• 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.

Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
It was also a slip to say she crumbled and told them what they already knew but that doesn't stop you believing he said it. But OK. We've covered this. I consider it a revealing moment, especially coupled with the transition from 1.45 to 5.45.

No it wasn't a slip it was the absolute truth as de Felice saw it that moment. They had cracked the case and they had the murderer and his little helpers. It was never a slip. His statement that was reported by all at the time was proudly given and undoubtedly scripted.

Had the police for some unexplained reason deleted the incoming text then if he said they had it would be a slip up, a mistake and screw up.
Click to expand...
It was a slip. Ask Mignini. If they already knew Amanda participated in the murder then she was a suspect whose legal rights had been deliberately denied. I have tried to explain, by reference to Galati, they are still maintaining this fiction even now.

Where do you get this scripted thing from? I bet nobody showed the script to Mignini.



Grinder said:
He said they found messages from Lumumba setting up a meeting, not a message from Amanda agreeing to one. It is indeed a big deal.

This is where he made a minor error if the reporter that said this was correct. They had tracked the text activity and they had a theory that whatever he sent was setting up the meeting.

Please tell us how the deletion was used to change Patrick's message which is the only reason to delete it. They didn't, so they deleted it just because they could?
Click to expand...
They didn't change Patrick's message, they tried to remove it from the story and they succeeded. Matteini did not believe either Amanda or Patrick about what the message said and she could not have considered it inculpatory had she had the correct text.
 
Kate Mansey confirmed that Sollecito was talking about the night of the murder. She asked him a few times "are you sure". Sollecitos story of the night before has been documented by him twice, once in his book and once in his prison diary. Even if he had been mistaken (he assured Mansey that he was talking about the night of the murder), what he talked about wasn't the same situation.

You haven't answered my question as to why he confirmed, when shown the newspaper diagram, that it was he and Knox who discovered, even saw the body of Meredith Kercher. I'm not returning now, just wanted to leave more damning evidence (the extended Kate Mansey interview). You just deny facts.
 
tronic said:
Kate Mansey confirmed that Sollecito was talking about the night of the murder. She asked him a few times "are you sure". Sollecitos story of the night before has been documented by him twice, once in his book and once in his prison diary. Even if he had been mistaken (he assured Mansey that he was talking about the night of the murder), what he talked about wasn't the same situation.

You haven't answered my question as to why he confirmed, when shown the newspaper diagram, that it was he and Knox who discovered, even saw the body of Meredith Kercher. I'm not returning now, just wanted to leave more damning evidence (the extended Kate Mansey interview). You just deny facts.
Click to expand...

I regret that you do not wish to return.

So this, then, is not directed at you, Tronic, it is directed at anyone who wants to go through the evidence.

Sollecito documents in his book the issue with his confusion of the two nights. I do not think anyone has taken issue with you, Tronic, that the newspaper piece written by Kate Mansey says what it says. I've made, upthread, the point that this only confirms that Sollecito is not a liar, someone who continually changes his story - as he took this very misunderstanding (of his) straight into the interrogation room late night on Nov 5. He told this to all who would listen. He was not lying - he was mistaken.

It wasn't until interrogation that the cops forced him to choose which was which... and the cops did not cooperate with him - technically a person informed of the facts, but in reality they were accusing him of being a suspect in a murder - to help him sort out what these facts were.

The cops had their own version of the facts, and they even bragged later on the 6th that the kids "buckled and told us what we knew" to be the facts.

And, yes, people HAVE answered your question about Sollecito's brag that he and Knox had discovered the body. You have just chosen to ignore it. It's all upthread for you, and others, to read.

Speaking of "denying facts". Do you deny that Massei, the conviction judge in Dec 2009, found as factual:

1) that the two students had no motive for the crime
2) that there is no forensic trace of Amanda in Meredith's room
3) that Meredith and Amanda were on good terms, with no sign of a souring of their relationship
4) that there was, and is, no psychopathology to be found in either of Sollecito or Knox
5) that there is no mixed blood at the cottage?​

If you agree with Judge Massei, that these are facts, then explain why you focus on Kate Mansey's article when there perhaps is no reason at all to suspect them in the first place?

This is why you are criticised for coming into this with a guilt-oriented confirmation bias - and then see guilt indications in the small things.
 
Last edited:
The waiting is the hardest part

tronic said:
You haven't answered my question as to why he confirmed, when shown the newspaper diagram, that it was he and Knox who discovered, even saw the body of Meredith Kercher. I'm not returning now, just wanted to leave more damning evidence (the extended Kate Mansey interview). You just deny facts.
Click to expand...
I was hoping you would answer my comment about the extra article first, but you didn't (you still have that option). I'll take a whack at the above, but not until you return.
 
tronic said:
Kate Mansey confirmed that Sollecito was talking about the night of the murder. She asked him a few times "are you sure". Sollecitos story of the night before has been documented by him twice, once in his book and once in his prison diary. Even if he had been mistaken (he assured Mansey that he was talking about the night of the murder), what he talked about wasn't the same situation.

You haven't answered my question as to why he confirmed, when shown the newspaper diagram, that it was he and Knox who discovered, even saw the body of Meredith Kercher. I'm not returning now, just wanted to leave more damning evidence (the extended Kate Mansey interview). You just deny facts.
Click to expand...

"Damning evidence" would be something which could not possibly be true in a universe where Sollecito is innocent. Stuff that just doesn't matter in light of the time of death and their established alibi is irrelevant information, not "damning evidence".
 
tronic said:
You just deny facts.
Click to expand...

Not really. A false alibi could be:

a) an attempt to misdirect police, conducted by a guilty person
b) a genuine, but untrue, attempt at recalling details, such as the Ronald Cotton case, conducted by an innocent and confused person,
c) an attempt to cover up other legal but sensitive or illegal behaviour by a person innocent of the crime covered by the alibi.

Assuming the writing of the extended Kate Mansey interview is a true representation of her reconstruction, and assuming the reconstruction is a true representation of the interview, and assuming the interview was conducted appropriately, there's nothing in the extended interview or the subsequent writings of the suspect that allows you to eliminate a) or b). Even c) is a squeeze to eliminate.

The 'damning' evidence is itself almost stand-alone evidence of someone who has their dates mixed up. The theme of getting dates mixed up runs throughout. Arguing, or even attempting to argue, that Sollecitos reponses to being asked 'are you sure' is evidence that he was sure, is fairly weak, as that would also be his response if he was confused. ETA: being confused would be more than enough reason to get snappy.

When we take the absolute absence of any outside evidence that a) could possibly be true and combine it with evidence that a) is true but for another person entirely who can be firmly linked to the crime, then b) becomes the only reasonable option unless further evidence is provided.

So, if you ignore all the possible problems with the rewrite of a recollection of an interview with a stressed out dope-smoker in the interviewers second language, and you ignore the other valid options for interpretation of the exact same 'damning' evidence, then you might be able to make the case that he was lying for some reason. You've then got to ignore all the other valid options for why he could have lied in order to argue that he was directly involved with the crime.

Hardly 'damning'.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
They didn't change Patrick's message, they tried to remove it from the story and they succeeded. Matteini did not believe either Amanda or Patrick about what the message said and she could not have considered it inculpatory had she had the correct text.
Click to expand...

So you think that had the message been shown to Matteini she wouldn't have held either of them?

The important message was Amanda's - if Patrick had sent &)*%*$)&^($# the ILE wouldn't have cared - it was "I'll meet you right away sent at the murder time".

If they had deleted the message and it was so key, then de Felice wouldn't have blurted out that they had the messages, which IIRC isn't exactly what he said anyway.

Mr De Felice said: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial." He said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died. When he said that they had cracked the case and they had questioned them until they got the truth he wasn't lying or slipping up, he was telling what they thought was the truth.

Do you believe that they deleted text messages or just one? If not, then he misspoke by revealing the message being erased and saying there were more than one.

If there was no script then we are relying on an English speaker to have taken down notes?
 
tronic said:
Kate Mansey confirmed that Sollecito was talking about the night of the murder. She asked him a few times "are you sure". Sollecitos story of the night before has been documented by him twice, once in his book and once in his prison diary. Even if he had been mistaken (he assured Mansey that he was talking about the night of the murder), what he talked about wasn't the same situation.
Click to expand...

Where did she confirm this? Where did she ask are you sure? Why in the world would he tell a different lie to her? He clearly was a confused boy.

You haven't answered my question as to why he confirmed, when shown the newspaper diagram, that it was he and Knox who discovered, even saw the body of Meredith Kercher. I'm not returning now, just wanted to leave more damning evidence (the extended Kate Mansey interview). You just deny facts.
Click to expand...

You will be missed but thanks for stopping by. How do you know he was shown the diagram? I didn't see that in the article she wrote I posted above.

ETA - if I missed the full Mansey article being linked to please direct me to where it is.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Where did she confirm this? Where did she ask are you sure? Why in the world would he tell a different lie to her? He clearly was a confused boy.



You will be missed but thanks for stopping by. How do you know he was shown the diagram? I didn't see that in the article she wrote I posted above.
Click to expand...

[SARCASM]Well, it's understandable that an intelligent person in pursuit of the truth would defer to the integrity, intelligence and accuracy of a British tabloid hack journalist.[/SARCASM]
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Where did she confirm this? Where did she ask are you sure? Why in the world would he tell a different lie to her? He clearly was a confused boy.



You will be missed but thanks for stopping by. How do you know he was shown the diagram? I didn't see that in the article she wrote I posted above.

ETA - if I missed the full Mansey article being linked to please direct me to where it is.
Click to expand...

Anyway he has a new alibi . He woke up during the night and sent emails. More important then any mistakes he made with Kate.
 
been there, done that

Briars said:
Anyway he has a new alibi . He woke up during the night and sent emails. More important then any mistakes he made with Kate.
Click to expand...
We have been through this before several times. He does not specify what times he sent the emails. If they are around 6 AM, for example, they are not part of his alibi (strange that it is only PG commenters making this claim). My speculation is that he deliberately avoided discussing things that might form an electronic alibi, given that his book came out before March 25.
 
Grinder said:
Where did she confirm this? Where did she ask are you sure? Why in the world would he tell a different lie to her? He clearly was a confused boy.



You will be missed but thanks for stopping by. How do you know he was shown the diagram? I didn't see that in the article she wrote I posted above.

ETA - if I missed the full Mansey article being linked to please direct me to where it is.
Click to expand...

Mansey wrote an article after her interview with Raffaele and after he was a suspect. This article goes a little bit further about meeting/impression of Raffaele.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Day+I...REDITH:+THE+HUNT+FOR+SUSPECT+No4.-a0171084546

There is a paragraph in the article about Raffaele changing his story and backtracking. She isn't explicit in the article about what she means by this.

I don't know if this is the article the poster is referring to or if Mansey wrote more in explanation to this article. I can't seem to find a list of her articles prior to 2008.

I don't know how closely Mansey followed the case and/or how accurate was her reporting on it.
 
halides1 said:
We have been through this before several times. He does not specify what times he sent the emails. If they are around 6 AM, for example, they are not part of his alibi (strange that it is only PG commenters making this claim). My speculation is that he deliberately avoided discussing things that might form an electronic alibi, given that his book came out before March 25.
Click to expand...

He specified that he was up several times in the 'night' listening to music making love answering emails and only wanted to go back to sleep. I find it strange that you want to say morning when he said night. I'm not satisfied you think this has been dealt with The email recipients could verify when he sent them, Sollecito on ask.fm wrote (before he deleted his answers) that he emailed his Profs. So this should help his alibi.
 
Last edited:
christianahannah said:
Mansey wrote an article after her interview with Raffaele and after he was a suspect. This article goes a little bit further about meeting/impression of Raffaele.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Day+I...REDITH:+THE+HUNT+FOR+SUSPECT+No4.-a0171084546

There is a paragraph in the article about Raffaele changing his story and backtracking. She isn't explicit in the article about what she means by this.

I don't know if this is the article the poster is referring to or if Mansey wrote more in explanation to this article. I can't seem to find a list of her articles prior to 2008.

I don't know how closely Mansey followed the case and/or how accurate was her reporting on it.
Click to expand...

I too had a problem finding some of her stuff - I thank you for the link which I will try soon. It will be interesting to compare the original with her later effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom