• 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 Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwill said:
Good grief.

What Raffaele said (there's nothing missing) is "suspicious" for about a minute and a half. The only thing that makes it suspicious is that it seems as if he could be claiming knowledge he couldn't/shouldn't have.
Click to expand...

Double Duh.

But thinking about this for 45 seconds gets you to these possibilities:
1. He doesn't really know anything, he's just excited and talking without choosing his words carefully.
2. He's guilty and he knows that things were taken, but he's lying about that.
3. He's guilty and he thinks he knows that nothing was taken, so he's telling the truth.

Now for the other 45 seconds. If he's guilty and has just committed a bloody murder and staged a break-in and cleaned up everything but Rudy's DNA, he does not call the police in the first place. He and Amanda are off enjoying themselves in Guibbio (or whatever that place is called).

So yes. Suspicious for a moment, then easily dismissed by rational people.
Click to expand...

Gubbio. From the perspective of the investigators at the time, it was suspicious. They didn't know about Gubbio and they weren't trying to make alibis or rationalizations for people.

They had a murder. We can all agree on that. They had a broken window and a room that had been tossed. There was nothing stolen from the room where the break in occurred except the make-up (Filomena's dope stash?). The break-in looked suspicious to them. It was a high window.

He couldn't be guilty and know nothing was taken because the phones, money and credit cards were taken.

Now we move into Tesla terriotory and say that it would be impossible for him to be involved and call the police because he would have gone to Gubbio.

But he didn't go to Gubbio and he did call to report the break-in and when he responded nothing was taken it became suspicious as they put it all together.

Who would think that someone would break-in and not steal anything?
 
acbytesla said:
Excellent analysis Kwill. I happen to love how people are over analyzing every sentence.
Click to expand...

I note you use the word "sentence" here. Statement Analysis confirms that you unconsciously believe they are guilty by choosing a term with penal overtones.

Suspicious if you ask me.....
 
Bill Williams said:
Yes. It's called being clean. It's an experiment duplicated in sinks and dishwashers in literally dozens of homes in the USA and Italy every evening.
Click to expand...

Do you check your dishes for DNA after washing? They use special solutions in labs to get rid of residual DNA.

I would like more than your specious cite or should I say spurious?
 
MDDVS said:
"Nothing (from what I can see/have been told) was stolen.

Is it really suspicious?
Click to expand...

But he didn't include the conditional.

Was anything taken? No nothing is missing.

Should he be prosecuted for perjury? No. In the context of what they had was it suspicious? Yes.
 
Bill Williams said:
I note you use the word "sentence" here. Statement Analysis confirms that you unconsciously believe they are guilty by choosing a term with penal overtones.

Suspicious if you ask me.....
Click to expand...

Statement analysis? Why don't you just use a a Ouija Board?
 
Dan O. said:
We have both including the translation to English. What we don't have is direct documentation of the conversation between Amanda and Raffaele or the call to his sister.
Click to expand...

Well just ask Bill to make it up if one of the true crime novelists haven't already done it.

Give the link to the transcript if you will.

The only indication of guilt is the claim after the fact by the prosecution and echoed by the guilters. There has been no evidence presented that this is in fact evidence of guilt. It's ludicrous on it's face that someone staging a burglery would tell the police that nothing was stollen because there is no conceivable advantage to do so. If anyone disagrees then let's hear their argument as to how such a statement would benifit the guilty.
Click to expand...

Do you all have a comprehension problem? Did I say that it is a evidence of guilt? No I didn't. I said it was reasonably suspicious. Any investigator reading that answer would ask himself; how could he know that?

The idea isn't that he planned to say it, it just came out when questioned.

Are you saying that no criminal has been tripped up and made a mistake revealing he knew something he couldn't?

The fact that you state that there was no advantage in itself supports the fact that it was suspicious.
 
Grinder said:
Do you check your dishes for DNA after washing? They use special solutions in labs to get rid of residual DNA.

I would like more than your specious cite or should I say spurious?
Click to expand...
Can you provide a cite for the need for those "special solutions"?

You see, this is actually a way to shut down debate..... we could go on all day....

Grinder: "Can you provide a cite that this is a rhetorical way of shutting down debate?"

Me: "Can you provide a cite that providing cites is a necessity?"
 
I apologise if I seem a bit dumb but I've just been hearing about the current trial second hand. My impression is that the prosecution are really minimising the sexual aspect of the crime, minimising the involvement of Guede, and just arguing that AK and RS committed murder because of personal animosity (with the final straw being an unflushed toilet). is that a correct interpretation? This means they just concentrate on 'evidence' of AK & RS involvement and don't need to worry about any relationship with RG? Effectively just accepting Guede's story that he and MK made out then he went to the toilet AK and MK had words about the rent money then about an unflushed toilet then it resulted in murder?
 
Grinder said:
Exactly where is 36-I?
Click to expand...


In one of the experts reports there are two photos that show the knife with the swab positioned over the blade at the point where it attaches to the handle and the labels "H" and "I" held with forceps.
 
Grinder said:
Well just ask Bill to make it up if one of the true crime novelists haven't already done it.

Give the link to the transcript if you will.



Do you all have a comprehension problem? Did I say that it is a evidence of guilt? No I didn't. I said it was reasonably suspicious. Any investigator reading that answer would ask himself; how could he know that?

The idea isn't that he planned to say it, it just came out when questioned.

Are you saying that no criminal has been tripped up and made a mistake revealing he knew something he couldn't?

The fact that you state that there was no advantage in itself supports the fact that it was suspicious.
Click to expand...

That an investigator might pause for a moment is fine. That they might ask how would he know that is also fine. But I'm obviously with the crowd today who thinks that their pause is only going to be momentary. And isn't something they would or should hang their hat on.
 
acbytesla said:
Look how Vogt twisted Amanda's little message that "she was there". And these two are both native English speakers. Throw in two very different languages, where not only are the words different, but the structure and syntax of the languages are vastly different.
Click to expand...

Grinder said:
I have no idea what you mean by the highlighted section.
......<snip>.....

Okay now I get the highlighted section.



No. Possible yes.

Was it ever explained that way by either of the kids?
Click to expand...

You just can't bear "losing a point", can you Grinder?

Look, Amanda told her mother "she was there" in reference to being at Raff's place.

FFS.

(And please, don't think your "sarcastic" use of the phrase "the kids" goes un-noticed.)
 
Obviously, Crini is able to pontificate about "Rudy's poo" in front of what passes, in Italy, for a "court of law" with no embarrassment.

The conclusions one must draw are;

- Italians have no sense of humour (isn't that supposed to be the Germans?).

- Italians have a word for sarcasm ("sarcasmo"), but they have no idea what it means.

(re. the second point; Frank Sfarzo, Umberto Eco and a few others are possibly aberrations, or exceptions that prove the rule)
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
From the perspective of the investigators at the time, it was suspicious. They didn't know about Gubbio and they weren't trying to make alibis or rationalizations for people.

They had a murder. We can all agree on that. They had a broken window and a room that had been tossed. There was nothing stolen from the room where the break in occurred except the make-up (Filomena's dope stash?). The break-in looked suspicious to them. It was a high window.

He couldn't be guilty and know nothing was taken because the phones, money and credit cards were taken.

Now we move into Tesla terriotory and say that it would be impossible for him to be involved and call the police because he would have gone to Gubbio.

But he didn't go to Gubbio and he did call to report the break-in and when he responded nothing was taken it became suspicious as they put it all together.

Who would think that someone would break-in and not steal anything?
Click to expand...

You're giving me an education in how guilters get from point A to point Marvel on Planet Zenob.

One places heavy emphasis on things that might on the faintest of pretexts mean guilt, then disregards all things that point strongly toward innocence.

After that, if someone says, "but this behavior makes no sense for a guilty person, and we know for sure this is what they did," one can always say that it's not impossible.

Lots of pixels can meet their fate on that hamster wheel.

To repeat myself, sure -- there was a moment when it made sense for the investigators to wonder why Raffaele said definitively that nothing had been taken, when this was information he shouldn't have had. What's hilarious to me now is that in fact, they were right! He not only shouldn't have had that information, he didn't have it. Things were stolen.

Therefore, you're right. It was suspicious. And then it was resolved, the same day. So why are some people still convinced that it means he was guilty? Please don't answer that.
 
Actually, watching some of the video of the court proceedings, I think I perceive something like a knuckle-biting -


OMG! I can't believe I have to pretend I'm taking this seriously and keep a straight face!

- amongst the collective officials and onlookers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom