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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Candace Dempsey was using Frank Sfarzo (paid by the Knoxs) as her source, Kestrel. Dempsey got wrong the most basic facts and lied even on her understanding of language, even on her age.
Click to expand...

Has it been proven that Frank Sfarzo was paid by the Knoxs?
 
lamasheen said:
Too bad it's a 5 min walk to Amanda's apt and programs can run even without anyone present.
Click to expand...

Yes true. Too bad the prosecution Super witness Toto places them in the plaza from 9:27 PM until midnight. Which proves beyond all doubt that it was impossible for AK and RS to kill MK. Or shall we ignore that? Toto presents a perfect alibi. It is a different alibi than the one which claims that they were in all night. But even if they lied then Toto proves at least thst they could not have killed MK. Or no duh?
 
acbytesla said:
I'd have to go back and review them Griffin. I'm sure that they have...but I'm not sure at this moment, which ones, they have been interviewed so many times. I'm pretty sure that during her interview with Cuomo as well as during her first interview with Diane Sawyer. But I'm doing it from memory.

Go to Injustice Anywhere and you can find links to many of her interviews.
Click to expand...

I can't find any video of such a statement. So if you know of one, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I find it strange that anyone accused of murder would not explicitly state their alibi on televised interviews which are designed to win public support.
 
Machiavelli said:
Actually I am the person who backs up most precisely everything I say.
For example, did you notice I cited art. 350 § 7 when answring to LJ's claim that the SC found the spontaneous statement to be improper or non spontaneous?
It happens that the TJMK folks have obtained a lot of interesting documentation including many payments to Frank Sfarzo.
Click to expand...

Could we please see this documentation?
 
Dan O. said:
Is there anyone in the world that does not know where Amanda and Raffaele claim they were? Unless you are claiming that you have a special ability to detect lies when people speak then it's not going to make any difference hearing them say it. If you do think you have some special ability then you've come to the right place to have that ability tested. Their might even be a $Million waiting for you if you can prove it.

What I want to know is: Why haven't any of the many prosecutors in this case ever stated clearly their theory of the crime they are accusing Amanda and Raffaele of committing with a timeline for when this crime is supposed to have occurred?
Click to expand...

Dan, there isn't a timeline for the crime that ties together proveable facts. Unsubstantiated incidents occur through the night osmotically conflicting with one another. Don't try to make them fit to a timeline. They don't.

Perhaps someone would like to help the pro-guilt advocates by trying to assemble the timeline for them, since they won't attempt it themselves. I'd like to see what it looks like. Just don't let Amanda get hit by the Halloween bus as she is crossing the street near midnight on the night of Nov 1/2 to do the cleanup.
 
Last edited:
griffinmill said:
I can't find any video of such a statement. So if you know of one, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I find it strange that anyone accused of murder would not explicitly state their alibi on televised interviews which are designed to win public support.
Click to expand...

Ok. Fair enough.

I find it odd that after 6 years no guilter has come up with a comprehensive timeline for the crime.

I find it odd that when two people write about where they were, someone else would find it odd they weren't focussing on it at TV. But I guess all our mileage varies.

I find it odd that people pick out really peripheral stuff as meaningful. But that's me.
 
griffinmill said:
I can't find any video of such a statement. So if you know of one, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I find it strange that anyone accused of murder would not explicitly state their alibi on televised interviews which are designed to win public support.
Click to expand...

Well Griffin, I'm not going through hundreds of interviews for the 15 second clip where Amanda says that she was with Raffaele at his apartment that night. But I am 99.9 percent sure you can find it the interview with Diane Sawyer and the interview with Andrew Cuomo.
 
lamasheen said:
Their alibis are each other - they both state in their books they spent the entire night together at Raffaele's apt smoking weed, having sex, watching a movie, reading a book, etc. This is their biggest problem - they have no alibi, no other witnesses except each other, cell phones turned off, and a computer that shows no activity a little after 9pm. It's not the strongest part of their defense.
Click to expand...

That can happen to anyone if they have they have their alibi arrested too. ;)

Try this sometime: Find a college-aged partner, start by meeting them at something frumpy, like a classical music concert. Then start watching mushy movies and engaging in indulgent cuddling for six days and see if you can convince them to help you murder someone right out of the blue for no good reason. Then as your masterstroke see if you can convince someone neither of you know and have only seen around a few times that you're going to have to meet on the way to help you both.

