• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
After viewing many Google translations I now recognize some of the common errors that Google makes. Logic should tell you that the statement doesn't make any sense. If the key was behind the door then that key could have been used to lock the door from the inside. If however the entire room was searched and no door key was found this would be evidence that the door was locked from the outside. I suspect that Google negated the statement that originally said "there was no key behind the door".
Click to expand...

Oh right, as in, two negatives make a positive. As of the time Luca encountered the door, I believe he and Raf(?) looked through the keyhole. The absence of a key on the inside meant likely locked from outside.
 
Vixen said:
OMG Appalling! Donnino there as a diplomat, to remove psychological blocks? It's astonishing Amanda's restraint in not leaping across the table to land her one.

Not belittling Amanda's torture, but I always think Raf's was treated far worse by the police, physically manhandled and his shoes removed. No doubt because he informed them he carried a knife. However, six month's solitary confinement and a prison guard threatening to leave him in a blood of blood.

I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality.
Click to expand...

He did. He was furious that they took his shoes!

PL received the worst treatment but recanted maybe at the advice of the PLE.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Vixen,
I used to believe that too.
You gotta watch the Crime Scene video from Nov. 16, 2007 where the cops filmed inside Raffaele's apartment.

In case you have not watched it,
well here you go, a tour inside Raff's flat:


Here's a coupla screen grab pix for ya:


That broken pipe under his sink must have been a pain in the ***.
A lot of water must have come outta that sink pipe, yuck, with food particles from cooking and dirty dishes scattered about. And if you were stoned and having' a romantic night off work hangin' out with your new luver of only a week, wouldn't you too wanna clean it up with a mop the next day before leaving town on a fun, romantic day trip thru the countryside to Gubbio?

(I'm a dude,
+ I'd much rather my gal come and smoke out with me and cuddle,
then see her get on her hands + knees and mop up my dirty kitchen floor with towels.)

Check out the pic below.
If you watch the video, 10 days after Raffaele was arrested and imprisoned and put in solitary confinement, his sink was dry, but underneath the sink was wet, still, with water droplets visable right in front of the Ace Bleach.



For some reason I can see Amanda wanting to help keep her new boyfriend - (of a week) -Raff's apartment clean, for heck he wasn't a stoned, surfer-dude type mind you, but a scarf wearing, upper class kinda man who was gonna graduate college in 2 weeks, from what I know...
RW


Hey Vixen,
since you already seem to know a lot about this case we discuss,
I gotta ask - Have you watched any or all of the other Crime Scene videos?

If not,
ISF member Metho's kindly linked them for us awhile back, download, watch and learn:
[
I wonder if you too might get a little mad when you hear the cops laughing as Meredith lay dead inside her bedroom,
raped and murdered by Rudy Guede?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the links. I can't believe the sheer number of bleach bottles under Raf's sink. Enough for a year!

Aw, it's kinda sweet Amanda wanting to help out Raf with the housework, but didn't he have a regular cleaning lady come by?
 
Grinder said:
Is the dodgy witness fine by you if he is a heroin addict that stated he was high that night and mixed up the nights stating that buses were there that weren't?

Is he just fine if asked by the police if he had seen anything and said no but came forward at the behest of a cub reporter months later?

Where have you been posting the last seven years .org or .net?
Click to expand...

If your opposition want to bring a witness you object to, you have no choice but to grin and bear it. Nine times out of ten if you try to block the witness, the judge will rule it's in the public interest to hear them. All you can do is cross examine and highlight their deficiencies.

No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case.
 
Vixen said:
OMG Appalling! Donnino there as a diplomat, to remove psychological blocks? It's astonishing Amanda's restraint in not leaping across the table to land her one.

Not belittling Amanda's torture, but I always think Raf's was treated far worse by the police, physically manhandled and his shoes removed. No doubt because he informed them he carried a knife. However, six month's solitary confinement and a prison guard threatening to leave him in a blood of blood.

I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality.
Click to expand...


Ahem. "Interpreter" and "interrogator" are two very different things indeed. The ONLY job of an interpreter in this sort of context is to try to ensure that both parties (i.e. Knox and the police interrogators) understand the words each other is using, together with their correct meanings.

