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

[Antony]

Actually it's quite the contrary; the perception that the break in was staged preceeded all narrative about the crime. Actually it even preceeded the discovery of the body. Battistelli and Marzi suspected it was staged even before they discovered the murder.

Of course this is key, and was their method of "investigation": make up your mind before seeing any real evidence, and then cling to your conclusion regardless of facts and reason.

I won't discuss the evidence of staging, because that would the opening of a further chapter of discussion and would take too long, so that in the end I won't be able to answer to anybody.

Very synthetically, I say the staging is evident because of a set of elements which occur all at the same time 1. the window is an illogical point of entry (you can deny this, but you won't change this); simply statistically, thieves chose the easiest or safest way in; 2. there is no soil in Filomena's room; 3. there is no grass in Filomena's room; 4. drawers were not searched; 5. the tossing of clothes from the wardrobe is nonsensical for a thief, that's no thief activity, first place is always drawers of all rooms; 6. no valuable item was taken; 7. money in Knox's room was not taken; 8. other rooms were not searched; 9. the window shutters were left closed by Filomena, albeit not locked; that further complicates the illogical entry, requires to climb twice, and then, subsequently, the shutters were found half open (they would be open if the thief entrerd thought there; they would be closed if the thief wanted to shut them: it makes no sense for a thief to leave one shutter half open, only a forgetful stager could do that); 10. the rock bowled on a paper bag ripping it, and the ripped paper below the rock has fallen on top of a cloth that allegedly would have been tossed there by the burglar; 11. the glass shards on the sill were not touched; any thief balancing there or holding there would tend to remove them or disturb them; 12. no DNA from epithelial cell found on the sill or on the window frame; 13. large crumble of white paint from the window inner shutter fallen on clothes strewn on the floor; 14. the rest of evidence pointing in the same direction (mixed DNA vitcim + Knox in Filomena's room on luminol stains), no glass outside, no footprints on soil/grass beneath, testimonies of police, lack of relation between burglary and the kind of murder (rape and extreme violence) etc.

All this is pure babble. You can enumerate your points all you wish, but they are all either false or meaningless. No effort was ever made by the investigators to record or photograph this so-called "evidence" of staging. On the contrary, they trampled the space under the window when they used it as an outside smoking area. Testimonies of police when photographs were needed? That's feeble - and it would still be feeble even without their numerous other lies over the course of the case.

Actually all evidence found shows multiple perpetrators.

Your brazenness is breathtaking. Even Massei does not assert this.

There are no DNA traces and no prints in the murder room other than from the actual, single perpetrator. The fact that you and the other Mignini supporters continue to point to a single, discredited trace of Raff's alleged DNA on the bra-clasp (destroyed by Stefanoni's mishandling before it could be independently tested) doesn't change the conclusion; it is shown on film being handled with dirty gloves and any case the trace is in a place where it would not have been deposited in the course of the murder.

Their denial is an outright lie. The window was simply the worse possible choice for a burglar. This is also obvious by the way in that all real break ins occurred through the back windows on the balcony (extremely easy way in).

Again, delusional babble. You are discussing with people who have seen the orientation of the house, with the break-in window screened by trees and the balcony, fitted with modern double-glazing, in full view of the road and the facing apartments. The break-in window is inconspicuous, unprotected and easy for an athletic young man like Guede.

 

[Machiavelli]

it's not really our buisness to know how she could be sure; the only relevant thing is that she declared she felt sure, she appered to be sure, and she later always maintained she's sure that's how Meredith used to behave.​

I think this is at the heart of what is going on. If Italians really think that it only is important that she appeared to be sure and kept maintaining that means we must believe it and it would be an insult to challenge how it would be possible.

But let's make it clear: the defence could have challenged Filomena by asking her questions.

But the truth of the trial is that Filomena was not even summoned by the defence for questioning, as far as I know.

In the absence of these topics, which the defence may have never questioned Filomena about, given that Filomena was not even summoned for questioning by the defence, we can't speculate anything about Filomena. It would be inacceptable speculation from the roots; it would be a castle with no foundation.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Again, delusional babble. You are discussing with people who have seen the orientation of the house, with the break-in window screened by trees and the balcony, fitted with modern double-glazing, in full view of the road and the facing apartments. The break-in window is inconspicuous, unprotected and easy for an athletic young man like Guede.

You are also discussing with a person who saw all things you talk about, which are the polar opposite of what you assert (and also showed it).

Moreover, I can also see your "reasoning" by which you commented about the points evidence, and I can't see anything remotely balanced or pertinent in what you said.

 

[Kaosium]

Look, I did not even consider Meredith's window for obvious reasons; in fact the only possible worse choices were Meredith's window or the bathroom roof window, but I admit that I never even considered them as viable options for a burglar. If you are saying they are the only worse alternatives, then you are confirming what I'm sayng.

Fair enough, you employed a little hyperbole, everyone does at times, even college girls and boys.

However I maintain that window is easy to access for someone with the athletic ability and that has been proven beyond the doubt of reasonable people by both the lawyer doing it and the guy in the British TV program. It's so easy to get up and in they don't have to worry overmuch about being able to do it without being seen, and it offers the opportunity of an easy escape if anyone hears the rock breaking the window.

I passed in review with 83 others who could have done it as well. Wait, that's hyperbole, odds are Lewno couldn't have. We (almost literally!) carried him through the run, but we probably couldn't have pushed his cornfed Nebraska ass up and into that window.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough, you employed a little hyperbole, everyone does at times, even college girls and boys.

However I maintain that window is easy to access for someone with the athletic ability and that has been proven beyond the doubt of reasonable people by both the lawyer doing it and the guy in the British TV program. It's so easy to get up and in they don't have to worry overmuch about being able to do it without being seen, and it offers the opportunity of an easy escape if anyone hears the rock breaking the window.

I passed in review with 83 others who could have done it as well. Wait, that's hyperbole, odds are Lewno couldn't have. We (almost literally!) carried him through the run, but we probably couldn't have pushed his cornfed Nebraska ass up and into that window.

But this is not enough for making it become a logical point of entry.
Statistics indicate that burglars would simply chose the easieast way. They don't chose a window simply because "an athletic guy would do it". They chose it insofar as it is the easiest way in or the safest way in.

Risk and difficulty of that window as entry point are incomparable to that of the rear balcony, so the real break-ins also show, the window also requires a bigger deal of work (you need first to climb to open the external shutters and check if the internal ones are closed, and they were, etc.) this work and concerns are all useless; but moreover there are further elements that make the whole operation less fit with that window, like the fact that the shutters were found half closed by the police.

 

[Bill Williams]

But this is not enough for making it become a logical point of entry.
Statistics indicate that burglars would simply chose the easieast way. They don't chose a window simply because "an athletic guy would do it". They chose it insofar as it is the easiest way in or the safest way in.

Risk and difficulty of that window as entry point are incomparable to that of the rear balcony, so the real break-ins also show, the window also requires a bigger deal of work (you need first to climb to open the external shutters and check if the internal ones are closed, and they were, etc.) this work and concerns are all useless; but moreover there are further elements that make the whole operation less fit with that window, like the fact that the shutters were found half closed by the police.

The rear balcony is exposed to the streets and apartments and is lit by a streetlamp. Once on it there's no place to go if spotted. Do you want to see the pic again? You know, the one that shows what you deny it shows?

 

[davefoc]

It's merely the remnants of the corpse of the presumption the police and prosecution made that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the postal police got there, and the necessity of Mignini to rewrite the narrative because the honest version is indicative of innocence. Thus Amanda's comment merely offering information she thought was true (and was probably more accurate than Filomena's statement) is taken out of the context of everything else they did to raise the alarm and reinterpreted to mean she was trying to keep the murder from being discovered just yet (or whatever).

With the 'evidence' of Raffaele calling the Carabinieri after the postal police arrived being disproven, the rest of this narrative staggers about like a chicken with it's head cut off, spurting out evidence to the cogent of the irrationality or dishonesty of the man who proposed it.

Awesome, to think that my little post inspired such eloquence and precision of expression.

As an aside, I realize that this was poetry and questioning poets about what they meant may not be in good form, but "cogent of the irrationality"?

 

[Kaosium]

But this is not enough for making it become a logical point of entry.
Statistics indicate that burglars would simply chose the easiest way. They don't chose a window simply because "an athletic guy would do it". They chose it insofar as it is the easiest way in or the safest way in.

Risk and difficulty of that window as entry point are incomparable to that of the rear balcony, so the real break-ins also show, the window also requires a bigger deal of work (you need first to climb to open the external shutters and check if the internal ones are closed, and they were, etc.) this work and concerns are all useless; but moreover there are further elements that make the whole operation less fit with that window, like the fact that the shutters were found half closed by the police.

The window for the rear balcony was thicker glass and is more easily seen from houses nearby where someone might look out if they heard, as opposed to a road that one can wait until it's clear before they make the attempt. At dark someone driving by would be unlikely to look down being as they'd be keeping their eyes on that curvy road and wouldn't have been in position to hear it anyway being as the rock could be thrown when it was easy to determine no cars were coming.

Either is an easy access for an athletic burglar, and the shutters may not have been closed and were easy to open regardless, especially to someone with a knife. You can do more than just cut people with knives, they're servicible as levers and prying tools as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it isn't. It's a statement taken out of it's context that has been assigned a meaning inconsistant with that context. That's why it conflicts, because it has been formulated that way. That's not Amanda's fault, it the error of the ones who do that.

What are you talking about? Amanda Knox did not express any urgency to enter Meredith's room. Quite the contrary, she trivialized or diminished the importance of it and offered instead reassuring explanations.
She even admitted this in her courtroom testimony.

I don't understand if you admit or you deny such fact (what does it mean "assigned a meaning inconsistant with that context"?). You are not being clear.

She trivialized, downplayed the locked door and expressed lack of urgency to enter the room. All witnesses reported that, there is no way to bring such a thing out of context.
This conflicts with her narrative and with her previous attempt of breaking down the door as she told it in her narrative.

I really don't see how you can hope to get around this.

By the way, now, after years, there is also evidence that she lied about the episode in her book. Because she places her "statement" in a situation where she is together with Filomena, she has Filomena interrupting her, starting to shout etc., but what witnesses reported was that Filomena was not there yer, she arrived later. Knox said her comment about Meredith be used to locking the door even when she was taking a shower, the first time to Luca, Marco and the police officers, they were reassured, and Filomena was not there.

Did it have any effect whatsoever on the door being broken down? No, it did not nor is there any reason to think it would have.

Well it certainly had the effect of waiting for the arrival, first of Luca and Marco first, then for the arrival of Filomena.
Had she expresssed urgency to break down the door, Knox and Sollecito would have discovered the body alone, breaking down the door themselves, with no other witnesses except the police.

Even if Meredith did lock her door sometimes, it doesn't suggest that her door being locked with all the other indications Amanda and Raffaele brought to the attention of everyone is reason to not break down that door.

But this is irrelevant, this is no argument. I don't understand the aim of the reasoning. It's obvious that they would have broken down the door, if not immediately they would have done that within the next ten minutes or half an hour.
But the factual point that matters is that Knox felt no urgency to break it down.

 

[Kaosium]

Awesome, to think that my little post inspired such eloquence and precision of expression.

As an aside, I realize that this was poetry and questioning poets about what they meant may not be in good form, but "cogent of the irrationality"?

Oops! I meant it was evidence to the cognant of the irrationality of Mignini.

 

[Machiavelli]

The window for the rear balcony was thicker glass and is more easily seen from houses nearby where someone might look out if they heard, as opposed to a road that one can wait until it's clear before they make the attempt. At dark someone driving by would be unlikely to look down being as they'd be keeping their eyes on that curvy road and wouldn't have been in position to hear it anyway being as the rock could be thrown when it was easy to determine no cars were coming.

Either is an easy access for an athletic burglar, and the shutters may not have been closed and were easy to open regardless, especially to someone with a knife. You can do more than just cut people with knives, they're servicible as levers and prying tools as well.

But it is not easilly seen at all! You seem to have no clue what you are talking about. You are maybe relying on photos taken from 80 meters or more from a building, maybe with 200mm photo lenses.
Nobody could notice a person on the balcony at night, and even if anyone saw it, that wouldn't be suspicious.
A person climbing thought a window is suspicious! And that window is something like 10 meters from the road, it's in front of the cars passing by, in front of any passer by walking out from the parking lot. And close to the street lamps.

 

[Machiavelli]

The rear balcony is exposed to the streets and apartments and is lit by a streetlamp. Once on it there's no place to go if spotted. Do you want to see the pic again? You know, the one that shows what you deny it shows?

You should be the one who should learn how to look at pictures.

 

[davefoc]

I disagree, I believe there are definitely indications he is guilty of misconduct in this case, and just because he has not yet been held to account for it yet doesn't mean that it didn't occur. He holds a powerful position and is able to withhold or destroy evidence and as long as he continues to 'deny, deny, deny; lie, lie, lie' and keep the ones trying to bring him to justice on the defensive with attacks and misdirections while he games the system it may be that he can keep the torpid Italian court system at bay until he's retired, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty of abusing his office.

Lets start with his curious habit of filing charges/starting investigations on his detractors and/or opposing his prosecutions. He filed charges/initiated investigations on--at minimum--five Italian journalists in this case: the two from Telenorba, the two from Oggi as well as Franscesca Bene. He also filed charges/started investigations on five members of the Sollecito family and two of Amanda's parents for daring to defend their relatives/children, in the case of Amanda's parents for simply repeating what they'd been told from their own home to be published in a British publication.

At the same time ILE was seeding the media with claims of 'evidence' that Mignini must have known was entirely untrue or grossly misrepresented such as claims of having 'bleach receipts,' that there was a 'clear cut' video of Amanda entering the cottage, that the bathroom was covered in blood when Amanda showered (with pictures to 'prove' it taken by someone involved in the investigation) with no action from Mignini, showing a pattern of allowing false evidence claims from those subject to his authority but taking action against those questioning his investigation, not unlike what occurred in the Monster of Florence case.

Consider just who was actually responsible for any damage done to Patrick Lumumba. He is hauled out of his home on that 'confused' account which was most certainly retracted by the time he presents his case to Matteini due to Amanda's note to police on the seventh which he quoted from in the Massei court, if her note later on the sixth which cast serious doubt on it wasn't enough. However before Matteini there is no mention of any of that and curiously a 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed is produced which is damned odd considering it wasn't, and on the order of twenty people would soon line up to alibi him, including the Swiss professor whose alibi was not initially accepted even after the seven hour grilling he endured, though with the arrest of Rudy Guede in Germany Patrick was released, but the charges on him were not dropped until several months later.

In the meantime the fact that he was still 'under investigation' allowed his bar to continue to be closed as a 'crime scene' and of course, he was still subject to being wiretapped. I suspect that Patrick Lumumba's curious behavior and the bile and lies he's continuously spewed towards Amanda (he liked her just fine as of the day of the interrogation) in court and out may well be connected to the fact that with his bar closed his income was destroyed and with his phone records available to Mignini there is the possibility there might just be some proof of the rumors that Patrick is a bit of a horndog with the young ladies, something the mother of his child might be...non-plussed...to discover, or something else potentially embarrassing either personally or professionally.

Is coercing a witness misconduct in your eyes? Think of the advantages it offered Mignini in court and out. In court he had another voice of condemnation and another charge that could be used to indicate her guilt in the matter, now fully realized with the conviction confirmed and used in the court in Florence, not peripherally as before but as actual evidence of her being guilty of murder. Outside court his account of Amanda's behavior, fully at odds with her recollections on issues as to whether she was fired/demoted and whether she was flirting too much or not enough for his tastes as well the general character assassination of her being 'soulless' no doubt was convincing to some people regarding her being a nasty bit of goods who deserved punishment. Or as Alan Dershowitz opined, not worthy of sympathy or defense because of that 'accusation' which garners more credibility because Patrick Lumumba won't shut up about how Amanda is responsible for the 'ruining of his life' due to the two whole weeks he spent in jail despite the fact it was the police and prosecutor responsible for imprisoning him, refusing to release him long after he'd been extensively alibied and Amanda's statements had been catagorically retracted.

Considering Mignini's methods as revealed by his history of wiretapping in this case and before, is it really believable that he didn't do so with Patrick Lumumba? We know they checked the phone records as it was part of the evidence against him as per Mattenini. We also know that for some inexplicable reason his bar remained closed and the case against him wasn't officially dropped until months after they released him. We also know that those wiretapped conversations amongst the Sollecito family became public, if you'll recall that's how we heard some of Dr. Sollecitos intemperate statements such as how he felt after dealing with Monica Napoleoni (something to the effect of 'if he ran over her in a car he'd back up to make sure') and that Vanessa Sollecito said she was willing to break her finger to get leave to help her little brother.

I maintain that the statement Mignini was not guilty of misconduct in the case to be rather premature. An investigation of these and other indications would be required before I jumped to that conclusion as he had the motive, the means and the opportunity. Patrick being deprived of income and knowing Mignini had access to information that might well be highly embarrassing (and even destructive) personally is a better explanation for his conduct of selling lies to the tabloids and hiring a lawyer to punish Amanda for what the police and prosecution did to him than that he's simply incapable of understanding that Amanda never wanted him arrested and feels badly about it to this day.

Potent members of powerful institutions often can escape scrutiny for some time, however that's not any indication they're innocent, it's just yet another example of Lord Acton's axiom: 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

There's few positions nearer to being God on Earth than a prosecutor in Italy.

This speculation was interesting to me. There is a lot here that would be judged as misconduct for a prosecutor in most western non-Italian countries I suspect. I'm not sure about Italy though, but misconduct seems to be the only reason for the mistreatment of Lumumba even in Italy. One straightforward explanation is that a lawyer was hand picked for Lumumba that Mignini planned to use as part of a tag team effort to go after Knox and Sollecito to get inadmissible evidence before the court and Lumumba was pressured to go along with the scam with the "stick" of shutting him down if he didn't go along and the "carrot" of financial gain if he did go along with the scam. Mignini is probably the principal player responsible for damaging Lumumba and in the US and I assume most other western countries Lumumba would have sued the jurisdiction of Mignini and possibly Mignini himself. Prosecutors in the US have fairly broad protection from this kind of suit but the apparent malfeasance involved here might have made Mignini personally liable. A prosecutor in the US might have also found himself open to criminal charges for abuse of office over an incident like this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually it's quite the contrary; the perception that the break in was staged preceeded all narrative about the crime. Actually it even preceeded the discovery of the body. Battistelli and Marzi suspected it was staged even before they discovered the murder.

Not quite. They said, "This is no burglary." That is not exactly the same as "staged break-in."

In fact it was not a burglary. It was a burglary that Rudy aborted to kill a complete innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

The court says the defense has to show a plausible means of contamination. Anyone can easily think of several, from inadvertent transfer on dirty gloves to deliberate tampering. The defense has video proof that the handling of the evidence was unacceptable under any published standard, and the crime scene had been hopelessly compromised by the time it was collected. But apparently that's not specific enough. In effect, the court is requiring the defense to prove something no one can ever prove, because it's too late for further investigation.

No one will ever devise an argument that convinces people who think that way. It's pointless to try. The thinking itself must be discredited, and the damage it causes must be contained. (...)

The only defensive theory that I heared here (apart from conspiracy theories) is that the bra claps was contaminated with Sollecito's DNA transferred by a technician by touching the external door handle, first, and the metal part of the clasp subsequently.

If you had documentation about this touching in videos or testimonies I guess you could work on it. The problem with an explanation like that is that must be something credible, it must look like something probable.
A purely theoretical speculation, going against documentation and statistics, won't work.

 

[Bill Williams]

The rear balcony is exposed to the streets and apartments and is lit by a streetlamp. Once on it there's no place to go if spotted. Do you want to see the pic again? You know, the one that shows what you deny it shows?

You should be the one who should learn how to look at pictures.

You mean like the picture taken from the apartments across the road, that show the balcony completely exposed, with a streetlamp in the foreground?

 

[Kaosium]

What are you talking about? Amanda Knox did not express any urgency to enter Meredith's room. Quite the contrary, she trivialized or diminished the importance of it and offered instead reassuring explanations.

No, she just said sometimes Meredith locked her door.

She even admitted this in her courtroom testimony.

What did she say?

I don't understand if you admit or you deny such fact (what does it mean "assigned a meaning inconsistant with that context"?). You are not being clear.

I meant that Amanda and Raffaele had already tried to break down that door, they called the caribinieri (and numerous others) with their concerns which included the locked door, and they invited the postals in and showed them the other things that worried them. That is the context I was referring to.

Thus when you say this:

She trivialized, downplayed the locked door and expressed lack of urgency to enter the room. All witnesses reported that, there is no way to bring such a thing out of context.

Because she simply offered the probably true information that Meredith did sometimes lock her door you are assigning it a meaning entirely out of that context by trying to pretend she was 'trivializing and downplaying it and must be expressing a lack of urgency.'

Other possibilities: she heard Filomena say something she knew was wrong and wanted the police to have the best possible information. Or, she was trying to keep hope alive that perhaps the door being locked didn't mean what she feared.

This conflicts with her narrative and with her previous attempt of breaking down the door as she told it in her narrative.

Only because you took it out of the proper context and assigned it a different meaning!

I really don't see how you can hope to get around this.

By trying to understand and not condemn. Knowledge of logic and human behavior is also helpful.

By the way, now, after years, there is also evidence that she lied about the episode in her book. Because she places her "statement" in a situation where she is together with Filomena, she has Filomena interrupting her, starting to shout etc., but what witnesses reported was that Filomena was not there yer, she arrived later. Knox said her comment about Meredith be used to locking the door even when she was taking a shower, the first time to Luca, Marco and the police officers, they were reassured, and Filomena was not there.

Then maybe she said it more than once because it happened to be true? She may well have been trying to reassure them as well as herself that the worst was not the only possibility.

Well it certainly had the effect of waiting for the arrival, first of Luca and Marco first, then for the arrival of Filomena.
Had she expresssed urgency to break down the door, Knox and Sollecito would have discovered the body alone, breaking down the door themselves, with no other witnesses except the police.


But this is irrelevant, this is no argument. I don't understand the aim of the reasoning. It's obvious that they would have broken down the door, if not immediately they would have done that within the next ten minutes or half an hour.
But the factual point that matters is that Knox felt no urgency to break it down.

However she and Raffaele were the ones that reported it and summoned everyone else. Not wanting to break someone else's property on merely a suspicion without knowing for sure there was a body behind the door and it was possible the locked door meant nothing is a poor reason to suspect them when they were the ones who reported it all!

They are the ones who created any urgency or reason to break it down at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

This speculation was interesting to me. There is a lot here that would be judged as misconduct for a prosecutor in most western non-Italian countries I suspect. I'm not sure about Italy though, but misconduct seems to be the only reason for the mistreatment of Lumumba even in Italy. One straightforward explanation is that a lawyer was hand picked for Lumumba that Mignini planned to use as part of a tag team effort to go after Knox and Sollecito to get inadmissible evidence before the court and Lumumba was pressured to go along with the scam with the "stick" of shutting him down if he didn't go along and the "carrot" of financial gain if he did go along with the scam. Mignini is probably the principal player responsible for damaging Lumumba and in the US and I assume most other western countries Lumumba would have sued the jurisdiction of Mignini and possibly Mignini himself. Prosecutors in the US have fairly broad protection from this kind of suit but the apparent malfeasance involved here might have made Mignini personally liable. A prosecutor in the US might have also found himself open to criminal charges for abuse of office over an incident like this.

But the speculation is entirely yours. There is no evidence or clue whatsoever for such scenarios. Which are in fact to me something resembling a paranoid delusion. Mignini did nothing wrong to Lumumba, as far as I can imagine. Actually Mignini was the one who took him quickly out of jail. Other prosecutors wouldn't do that, the preliminary judge would be left alone the whole burden of taking care about the issue.

 

[acbytesla]

It is so hard to read these moronic posts of Machiavelli's. They are stupid and inane. Half the time he is lying and the other half he's interpreting things that can be interpreted a thousand different ways by a thousand different people. It's based on people's "perceptions" of what happened, not necessarily what happened.

Mach can claim that there was no sense of urgency from Amanda, but that simply isn't the case and it wouldn't matter is she demonstrated no urgency. This isn't evidence, this is mumbo jumbo.

What it is not is, Amanda or Raffaele's fingerprints or shoe prints or DNA in the murder room.

What it is not, is a coherent timeline that fits with the evidence.

What it is not is a connection between Amanda/Raffaele and Rudy.
What it is not, are records of phone calls or texts or emails to and from Rudy.
What it not is a motive of any kind.
What it is not is CCTV footage of either Amanda/Raffaele out that evening.
What it is not is a logical reason that Amanda or Raffaele took his cooking knife to the cottage.
What it is not is one shred of actual evidence.

 

[davefoc]

But the speculation is entirely yours. There is no evidence or clue whatsoever for such scenarios. Which are in fact to me something resembling a paranoid delusion. Mignini did nothing wrong to Lumumba, as far as I can imagine. Actually Mignini was the one who took him quickly out of jail. Other prosecutors wouldn't do that, the preliminary judge would be left alone the whole burden of taking care about the issue.

You give me too much credit. I am not well informed enough about this case to create an original theory. I was just parroting somebody else's theory in this thread. But regardless, it seems that you don't think much of the theory. So who was responsible for keeping his establishment shut down while he was no longer a suspect and why did they do it?

What possible liability should Knox have for this situation? Even if you accept the notion that her mention of Lumumba in her sleep deprived state while she was being grilled by the Perugia police to tell them "what they know" then presumably you also accept her recanting of anything she said against Lumumba the next day. So who do you think is responsible for the damage to Lumumba that occurred after that? Who is responsible for the damage to Lumumba after his alibi was shown to be solid?