Out of a thousand trials how many times do you think that could be done?
 
griffinmill said:
I can't find any video of such a statement. So if you know of one, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I find it strange that anyone accused of murder would not explicitly state their alibi on televised interviews which are designed to win public support.
Click to expand...

What do you do if they arrest your alibi too and include him in the conspiracy?
 
lamasheen said:
Too bad it's a 5 min walk to Amanda's apt and programs can run even without anyone present.
Click to expand...

The file Amalie on Raffaelle's laptop was manually closed at 9:10 pm. At 9:24 pm the anime short Naruto was started with human interaction. Internal logs showed that during that night, the screensaver only kicked in for short periods before until 6:30 am. Even without the screensaver evidence, the computer evidence takes us beyond when Meredith died based on when she ate and the fact that none of that meal had passed from her stomach.

We don't know about activity on Raff's desktop as the investigators managed to destroy the hard drive. The drives in Meredith's and Amanda's computers were also destroyed.
 
griffinmill said:
Are there any television interviews you can think of where they directly state their alibi?
Click to expand...


Can you be more precise as to what time they need an alibi for? The prosecution hasn't even nailed down on what day Meredith died.
 
acbytesla said:
Well Griffin, I'm not going through hundreds of interviews for the 15 second clip where Amanda says that she was with Raffaele at his apartment that night. But I am 99.9 percent sure you can find it the interview with Diane Sawyer and the interview with Andrew Cuomo.
Click to expand...

The Diane Sawyer interview has no such comments. Can't find a link to the Cuomo interview. Please post it if you have it.

But there have been about a dozen interviews in the last 12 months. None of them include a directly stated alibi that I can find.

Why do you think this is?
 
Dan O. said:
Can you be more precise as to what time they need an alibi for? The prosecution hasn't even nailed down on what day Meredith died.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

A comprehensive timeline seems to be needed, don't it?

Do you know that some law schools don't teach the concept?

Is Nara and Curatolo in play? Then their alibi should be for late evening. Is stomach contents in play? Then their alibi should be for earlier.

Then again Guede puts them early, first of all Amanda wasn't there acc. to Rudy..... so actually didn't need an alibi to crow on about.

They teach this stuff at law school.
 
The Diane Sawyer interview has no such comments.
Click to expand...

I repeat: the link below, to the Diane Sawyer interview, shows her doing exactly what you say she doesn't do at 12:20-13:10. And how could it fail to, entirely regardless of whether she's guilty or innocent? All you're demonstrating by pursuing this meaningless argument is how terribly badly you suck at critical thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfaZwvbLLpU
 
griffinmill said:
The Diane Sawyer interview has no such comments. Can't find a link to the Cuomo interview. Please post it if you have it.

But there have been about a dozen interviews in the last 12 months. None of them include a directly stated alibi that I can find.

Why do you think this is?
Click to expand...

I think you are doing this backwards.

To begin with you aren't actually presenting any evidence for your claimed factoid, that Knox and Raffaele never mention their alibi in interviews. You're just claiming it is so and then demanding that other people do your homework for you and prove otherwise.

You also haven't explained why what they say in interviews in particular is so terribly special. You seem to think that things only count if they appear in televised interviews, which is very strange to me.

Last but not least instead of asking us what we think it would mean if it turned out to be true that they have not mentioned their alibi in interviews, shouldn't you explain what you think we should conclude from it?

Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't it be a bit more intelligent to instead use all the available sources to try to establish whether or not they really did have an alibi? Because if they do have an alibi then whether or not they mention it in an interview seems kind of irrelevant. If they don't have an alibi for the actual time of death, then that is important but you can't prove it just by watching their interviews. (Or, it seems, not watching them. In your case).
 
acbytesla said:
Well Griffin, I'm not going through hundreds of interviews for the 15 second clip where Amanda says that she was with Raffaele at his apartment that night. But I am 99.9 percent sure you can find it the interview with Diane Sawyer and the interview with Andrew Cuomo.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. She did state it in her Sawyer interview.

That was in 4/13, right? Why has Raff never confirmed that in an interview? And why has Amanda never brought it up again? And why wouldn't she specifically bring it up right after the verdict? Why doesn't she state it in every interview?

With the luxury of a microphone, I'm a little unimpressed that neither she nor Sollecito are publicly telling the same story, and ignore actually talking about the details of their alibi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom