someone has promised us info on how Raffaele was throwing Knox under a bus so as to save his butt. It's never happened.....

..... or else someone, anyone, would be posting the proof - a YouTube video, a rebroadcast of Porta a Porta, or would be quoting from sections of either his appeal to Cassazione or the appeals' amendment.

More important - Amanda's own appearance on Daybreak two days ago has come and gone, and she, apparently, has never heard of this either. Nor have the people interviewing her. Indeed, neither of the convicting judges have heard of this either, because they both say that both Raffaele's and Amanda's alibi is mutual and consistent.

Neither of them went out that night. That's what the convicting judges say is their consistent alibi, even though (obviously) the convicting judges don't believe it. It's a complete non-issue. So repeat-away, platonov, I am sure like much in this case, sheer repetition of factoids is bound to attract a following.


What :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
Manders was on TV and it wasn’t mentioned here* or linked to.
What is going on in Cartwheel world. First Raffy is ignored and now this.
C’mon both their names are in the thread title. This is unbelievable.

Now Bill – was she really on TV? Really?

*Although now that I think of it, there was a similar oversight when she made the mad video for some Seattle outfit.


As to the RS issue – the point stands. Why is there no interest in what he has to say.
Let me guess – he didn’t row back on the Cassation appeal addendum you so helpfully posted a while back.
Is that it? It’s hardly a surprise now is it – even in cartwheel world. I shall have to have a look at this PMF site that is the source of such fascination here and see do they have anything.
Normally their stuff is carted over here with great regularity but on occasions like this – crickets. Very strange.

ps Retrocausality again I’m afraid. The order is 2014 – 2015 – 2016; past to future reading left to right.
 
What :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
Manders was on TV and it wasn’t mentioned here* or linked to.
What is going on in Cartwheel world. First Raffy is ignored and now this.
C’mon both their names are in the thread title. This is unbelievable.

Now Bill – was she really on TV? Really?

*Although now that I think of it, there was a similar oversight when she made the mad video for some Seattle outfit.


As to the RS issue – the point stands. Why is there no interest in what he has to say.
Let me guess – he didn’t row back on the Cassation appeal addendum you so helpfully posted a while back.
Is that it? It’s hardly a surprise now is it – even in cartwheel world. I shall have to have a look at this PMF site that is the source of such fascination here and see do they have anything.
Normally their stuff is carted over here with great regularity but on occasions like this – crickets. Very strange.

ps Retrocausality again I’m afraid. The order is 2014 – 2015 – 2016; past to future reading left to right.

You must have been in the John. It was mentioned here and you can find it on the Web if you just look,
.
 
What?
Your opinions are all fine and dandy – I do enjoy your contributions – but I asked ‘what did Raffy say’.
RS – remember him. If you don’t know – fine.

The lack of interest is conspicuous yet again. He has become here in cartwheel world what he once complained of – a forgotten man.
I feel for him. There was a time, until quite recently in fact, that he was lionised here :confused:

What? You don't know what he said? We know what he said. Why don't you? Just to give you a hint - he said he didn't kill anyone. We think he's right! I'm just so glad that your buses and the illeisms are gone? Let's celebrate that, shall we?
 
What :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
Manders was on TV and it wasn’t mentioned here* or linked to.
What is going on in Cartwheel world. First Raffy is ignored and now this.
C’mon both their names are in the thread title. This is unbelievable.

Now Bill – was she really on TV? Really?

*Although now that I think of it, there was a similar oversight when she made the mad video for some Seattle outfit.


As to the RS issue – the point stands. Why is there no interest in what he has to say.
Let me guess – he didn’t row back on the Cassation appeal addendum you so helpfully posted a while back.
Is that it? It’s hardly a surprise now is it – even in cartwheel world. I shall have to have a look at this PMF site that is the source of such fascination here and see do they have anything.
Normally their stuff is carted over here with great regularity but on occasions like this – crickets. Very strange.

ps Retrocausality again I’m afraid. The order is 2014 – 2015 – 2016; past to future reading left to right.

The problem with responding to you is it gives you opportunity for ad hominem etc.
 
Here's the retrocausality for all to see, it's a reprint of something I did 8 ISF pages ago, which obviously was not read:

Here is what Sollecito writes in Honor Bound about the issue of what he remembers about his own and Amanda's movements in criticial times - the point being, at the times in question he had no inkling at all that this was in the future going to be dissected ad nauseum.

Please also note, I will leave it to others to find out, in Honor Bound, why he still asserts his alibi while in the strictest most literal sense he does not remember.

The point being at the critical time, at his interrogation, he was actually pointed away from remembering.....


Honor Bound p. 53 (Sollecito's Nov 5/6 interrogation):

I told them that one day blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?

"You need to remember what you did," one of them admonished.

They asked if Amanda had gone out that night, and on the spur of the moment, I couldn't say. Was November 1 a Tuesday or Thursday? I asked. Because I knew she worked at Le Chic on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it.

"Don't touch the calendar!" one of them said sharply. The suddenness of this startled me.

Was November 1 the day Amanda spent the evening out and I stayed home? (I was thinking of Halloween)..... somehow I had the two muddled in my head and I couldn't sort it out. As the interrogation continued, I offered both scenarios.

Honor Bound p. 78 (Sollecito's appearance before Matteini):
Perhaps the worst moment came when I was asked, for the umpteenth time, if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder. I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge's repeated questions without sounding evasive.

"I can't... I can't..." I mumbled at one point.

"Yes, no - or I can't remember," she admonished. "Those are your three options."

"I can't remember exactly."

(Matteini then admonishes Raffaele that he must remember, because she told him his shoe prints had been found near Meredith's bed - a factoid later shown not to be true, but which at the time caused Raffaele to believe he was in a fight for his life. From this distance he now sees that they were "catching him out" on so-called facts, which were anything but.)

Page 87 recounts how, while in jail, Raffaele simply did not have access to basic information. Once he got access to TV, one thing he saw, claimed that after leaving his apartment on the morning of Nov 2, that Amanda had met with an Argentinian to go to a laundromat to wash clothes; something Raffaele thought, at the time himself in prison, was true because he had no access to any other information - or else why would the media be reporting it! It was a slow learning curve to realize that, from within prison, the media were in a frenzy about this.
 
I know how hard it is for people to remember exact dates and times. . . . .An issue I have is do cops really believe you should or are they just playing a game?
 
Here's the retrocausality for all to see, it's a reprint of something I did 8 ISF pages ago, which obviously was not read:

Here is what Sollecito writes in Honor Bound about the issue of what he remembers about his own and Amanda's movements in criticial times - the point being, at the times in question he had no inkling at all that this was in the future going to be dissected ad nauseum.

Please also note, I will leave it to others to find out, in Honor Bound, why he still asserts his alibi while in the strictest most literal sense he does not remember.

The point being at the critical time, at his interrogation, he was actually pointed away from remembering.....


Honor Bound p. 53 (Sollecito's Nov 5/6 interrogation):

I told them that one day blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?

"You need to remember what you did," one of them admonished.

They asked if Amanda had gone out that night, and on the spur of the moment, I couldn't say. Was November 1 a Tuesday or Thursday? I asked. Because I knew she worked at Le Chic on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it.

"Don't touch the calendar!" one of them said sharply. The suddenness of this startled me.

Was November 1 the day Amanda spent the evening out and I stayed home? (I was thinking of Halloween)..... somehow I had the two muddled in my head and I couldn't sort it out. As the interrogation continued, I offered both scenarios.

Honor Bound p. 78 (Sollecito's appearance before Matteini):
Perhaps the worst moment came when I was asked, for the umpteenth time, if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder. I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge's repeated questions without sounding evasive.

"I can't... I can't..." I mumbled at one point.

"Yes, no - or I can't remember," she admonished. "Those are your three options."

"I can't remember exactly."

(Matteini then admonishes Raffaele that he must remember, because she told him his shoe prints had been found near Meredith's bed - a factoid later shown not to be true, but which at the time caused Raffaele to believe he was in a fight for his life. From this distance he now sees that they were "catching him out" on so-called facts, which were anything but.)

Page 87 recounts how, while in jail, Raffaele simply did not have access to basic information. Once he got access to TV, one thing he saw, claimed that after leaving his apartment on the morning of Nov 2, that Amanda had met with an Argentinian to go to a laundromat to wash clothes; something Raffaele thought, at the time himself in prison, was true because he had no access to any other information - or else why would the media be reporting it! It was a slow learning curve to realize that, from within prison, the media were in a frenzy about this.

I am curious, have Raffaele and Amanda’s books been submitted as court documents?
 
Gunslingers

I know how hard it is for people to remember exact dates and times. . . . .An issue I have is do cops really believe you should or are they just playing a game?
I just saw the 1962 Western "Ride the High Country." The two lead actors switched roles at some point in the production. "There was no doubt in Lyons's mind who should play the leads. Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott had spent more than a decade establishing themselves as iconic Western heroes. Lyons signed McCrea for the part of Gil Westrum, the former frontier lawman who has gone bad. Burt Kennedy, who had written many of the scripts for Scott's films with Budd Boetticher, interceded to get his commitment for the role of Steve Judd, the old marshal who is dedicated to doing his job with integrity and honesty. Very soon, however, McCrea decided the role went against the grain of his usual screen image and asked Lyons if Scott could be approached about switching parts. Burt Kennedy offered to function as intermediary; it turned out he had to do nothing since Scott was equally eager to switch, without knowing of McCrea's desire, so that he could play something other than the "straight, honest guy" for a change. According to McCrea, however, he approached Scott directly himself and found he was interested in swapping parts. (McCrea also claims that it was Scott who initiated the film and came to him about co-starring.)"

Note the confusion over who initiated the switch. The logic that they were part of this 1962 Arizona crime is inexorable. JMO.
 
Here's the retrocausality for all to see, it's a reprint of something I did 8 ISF pages ago, which obviously was not read:

Here is what Sollecito writes in Honor Bound about the issue of what he remembers about his own and Amanda's movements in criticial times - the point being, at the times in question he had no inkling at all that this was in the future going to be dissected ad nauseum.

Please also note, I will leave it to others to find out, in Honor Bound, why he still asserts his alibi while in the strictest most literal sense he does not remember.

The point being at the critical time, at his interrogation, he was actually pointed away from remembering.....


Honor Bound p. 53 (Sollecito's Nov 5/6 interrogation):

I told them that one day blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?

"You need to remember what you did," one of them admonished.

They asked if Amanda had gone out that night, and on the spur of the moment, I couldn't say. Was November 1 a Tuesday or Thursday? I asked. Because I knew she worked at Le Chic on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it.

"Don't touch the calendar!" one of them said sharply. The suddenness of this startled me.

Was November 1 the day Amanda spent the evening out and I stayed home? (I was thinking of Halloween)..... somehow I had the two muddled in my head and I couldn't sort it out. As the interrogation continued, I offered both scenarios.

Honor Bound p. 78 (Sollecito's appearance before Matteini):
Perhaps the worst moment came when I was asked, for the umpteenth time, if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder. I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge's repeated questions without sounding evasive.

"I can't... I can't..." I mumbled at one point.

"Yes, no - or I can't remember," she admonished. "Those are your three options."

"I can't remember exactly."

(Matteini then admonishes Raffaele that he must remember, because she told him his shoe prints had been found near Meredith's bed - a factoid later shown not to be true, but which at the time caused Raffaele to believe he was in a fight for his life. From this distance he now sees that they were "catching him out" on so-called facts, which were anything but.)

Page 87 recounts how, while in jail, Raffaele simply did not have access to basic information. Once he got access to TV, one thing he saw, claimed that after leaving his apartment on the morning of Nov 2, that Amanda had met with an Argentinian to go to a laundromat to wash clothes; something Raffaele thought, at the time himself in prison, was true because he had no access to any other information - or else why would the media be reporting it! It was a slow learning curve to realize that, from within prison, the media were in a frenzy about this.


Oh Bill.

I truncated the 2014-2015-2016 table so its partly my fault but ‘Honour Bound’ was published in 2012.
Which is prior to 2014 which is prior to 2015 [Cassation appeal addendum) which means.....
Retrocausality.

Like I say its partly my fault but you have to meet me half way here.
 
I am curious, have Raffaele and Amanda’s books been submitted as court documents?

Not sure. Yet, to keep with the topic here, if either book had talked about one or both pulling their mutual alibis, then I cannot imagine these books being ignored.