If Donnino really did say "You're a liar" to Knox, and she was saying that off her own bat rather than translating those words as spoken by a police interrogator, then she was committing pretty serious misconduct. As it is, it's already know for certain that she committed a certain level of professional misconduct when she started directly communicating with Knox about the whole subject of traumatic amnesia, using her own experience as an example. She directly testified to this in court. And it was absolutely wrong, and way outside her job description. Knox was entitled to view Donnino as an independent third party, who was present in that room solely and exclusively to ensure that Knox understood what the police said (and the meaning of those words if there was any potential ambiguity), and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Problem is, if one of the parties want to bring a witness, then it's part of correct legal process. The other side has the opportunity to cross examine them.

Imagine there's a road accident and the only witness is a very dodgy looking fellow. As an eye witness, his testimony is fine.
Click to expand...

It's not if he told police shortly after the incident that he saw nothing (or didn't say anything) but several months later comes forward with an implausible tale that doesn't hold up under cross examination, which is the case with both Curatolo and Quintavalle. Hellmann rightly discarded that worthless testimony that ought to have impugned the integrity of the prosecution for ever relying upon it and caused everyone to look askance at Massei for holding it credible in the first place.

As linked above, the Cassation quashing Motivations shows just how dishonest and/or incompetent that Cheffi court was, something that you must address if you wish to maintain there was something justifiable about the quashing of Hellmann's decision because of anything regarding those two pathetic clowns. You have Hellmann's motivations, you have Cheffi's motivations, one of those two must make more sense, are you saying it was Cheffi? If it was then tell me why.
 
Vixen said:
OMG Appalling! Donnino there as a diplomat, to remove psychological blocks? It's astonishing Amanda's restraint in not leaping across the table to land her one.

Not belittling Amanda's torture, but I always think Raf's was treated far worse by the police, physically manhandled and his shoes removed. No doubt because he informed them he carried a knife. However, six month's solitary confinement and a prison guard threatening to leave him in a blood of blood.

I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality.
Click to expand...

He did complain, he never shuts up about the shoes in particular. However there's no reason for it to come up as often because his statements weren't used against him in any way. The easiest way to explain this is those statements that Amanda signed should never have had any validity at all, she should have had a lawyer who would have advised her what the gravity of her signing those statements would be and how it would affect Patrick. Those statements would not have been signed had she gotten a chance to sleep and have known they would be considered definite evidence against Patrick, a perusal of her note later in the day reveals that.

No cherry-picking half a sentence out of context, read the whole thing and tell me if you think she'd have signed a definite accusation against Patrick. The hitting, the yelling, the lying/misinforming--all of the interrogation tactics--are only relevant because the police managed to finesse the law and use that statement against Patrick and then against Amanda in the court of public opinion and eventually in the courts.

So...why were the police still using that note against Patrick (on the eighth before Matteini) when they already knew that the person that signed them recanted (completely on the seventh) and hadn't had a lawyer to advise them beforehand and who refused to repeat the accusation before Matteini? What possible worth would such a statement have against Patrick anyway at that juncture?
 
Last edited:
The Cleaning Lady

Vixen said:
Thanks for the links. I can't believe the sheer number of bleach bottles under Raf's sink. Enough for a year!

Aw, it's kinda sweet Amanda wanting to help out Raf with the housework, but didn't he have a regular cleaning lady come by?
Click to expand...


Hi Vixen,
You are correct,
Raffael Sollecito did have a cleaning lady come by periodically to his flat.

BUT get this,
Raffaele's cleaning lady, whose name was Miss Ana Marina Chiriboga
she worked at the nearby Conad convenience store, the 1 where her boss 1st told police investigators that he had not seen Raffaele nor Amanda recently in his store, yet came forward about a year after Miss Kercher was murdered, (at the behest of a local newspaper journalist neighbor) to say that Amanda Knox was waiting at the storefront before it was opened on the morning of the day that Meredith's corpse was found, entered the store when it opened, headed straight for the cleaning supplies, but did not buy anything and left. Weird stuff, right?


From Old Perugia Shock,
who covered the 1st Trial extensively,
we can read this about Raffaele's cleaning lady,
who just so happened to be the sales clerk/floor gal of proprietor Marco Quintavalle's Conad store:
But then was Massei's turn to pose questions. And Massei didn't forget about that crucial event. He made the fateful question: DID YOU SEE AMANDA KNOX COMING TO THE STORE THAT MORNING?
And Marina's answer was simple: NO.

<snip>

Today Judge Massei exhibited himself in his usual performance when something dramatically in favor of Amanda happens. So if we thought the last hearings made him doubt about the prosecution theory now we know he's still there.
Marina told him that Amanda didn't come to the store. And he wasn't happy with that. He started asking and asking if she was sure, if she was present in all moments. It looked like he hoped her to say that at one point she went away or covered her eyes so she couldn't see. And he almost managed, since under the insisting questions Marina remembered that yes, at one point she maybe went to the depot. The next question, about where that depot was located, was a real moment of suspense.

You could tell that many people hoped Marina to reveal that the depot was two blocks away or so. I could see the Judge holding his breathe. Until Marina answered: the depot is just inside the store. And now only a stupid can believe that Amanda showed up just when Marina stepped into the depot. Especially considering that Amanda, according to the great store owner and his mentors, was already in front of the shop when they arrived, waiting for them to open.

* * *

And also this, from Old Perugia Shock:
After the crime she had been interviewed by Sollecito's lawyers and then by the police about something important at that time and (for someone) still important now: the bleach. She confirmed the two bottles of Ace bleach had been in Raffaele's apartment since the summer and in exactly the same conditions, and on the same place, in which they were found after the crime, one still sealed and the other one half full.


Vixen,
I hope this info helps you as you work thru your theories of what happened after Miss Meredith Kercher
was raped and murdered.

I gotta run,
for it's John-John vs Adriano de Souza,
live, in the Final at Margaret River, Western Australia:
http://www.worldsurfleague.com/
Peace, RW


ETA - Congrats to Adriano!
Go The Brazilian Storm!!!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If your opposition want to bring a witness you object to, you have no choice but to grin and bear it. Nine times out of ten if you try to block the witness, the judge will rule it's in the public interest to hear them. All you can do is cross examine and highlight their deficiencies.

No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case.
Click to expand...

Read the links provided to you, especially regarding the witness testimony your arguments are relying upon, then you will have a greater chance of convincing people you're a mensa candidate. If you don't read them you may just find out just how easy it is for otherwise intelligent people to make an utter fools of themselves on this case.
 
Last edited:
DNA does float, and it also transfers quite easily

Vixen said:
I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible.
Click to expand...
Others have already pointed out certain things that Mrs. Stefanoni said that were false. I can add that some other things she and some other members of the forensic police said and did were contrary to good practice, such as not changing gloves and failing to take precautions against airborne DNA.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Others have already pointed out certain things that Mrs. Stefanoni said that were false. I can add that some other things she and some other members of the forensic police said and did were contrary to good practice, such as not changing gloves and failing to take precautions against airborne DNA.
Click to expand...

Vixen - take a peek at this pic of Stefanonie's glove, taken from the very video the scientific police filmed themselves!!!



This is the bra-clasp that contained the phony evidence against Raffaele. Note that Stefanonie is holding it by the hasp, on which the evidence was later found.
 
Vixen said:
Silly question, but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?
Click to expand...

Yes, she DID ASK. I cite Amanda's book, Waiting to be Heard, p. 112 (hardcover edition): Amanda asked the police interrogators to use the bathroom. She told them "I have a feminine is issue". She was refused use of the bathroom.
 
Last edited:
Samzilla said:
No idea.

It's been almost a month since the acquittal. You'd think with so much extensive discussion about the pending motivation report in the meantimel, if 90 days didn't apply, someone would've mentioned it.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli is helpful on these issues but he took the acquittal hard. He is not around. If he is a good Italian, as Giobbi would expect, he should be in bed crying. He should have lost his appetite for pizza. :p
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Oh right, as in, two negatives make a positive. As of the time Luca encountered the door, I believe he and Raf(?) looked through the keyhole. The absence of a key on the inside meant likely locked from outside.
Click to expand...


The statement is: "Yea, right!" where two positives make a negative.

Google translations from Italian to English often drop or insert a negation as well as transposing gender.

And, what is the point of discussing what Luca might have said? Have you forgotten who invited him to this party?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom