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

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
christianahannah said:
For number 2 didn't Raffaele say that she did go out (to Le Chic) and later said she may have gone out for a while (I was asleep so how would I know for sure)?
Click to expand...

But now he's going with "I was up all night on the computer" so he would have known if she went out. He also told her the bar was closed, so either he's lying or she is.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Oh, so now the theory is that AK and RS were marks in a confidence scheme. Ok, we'll add that to the ever growing list of reasons why these poor, innocent souls were wrongfully convicted. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's an allegory, not a reason. :rolleyes:

The allegorical reason is that people love to throw stones at others. It's a wonderful human characteristic. Most humans would prefer to throw a stone at a stoning than than to see justinian restitution.

Can't you imagine people at a stoning? Sarcasm: "Yippee, my rock just knocked out her eyeball! Yeah me!"
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
I have lost the link I had to Raffaele's "interview" before his arrest. Anybody still have that handy?
Click to expand...

I don't have the link but I think it was a Kate Mansey(?) who interviewed him, possibly from the Sunday Mirror. Is that the interview you mean?

I have this from Corriere Della Sera for the November 5 interrogation. I do not know if this is his written statement which is quoted, however, Amanda's 5:45 written statement is quoted in the article. I am including both the origianal and Google Translate links.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

http://translate.google.com/transla..._novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

ETA: Thanks Alt+F4. I remembered the wrong paper. I will correct.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
So he brought about these guilty verdicts all by himself? I think not.
Click to expand...

No, he was helped by a system based on following his authority.

The chief investigator had already solved the crime. The job of rest of the team was to extract statements from the suspects and collect evidence that supports the chief investigator.

Evidence that may detract from the chief investigator's theory is not collected. For example, security camera video that covered some of the streets between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage.

Expert witnesses for the prosecution can be counted on to support the chief investigator's theory in court, even when the evidence doesn't support it. The pathetic attempts to match shoe prints in the murder room to Amanda and Raffaele are a good example.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Ah, you're back!

RS:
1. Amanda and I were at a party at my friend's house.
2. Amanda and I were at my place but she went out for awhile.
3. Amanda and I ate, watched a movie, had sex, went to sleep.
4. I was on the computer all night long.

AK:
Just ask her lawyer, even he admits she had multiple stories.

How can two people be so forgetful about what they did if all they used was weed? Hmmmmm......
Click to expand...


How can you be so forgetful about the answers you were already given when you brought this up before?

From the first continuation thread:
[Post 13769]
Author : Alt+F4
Date : 7th November 2010 12:53 PM

I guess it had something to do with the fact that his story kept changing.

[Post 13770]
Author : Dan O.

Now you are making a claim (though we've seen this mole repeated plenty of times in the Guilters Chronicles). Try backing up (with references) the changes in Raffaele's story.

[Post 13776]
Author : Dan O.

One source of the changing story mime is the purported interview with Raffaele printed in the Daily Mail on the 4th or 5th. The story said that Amanda and Raffaele went partying on the night of the 1st which contradicted Raffaeles statements to the police that he and Amanda spent the night at his apartment. The details of that news story just happen to match the stories of what both Amanda and Raffaele had been telling the police of their activities for Halloween night.

Another source of the changing story is the claim the during the interviews on the 5/6th Raffaele dropped his alibi for Amanda and said that she returned to the cottage. If you read what Raffaele actually says you will see that it is nothing more than a hypothetical conjecture where Raffaele is saying that Amanda could have left while he was asleep. He also says he doesn't believe this is possible.

​

It would really help move things along if you would make note of the responses to your posts so you don't keep presenting the same defeated arguments.
 
christianahannah said:
I don't have the link but I think it was a Kate Mansey(?) who interviewed him, possibly from the Daily Mail(?). Is that the interview you mean?

I have this from Corriere Della Sera for the November 5 interrogation. I do not know if this is his written statement which is quoted, however, Amanda's 5:45 written statement is quoted in the article. I am including both the origianal and Google Translate links.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

http://translate.google.com/transla..._novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml
Click to expand...

Have you read the detention order (Matteini Report) in the original Italian to see if this matches what Raffaele said?
 
Dan O. said:
It would really help move things along if you would make note of the responses to your posts so you don't keep presenting the same defeated arguments.
Click to expand...

Your response was wrong, your defeated argument spoke for itself, no need for my response. You also got the name of the paper wrong.
 
RoseMontague said:
That is the one, thanks. I don't know if I would give this one a number in your list, the party is not in any of the official statements and there is a lot of information in this article that we know is wrong.
Click to expand...

What did you find wrong other than Amanda not being from Washington DC? This seems to be RS's version of events on November 4th.
 
RoseMontague said:
Have you read the detention order (Matteini Report) in the original Italian to see if this matches what Raffaele said?
Click to expand...

It was some time ago, and I don't have the original available here (but think I can access it). That was the November 8 or 9 hearing correct?
 
the first refusal was in 2008, to the best of my knowledge

Fine said:
_______________

Kaosium,

That's not a fair representation of the situation. As Machiavelli pointed out months ago on this forum, it's pure fiction to say that the Forensic Police are refusing to release these famous "Electronic Data Files" to the defense attorneys. In their APPEAL DOCUMENTS the defense attorneys (of both lovebirds) complain that the records provided them by the Forensic Police during the original trial, in July 2009, were "inadequate" and "inconsistent," but they never complain that the Forensic Police are in possession of certain "Electronic Data Files" which the Forensic Police refuses to release.

To the best of my knowledge, the only party refused access to certain "Electronic Data Files" is a biology teacher in Idaho, Greg Hampikian. And even his request was probably not---properly speaking--- refused by the Forensic Police. They probably just ignored it.

///
Click to expand...

Fine,

If you reread a portion of Mr. Sollecito's appeal, you will see that Dr. Pascali was refused access to the electronic data files (which are .fsa files for one manufacturer) were refused Dr. Pascali in 2008. You may also wish to consult a news article entitled "The Appeal" by Bob Graham. It is the international norm that the defense be granted access to them so that they can mount a vigorous defense against the DNA evidence, and I have quoted Professor Dan Krane on these threads at least twice to document these points.

Alt+F4,

Thanks for noticing. I may stop in from time to time as I did today, to correct what I perceive to be errors. I don't plan to make frequent contributions any more, on the basis of what has transpired in the FM thread.
 
Alt+F4 said:
What did you find wrong other than Amanda not being from Washington DC? This seems to be RS's version of events on November 4th.
Click to expand...

I mentioned the part about Meredith never locking her door (unless you want to drop that one against Amanda to add this one), also the police kicked in the door as well as Raffaele followed them into the room (unless you want to add this one on him-maybe he sneezed on the bra clasp).
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Your response was wrong, your defeated argument spoke for itself, no need for my response. You also got the name of the paper wrong.
Click to expand...


Mirror/Mail what's the difference[*]. At least I had read the article and knew enough of the background of the case to know that the author was mistaken.
 
Dan O. said:
Mirror/Mail what's the difference[*]. At least I had read the article and knew enough of the background of the case to know that the author was mistaken.
Click to expand...

She was mistaken by all the lies RS told her.
 
RoseMontague said:
That is the one, thanks. I don't know if I would give this one a number in your list, the party is not in any of the official statements and there is a lot of information in this article that we know is wrong.
Click to expand...


The party(s) of the night before are in the official statements and they match what Kate Mansey claimed Raffaele said about the night of the first.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirr...lood-all-over-it-was-horrific-98487-20058122/
He said: "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.
Click to expand...


http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7946289&page=2
Catsius Spyridon, a Greek student studying in Perugia, said he met Knox in October 2007 at the Internet shop where he worked as a supervisor.
Click to expand...

Spyridon told the court that he and Amanda had gone out together a number of times; the last time was Oct. 31, 2007 -- Halloween. After hitting a couple of night spots together, Knox asked Spyridon to accompany her to the Fontana Maggiore -- the fountain in the heart of old Perugia -- where she was meeting Raffaele Sollecito, whom she had just started seeing.
Click to expand...


Raffaele had already been telling the police that he was home on the night of the murder, there is solid evidence that backs up that story and there is no reason for him to change it. The simplest explanation is therefore that the reporter got it wrong.
 
Dan O. said:
The party(s) of the night before are in the official statements and they match what Kate Mansey claimed Raffaele said about the night of the first.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirr...lood-all-over-it-was-horrific-98487-20058122/



http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7946289&page=2





Raffaele had already been telling the police that he was home on the night of the murder, there is solid evidence that backs up that story and there is no reason for him to change it. The simplest explanation is therefore that the reporter got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah,
Thanks Dan. The party was 31 October and not 1 November. There seems to be a lot of confusion with these 2 nights. It matches, just not the night of the murder.
 
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