For the sake of timeline, then, as of at least 2012 Raffaele is clear about his version of what his alibi is, and what he claims to remember and have trouble remembering. All of it in the context of an unshakable alibi for which he's willing to risk 25 years in prison. (No one has explained why he'd do that.)

Nothing in the Nencini trial, nor in the Nencini motivations report, nor in either of Raffaele's appeals' documents to Cassazione are at odds with what is written in his book with regards to the alibi he says, and has always said, he maintains.

The issue of Raffaele's alibi for Knox and hers for him, is simply a non-issue.

This was more than likely raised because Ergon, moderator at .NET, claimed to have a video of Raffaele saying, in Italian, that Knox and Guede knew each other for five days. That was more than likely what was supposed to have been sprung on this group.

Yet even the PMF translators corrected that. So we're back arguing retrocausality, and Raffaele's book proves that there's no difference in the story he's told, a story he's maintained since just after the interrogations, but demonstrably since 2012.

You can believe his lying, that's your call and your right, but no one can claim that either Bongiorno's closing in front of Nencini (which was the first clear "spelling out" of the separation strategy), or Nencini's motivations report or either appeals document (main and amended) represent a change.

That's the point of referencing Raffaele's book. I do not know if it was entered in as evidence, but if it had been it simply would have been further evidence for Nencini to say that both Amanda and Raffaele have always offered each other as their alibi; so there's no need to enter it on that basis.

However, much of the white-noise one reads on-line is about how those books are filled with lies and demonstrable lies. Funny that - that these "lie factoids" never made it to the courtroom with reference to either book. (All except for Mignini's defamation case against Grumbel/Sollecito - and even the court in that case wanted an independent translation into Italian, rather than take Mignini's word for it. Wish that was the way it worked with DNA analysis!!!!)
 
Last edited:
Oh Bill.

I truncated the 2014-2015-2016 table so its partly my fault but ‘Honour Bound’ was published in 2012.
Which is prior to 2014 which is prior to 2015 [Cassation appeal addendum) which means.....
Retrocausality.

Like I say its partly my fault but you have to meet me half way here.

Read the documents that we've been asking you to read. I'll meet you halfway when you demonstrate something other than trying to derail the thread.
 
Oh Bill.

I truncated the 2014-2015-2016 table so its partly my fault but ‘Honour Bound’ was published in 2012.
Which is prior to 2014 which is prior to 2015 [Cassation appeal addendum) which means.....
Retrocausality.

Like I say its partly my fault but you have to meet me half way here.

Half way between 2012 and 2016 or half way between 2014 and 2016?
Where have the buses gone? I miss those buses. Do you think Curatolo missed them too? They would be the ones on the night before the murder wouldn't they? Oops!
 
Really, not by the defence, that is surprising, thank you.

Why? As far as the murder is concerned, all they had to offer was hearsay anyway. There would be more direct witnesses to anything material to the murder than Knox or Sollecito.

Why is it not equally surprising that Crini (the prosecutor) would not have entered stuff from the books, if it was as the pro-guilt-lobby say: full of lies?

Your surprise is itself surprising!
 
Last edited:
I am curious, have Raffaele and Amanda’s books been submitted as court documents?


You do realise that there are two separate - but related - issues that are of interest to many posters here: 1) the trial process and judicial outcomes regarding Knox and Sollecito; 2) a search to get as close as possible to the truth of what happened in that cottage in Perugia on the night of 1st November 2007?

There are some of us who believe that (1) and (2) are somewhat misaligned. In an ideal world, they would be pretty strongly aligned, but then we wouldn't all be here debating the matter, would we?
 
You do realise that there are two separate - but related - issues that are of interest to many posters here: 1) the trial process and judicial outcomes regarding Knox and Sollecito; 2) a search to get as close as possible to the truth of what happened in that cottage in Perugia on the night of 1st November 2007?

There are some of us who believe that (1) and (2) are somewhat misaligned. In an ideal world, they would be pretty strongly aligned, but then we wouldn't all be here debating the matter, would we?


No I’m afraid that argument doesn’t hold.
Magical thinking and CT delusions drive the ‘evolution debate’ and the ‘Truther’ arguments.
The mere existence of these arguments doesn’t validate them. The same could apply (actually does apply) here.

Do you see.

Unless of course 'an ideal world' means that 'purty white girls' can get away with murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom