• 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.
It's totally laughable to assert that Sollecitos misremembering of a brief and anxious conversation he had over 6 years ago is, or could ever be, indicative of guilt.

Face it, the transcript demonstrates that the responder - not Sollecito - were the one(s) that brought up the mentioned issues first.
 
True nobody's memory is perfect however Sollecito wrote a book. He like very one else had access to the important police calls. Easy to get that part right. Instead he places blame on the cop lying about the sequence of the conversation. He lied about the call in Honor Bound If you cannot look at the call and read the revised account blaming the dispatcher then you are not being honest Nancy
 
NancyS said:
Nobody's memory is precise - and the same event will always be described differently by different people - and will usually change every time they tell the story as we are all extremely susceptible to suggestion from others and often exaggerate are own part to make ourselves appear more important. Trying to determine guilt in this way shows a total lack of understanding about how memory works.

I've spoken about this a few times, but I regularly take medical histories and I'm always amazed at the huge variations between the stories of all involved - and how much the story will evolve over time. It was always hugely embarrassing when a patient tells you something that he later denies and claims to have no recollection of mentioning when he is reviewed by the Consultant :)

Also great post above Bill - the language difference is going to have a huge impact. Raffaele was translating for Amanda and this is always going to lead to inaccuracies and misconceptions - this has nothing to do with guilt

I do find it interesting how people seem so obsessed with the minutiae of everything they said or did, but have no interest in the glaringly obvious indicators of their innocence.
Nearly all 20-year olds are a bit chaotic and often don't handle situations in the most mature way. If I came home to find my house door open now I would be very concerned, but thinking back to student days, I probably would have acted in a similar way to Amanda as you are so used to people coming and going in the house. At university, I remember a group of four boys having their house burgled whilst they were all home. One of them left the door open and am opportunist walked in and stole their TV etc. - they didn't notice anything as were all in their rooms - I'd loved to have seen them explain that to the Italian police
Click to expand...

Nice posts NancyS. Re highlited part: Very politely put! :)

We could do a whole comedy sketch on information gleaned from questioning people, including medical histories. In this whole arena, I would say that it is much more common to have incorrect answers (per a Grinder-ish definition of what <should> be said) as opposed to some form of nonresponsive, incomplete, or even factually incorrect answer, all to basic questions about daily life events. Without the stress of broken windows and blood in your apartment with missing roommate. To apply a strict standard of response in this situation is just beyond reality and defies real life experience.
 
Briars said:
Bill I'll simplify my comment for you so you can't get off track. Why did Sollecito pretend that he mentioned the lack of theft only after the officer growled and confused him over the idea that the thief was cut. Is this a true account by evidence of the call or not?
Click to expand...

Briars... go to a book on rhetoric and look up, "begging the question."
 
Briars said:
True nobody's memory is perfect however Sollecito wrote a book. He like very one else had access to the important police calls. Easy to get that part right. Instead he places blame on the cop lying about the sequence of the conversation. He lied about the call in Honor Bound If you cannot look at the call and read the revised account blaming the dispatcher then you are not being honest Nancy
Click to expand...

Maybe he wrote from memory and didn't check everything - his editor should have checked. Maybe he's just fed up with all the nonsense speculation and thought it was a better way to get the measage of his innocence across - even innocent people will try to put themselves in the best light, especially if accused of a crime they didn't commit and have been through the kind of hell Raffaele went through and still is going through - he possibly didn't think he was going to be on trial so exaggerated some parts to create a better narrative - this is no indication of guilt
 
Last edited:
kwill said:
Another is the repeated assertion that there is mixed blood:

Mignini: In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed.
Click to expand...

Another is the fudging about his interview with Doug Preston. First he says it was only 20 minutes, then later he says maybe it was 20, or 40, or an hour . . . this ought to be troubling to someone who is trying to assess the trustworthiness of this man, who has no trouble accusing others of lies.
Click to expand...

This is something that Machiavelli tries to fudge on, too. The point is, that even Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report denies "mixed blood." Massei is very careful on this point - he continually says, "Amanda's biological material" mixed in with Meredith's blood - all outside the murder room.

If this was not true, why is not Crini harping on about it in this latest trial? Heck, Crini has to make up, inventing out of whole cloth, the thing about the pooh - in six years, no one has even hinted that Rudy's pooh in Filomena's toilet would be the stresser that causes Amanda to go off and kill Meredith.... and Crini simply makes it up!

Wasn't it NancyS who commented that while others are nitpicking Raffaele's 112 call and whether or not he lied about "nothing was stolen".... these nitpickers are ignoring what is really real, in real live courtrooms in Florence as we type?

Why is not "mixed blood" or "Raffaele lied in his 112 call" getting ANY play from Crini? Today? In 2013? This whole thing has long since not been about the murder... the murder is solved, Rudy did it. Obviously. He broke in through Filomena's window, as Channel 5 (UK) demonstrated. He even admits to being on the loo before Meredith got there... who let him in if he didn't break in? (And so far this is just Rudy's account!!)

The Daily Mail is covering this.... in Nov 2013... read the comments' section of the Daily Mail these days. Most in the U.K., readers of tabloids!, admit that the trial process is a complete sham. For pete's sake, if the Daily Mail is bowing to the blatantly obvious......

Briars is arguing 112 calls from 6 years ago. Machiavelli is arguing Westphalian sovereignty of nations.

Who are you going to believe? Briars and Machiavelli or your lying eyes?
 
Last edited:
The impatient growling officer made Sollecito say there was no theft. Why the need to find a reason? What was it about his statement that he needed to alter it in his book.begs the question.These kind of adjustments do not appeal casual especially when they attempt to change the responsibility of the remark away from Sollecito.
 
Bill Williams said:
This is something that Machiavelli tries to fudge on, too. The point is, that even Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report denies "mixed blood." Massei is very careful on this point - he continually says, "Amanda's biological material" mixed in with Meredith's blood - all outside the murder room.

If this was not true, why is not Crini harping on about it in this latest trial? Heck, Crini has to make up, inventing out of whole cloth, the thing about the pooh - in six years, no one has even hinted that Rudy's pooh in Filomena's toilet would be the stresser that causes Amanda to go off and kill Meredith.... and Crini simply makes it up!

Wasn't it NancyS who commented that while others are nitpicking Raffaele's 112 call and whether or not he lied about "nothing was stolen".... these nitpickers are ignoring what is really real, in real live courtrooms in Florence as we type?

Why is not "mixed blood" or "Raffaele lied in his 112 call" getting ANY play from Crini? Today? In 2013? This whole thing has long since not been about the murder... the murder is solved, Rudy did it. Obviously. He broke in through Filomena's window, as Channel 5 (UK) demonstrated. He even admits to being on the loo before Meredith got there... who let him in if he didn't break in? (And so far this is just Rudy's account!!)

The Daily Mail is covering this.... in Nov 2013... read the comments' section of the Daily Mail these days. Most in the U.K., readers of tabloids!, admit that the trial process is a complete sham. For pete's sake, if the Daily Mail is bowing to the blatantly obvious......

Briars is arguing 112 calls from 6 years ago. Machiavelli is arguing Westphalian sovereignty of nations.

Who are you going to believe? Briars and Machiavelli or your lying eyes?
Click to expand...
Crini has brought up the big lie about the open closed ajar door. The lie in the book about his 112 call is less important but does indicate his ability to change the truth into a favourable light as Nancy said. You are very much in your own fantasy if you believe comments by FOA who post everywhere are an indication as to what the trial outcome will be.
 
Briars said:
The impatient growling officer made Sollecito say there was no theft. Why the need to find a reason? What was it about his statement that he needed to alter it in his book.begs the question.These kind of adjustments do not appeal casual especially when they attempt to change the responsibility of the remark away from Sollecito.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is? These kind if adjustments and minor innacuracies just seem like evidence that he is human

What about all the changes to the stories of the prosecution witnesses? The friends of Meredith that became more hostile to Amanda or Filomena's changing story about the shutters - and don't even get me started on the changing stories of the prosecution - what in your opinion does this say about them?
 
Nancy as an author of a book he should not be lying about how he came to say there was no theft. Blaming the dispatcher is a no no
 
moije2 said:
Nice post Bill.

And the fact that people are still talking about the "nothing stolen" guilter talking point is amazing. It was manufactured into something to be suspicious about, putting the players of this drama into the insane position of acknowledging the "issue" of his words - which should have been of no import - and then being criticized in how he addressed the alleged "inconsistency". You really cannot use enough inverted commas! The whole conversation about the suspiciousness of his words was tiresome and almost nonsensical. Let's focus on Grinder's focus on the word suspicious. Let's be real. Everything at a crime scene, and particularly the people on site, are to be suspected. That word means nothing in this context. That it continued to be a source of suspicion is due only to the fact that they <already> suspected him. Then the bass ackward jump in logic to conclude that RS knew something that only a stager could know to be true, that was in fact <not> true, and impute guilt to that. Great thinking. The origins in such contortions can only be seen in pre-ideation toward guilt. Uh, confirmation bias.

And Bill, your pointing to the Massei report big "if" with dangling participle of logic was perfect. There is no logic to complete that thought.
Click to expand...

..... which is why here in Nov 2013 it is useless to talk about these things. I agree with Grinder, yes Raffaele's words were suspicious....

... but as you say, moije2, EVERYTHING at a crime scene is to held to scrutiny and suspicion, all the while where seasoned investigators have to resist the urge to come to conclusions too quickly, because if they do, then they'll miss the more subtle suspicious stuff.....

..... which is exactly what happened here. It was a complete rush to judgement. Even John Follain in his book - often seeming to have access to people's thoughts! - relates that Napoleoni thought there was something suspicious about Knox and Sollecito, "although she couldn't exactly say what."

If Follain is to be believed, then Napoleoni should have trusted that last part... there must have been a reason why she couldn't put her finger on why she was particularly suspicious of the pair - except that she acted on it the night of Nov 5/6, even against (again as Follain relates) what Marco Chiacchiera recommended. Let them go, observe them..... that's what Follain says Chiacchiera recommended...

..... but Napoleoni and Mignini overruled him by arresting the pair.... on what?

An amorphous suspicion?

Those amorphous suspicions are the same ones being advanced here, 6 years later, by Briars and Machiavelli. Except Machiavelli wants to bring the sovereignty of nations into play as well!!!!!!! Sheesh! There's someone who wants to argue forensics at a crime scene!
 
Briars said:
Nancy as an author of a book he should not be lying about how he came to say there was no theft. Blaming the dispatcher is a no no
Click to expand...

Why not? Most authors of auto-biographies mis-remember, exaggerate, get things wrong or even downright lie to create a better narrative
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
..... which is why here in Nov 2013 it is useless to talk about these things. I agree with Grinder, yes Raffaele's words were suspicious....

... but as you say, moije2, EVERYTHING at a crime scene is to held to scrutiny and suspicion, all the while where seasoned investigators have to resist the urge to come to conclusions too quickly, because if they do, then they'll miss the more subtle suspicious stuff.....

..... which is exactly what happened here. It was a complete rush to judgement. Even John Follain in his book - often seeming to have access to people's thoughts! - relates that Napoleoni thought there was something suspicious about Knox and Sollecito, "although she couldn't exactly say what."

If Follain is to be believed, then Napoleoni should have trusted that last part... there must have been a reason why she couldn't put her finger on why she was particularly suspicious of the pair - except that she acted on it the night of Nov 5/6, even against (again as Follain relates) what Marco Chiacchiera recommended. Let them go, observe them..... that's what Follain says Chiacchiera recommended...

..... but Napoleoni and Mignini overruled him by arresting the pair.... on what?

An amorphous suspicion?

Those amorphous suspicions are the same ones being advanced here, 6 years later, by Briars and Machiavelli. Except Machiavelli wants to bring the sovereignty of nations into play as well!!!!!!! Sheesh! There's someone who wants to argue forensics at a crime scene!
Click to expand...

I'm going to add my voice to this chorus. I know that people's perceptions of others actions and differ from person to person. This is why when someone says something negative about another person, I have a tendency to take that opinion with a lot of salt.

We've all had those moments where a friend thought we were angry with them, when the thought and emotion never crossed our mind. Sometimes people can perceptive and sometimes we are just oversensitive and clueless.

The real truth is NONE of this evidence. It's just BS. And because there is no real evidence we get bogged down into mind reading nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom