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

[Samson]

Yeah, I don't think the case was made to convict Knox or Sollecito... I don't think they are guilty of murder. But the inconsistency of their stories, and Knox's blatant lie about Lumumba leave me with a queasy feeling that something about this is amiss.

I believe this has been explained ad infinitum, but let me try.
Four days after the murder he unwittingly described the evening before the murder, yes 20% wrong time memory.
They went directly to Amanda and said her alibi was gone.
Six years of hell ensued from that moment.

 

[Strozzi]

Can someone on the "innocent" side briefly explain their answer to the "changed their alibis 9 times" claim from the "guilty" side? Evidence against Knox on this seems weak, but it doesn't for Sollecito?

I am not aware of what is alleged to have changed. Is someone referring to what time they started watching a video, what time they stopped it for dinner, how long they stopped it for, whether they washed the dishes in the sink at this time or that time?

Raffaele explained in court and in his book that when he was interrogated on the night of Nov 5 he was asked to tell what he and Amanda did on Nov. 1. As Raffaele answered their questions he became confused about what they did no the evening of Oct 31 when Amanda went to work at Le Chic bar and he stayed home to work on this thesis, and Nov. 1 which is when they stayed in the entire evening/night, watched a video, Amelia, had dinner, cuddled and were intimate, read, and he interacted with his computer. Nov. 1 is the night that Meredith was murdered.

Raffaele said that at some point in his interrogation he realized he was confusing the two nights and he told that to the police and asked to look at a calendar. This interrogators forbid him to consult the calendar. That is very telling - not that he was mixing up two evenings when recollecting them 5 or 6 days later, but that the interrogators forbid him to look at the calendar to keep the days straight. If investigators are looking for the truth, they want the person to be clear and lucid. If they want you to say what they want to hear, they want you tired, unclear, and confused.

Let me suggest you read Steve Moore's comments on this: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

 

[moogspaceport]

What is amiss is tht brutal illegal interrogation that resulted in the "changed stories" and "lie about Lumumba".

That may very well be the case, but the bottom line is... she threw an innocent man under the bus. That doesn't make her a murderer, of course.

 

[NoahFence]

Yep. The CTers are so emotionally invested in this, that they've lost sight of the fact that Amanda and that other dude murdered poor Meredith. You see, many of them have literally spent thousands of hours hunched over their computers, researching where the prosecutor went to grade school, what the judge had for breakfast, and who the court reporter is dating. And for all that "important" work, they want to see a payoff. And if it means a murderer goes free, that's OK.

I got a sneaking suspicion that little if anything in the above paragraph is accurate...

 

[icerat]

Raffaele explained in court and in his book that when he was interrogated on the night of Nov 5 he was asked to tell what he and Amanda did on Nov. 1. As Raffaele answered their questions he became confused about what they did no the evening of Oct 31 when Amanda went to work at Le Chic bar and he stayed home to work on this thesis, and Nov. 1 which is when they stayed in the entire evening/night, watched a video, Amelia, had dinner, cuddled and were intimate, read, and he interacted with his computer. Nov. 1 is the night that Meredith was murdered.

Thanks Strozzi, that pretty much covers the confusion.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That may very well be the case, but the bottom line is... she threw an innocent man under the bus. That doesn't make her a murderer, of course.

I think the police and Mignini are solely responsible for Lumumba.

 

[icerat]

That may very well be the case, but the bottom line is... she threw an innocent man under the bus. That doesn't make her a murderer, of course.

Except when you read the reports, she didn't. The police did, and within a few hours she explicitly clarified she was not accusing him.

 

[GreyFox]

Yep. The CTers are so emotionally invested in this, that they've lost sight of the fact that Amanda and that other dude murdered poor Meredith. You see, many of them have literally spent thousands of hours hunched over their computers, researching where the prosecutor went to grade school, what the judge had for breakfast, and who the court reporter is dating. And for all that "important" work, they want to see a payoff. And if it means a murderer goes free, that's OK.

We do it because we feel bad for the victim and two innocent people who we know got framed and need help. We want the killer (Guede) held fully accountable for his actions.

You on the other hand are just stalking a young woman because it arouses you . Much like your leader PQ. The Ballerina stalker. Or are you a member of Atlan the other site who's leader claims to be the Messiah who for a small fee can stop earthquakes and Hurricanes ?

Which tribe are you from ? ? ?

 

[RoseMontague]

Nice try.

1) "he is reporting what the prosecutor claims he said"

No... you're wrong again. Later in his diary he owns up to his statement by saying "I must admit that I said a 90% really stupid thing in my second statement."

2) And phrases like this "But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for."

That's exactly how 12 olds lie: I don't remember whether she went out or not and therefore I don't remember how long she was gone for.

LOL.

Sure would be nice to have the tape or video of that conversation. His version in his book makes it clear he was confusing Halloween night with the night after. Pretty easy for interrogators to do after 4 days of constant questions. Even a full transcript of his statement does not appear in the court records, almost as if the cops are hiding something.

 

[RandyN]

Wow. This is possibly the most disgusting comment i've read in 100 pages of this thread.

congratulations USA.

You haven't read enough then...lots of disgusting things are being said with the return of so many long lost CT'ers and there are thousands of pages to read as well so you can go back and see. You might notice some like pilot or Stilchito, or Lion King et al will never offer an explanation of the case beyond they must have it correct. And there is a reason for that. Because they can not. No one blames them certainly though...even the Italian courts cant do that. Lets see how convincing or crazy this motivation report is. Due in 90 days I understand.

Sorry I don't see the problem with the Japanese metaphor used although I don't think the outrage will be quite as strong as when the Japs bombed Peal Harbor. You and Lion King may disagree. You can always complain to the mods...some people actually get off on that....how about it LK?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes the ISC judges on that panel acted illegally and ruled on the evidence, even inventing new theories. They will have a new panel for the next ISC hearing. We can only hope they see the problems with the first ISC decision which tells the appeal court how to convict and does not give them leeway for a decision of innocence. And there is no way the motivation will make any logical sense so AK and RS will appeal from that standpoint as well.

Really? Interesting; wouldn’t the next panel of Italian Supreme Court judges review the 1st level trial, Florence 2nd level trial and their respective motivations, rulings and of course defence teams appeals? Maybe I’ve got this all wrong.

 

[moogspaceport]

Except when you read the reports, she didn't. The police did, and within a few hours she explicitly clarified she was not accusing him.

But isn't that based on the argument that she said she was badgered into fingering Lumumba? How do we know that to be true?

 

[Dan O.]

You're wrong.

From Raffies Diary, writing to his father:

"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap in the second version, and that she had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic."

So Raffles admits that he changed his story. He admits that he said she had gone out. He admits that Knox told him to lie.

You are so confirmation biased that you can't even read a printed statement straight. The judge said that there were three different statements. Raffaele reviewing those statements finds no difference except in the second version.

So, what is the context of that second version? was Raffaele permitted to consult a calendar to be sure he got the day right and wasn't talking about the night before when they went out? Who recorded that second version? Did they get the details right? Was the statement taped?

Who are you and why are you repeating the same tired old guilter crap that's been posted here so many times before? Why can't any of the guilters acknowledge the arguments that have shot them down time and time again? Why can't the guilters let the discussion advance?

 

[Dan O.]

Guilty or not, I can't blame him for contemplating running.

He doesn't have to run. He just needs to put himself in a country that isn't Italy where the Italian police bullies don't have jurisdiction and where extradition will require a hearing before a competent court.

 

[Grinder]

That may very well be the case, but the bottom line is... she threw an innocent man under the bus. That doesn't make her a murderer, of course.

Didn't you hear? It was shown in court that there were no buses.

Could you explain in your own words what the police chief, De Felice, meant when he said that his men questioned Amanda until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct?

Now, what I think is that the police found the text message and that confirmed their beliefs that she knew more than she was telling and that Patrick was involved in the murder. They questioned her and told her they knew she was involved and that Patrick was involved and they had proof. They used twelve different officers in rotations and a translator that helped Amanda remember as the translator testified in court.

Amanda began disavowing the statements as not as spontaneous as she the police had written on the statement they had her sign almost immediately.

Since the police had told her they had evidence of Patrick's involvement and she wasn't at the scene, how could she know they were wrong?

You won't explain because you can't. It is totally obvious that guilty or innocent the statements she made that night were coerced. The police threw Patrick under the bus and kept him there by closing his club for no reason.

Oh and you might wonder why none of his knives were tested and his wife was allowed to stay in their flat (destroying evidence no doubt).

 

[Planigale]

I stated more than once that I don't know much on molecular biology, albeit I do know a bit more about science than most people on this forum; I do know about physics and statystics, and have some deep albeit non systematic knowledge about some medicine branches.
I have always considered DNA as a protein but I believe you are right, so I re-formulize: there is no thing such as a Y-allele, neither a specific allele to attribute to Sollecito, there is a Y haplotype, a sequence. And attribution is a statystical property of that sequence - not of single alleles.
Yes I do know an allele is a variant of a gene, that is portion of code that is varied (I do know that most of DNA sequences are repetitive). Theoretically rare alleles could increase the probability of attribution.

By the way I note that you attempt to exploit my ignorance in molecular biology as strain, to make an argument about me not being reliable in "any technical matter". There is no such thing like "technical matter" and there is no expert in "technical matter", there are technicalities in each of the various subjects and branches of human knowledge. All technical experts are actually people with an area of expertise on some very limited subject. People who complain about one Y-allele being attributed to Sollecito have sure a bigger problem. There is no need to go forward. I think that your strain attempting to call me "unreliable" is a kind of desperate denial.

Really for someone who thought DNA was a protein after six years of discussing why the DNA testing was unreliable I would be careful about using technical terms such as allele and haplotype; I might call you out and ask you to explain what a Y haplotype was and why it cannot identify an individual by definition. There certainly are alleles on the Y chromosome.

I note your claim for knowledge of medicine, this would be your ability to diagnose sleep deprivation from writing? And your rather unique claim that Amanda Knox could choose not to sleep. Or perhaps it is your understanding of the physiology of gastric emptying? Not. What about your physics how are you on acoustics? Still claiming that a scream from Meredith's room would be audible? As for stats are you a frequentist or a Bayesian? Sequencing genes demands some really cool analysis. I just love MCMC modelling.

 

[RoseMontague]

But isn't that based on the argument that she said she was badgered into fingering Lumumba? How do we know that to be true?

I guess we should look at the tape or video of the interrogation or consult the transcript. It is not up to a defendant to prove their innocence. Without the recorded interrogation how do you expect her to prove it in any case? She says it went one way including slaps to the back of her head, the cops said it went another way with tea and cookies, LOL. This is why such things should be recorded.

 

[Vibio]

Sure would be nice to have the tape or video of that conversation. His version in his book makes it clear he was confusing Halloween night with the night after. Pretty easy for interrogators to do after 4 days of constant questions. Even a full transcript of his statement does not appear in the court records, almost as if the cops are hiding something.

Raff ADMITS he changed his alibi. He ADMITS he did blame Amanda for telling him to lie. He writes it in his own hand in his diary, a letter to his Father. Yet I'm supposed to believe KnifeBoy's self-serving book written years after the fact? Oh please.

 

[icerat]

But isn't that based on the argument that she said she was badgered into fingering Lumumba? How do we know that to be true?

First of all her "handwritten note" was written within a few hours of the "confession" and seems entirely believable and easily misinterpreted by non-native english speakers.

Secondly, if she is guilty, it just makes absolutely no sense at all for her to accuse Lumumba, because she would have known he wasn't there. The confession and accusation makes absolutely no sense if she was guilty. The confession itself notes she continuously shakes her head while "saying" these things, another sign she doesn't believe what she is saying.

Really the only logical conclusion is she was railroaded. The lack of recording or transcripts of the interrogation makes it all the more suspicious.

 

[christianahannah]

Sure would be nice to have the tape or video of that conversation. His version in his book makes it clear he was confusing Halloween night with the night after. Pretty easy for interrogators to do after 4 days of constant questions. Even a full transcript of his statement does not appear in the court records, almost as if the cops are hiding something.

Are full (or partial) transcripts of Raffaele's statements (from November 2 on) able to be viewed publicly? Have you seen them?