Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

After telling detectives his initial statement that Amanda was with him all evening was "a bucket of ****" he told because Amanda, "asked me to lie for her", Raff affirmed - *and has never since retracted (since 2007)* - he was not willing to vouch for Amanda being there between 8:45pm and 1:00am.

Both of them switching their phone off at 8:45-ish, as soon as Popovic had gone, and Amanda and Raf lying about the evening meal, one minute, it's before 8:42pm, after which Amanda writes, she was massaging Raff's back whilst he washed up, when suddenly his pipe burst, the next, the meal was instead 11:00pm when she claimed to see blood on his hand.

It points to premeditation, the act of simultaneously switching of their phones, and suspicious their lying about it later.

Never since retracted? Really? Are you suggesting he wasn't there? Are you suggesting he was there but Amanda wasn't?

Back to switching off the phones are you? There is no evidence that Raf switched off his phone only inactivity. His experts showed there are spots in his place that do not receive cell signals and the point is clear that there is no evidence he turned it off nor did he say he turned it off.

Can you explain why Raf lied about the evening before the murder? Why wouldn't he have told exactly what happened? He clearly tells them things that weren't accurate. But why? Do you think he didn't realize phone calls are logged especially long distance or cell calls?

I see only two possibilities. One, he was confused on dates and times as per the Mansey story or two, he left Amanda sleeping at his place and went out on his own to the cottage.

 

[Bill Williams]

From lawyer, James Raper on TMJK, analysing the report:




http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Brilliant summing up.

At least we now know where you get your information from.

Consider the source. That they have to return to Nencini's idiocy is all one really needs to know.

 

[Bill Williams]

It has always been my view the crime was premeditated. There is no edict to say I have to agree with Massei or Nencini.
..................

You can't ask me to second guess somebody else's theory. However, from his sentencing, Massei clearly didn't think how the knife got to the scene was relevant, other than to explain its presence.

Thank you at least for this time replying directly to what was put to you.

I differ though in that other thing - I can ask you to second guess somebody else's theory. It's the whole reason for Italian judges being required to write their reasons.....

It is also not true at all that "from his sentencing" that Massei though how the knife got there was irrelevant. I's impossible to know where it is you snatch this legal-tidbits other than out of thin air.

Did you know that there is nothing in Massei's report, at all, to suggest that AK and /or RS has a psychopathological make-up compatible with murder? This - even though as Machiavelli summarized for us many threads ago, a major component of Mignini's closing in 2008 was the psychological reason he believed Amanda Knox committed murder?

This is precisely why the Marasca/Bruno acquittals happened, because too many prosecutors and judges went wild theorizing with no evidence to support their theories.

 

[Grinder]

From lawyer, James Raper on TMJK, analysing the report:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Brilliant summing up.

Great source. Not.

What's truly remarkable is the exhibition of the bizarre thinking of Italians. In Italy three compatibles become a match.

2. There were 4 obvious bare footprints located by the luminol and 3 of these were of a shape and size attributable to a woman - compatible with Knox in fact. One was in Knox’s bedroom, the other two in the corridor, that is, between Knox‘s room and Meredith‘s room. The two in the corridor contained Meredith’s DNA. It is not possible to obtain DNA from bleach or fruit juice etc.

3. The 4th was compatible with Sollecito and the bloody print on the bathmat in the small bathroom.​

Are there footprints that match these Luminol prints in the murder room? Clearly if they stepped in the blood there should be evidence of that in the murder room.

It is possible to get DNA from a print left in fruit juice.

Is the brilliant Raper suggesting the kids were able to erase their footprints in the murder room perfectly, yet were not able to clean the knife? The murder room was only available for cleaning for a very few hours while the knife was cleanable for 3 1/2 days.

Were those footprints compatible with other residents of the cottage either current ones or previous ones or friends that could have overnighted?

 

[Vixen]

Never since retracted? Really? Are you suggesting he wasn't there? Are you suggesting he was there but Amanda wasn't?

Back to switching off the phones are you? There is no evidence that Raf switched off his phone only inactivity. His experts showed there are spots in his place that do not receive cell signals and the point is clear that there is no evidence he turned it off nor did he say he turned it off.

Can you explain why Raf lied about the evening before the murder? Why wouldn't he have told exactly what happened? He clearly tells them things that weren't accurate. But why? Do you think he didn't realize phone calls are logged especially long distance or cell calls?

I see only two possibilities. One, he was confused on dates and times as per the Mansey story or two, he left Amanda sleeping at his place and went out on his own to the cottage.

In his "Prisoners Dilemma" strategy, Raff has schemed that by refusing to confirm Amanda's alibi she was with him all evening - and let's face it, Amanda learning of his betrayal at the questura, astutely - or so she thought - confessed she was there, but it was Patrick what done it - then he could portray himself as Mr Innocent honourably having his girlfriend's back by not actually "spilling the beans" as to what Amanda did.

 

[Vixen]

Never since retracted? Really? Are you suggesting he wasn't there? Are you suggesting he was there but Amanda wasn't?

Back to switching off the phones are you? There is no evidence that Raf switched off his phone only inactivity. His experts showed there are spots in his place that do not receive cell signals and the point is clear that there is no evidence he turned it off nor did he say he turned it off.

Can you explain why Raf lied about the evening before the murder? Why wouldn't he have told exactly what happened? He clearly tells them things that weren't accurate. But why? Do you think he didn't realize phone calls are logged especially long distance or cell calls?

I see only two possibilities. One, he was confused on dates and times as per the Mansey story or two, he left Amanda sleeping at his place and went out on his own to the cottage.

Yes, why did Raff lie, Grinder, unless he does have a personality disorder that made him tell Mansey his g/f was first to find the body.

Why did he tell police he slept from 0300 all the way through past 10:30, when Papa Raff's missed call notification came through at six (presumably, according to you, the signals miraculously broke through to reach his phone) and he physically played a barrage of heavy rock at 0530?

He also claimed he took a call from Papa Raff 2300.

Come on, Grinder, why lie about it?

 

[Vixen]

Thank you at least for this time replying directly to what was put to you.

I differ though in that other thing - I can ask you to second guess somebody else's theory. It's the whole reason for Italian judges being required to write their reasons.....

It is also not true at all that "from his sentencing" that Massei though how the knife got there was irrelevant. I's impossible to know where it is you snatch this legal-tidbits other than out of thin air.

Did you know that there is nothing in Massei's report, at all, to suggest that AK and /or RS has a psychopathological make-up compatible with murder? This - even though as Machiavelli summarized for us many threads ago, a major component of Mignini's closing in 2008 was the psychological reason he believed Amanda Knox committed murder?

This is precisely why the Marasca/Bruno acquittals happened, because too many prosecutors and judges went wild theorizing with no evidence to support their theories.

As I said before, there was no need for Massei to delve into psychopathology. That's for the defense to plead.

Mignini as prosecutor was obliged to construct a likely crime scenario. All he could see was an immature young man (but three years older than Rudy or Amanda) with a preoccupation with "dark" arts. He saw Amanda as cunning and manipulative. That led to Massei ruling their motive "futile". In other words, for kicks.

 

[Vixen]

Great source. Not.

What's truly remarkable is the exhibition of the bizarre thinking of Italians. In Italy three compatibles become a match.

2. There were 4 obvious bare footprints located by the luminol and 3 of these were of a shape and size attributable to a woman - compatible with Knox in fact. One was in Knox’s bedroom, the other two in the corridor, that is, between Knox‘s room and Meredith‘s room. The two in the corridor contained Meredith’s DNA. It is not possible to obtain DNA from bleach or fruit juice etc.

3. The 4th was compatible with Sollecito and the bloody print on the bathmat in the small bathroom.​

Are there footprints that match these Luminol prints in the murder room? Clearly if they stepped in the blood there should be evidence of that in the murder room.

It is possible to get DNA from a print left in fruit juice.

Is the brilliant Raper suggesting the kids were able to erase their footprints in the murder room perfectly, yet were not able to clean the knife? The murder room was only available for cleaning for a very few hours while the knife was cleanable for 3 1/2 days.

Were those footprints compatible with other residents of the cottage either current ones or previous ones or friends that could have overnighted?

As Nick Van der Leek explained, the hallway is of a terracota colour. Most likely, the pair cleaning up, failed to spot the feint footprints still there.

On hearing the evidence coming through, Amanda then concocted a cock and bull story about sliding along on a towel when her foot slipped, hence the luminol revelation.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, why did Raff lie, Grinder, unless he does have a personality disorder that made him tell Mansey his g/f was first to find the body.

Why did he tell police he slept from 0300 all the way through past 10:30, when Papa Raff's missed call notification came through at six (presumably, according to you, the signals miraculously broke through to reach his phone) and he physically played a barrage of heavy rock at 0530?

He also claimed he took a call from Papa Raff 2300.

Come on, Grinder, why lie about it?

Do you have the play list?

Yes why lie about it? Makes no sense. Amanda was first to find the cottage in disarray but so what. He had them going to a party that night but it was the previous night. Or Mansey was confused.

Yes we all know that he said he received a call that didn't happen. You haven't addressed the fact that he clearly would have known that a call from his father would be in the system as it was long distance and from/to a cell phone.

At my cabin in the mountains the signal is very spotty and yes it varies from minute to minute and varies depending on weather as well.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I said before, there was no need for Massei to delve into psychopathology. That's for the defense to plead.

Mignini as prosecutor was obliged to construct a likely crime scenario. All he could see was an immature young man (but three years older than Rudy or Amanda) with a preoccupation with "dark" arts. He saw Amanda as cunning and manipulative. That led to Massei ruling their motive "futile". In other words, for kicks.

Sigh. Welcome back, Vixen.

What a croc. Mignini's job was not to construct a ""likely"" scenario, he was obliged to prove a case based on an evidentiary narrative. Instead, all the Massei court was told was an invented scenario (at closing) of Amanda's jealous rage over Meredith, which no one had spoke of at trial.

Mignini invented the psychologizing of his narrative because it was clear that the "sex-game gone wrong" motive had collapsed. Indeed, his Ritual-rite scenario collapsed when co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to resign if he took that one to trial.

For Massei **not** to delve into psychology in his report proves that Massei thought any speculation about it as to motive with regard to AK and RS would not fly in his court. So as a convicting judge he had to invent one of his own - "the choice for evil".

You see, Vixen, your arguments should at least include was was really-real at -trial and in the motivations reports, before flying off in all directions with your own theorizing.

It is also complete bollocks that Raffaele had a preoccupation with the dark arts. A Manga Comic.... LOL!!!

Is this all you have? Disagreeing with ALL the prosecutors, with all the convicting judges, but you still think them guilty! Hoots!

 

[Grinder]

As Nick Van der Leek explained, the hallway is of a terracota colour. Most likely, the pair cleaning up, failed to spot the feint footprints still there.

On hearing the evidence coming through, Amanda then concocted a cock and bull story about sliding along on a towel when her foot slipped, hence the luminol revelation.

There were no visible footprints. She told of the shuffle before the one foot prints were found. What does foot slipping mean?

Does Nicky think that the brilliant PLE with fullness of light and time also didn't see these prints What does he think happened to the missing steps?

What happened to the place in the murder room where they stepped in the blood?

 

[Vixen]

Do you have the play list?

Yes why lie about it? Makes no sense. Amanda was first to find the cottage in disarray but so what. He had them going to a party that night but it was the previous night. Or Mansey was confused.

Yes we all know that he said he received a call that didn't happen. You haven't addressed the fact that he clearly would have known that a call from his father would be in the system as it was long distance and from/to a cell phone.

At my cabin in the mountains the signal is very spotty and yes it varies from minute to minute and varies depending on weather as well.

The playlist includes Fight Club, Nirvana and Oasis.

Raff's apartment is not in the Adirondacks, or the Blue Ridge. Or even on top of Old Smoky all covered in snow.

Gotcha! If Raff had turned off his phone properly, or there was no signal: no message would have come through. The fact the missed call showed up as soon as he switched it on, indicates contrary to LondonJohn rants assertions, Raff had a GPS enabled phone. IOW the signal of the missed call bounced off the mast until such time it was successfully delivered.

 

[Desert Fox]

I've patiently waited for Vixen to explain how the police knew that the phones were turned off. Is there a record from the phone company? Surely it must be part of the record. They must have shown that neither ever turned their phones off at night or very rarely, right?

Amanda's phone being turned off was discovered because she told them she turned it off. IIRC correctly she, being at Raf's, wanted to preserve battery as her charger wasn't at his place.
This is such a silly point since it makes no sense to turn them off. Obviously they knew that when phones are turned on messages sent during the time it was turned off come through and it would be totally obvious when they were sent and that they didn't answer. It is completely clear that had they planned a crime they would have left their phones on at Raf's and hoped that someone would call of text.

What would the PGP say if there were messages left during the murder time and the phones were at Raf's? They sure wouldn't believe that they had been ****** and just didn't answer. They would say they left them home and on. So phones on or off no difference.

I doubt their phones had flight mode.

That makes a lot of sense and actually more than being disturbed. Many older phones also can drain their batteries really quickly if they cannot find a signal because they keep hunting for one. I know that when I have put a cell phone in a locker, I have seen the phone dead just a few hours later even when it had a full charge when it was put in there.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. Welcome back, Vixen.

What a croc. Mignini's job was not to construct a ""likely"" scenario, he was obliged to prove a case based on an evidentiary narrative. Instead, all the Massei court was told was an invented scenario (at closing) of Amanda's jealous rage over Meredith, which no one had spoke of at trial.

Mignini invented the psychologizing of his narrative because it was clear that the "sex-game gone wrong" motive had collapsed. Indeed, his Ritual-rite scenario collapsed when co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to resign if he took that one to trial.

For Massei **not** to delve into psychology in his report proves that Massei thought any speculation about it as to motive with regard to AK and RS would not fly in his court. So as a convicting judge he had to invent one of his own - "the choice for evil".

You see, Vixen, your arguments should at least include was was really-real at -trial and in the motivations reports, before flying off in all directions with your own theorizing.

It is also complete bollocks that Raffaele had a preoccupation with the dark arts. A Manga Comic.... LOL!!!

Is this all you have? Disagreeing with ALL the prosecutors, with all the convicting judges, but you still think them guilty! Hoots!

Comodi's issue was the continuing reverberations of the Monster of Florence and the row over Mignini's theory there was a satanic masonic lodge behind it (and the masons do flirt with ancient Egyptian sorcery).

Mignini, Comodi and Massei just kept the Kercher murder as simple as possible to secure the conviction. It hardly matters what the row was about, if indeed it happened as Rudy said, and Nencini said it could have, as stabbing someone in the neck is totally a disproportionate act deserving of a murder conviction, and duly given.

I note your idol worships depraved degenerates who burn Bibles on stage with swastika symbology and Black Mass, with Raff bragging in a recent blog that self-confessed satanist Manson, who once kept a dead foetus in a jar, splattered his blood around the audience after pricking himself with his microphone-cum-sword "in baptism". Nauseating.

 

[Vixen]

That makes a lot of sense and actually more than being disturbed. Many older phones also can drain their batteries really quickly if they cannot find a signal because they keep hunting for one. I know that when I have put a cell phone in a locker, I have seen the phone dead just a few hours later even when it had a full charge when it was put in there.

Coincidentally with Raff turning off his. *And coinciding with the events of the evening about to unfold*.

The excuse Amanda gave originally was she didn't want Patrick to call back.

Want to save power? Put it on flight mode.

 

[Desert Fox]

Coincidentally with Raff turning off his. *And coinciding with the events of the evening about to unfold*.

The excuse Amanda gave originally was she didn't wantcPatrick to call back.

Want to save power? Put it on flight mode.

One thing you learn as a skeptic is that coincidences do happen.

BTW: With Jodi Arias, if the only evidence they had against her was that her phone was shut off, I would not consider her guilty. The only item that really adds is premeditation. It was also when she was driving long distance when it is most important to likely have your cell phone on. One usually keeps a charger in the car as well.

 

[Grinder]

Coincidentally with Raff turning off his. *And coinciding with the events of the evening about to unfold*.

The excuse Amanda gave originally was she didn't want Patrick to call back.

Want to save power? Put it on flight mode.

No GPS, Flight Mode nor was his phone turned off or at least he says it wasn't and there is no phone log evidence.

Once again not withstanding the fact that there is no direct evidence that the phone was turned off, why would they turn their phones off?

People have problems with reception in the Warwick Hotel here in Seattle. A friend calls me from the road and when he drives by my SO's parents' house it drops 5 out 6 times.

It was shown that reception in his flat had spots without reception. Or maybe he turned it off not to hear from daddy. It really just doesn't matter.

Go check the most popular phones of 2007 and see how many had GPS and flight mode.

 

[LondonJohn]

The playlist includes Fight Club, Nirvana and Oasis.

Raff's apartment is not in the Adirondacks, or the Blue Ridge. Or even on top of Old Smoky all covered in snow.

Gotcha! If Raff had turned off his phone properly, or there was no signal: no message would have come through. The fact the missed call showed up as soon as he switched it on, indicates contrary to LondonJohn rants assertions, Raff had a GPS enabled phone. IOW the signal of the missed call bounced off the mast until such time it was successfully delivered.

All the highlighted part is complete and utter codswallop. It's ignorant, inept and devoid of even basic understanding of mobile phone networks (and GPS).

I've already told you how it actually works, but I'll recap:

Suppose I turn my phone off or I have no cellular network coverage between 8pm and 10pm. Suppose someone calls me at 9pm. What will happen is that the network will try to deliver that call to my mobile, but of course it will immediately realise that my phone is unavailable. It will then either send the caller an automated message saying that my phone is unavailable, or it will autodivert the call to my voicemail service (which sits on the network, and not on my phone). The network will also make a note of the time of the call and the number of the caller (unless the caller has disabled his caller ID).

OK so far?

Now.... when I either turn my phone back on at 10pm or my phone regains network coverage at 10pm, the network will suddenly see that my phone is now reconnected to the network. At that point, the network will deliver the message regarding the missed call (the time of the call, and the number of the caller). Additionally, if the caller was diverted to my voicemail and left a message, the network will send me another message telling me that there's a new voicemail message waiting for me to access.

But during 8pm and 10pm, nothing and nobody has been able to have any kind of contact with my mobile phone. It's only when it reconnects to the network at 10pm that anything can happen.

The assertion that the notification of a missed call as soon as my handset reconnected to the network at 10pm indicates that I have a GPS-enabled phone is risibly incorrect. GPS has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It's deeply embarrassing - and very telling - that this sort of total nonsense is being asserted here.

But regarding GPS: if my phone had been switched off between 8pm and 10pm, then it would have received zero GPS data from the GPS satellites. Once again: if the phone is switched off, it communicates in no way whatsoever with any external source or network. If my phone was switched off, nothing and nobody would ever know where my phone was located between 8pm and 10pm. I could have taken my phone 50 miles away and back again, and nothing on my phone or on any other network or database in the whole world would ever know that my phone had made that journey.

If my phone had fallen out of cellular network coverage between 8pm and 10pm, but had remained switched on, then it might well have retained reception of the GPS satellite signal (though of course it might have lost the GPS signal too). If if had retained reception of GPS, then the phone would store its own location data, but it would not be able to transmit that location data to anything or anyone else while I had no cellular signal (again: phones do not transmit to the GPS signal - their only means of transmission are cellular networks, bluetooth or Wifi). Once I regained cellular coverage at 10pm, my phone could have send the backlog of location data for the previous two hours in a burst, but only to any app which I'd previously given permission to use my location data.

In short, the apparent fact that Sollecito's phone sent him a network message as soon as it regained network coverage at 6am on 2nd November (either because Sollecito switched his phone back on at that time, or because his switched-on phone regained signal coverage at that time) has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Sollecito's phone had GPS reception capability. And as I've already said several times now, it's highly unlikely that Sollecito's 2007 non-specialist mobile phone had GPS reception capability in any case - though it's totally moot to the whole discussion anyhow.

And the last bit about "...the signal of the missed call bounced off the mast until such time it was successfully delivered" is so extraordinarily wrong and ignorant that it genuinely did make me laugh out loud

 

[LondonJohn]

No GPS, Flight Mode nor was his phone turned off or at least he says it wasn't and there is no phone log evidence.

Once again not withstanding the fact that there is no direct evidence that the phone was turned off, why would they turn their phones off?

People have problems with reception in the Warwick Hotel here in Seattle. A friend calls me from the road and when he drives by my SO's parents' house it drops 5 out 6 times.

It was shown that reception in his flat had spots without reception. Or maybe he turned it off not to hear from daddy. It really just doesn't matter.

Go check the most popular phones of 2007 and see how many had GPS and flight mode.

Vixen has already demonstrated to my total satisfaction that unfortunately she has absolutely no idea what she is writing about in respect of mobile phones, GPS, network operations and so on. Virtually every single element of what she has written over the past few days on these subjects is stunningly wrong and ignorant. I think it's important that people understand this, in the context of the importance of mobile phone evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Comodi's issue was the continuing reverberations of the Monster of Florence and the row over Mignini's theory there was a satanic masonic lodge behind it (and the masons do flirt with ancient Egyptian sorcery).

Mignini, Comodi and Massei just kept the Kercher murder as simple as possible to secure the conviction. It hardly matters what the row was about, if indeed it happened as Rudy said, and Nencini said it could have, as stabbing someone in the neck is totally a disproportionate act deserving of a murder conviction, and duly given.

I note your idol worships depraved degenerates who burn Bibles on stage with swastika symbology and Black Mass, with Raff bragging in a recent blog that self-confessed satanist Manson, who once kept a dead foetus in a jar, splattered his blood around the audience after pricking himself with his microphone-cum-sword "in baptism". Nauseating.

Can you quit with the "your idol" crap please. It's demeaning, inappropriate, insulting and a total misrepresentation of (to my best knowledge and understanding) the way in which pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators feel about Knox and/or Sollecito.

In addition, if I might say so, it rather harms your credibility in the debate at the same time. Stop accusing people of "idolising" Knox and/or Sollecito please. It's a lie and a misrepresentation.