Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

[welshman impression] If the Sollecitos were going to pay off the judges, why wouldn't they have done so in 2013? [/welshman impression]

Why not in 2007?

 

[Bill Williams]

[welshman impression] If the Sollecitos were going to pay off the judges, why wouldn't they have done so in 2013? [/welshman impression]

Why not in 2007?

The Sollecitos blew it when they saw to it that Napoleoni was the lead detective on the case. It actually goes back to the Narducci affair when they eventually failed to get Mignini to serve any time at all. Before 2007 the Sollecitos had paid off all sorts of judges to get Mignini in trouble....

Maybe that's why Mignini picked on Sollecito.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Winterbottom's, "The Face of an Angel" has pretty much hit bottom in its UK release. Week three saw it in two cinemas in the whole country, and it took in about $1,000 (rough conversion from pounds).

It is aiming for a June 19 release in North America. If it makes it over the Atlantic.

 

[carbonjam72]

Winterbottom's, "The Face of an Angel" has pretty much hit bottom in its UK release. Week three saw it in two cinemas in the whole country, and it took in about $1,000 (rough conversion from pounds).

It is aiming for a June 19 release in North America. If it makes it over the Atlantic.

It could hit an iceberg.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Bill Williams]

Winterbottom's, "The Face of an Angel" has pretty much hit bottom in its UK release. Week three saw it in two cinemas in the whole country, and it took in about $1,000 (rough conversion from pounds).

It is aiming for a June 19 release in North America. If it makes it over the Atlantic.

It could hit an iceberg.

I get the distinct feeling I'm the only one not rooting for the iceberg!

 

[katy_did]

I get the distinct feeling I'm the only one not rooting for the iceberg!

You're not the only one who thought it was a decent film, if that's what you mean. I'd call it "flawed but interesting"! Three or three and a half stars is probably fair. It kept me thinking about it long after I saw it.

The box office takings aren't much different to Winterbottom's other films ($71,712, $5,105 and $29,140 for his last three on opening week in theatres). Apparently there were another couple of indie/arthouse films out the same week as Winterbottom's which might've cut into the takings a little, being aimed at the same market, but even without that it'd probably only have got another $10 or $20,000.

I think some were under the impression it was going to be battling it out with Cinderella or something but it's Winterbottom so yeah, not so much. Good film, though (FoA, haven't seen Cinderella yet, lol).

 

[Dan O.]

Here's part of the time line from .net with my few comments in bold:

Just a start

Why do you bother? Does any rational person that finds anything valid in that swill of raw speculation?

 

[Samson]

Why do you bother? Does any rational person that finds anything valid in that swill of raw speculation?

Dan O,you should not criticise anyone who is involved in deconstructing the psychological make up of the persecutors.

 

[lonepinealex]

Dan O,you should not criticise anyone who is involved in deconstructing the psychological make up of the persecutors.

Why not? He's right - who cares what some nutters think? Going after every lunatic on the internet is a fool's errand.

 

[Samson]

Why not? He's right - who cares what some nutters think? Going after every lunatic on the internet is a fool's errand.

You are wrong. Those that do not learn the lessons of history will repeat the errors.
In addition, I am now involved in correcting a major judicial error in New Zealand, where the proof is absolute in the same way as the innocence of the kids. The guilters are wrong and must be addressed. Grinder is correct to try to understand these people. It is regressive to ignore them.

 

[katy_did]

Why not? He's right - who cares what some nutters think? Going after every lunatic on the internet is a fool's errand.

On the other hand, it is a timeline, and I suppose we can't really say "the PGP can't come up with a credible timeline" if we don't address the ones they do come up with.

The first thing which jumps out at me about that timeline is that it distorts Curatolo's testimony to the point where it might as well be discarded completely. Perhaps Curatolo might've been so engrossed in his reading that he didn't notice they weren't there for ten, maybe fifteen minutes - and that the movement of them leaving and coming back didn't attract his attention either - but it's not very credible that he didn't notice if they were away for any longer than that. And we know he first saw them at 9:28 exactly because he checked his watch (lol).

So that timeline means abandoning Curatolo. I'm sure there are other issues with it too, that's just the first I noticed.

 

[lonepinealex]

For my sins I had a look over at PMF. Seems they mostly comment on (and misrepresent) what people post here and at IA. Big deal. If we do the same thing here (and I would argue that a lot of what people are posting about what they're saying over there is misrepresentative) then the whole thing becomes an utterly ridiculous exercise in futility.

The only way to break the cycle is for one side to ignore the other.

Still, meh, it's none of my business what people choose to do with their time, it just makes the discussions here a bit pointless if it's just tit for tat sniping and laughing at some fools.

 

[Grinder]

Why not? He's right - who cares what some nutters think? Going after every lunatic on the internet is a fool's errand.

Fools errand would be an errand run by a fool which would be calling members here fools which would be a personal attack.

Seriously more than just I have requested a time line from the PGP. Although not made here, it is still a timeline that was at least partially in response to poster(s) here.

I find it as worthwhile to show no timeline can be put together as discussing anything else about this case at this time.

Since this whole case has been about what nutters think, some being judges and prosecutors, why stop now?

 

[anglolawyer]

On the other hand, it is a timeline, and I suppose we can't really say "the PGP can't come up with a credible timeline" if we don't address the ones they do come up with.

The first thing which jumps out at me about that timeline is that it distorts Curatolo's testimony to the point where it might as well be discarded completely. Perhaps Curatolo might've been so engrossed in his reading that he didn't notice they weren't there for ten, maybe fifteen minutes - and that the movement of them leaving and coming back didn't attract his attention either - but it's not very credible that he didn't notice if they were away for any longer than that. And we know he first saw them at 9:28 exactly because he checked his watch (lol).

So that timeline means abandoning Curatolo. I'm sure there are other issues with it too, that's just the first I noticed.

I wouldn't mine seeing the evidence that compels us to stretch and mangle everything into this timeline. Mignini says we can chuck away the DNA (another lol there, I think) because the stand out thing is the staged burglary and the only person in the whole universe with any possible reason to stage the burglary is Amanda Knox. It's funny they didn't just go with that if its so overwhelming.

 

[Grinder]

For my sins I had a look over at PMF. Seems they mostly comment on (and misrepresent) what people post here and at IA. Big deal. If we do the same thing here (and I would argue that a lot of what people are posting about what they're saying over there is misrepresentative) then the whole thing becomes an utterly ridiculous exercise in futility.

The only way to break the cycle is for one side to ignore the other.

Still, meh, it's none of my business what people choose to do with their time, it just makes the discussions here a bit pointless if it's just tit for tat sniping and laughing at some fools.

How have they been misrepresented?

 

[Grinder]

I wouldn't mine seeing the evidence that compels us to stretch and mangle everything into this timeline. Mignini says we can chuck away the DNA (another lol there, I think) because the stand out thing is the staged burglary and the only person in the whole universe with any possible reason to stage the burglary is Amanda Knox. It's funny they didn't just go with that if its so overwhelming.

Recently I was made aware that Rudi had told the PLE in his third interrogation that he had been in Filomena's room which belies the PGP argument that there was no evidence that Rudi had been in her room. This argument was used to help prove it was staged. I don't think it is a strong point but proves he could be there and not leave a trace, sorry Locard.

 

[carbonjam72]

For my sins I had a look over at PMF. Seems they mostly comment on (and misrepresent) what people post here and at IA. Big deal. If we do the same thing here (and I would argue that a lot of what people are posting about what they're saying over there is misrepresentative) then the whole thing becomes an utterly ridiculous exercise in futility.

The only way to break the cycle is for one side to ignore the other.

Still, meh, it's none of my business what people choose to do with their time, it just makes the discussions here a bit pointless if it's just tit for tat sniping and laughing at some fools.

"Can't we all get along?" (Rodney King).

 

[carbonjam72]

Recently I was made aware that Rudi had told the PLE in his third interrogation that he had been in Filomena's room which belies the PGP argument that there was no evidence that Rudi had been in her room. This argument was used to help prove it was staged. I don't think it is a strong point but proves he could be there and not leave a trace, sorry Locard.

Hope I haven't misunderstood what you're saying here, but there was some evidence worth noting.

IIRC, there was blood and hair on Filomena's window sill, which for some unexplained reason wasn't tested or was lost. So Rudy may well have left bio evidence during his break-in.

In addition, there was the impressions of a glass fragment in Rudy's bloody shoe print made in Meredith's wet blood. Rudy admits the footprints are his, and Hellman said it shows Rudy stepped on broken glass before he assaulted Meredith, or at least before he steeped in her blood (I probably have to re-read Hellman).

Plus, I forgot what Locard's principle is, and I refuse to google it, for political reasons. (Is that the one about Nazis and Barabara Streisand?).

 

[lonepinealex]

How have they been misrepresented?

Some people here and at IA do the same thing that some people on PMF do, which is not to use the caveat some people when relating what the other side writes.

Individual views are not representative, and should be discussed as individual views, not "what the other side (collectively) thinks".