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

[Sherlock Holmes]

If a million people think a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. That remark is widely attributed to Voltaire but I don't believe there's any proof he said it.

Regardless of who said it, it's true. If you seek validation for a factual claim in finding people who agree with you, rather than in the evidence, you are looking in the wrong place.

Actually, if a million people think it, and only a hold million don't, it's no longer foolish, now is it. Plus, if anything, I'm say more of the evidence fits my theory than the one the PIP's believe in.

 

[Bill Williams]

No they could not, any change to they 'story' will only prove what so many already say, they are lying, and if they are lying, they did do the dead and are still lying. They had their chance to tell the truth and call the cops once, but once they decided on the course that they did take, it was too late from then on. I personally think the drugs, young age and the fact that Raff was trying to protect Amanda was their eventual downfall, now they have to pay for it, sorry.

At least Raffaele now makes an appearance here. For wht possible reason, though, if they'd stumbled on the scene on the night of the 1st, would they NOT call the cops? To protect Rudy?

I'm truly serious in asking. Is this simply a guess, or is there some evidence out there everyone has missed?

 

[Grinder]

Ok, I get you. I suppose I should then start a thread suggesting it could be cottage cheese. And that someone locked the refrigerator with their foot 180 degrees pointed away from the 'fridge door. Prove me wrong.

I do think that would be an excellent choice for you.

The only problem is that cottage cheese doesn't have human DNA in it and is not part of the human body, whereas bone does.

You proudly quoted or was it paraphrased a FBI retired agent that said something like - it couldn't be the murder weapon without testing positive for blood - I posited that it could be bone.

The foot would be parallel at 180 degrees to the door - you probably meant 90 degrees.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No they could not, any change to they 'story' will only prove what so many already say, they are lying, and if they are lying, they did do the dead and are still lying. They had their chance to tell the truth and call the cops once, but once they decided on the course that they did take, it was too late from then on. I personally think the drugs, young age and the fact that Raff was trying to protect Amanda was their eventual downfall, now they have to pay for it, sorry.

It's not so much a matter of making sense of why they don't change their story now.

It's a matter of making sense of why they stuck so tightly to the story that they were home all night then, when they were in the frame for a murder you believe they didn't commit, but were just involved with in somehow in some extremely nebulous way.

You still haven't posted a theory that makes any sense of this, by the way. Someone needs to keep reminding you of that.

You need Amanda and Raffaele to run backwards and forwards between their two houses for no logical reason at all to make your theory work. You still haven't suggested anything that even remotely makes sense of that. You are still just shoving them around like chess pieces to get them where you want them to be, with no regard for whether the moves make any sense.

If you can't come up with any such justification for moving them around, that means it's time to put your current theory in the rubbish bin and make up a new theory that actually makes sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason the knows something angle has some legs is that those that propose actual involvement can't put together a scenario that makes sense and sort of fits the timelines.

If Amanda wasn't at fault there is no way she wouldn't have blurted out the "truth" at some point.

The fact that people that talk about mixed blood, bleach receipts, standing in the plaza for three hours and the rest of the "evidence" that isn't valid having the same opinion as one shouldn't give that one solace.

Even today Amanda and Raf could come out and say what really happened if they weren't involved but just say, opened the door for Rudi.

I agree with first three paragraphs. Fourth paragraph, they actually have come out and said "what happened." They're called, "Honor Bound," and "Waiting to be heard." Some people are spending copious hours pouring over the texts for the most small inconsistency and crying foul!, when if there was no inconsistency that would be (in the real world) the reason to cry foul.

I'm not saying you, Grinder, do this. Please concede that many actually do this.

It's a bit of a cottage industry. A hobby. "Let's guess at what they're not telling us."

My absolute favourite was Kermit in "The 150 things Knox is not telling us," powerpoint, #47 was, "Hey Knox: what was the phase of the moon on Nov 1, 2007?"

I have read Knox's book, and I agree.... Knox is not telling us that, and I heavily suspect she knows.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

At least Raffaele now makes an appearance here. For wht possible reason, though, if they'd stumbled on the scene on the night of the 1st, would they NOT call the cops? To protect Rudy?

I'm truly serious in asking. Is this simply a guess, or is there some evidence out there everyone has missed?[/QUOTE]

Most people who look into this case say she is involved, an awful lot think because she is involved then she must be guilty of the murder. You can cancel out the eye witnesses, forget about the confession, disregard the mixed DNA, knife and bra clasp and agree that the three hundred or so people involved in this case are liars, crooks, incompetent or just crazy, forget all them and your still left with a girl says all the wrong things, does all the wrong things and just plain looks guilty, but you can put that one to rest too by saying, 'that's just Amanda being Amanda'.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's not so much a matter of making sense of why they don't change their story now.

It's a matter of making sense of why they stuck so tightly to the story that they were home all night then, when they were in the frame for a murder you believe they didn't commit, but were just involved with in somehow in some extremely nebulous way.

You still haven't posted a theory that makes any sense of this, by the way. Someone needs to keep reminding you of that.
You need Amanda and Raffaele to run backwards and forwards between their two houses for no logical reason at all to make your theory work. You still haven't suggested anything that even remotely makes sense of that. You are still just shoving them around like chess pieces to get them where you want them to be, with no regard for whether the moves make any sense.

If you can't come up with any such justification for moving them around, that means it's time to put your current theory in the rubbish bin and make up a new theory that actually makes sense.

It's been five years and there have been two trials, and there will be a third. In a month, we'll learn what it was about the Hellmann trial that caused the 26 March 2013 quashing of the acquittals. This could be throwing out ALL of Hellmann's motivations report, or it could be a provisional agreement with all but one or two issues which did not pass law/procedure muster.

My opinion is that evidence tends to converge onto the truth. I have observed about this case that when anyone either sexualizes Knox, or forgets about Raffaele, or says that they know something they are not telling us, that the evidence presented starts to actually make the "truth" so convoluted and unwieldy that it eventually falls apart.

But that's just me.

It's been 5 1/2 years and the Kerchers actually DO deserve an answer as to what happened to their daughter. So far no one on the guilt side of things has put together a comprehensive theory of the crime which involves Knox and Raffaele - but, boy oh boy, can they ever vilify Knox and completely forget about Sollecito.

I have also not seen a comprehensive theory of the crime which even remotely suggests that they know something they are not telling us.

With the exception for about a week in Nov 2007, they have had the same story, both of them. Raffaele is the alibi, just like Filomena's boyfriend was, and they arrested Knox's alibi, just not Filomena's alibi.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I do think that would be an excellent choice for you.

The only problem is that cottage cheese doesn't have human DNA in it and is not part of the human body, whereas bone does.

The thing is, as I understand it the matter depends what you mean by "bone".

If you find a bone, you've probably found some DNA. It's not in the bone as such though, it's in osteocytes in the collagen. The white, hard, calcified stuff we usually think of as bone is, as far as I know, extremely difficult to get any DNA out of.

When people talk about "getting DNA from a bone" they're actually talking about getting DNA from the collagen bits in the bone, or the marrow.

You proudly quoted or was it paraphrased a FBI retired agent that said something like - it couldn't be the murder weapon without testing positive for blood - I posited that it could be bone.

I'm pretty sure that is wildly unlikely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Most people who look into this case say she is involved, an awful lot think because she is involved then she must be guilty of the murder. You can cancel out the eye witnesses, forget about the confession, disregard the mixed DNA, knife and bra clasp and agree that the three hundred or so people involved in this case are liars, crooks, incompetent or just crazy, forget all them and your still left with a girl says all the wrong things, does all the wrong things and just plain looks guilty, but you can put that one to rest too by saying, 'that's just Amanda being Amanda'.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's not so much a matter of making sense of why they don't change their story now.

It's a matter of making sense of why they stuck so tightly to the story that they were home all night then, when they were in the frame for a murder you believe they didn't commit, but were just involved with in somehow in some extremely nebulous way.

You still haven't posted a theory that makes any sense of this, by the way. Someone needs to keep reminding you of that.You need Amanda and Raffaele to run backwards and forwards between their two houses for no logical reason at all to make your theory work. You still haven't suggested anything that even remotely makes sense of that. You are still just shoving them around like chess pieces to get them where you want them to be, with no regard for whether the moves make any sense.

If you can't come up with any such justification for moving them around, that means it's time to put your current theory in the rubbish bin and make up a new theory that actually makes sense.

No, I'm just really tired of constantly having to repeat myself so often that I actually belief some of you know the answer and just ask to annoy me, they will say I said things that I never did, if they don't want to discuss this fine, I have no problem with that, but I'll continue to read here for the same reason I first came here. I'm not here to argue and I'm not here to convert any of you either, I do like discussing this case and while I'm almost 100% sure none of us will ever know the real truth about it, I am hooked, soory again.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do think that would be an excellent choice for you.

The only problem is that cottage cheese doesn't have human DNA in it and is not part of the human body, whereas bone does.

You proudly quoted or was it paraphrased a FBI retired agent that said something like - it couldn't be the murder weapon without testing positive for blood - I posited that it could be bone.

The foot would be parallel at 180 degrees to the door - you probably meant 90 degrees.

At least on that one we communicated the right meaning even though we didn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I'm just really tired of constantly having to repeat myself so often that I actually belief some of you know the answer and just ask to annoy me, they will say I said things that I never did, if they don't want to discuss this fine, I have no problem with that, but I'll continue to read here for the same reason I first came here. I'm not here to argue and I'm not here to convert any of you either, I do like discussing this case and while I'm almost 100% sure none of us will ever know the real truth about it, I am hooked, soory again.

Could you do me the kindness of at least posting a link to your theory? It's difficult to read all the posts.

 

[RandyN]

Do you have a reputable cite?

Im working on it.

 

[GWCarver]

When you think about it, in Italy the only way to work in the Italian judiciary or law enforcement is to go along to get along. With people like Mignini and Giobbi demanding cases be made against people who "look guilty", the only way for them to build a case is to do what they did in the Kercher case - lie, manufacture evidence, destroy evidence, use tramps for "super witnesses", coerce statements, etc.

This would have to be pretty much routine, IMO. It just goes unnoticed, because they don't usually have this level of international scrutiny, and they can threaten anyone locally who complains with criminal slander.

 

[Dan O.]

The absence of evidence proves Rudi didn't break into the cottage but the absence of evidence doesn't prove that Amanda wasn't part of the murder. This is the hypocrisy of both sides.

The way you say that makes it look like you believe it.

If you accept that the rock was thrown from the outside, all evidence or lack of related to the glass outside is dismissed. Then you have he missing evidence for mud on the wall; a wall for which the best photo showing scuffing or lack of mud was taken over 9 months after the murder. And finally, there is the lack of DNA left by Rudy in Filomena's room. But there is nothing that shows such tracks would be present, especially for a burglar wearing standard burglar attire.

Compare this to a life and death struggle in the murder room where blood is spraying everywhere. Not only is there a lack of evidence left behind by the students, there is no trace of Meredith's blood on them or their cloths.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Most people who look into this case say she is involved, an awful lot think because she is involved then she must be guilty of the murder. You can cancel out the eye witnesses, forget about the confession, disregard the mixed DNA, knife and bra clasp and agree that the three hundred or so people involved in this case are liars, crooks, incompetent or just crazy, forget all them and your still left with a girl says all the wrong things, does all the wrong things and just plain looks guilty, but you can put that one to rest too by saying, 'that's just Amanda being Amanda'.

There's a joke about a young boy who has misbehaved, so his parents punish him by filling his room with horse ****. Overjoyed, he says "With all this horse ****, there must be a pony in here somewhere!".

That's your thesis - that if there's this much evidence, even though all of it is ****, there must be real guilt in there somewhere.

What you don't seem to want to engage with at all is the very real possibility that if you've sifted through all the horse **** and found absolutely no sign of an actual pony, it's just a room full of horse ****.

Maybe the pony theory has some merit if all you have taken is a glance at the room. But we've been over every inch of this room for years now. There is no pony.

We're already shown you equivalent cases of rooms full of horse ****. The conviction of Stefan Kiszko was another case where police who were determined to convict someone who was totally innocent found thousands of pages of "evidence" to make him look bad. Just like the evidence in the Knox case, all the evidence in the Kiszko case falls apart when you examine it.

That's what it looks like when you try your damnedest to find evidence against innocent people - you end up with mountains of **** evidence but no pony. That's what we are seeing here.

I ask you in all seriousness: What on Earth do you expect a botched prosecution of two innocent people to look like, if not like this?

 

[Mary_H]

Most people who look into this case say she is involved, an awful lot think because she is involved then she must be guilty of the murder. You can cancel out the eye witnesses, forget about the confession, disregard the mixed DNA, knife and bra clasp and agree that the three hundred or so people involved in this case are liars, crooks, incompetent or just crazy, forget all them and your still left with a girl says all the wrong things, does all the wrong things and just plain looks guilty, but you can put that one to rest too by saying, 'that's just Amanda being Amanda'.

Sherlock, I bet you don't have any statistics on how many people think she was involved versus how many think she wasn't. If there were that many people who thought Amanda were guilty, don't you think there would be more working with PMF and TJMK to see that the defendants are re-convicted and sent back to prison? It seems to me there are many more supporters than pro-guilt people.

Here is an opinion piece that is diametrically opposed to your claim that Amanda did everything wrong. In fact, the author comes right out and says, "Amanda did everything right." See what you think: http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Amanda-Knox-Stop-Making-Sense/2953312

 

[Grinder]

In terms of majority opinions - most people believe that the sailors on the Pinta, Nina and Santamaris thought the world was flat and they might fall off.

Some incredible percentage thought Saddam had something (there's that word) to do with 911.

What percentage think that when JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner" the correct translation was I'm a doughnut

 

[Grinder]

The way you say that makes it look like you believe it.

If you accept that the rock was thrown from the outside, all evidence or lack of related to the glass outside is dismissed. Then you have he missing evidence for mud on the wall; a wall for which the best photo showing scuffing or lack of mud was taken over 9 months after the murder. And finally, there is the lack of DNA left by Rudy in Filomena's room. But there is nothing that shows such tracks would be present, especially for a burglar wearing standard burglar attire.

Compare this to a life and death struggle in the murder room where blood is spraying everywhere. Not only is there a lack of evidence left behind by the students, there is no trace of Meredith's blood on them or their cloths.

I agree the DNA would be more likely in the murder room.

I don't like double standards from either side. If the PGP say that DNA doesn't need to be in Filomena's and that lack shows that he wasn't a burglar then they can't say Amanda's lack of DNA doesn't show she wasn't in the murder room.

Once again I will grant that it is more likely to leave DNA in a room where a violent attack occurred.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Could you do me the kindness of at least posting a link to your theory? It's difficult to read all the posts.

I have no idea how to do that, but I have done this so many times, I do it once more just for you. It would certainly take too long to go over everything, so I'll give you some key points and if you have any questions, I'll answer them.

-Amanda left Raff to go home, get the mop and likely change so their now free evening, they could do something, they now had the next 3 days off.
-Amanda runs into Rudi at the ball court, they talk, Rudi has to use a washroom and Amanda offers hers.
-Meredith may already be home but while Rudi is in the washroom, Amanda and Meredith get into an argument, maybe about Rudi being there, maybe Meredith is missing money, few know, but Rudi comes to Amanda's defense and a fight ensures, Meredith is stronger than Rudi thinks.
-Amanda has to put her hands over her ears to drown out the screaming and 'thuds', she is in the kitchen.
-Amanda runs to Raff's to get help, Rudi has scared the **** out of here, but she doesn't think Meredith's life is in danger, but Rudi is assaulting her, physically. Raff grabs the biggest knife in his drawer and follows Amanda to the cottage.
-Amanda too scared to go in, stays outside while Raff goes in, (hence her clever prose during the appeal where she states that this is the first time the three of them have been under the same roof)
-Raff confronts Rudi in the living room, 'black man found, black man guilty' and then he runs out the door because he is no hero.
-Raff and Amanda leave together, see by Rudi thru Filameno's window. They go to the park where they are seen by Toto the hobo and discuss what to do next while Raff try to keep an eye on the cottage gate to see when Rudi leaves.

This is enough for now, questions I suppose.....