Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[bolint]

It's ridiculous to expect total recall or anything like it.

Total recall?
When he could not recall if he was making love, if he was working on the computer¹, if he was watching a film, if Amanda went out.
None of these requires superhuman memory.

Do you really believe that he did not remember any of these the following days?

----------------
¹ while the mythical screensaver evidence (LOL) allegedly shows that he was working on the computer uncessantly all night long

 

[bolint]

Her clothes on the bed?

If we knew what she was wearing the night before.
Alas, Raffaele's memory is of no help, again:

I do not remember how she was dressed on November 1, but I am sure that she had changed

 

[anglolawyer]

Total recall?
When he could not recall if he was making love, if he was working on the computer¹, if he was watching a film, if Amanda went out.
None of these requires superhuman memory.

Do you really believe that he did not remember any of these the following days?

----------------
¹ while the mythical screensaver evidence (LOL) allegedly shows that he was working on the computer uncessantly all night long

Certainly! He was doing these same things on successive nights and was being put on the spot several days later about which was which. When I was a student, all my nights were the same too, with variations and whether I was at this or that pub with this or that collection of friends would certainly not be memorable a week later. Or rather he did remember and so did she but neither of them thought they had to preserve that memory and, being essentially unimportant, it faded. Amanda's account has the cops very briefly asking her what she did that night just once on 2nd Nov and then not being closely focused on it again until several days later, in the form of the cops, whom she trusted, telling her she was mistaken and they knew different.

You really need to study the effects of interrogation because you haven't reached first base with this case. The whole thing is about the methods used to extract their confessions (ruled unusable, remember). Study your own country's laws and ask why they exist in the first place.

 

[Dan O.]

Bolint, who else saw Amanda the day before? Do you remember?

 

[bolint]

Popovic surely

 

[bolint]

He was doing these same things on successive nights and was being put on the spot several days later about which was which

That he mixed up the nights is also the favourite excuse, I know.
But he was thoroughly questioned the first day and don't kid yourself that he did not know at that time what they had been doing the night before.

 

[Grinder]

I think so, too. Especially not at a time when the others could drop in anytime.
Unless, for example, there is something at the scene pointing to the person, which must be removed at all cost.

Since she lived there it is difficult to imagine what it would be. Perhaps the murder weapon? The swim cap? The DNA detector?

I don't know if she went back to the cottage next morning. Apart from her claim what is the evidence that she really entered the cottage?

This is classic PGP. They have her buying bleach at 8 am for the clean-up and spend millions of electrons divining tiny differences in recountings but also question whether she was there at all.

Why would she lie about being there? Why not say she stopped with Raf on the way to Gubbio and discovered the issues at the cottage?

Are there no CCTV set-ups along her way to the cottage?

 

[acbytesla]

The frightening thing is, it's probably true! I was amazed at the reaction to Jodi Arias's head stand. That was the clincher for many. How could she possibly not be guilty? She even fished through the waste bin when no one was looking!

I have to agree with you 100% anglo. Jodi Arias may be guilty..(I really don't know much about the case) But that head stand or the waste basket should never have been shown to anyone. It is totally irrelevant. I couldn't sit still in a room like that for the life of me. Just because people act strangely or differently than ourselves doesn't mean that they guilty of a crime.

What I have noticed is way too many people have way too much confidence in their ability to "read" people. Some of us may be slightly better than others, but this is not science, it is intuition. I consider myself to be fairly bright. Pretty good chess player, scored high on my SATs, very knowledgeable about electronics and computer and communications products. In the past I've been downright arrogant about my abilities.

What I've discovered constantly as I've grown older is that I've been wrong about far too many things in my life. As a sales rep, I can't tell you how many times I thought my "big sale" was in the bag only to see the sale go to another vendor. I've also thought I lost sales countless times only to arrive at work with the Purchase Order sitting on my desk or in my email inbox. I still like to think I'm good at reading people...but I've personally been kicked in the teeth more than a few times. Say when I was 23 years old having dated my girlfriend for 6 years and I asked her to marry me only to be turned down and then have her break up with me two months later.

So much for "reading" people. My father use to tell me, that "the more you know, the less you know". I didn't have a clue what he was talking about then. Twenty years later I know.

If you think you can "read" people...think again. You might be 60 or even 70% right, but if you're honest you have "miscommunications" all the time.

Should you really trust incarcerating someone for decades based on that?

 

[Kestrel]

Are there no CCTV set-ups along her way to the cottage?

There were a couple of security cameras between Raff's place and the cottage. The defense requested access to the recordings on Nov. 15 but the request was denied.

 

[bolint]

Since she lived there it is difficult to imagine what it would be. Perhaps the murder weapon? The swim cap? The DNA detector?

Not necessarily directly murder related.
A handbag. A phone. The keys. Clothes. Or anything that puts her there.

Why would she lie about being there? Why not say she stopped with Raf on the way to Gubbio and discovered the issues at the cottage?

Because they did not go to Gubbio.

Are there no CCTV set-ups along her way to the cottage?

I don't know. Probably there are as shown above by Dan O.
I think the police was interested in them. They say they did not find anything.
Which is interesting.

 

[acbytesla]

Not necessarily directly murder related.
A handbag. A phone. The keys. Clothes. Or anything that puts her there.



Because they did not go to Gubbio.



I don't know. Probably there are as shown above by Dan O.
I think the police was interested in them. They say they did not find anything.
Which is interesting.

There are 5 CCTV cameras between Raffaele's flat and the Cottage on Corso Garibaldi. I've posted pictures of 4 of them.

 

[codyjuneau]

There is a case being discussed at Injustice Anywhere. It is the Nyki Kish case: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewforum.php?f=162http://

In Toronto, Canada there was a fight and a stabbing death, on a busy public street, viewed by dozens of witnesses. The various witness versions are remarkably inconsistent and contradictory. Using some of the same logic being posted here, I am sure we can implicate at least half of the witnesses in the murder.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a case being discussed at Injustice Anywhere. It is the Nyki Kish case: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewforum.php?f=162http://

In Toronto, Canada there was a fight and a stabbing death, on a busy public street, viewed by dozens of witnesses. The various witness versions are remarkably inconsistent and contradictory. Using some of the same logic being posted here, I am sure we can implicate at least half of the witnesses in the murder.

Cody, unfortunately it is said that jurors have a tremendous amount of faith in eyewitness testimony, but expert after expert that have conducted thousands of experiments will say that eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable types of evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

That he mixed up the nights is also the favourite excuse, I know.
But he was thoroughly questioned the first day and don't kid yourself that he did not know at that time what they had been doing the night before.

Well, it may have happened the way it looks like it happened in Amanda's account. I.e. on 02 Nov there may have been a brief enquiry about what they did the night of the murder but then an outward focus after that on other things and then suddenly, without warning, a sudden and very aggressive focus back on that night, but 4 days later, unexpected, when they, certainly she, were tired, late at night. I can see it panning out that way, sure.

Tell you what, have you examined with the same degree of intensity the accounts of the British virgins of their evening with Meredith? Do they get the times and events completely the same? Do we know the exact time Meredith ate her meal and her dessert? What about the night before? Do they all agree in every detail about those events too? Times, places, who they ran into etc etc? Interesting to compare.

Why are there laws about interrogations btw?

 

[Dan O.]

Not necessarily directly murder related.
A handbag. A phone. The keys. Clothes. Or anything that puts her there.

So why hasn't Raffaele cut a deal with the police? There is evidence that clearly shows he was interacting with his computer throughout the night till 6 AM. If he knows Amanda was involved, he doesn't need to go down with her. By backing Amanda's story, he is making himself an equal partner should anything be discovered at the crime scene that they missed. Either Raffaele is staking 30 years of his life on the perfect operation of ACME's guaranteed DNA discovery unit... Or... They they never left his apartment.

Because they did not go to Gubbio.

Nobody said the went. "Stopped on the way" must be another one of those English phrases that Italians have so much difficulty with. They are on the way to Gubbio, they stop at the cottage so Amanda can grab a few things. Discover the breakin at the cottage and call Filomena and the police. They would have had all night to discuss what they were going to do. There wouldn't be any fumbling around, not sure what to do next.

I don't know. Probably there are as shown above by Dan O.
I think the police was interested in them. They say they did not find anything.
Which is interesting.

What is more interesting is that the police went ahead and erased those tapes without showing them to the defense.

 

[anglolawyer]

Cody, unfortunately it is said that jurors have a tremendous amount of faith in eyewitness testimony, but expert after expert that have conducted thousands of experiments will say that eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable types of evidence.

And even though lawyers are supposed to know all about the fallibility of such testimony they still consider themselves so far above the common herd as to be able to distinguish reliable from unreliable eye witness evidence as in

Knox
Kish
Lockerbie (cue Rolfe)
George (1st appeal)
Another recent English one the name of which I forget but in which the only eye witness recanted at trial, there was no other evidence at all, the jury convicted and it was upheld on appeal!!!!!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There are 5 CCTV cameras between Raffaele's flat and the Cottage on Corso Garibaldi. I've posted pictures of 4 of them.

Interesting, but are you sure they were there in November, 2007.

 

[bolint]

Because the data was destroyed when it was in police hands.

That machine on which he claimed to have worked was not destroyed. The hard disks were cloned in the presence of hos expert and he received a copy.
Unfortunately no trace of his activity was found on it even by his own experts.

Incidentally, there was a trace, some data was recovered, including screensaver and keyboard light info. It may just come up again...

Oh yes, the mythical screensaver evidence wich easily destroys Mignini, but somehow does not want to show up.

It sounds like he listened to music mostly.

During the whole period of 5:32 to 6:22.
But no sign of activity before that.

Even if the screensaver evidence existed it would only show that he spent the whole night moving the mouse without producing or using a single file, without startin a program and without using the internet.

So what was he doing on that computer all night long?

Did you ever actually think whether the phones were turned off was evidence of anything?

No, but clinging to their being turned on is the admission of the lack of a serious alibi. Like for example the computer use could have been, but was not.

(Rudy's bunch of lies is another long history, I don't have time to start a thread on it)

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting, but are you sure they were there in November, 2007.

I know that 2 of them were there for sure. The others, I have been unable to confirm.

 

[bolint]

There is evidence that clearly shows he was interacting with his computer throughout the night till 6 AM.

I have seen only claims of it.
When did they offer it in the trial?
You must have seen that evidence, judged by your confidence in them.
Would you share them?

If he knows Amanda was involved, he doesn't need to go down with her. By backing Amanda's story, he is making himself an equal partner should anything be discovered at the crime scene that they missed. Either Raffaele is staking 30 years of his life on the perfect operation of ACME's guaranteed DNA discovery unit... Or... They they never left his apartment.

And still he said that she had left it.

What is more interesting is that the police went ahead and erased those tapes without showing them to the defense.

Where is the source of this?