• 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.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a copy from 2010 of Harry Rag/The Machine's attempt to list lies, framed as a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of thing. (PMF is now gone, so all that remains is what others have listed on other internet services):

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=1328&sid=42b39e4eac3978383c708754f7b8cbf5

Suffice it to say, that after 9 years, 12 after the horrible killing itself, Rag is still banging this drum - 4 years after exonerations.

I think the one comment that has been proven out, is the one which says basically - if this is what the guilters have to fall back upon, then they don't realize just how weak their case actually is.

Enjoy.
 
Bill Williams said:
Harry Rag at least once had the decency to list and itemize what he claimed had been lies. I compiled that list years ago, and it's on this thread somewhere.

There had been approximately 13 of them, all originating in that period when cops controlled what AK or RS knew. Most were attributed to RS, the main "lie" Knox was accused of was against Lumumba, and in 2019 the ECHR ruled that that one had been the result of a fraudulent interrogation.

But you're quite right, adopting the reasoning of the M/B report, all of that is irrelevant to guilt, because even if true it still doesn't defeat the decisive issue, that no forensics of either of the pair had been found in the murder room.
Click to expand...

Amanda and Raffaele have been viciously attacked for lying. These are questions I posted on youtube which no one was willing to answer.

"The haters constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies. Could all those who attack Amanda for lying answer a few questions :-

1) As can be seen from the list below, there are numerous examples where people have told lies and lies have been used against Amanda. Why do those who constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies never mention this?

2) How is that Amanda who has had lies told and used against her is relentlessly attacked for lying?

3) The list I gave of the instances where people have told lies or used lies against Amanda all had one thing in common in that the lies worked against Amanda. It is clear the haters have no problem with lying if it works against Amanda because they either say nothing about those who told the lies or support those who told them. For instance, when the media fed false stories about Amanda the haters never complained because these lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters never complained when (need name of witnesses) gave false testimony or about pro guilt books writing falsehoods. The haters slavishly support the prosecution because their lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters had no problem with Nencini writing a motivation report full of lies because he found Amanda guilty. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when they feel it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies about Amanda and use lies against Amanda as long they work against Amanda but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit this? How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst they feel it is perfectly acceptable for witnesses to lie, for corrupt prosecutors to spread false information to the media and commit perjury in court, for the media to spread false stories, for Guede to falsely accuse Amanda of being at the cottage when he killed Meredith, to lie to Amanda she had HIV and for judges to convict people on motivation reports filled with lies as long as they work against Amanda?

4) As can be seen from my post on ISF below, there are numerous instances when the haters have lied themselves. They have spread malicious falsehoods about people, lied about their credentials, set up a fake wiki riddled with falsehoods, spread lies on Amazon reviews and there is a poster called Vixen who habitually lies in her posts on International Skeptics Forum. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of lying themselves and then attacking Amanda for lying?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11333243#post11333243
Lies told by a hater called Vixen who posts on ISF
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

5) If Amanda was such a prolific liar, how do you explain the arguments the haters have to resort to sustain this claim? Below is a post from International Skeptics which shows that a hater called Harry Rag when asked to list the lies told by Amanda, he was unable to do so and could only list lies told by Raffaele. If Amanda has told so many lies, why could Harry Rag not list these lies? As can be seen from my post, the poster Vixen has made four false allegations Amanda has lied and repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda has told numerous lies. If Amanda has told so many lies, why does this poster have to resort to lying to sustain this claim? When it comes to the haters, I have no problem listing the lies told by the haters and don’t have to resort to lying to show the haters have lied.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10430492#post10430492
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810

6) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst falsely accusing Amanda of lying?

7) The poster Vixen has told numerous lies about Amanda such as Amanda showed no grief, she taking £300 euros a week from her bank account. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of spreading lies about Amanda and then attacking Amanda for lying?

8) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when Amanda has done nothing remotely comparable to what the haters have done :-
• Set up a fake wiki about the case riddled with falsehoods.
• Spread malicious falsehoods about people.
• Come on internet forums and lie on and industrial scale in their posts.
• Used Amazon reviews to spread lies.
• Lying about credentials.
• Attacking someone for lying whilst spreading lies about them.
• Attacked someone for lying whilst feeling it is perfectly acceptable to use lies against someone but are too dishonest to admit this.
• Falsely accuse someone of lying.

Instances where lies have been used against Amanda.

• The media spread false lies about Amanda :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/

• Books, films and documentaries filled with falsehoods have told lies about Amanda
John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

• There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

• Amanda’s acquittal under Hellman was annulled on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. In addition Amanda was convicted by Nencini on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors".

• As per the links below, the prosecution used lies against Amanda on numerous occasions. In addition to the lies listed below, Amanda was lied to she had HIV by the prosecution. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court by asking Amanda why she called her mother at twelve when phone records show Amanda called her mother at 12.47.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

• As per the link below, Patrick Lumumba told lies about Amanda.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

• Rudy Guede lied Amanda was at the cottage when he killed Meredith."
 
Bill Williams said:
Harry Rag at least once had the decency to list and itemize what he claimed had been lies. I compiled that list years ago, and it's on this thread somewhere.

There had been approximately 13 of them, all originating in that period when cops controlled what AK or RS knew. Most were attributed to RS, the main "lie" Knox was accused of was against Lumumba, and in 2019 the ECHR ruled that that one had been the result of a fraudulent interrogation.

But you're quite right, adopting the reasoning of the M/B report, all of that is irrelevant to guilt, because even if true it still doesn't defeat the decisive issue, that no forensics of either of the pair had been found in the murder room.
Click to expand...

An issue I have raised in my previous post below is why exactly would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying which Vixen refused to address.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12724199#post12724199
 
whoanellie said:
TomG, I am wondering where on YouTube this is going on. Link?
Click to expand...

Hi Whoanellie

This is the current discussion that seems to be winding up if I'm not mistaken. If you want to find Rag he usually comments on new videos that are plentiful on the Kercher case. simply search "Amanda Knox" and use the "upload date" filter, you are quite likely to find him skulking there. Believe me he's not well-informed and he's not a good debater. I'm no big-hitter on the case and he can't get past me. Any one of the regular posters here could rip him up. Nick Van Der Leek has also been prolific in uploading videos. If you want to kick ass and have fun, then that's the place to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcV...3katczg0dutigtgwseulw03c010c.1571491939474530
 
Welshman had the link. So here is the list of lies Harry Rag thinks has something to do with the case. I mean, even if true..... you get my meaning.

***********

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one.*Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two.*Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three.*Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four.*Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five.*He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six.*Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven.*Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight.*Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine.*Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten.*When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.*(Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven.*- Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1.*Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve.*- from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen.*“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3,*although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3.*- Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”*(Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
 
Welshman said:
Amanda and Raffaele have been viciously attacked for lying. These are questions I posted on youtube which no one was willing to answer.

"The haters constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies. Could all those who attack Amanda for lying answer a few questions :-

1) As can be seen from the list below, there are numerous examples where people have told lies and lies have been used against Amanda. Why do those who constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies never mention this?

2) How is that Amanda who has had lies told and used against her is relentlessly attacked for lying?

3) The list I gave of the instances where people have told lies or used lies against Amanda all had one thing in common in that the lies worked against Amanda. It is clear the haters have no problem with lying if it works against Amanda because they either say nothing about those who told the lies or support those who told them. For instance, when the media fed false stories about Amanda the haters never complained because these lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters never complained when (need name of witnesses) gave false testimony or about pro guilt books writing falsehoods. The haters slavishly support the prosecution because their lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters had no problem with Nencini writing a motivation report full of lies because he found Amanda guilty. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when they feel it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies about Amanda and use lies against Amanda as long they work against Amanda but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit this? How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst they feel it is perfectly acceptable for witnesses to lie, for corrupt prosecutors to spread false information to the media and commit perjury in court, for the media to spread false stories, for Guede to falsely accuse Amanda of being at the cottage when he killed Meredith, to lie to Amanda she had HIV and for judges to convict people on motivation reports filled with lies as long as they work against Amanda?

4) As can be seen from my post on ISF below, there are numerous instances when the haters have lied themselves. They have spread malicious falsehoods about people, lied about their credentials, set up a fake wiki riddled with falsehoods, spread lies on Amazon reviews and there is a poster called Vixen who habitually lies in her posts on International Skeptics Forum. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of lying themselves and then attacking Amanda for lying?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11333243#post11333243
Lies told by a hater called Vixen who posts on ISF
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

5) If Amanda was such a prolific liar, how do you explain the arguments the haters have to resort to sustain this claim? Below is a post from International Skeptics which shows that a hater called Harry Rag when asked to list the lies told by Amanda, he was unable to do so and could only list lies told by Raffaele. If Amanda has told so many lies, why could Harry Rag not list these lies? As can be seen from my post, the poster Vixen has made four false allegations Amanda has lied and repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda has told numerous lies. If Amanda has told so many lies, why does this poster have to resort to lying to sustain this claim? When it comes to the haters, I have no problem listing the lies told by the haters and don’t have to resort to lying to show the haters have lied.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10430492#post10430492
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810

6) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst falsely accusing Amanda of lying?

7) The poster Vixen has told numerous lies about Amanda such as Amanda showed no grief, she taking £300 euros a week from her bank account. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of spreading lies about Amanda and then attacking Amanda for lying?

8) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when Amanda has done nothing remotely comparable to what the haters have done :-
• Set up a fake wiki about the case riddled with falsehoods.
• Spread malicious falsehoods about people.
• Come on internet forums and lie on and industrial scale in their posts.
• Used Amazon reviews to spread lies.
• Lying about credentials.
• Attacking someone for lying whilst spreading lies about them.
• Attacked someone for lying whilst feeling it is perfectly acceptable to use lies against someone but are too dishonest to admit this.
• Falsely accuse someone of lying.

Instances where lies have been used against Amanda.

• The media spread false lies about Amanda :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/

• Books, films and documentaries filled with falsehoods have told lies about Amanda
John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

• There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

• Amanda’s acquittal under Hellman was annulled on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. In addition Amanda was convicted by Nencini on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors".

• As per the links below, the prosecution used lies against Amanda on numerous occasions. In addition to the lies listed below, Amanda was lied to she had HIV by the prosecution. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court by asking Amanda why she called her mother at twelve when phone records show Amanda called her mother at 12.47.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

• As per the link below, Patrick Lumumba told lies about Amanda.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

• Rudy Guede lied Amanda was at the cottage when he killed Meredith."
Click to expand...

You seem to be working yourself up into quite a state there.
 
Bill Williams said:
Welshman had the link. So here is the list of lies Harry Rag thinks has something to do with the case. I mean, even if true..... you get my meaning.

***********

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one.*Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two.*Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three.*Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four.*Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five.*He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six.*Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven.*Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight.*Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine.*Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten.*When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.*(Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven.*- Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1.*Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve.*- from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen.*“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3,*although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3.*- Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”*(Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
Click to expand...

That is what Welshman would call 'lying on an industrial scale'.
 
Vixen said:
Your whole logic was wrong (=the false premise) which rendered the body of your entire post null and void.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Your critical thinking skill set is just MIA. And as for "states" above, not surprising given there's an idiot here who thinks murderers never confess.
 
Vixen said:
Your whole logic was wrong (=the false premise) which rendered the body of your entire post null and void.
Click to expand...

If so, then why not detail why Planigale's "whole logic was wrong"? Your claiming it was wrong does not make it so any more than your claiming there was a $2 million PR campaign, that Guede couldn't throw a 9 lb. rock 6 ft across through the window, that the money/cc theft charges were dropped, that cell mast antennae rotate, etc. makes those true.

You have a consistent history of making claims but failing to support them.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is what Welshman would call 'lying on an industrial scale'.
Click to expand...

LOL!

No it's not. Look at The Machine's lie #4, for instance. T.M.'s claim is just bogus, esp. When you realize that he'd generated this list around the time of the 2009 Massei conviction, and not even Massei supported T.M. on the point.

But here's the deal, none of this puts either AK or RS in the murder room, EVEN IF TRUE. As per usual, these alleged lies prove nothing about the case.
 
Bill Williams said:
Welshman had the link. So here is the list of lies Harry Rag thinks has something to do with the case. I mean, even if true..... you get my meaning.

***********

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one.*Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two.*Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three.*Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four.*Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five.*He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six.*Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven.*Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight.*Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine.*Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten.*When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.*(Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven.*- Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1.*Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve.*- from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen.*“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3,*although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3.*- Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”*(Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
Click to expand...

Once you get over the woo-hoo scary factor, you realise that most of these factoids could have occurred without a crime being committed. None of put K&S at the crime scene or having anything to do with the murder of Meredith. If I were asked to account for my activity 5 days ago and have my responses scrutinised in the same way as K&S I'm pretty sure you'd find anomalies galore. If K&S really had been involved in the murder of Meredith they would have in a state of high adrenaline. They would have made damn sure that they worked on a solid alibi between them. On the contrary we have a pot-addled Raffaele and Amanda both struggling to establish what they did on an otherwise uneventful night.

Hoots
 
Stacyhs said:
If so, then why not detail why Planigale's "whole logic was wrong"? Your claiming it was wrong does not make it so any more than your claiming there was a $2 million PR campaign, that Guede couldn't throw a 9 lb. rock 6 ft across through the window, that the money/cc theft charges were dropped, that cell mast antennae rotate, etc. makes those true.

You have a consistent history of making claims but failing to support them.
Click to expand...

Planigale's false premise is that the pair were convicted on 'hearsay'.

No. They were convicted on strong, clear, proven evidence in a fair even-handed trial where they were given all the time in the world.
 
Bill Williams said:
LOL!

No it's not. Look at The Machine's lie #4, for instance. T.M.'s claim is just bogus, esp. When you realize that he'd generated this list around the time of the 2009 Massei conviction, and not even Massei supported T.M. on the point.

But here's the deal, none of this puts either AK or RS in the murder room, EVEN IF TRUE. As per usual, these alleged lies prove nothing about the case.
Click to expand...

I note you are careful to restrict evidence to the 'murder room', when the strongest evidence comes from the bathroom, which damns Knox. Raff's strong clear DNA sample was on the victim's underwear in the murder room.


Marasca-Bruno can add the words 'even if' there was damning evidence it is not 100% Beyond ALL Doubt' all it wants.
 
Vixen said:
Planigale's false premise is that the pair were convicted on 'hearsay'.

No. They were convicted on strong, clear, proven evidence in a fair even-handed trial where they were given all the time in the world.
Click to expand...

They were acquitted because the evidence presented, even if true, didn't put them at the cottage at the right time. Section 6.2 of the Marasca-Bruno report details that the lower court simply had put T.O.D. into a 14 hour window, and that the inept investigation had failed to take body temperature..... so that alibis could be meaningfully analyzed.
 
Vixen said:
I note you are careful to restrict evidence to the 'murder room', when the strongest evidence comes from the bathroom, which damns Knox. Raff's strong clear DNA sample was on the victim's underwear in the murder room.


Marasca-Bruno can add the words 'even if' there was damning evidence it is not 100% Beyond ALL Doubt' all it wants.
Click to expand...

Raff's DNA was mixed in with 2 or three other Male traces.....



..... making its presence unrelated to the crime, and AK's DNA was found in a bathroom she'd shared with the victim for weeks.

Yet you know all this. As do the Italian courts who then (rightly) deduced that evidence outside of the murder room is useless if there is none (save for Rudy Guede's plentiful) in the room itself, a room he admitted to being in at the time of the death.
 
Bill Williams said:
Raff's DNA was mixed in with 2 or three other Male traces.....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

..... making its presence unrelated to the crime, and AK's DNA was found in a bathroom she'd shared with the victim for weeks.

Yet you know all this. As do the Italian courts who then (rightly) deduced that evidence outside of the murder room is useless if there is none (save for Rudy Guede's plentiful) in the room itself, a room he admitted to being in at the time of the death.
Click to expand...

Forensic science conclusively and objectively damns the pair of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom