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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you sure she wasn't home ...?
If Knox was with Guede when Guede raped Ms Kercher, and Guede really wanted Knox, why did he not use that opportunity to rape Knox. Even if Sollecito was there, he was no match for Guede in a fight. I don't understand. Why did Guede rape ( or sexually assault - don't get hung up on the word rape please) Ms Kercher if Knox was just as available?
 
There is plenty of evidence supporting the Italian officials being clueless. The most telling part is the asserting that the case was solved entirely by psychological means. The Italians are claiming the ability to detect guilt and deception by behavior alone. Something people widely believe is true, but science has proved is a myth.

Next we have the matching of a shoe print to Raffaele's Reeboks. Matching a shoe with a print that had a different number of rings in the pattern. A match certified by an expert that any lay person could see was wrong.

Follow that up with the increasingly complex conspiracy needed to maintain the guilt of AK and RS. The break in doesn't fit, therefore it must have been faked. No physical evidence of AK and RS is found in the murder room, therefore they must have cleaned it up while somehow leaving the evidence pointing to Guede.

Then we have the motivation report from the first trail, that claimed that the two committed a violent murder due to the influence of marijuana.

Sorry, but the Italian prosecution team is indeed composed of idiots.



And yet with all these undeniable judicial and prosecutorial and police shortcomings the defense in this case and for 6 years now has failed miserably to overcome such sheer ineptitude of the judiciary...the other prosecution idiots overcame the defense idiots each time so far. And now in Italy at least the case is likely over.

In fact some...like me think were it not for Hellamnn and Zanetti asking the critical questions during the first appeal that the outcome of that would have likely been different. The defense sat on their hands or dozed while Zanetti asked Guede if he understood all the words he had supposedly written in his own letter that Mignini was so obligingly reading for Guede who must have forgotten his glasses or had trouble making out his "own" handwriting.

This is how bad the Italian liars are...they dont care or apparently need to make a somewhat plausible story. Guede doesn't understand some words and or cant read his handwriting and so Mignini reads it. Which begs the question...WTF?

ETA...someone asked about other Italian cases as bad as this...yes there are plenty. If you can find and search Franks site Perugia Shock which Italy took down BTW... in there he detailed many many cases. In one a witness being questioned by police fell out a second story window and "killed himself" apparently.

The removal of Perugia Shock proves that Italy has no free speech or press and is interested only in silencing those pointing out the inconvenient truth. Not just about this case but hundreds of others.
 
Last edited:
-


P.S. I believe Paul Allen had something to do with that also, he's heavily invested in turning the South Lake Union area into a Bio Technology Center and also the SEAHAWKS!!!
-

Are you suggesting that Paul Allen is buildng the Seahawks from cyborgs?
 
Idle question: Do Europeans need passports to travel among European Union countries? My impression, supported by this link, is that they generally do not (unless they are leaving the Schengen region). So if Raffaele decided "Back to prison? F.U.!," could he get to a country that would be unlikely to extradite him? How do, say, Switzerland or Sweden feel about extraditing convicted murderers who are in fact innocent?
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/eu-citizen/index_en.htm
 
Now you enter your usual pathetic, insulting lying mode. You fall back into it. Even when you face the obvious of written text, you can't help spouting the false. What you say it's false. Dut you defy the obvious.
I told the truth, and above all, I told exactly the same thing that Mignini said.
Amanda Knox decided to release a statement.
It's not difficult to understand the meaning of this phrase. But apparently you fail.

Fortunately it's not difficult to understand the meaning of a phrase. According to Mignini, it was not Knox's idea to release a statement, it was his idea, because he "sensed" she wanted to continue talking.

Read it here for yourself. THEN determine who is lying or not.

From the Drew Griffin, CNN interview with Mignini in 2010.... presented here for the umpteenth time. This is Mignini speaking....

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.

It was Mignini "who told her". You, friend, are lying.
 
Abrams wrote, "At 12:08 p.m. Knox called her roommate Filomena Romanelli and apparently said that she was at their house but cell phone records seem to show she was likely still at Sollecito's home.” He also wrote, “So if she had not been back at her house yet, as cell phone records seem to show, and was still at Sollecito's, would she have known about a break-in?” (highlighting mine)

If I am reading this passage correctly, Abrams seems to be saying that Amanda did not return to her flat until after her call to Filomena and that she did so in Raffaele's company. I have three questions. One, is it undisputed that the call to Filomena took place at Raffaele's? Two, did Amanda in fact say anything to indicate where she was? Three, is there any electronic evidence that Amanda made the first trip? I suspect that the answer to 1 is yes and that the answer to 3 is no. With respect to 2, I just reread Amanda's email and she indicates that she was at Raffaele's flat when she made that call. Therefore, the only ways she could have indicated that she was not at Raffaele's when she made the call would be by something she said to Filomena contemporaneously, or if she said something at her trial. I suspect that Abrams is simply wrong in his assertion, but I have no idea how he got there.

I don't know of an effective forum to respond on. Twitter is too limited and no one cares. Abrams doesn't want real feedback. Abrams is in control of the message. It doesn't seem to me there is much that can be done about it.
 
It is a matter of fact that Knox and Sollecito were charged with illicit appropriation of the phones, not with theft.
In Italian jurisprudence theft is a charge that requires a formal complaint by a victim in order to be prosecuted, and it a crime is focused on the element of victim's will, and the will of the perpetrator to permanently prevent the victim from taking possession of the item (there must be a possessor who claims he had the possession of the item).

So in Italian jurisprudence if you steal someones phones thats theft but if you kill them first and then steal thier phones it's not?

If so, that seems like a very strange distinction.
 
I don't know of an effective forum to respond on. Twitter is too limited and no one cares. Abrams doesn't want real feedback. Abrams is in control of the message. It doesn't seem to me there is much that can be done about it.

This is a parsing of text in an attempt to establish that Amanda "lied" to Filomena about a point she had no reason to lie about, and indeed differs from what Amanda put on record in her Nov. 4 email.

When Amanda first called Filomena, Filomena apparently got the impression that Amanda was at the cottage and was about to go talk to Raffaele.

In fact, Amanda had returned from the cottage to Raffaele's apt., and was calling Filomena per Raffaele's suggestion.

Abrams has shown a fixation with these trivialities in the past. I have a transcript of his NBC program from Dec. 19, 2007, where he and his guests discuss the Harry Potter book:

ABRAMS: “More bad news for American college student Amanda Knox suspected of being involved in her roommate‘s murder in Italy. Now, new indications that investigators are finding more discrepancies in Amanda‘s story.

“She told the chief investigating judge that she was reading a ‘Harry Potter’ book at her boyfriend‘s house the night of the murder. But alas, authorities have now found the book, not at her boyfriend‘s apartment, but at the cottage where she was living, but also where the crime took place.”

ITALIAN REPORTER ANDREA VISCONTI: “Bad news. Not only did they find the book, they found the book in German. How many people in Italy read Harry Potter in German? Now, Amanda apparently reads German. So she did say that she was reading the book in German and that very copy ended up in Meredith‘s apartment.”

ABRAMS: “And she said, ‘I was reading it at my boyfriend‘s house,’ which has been her alibi up to now, right?”

VISCONTI: “She did. Exactly. So this is another lie or contradiction or whatever, so her situation is getting really difficult.”

LEGAL ANALYST PAM BONDI: “What they‘re doing, Dan, this is really about the credibility of her story. And Italian investigators are doing a great job. They‘re slowly chipping away at her story. They went back in the house just yesterday and that‘s how they found the book.”


This is evidence of murder, in the minds of these network nitwits. Who reads Harry Potter in German, anyway? Case closed!

Meanwhile, here is the book in question, from police video shot at Raffaele's apartment on Nov. 16, 2007, a month before Abrams broke his momentous story...
 

Attachments

  • potter_rs_apt_nov_16.jpg
    potter_rs_apt_nov_16.jpg
    63.1 KB · Views: 5
Idle question: Do Europeans need passports to travel among European Union countries? My impression, supported by this link, is that they generally do not (unless they are leaving the Schengen region). So if Raffaele decided "Back to prison? F.U.!," could he get to a country that would be unlikely to extradite him? How do, say, Switzerland or Sweden feel about extraditing convicted murderers who are in fact innocent?
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/eu-citizen/index_en.htm

They would with almost certainty not investigate the case but extradite him on the strength of the fact that Italy wanted him arrested.
 
Last edited:
-

So in Italian jurisprudence if you steal someones phones thats theft but if you kill them first and then steal thier phones it's not?

If so, that seems like a very strange distinction.
-

The same legal logic is kind of used in the US.

If someone poisons someone, and even though that person would have died of the poison, if someone comes along independent of the poisoner and shoots the person and that person dies of the gunshot, the poisoner is not considered the murderer,

d

-
 
So in Italian jurisprudence if you steal someones phones thats theft but if you kill them first and then steal thier phones it's not?

If so, that seems like a very strange distinction.

Yes, that is the claim. You steal something from someone and get charged with theft. If it turns out the person you stole it from was dead, your charges are reduced.
 
So if Knox and Sollecito were charged with illicit appropriation of the phones, they must have gotten their prints off the phones correct? Otherwise, on what basis were they charged for this?

Mach admitted in this post that they were charged with theft, not illicit appropriation.

The basis on which they were charged with theft was the same basis on which they were charged with murder and staging -- imagination.
 
In Mignini's cnn interview he claims there are minutes for the 1 am and 5:45 interrogations / statement takng. Have these minutes ever surfaced?


Prosecutor Horsehair's presentation says that inspector Ficarra was taking notes during part of the interrogation before 1:45. I don't think this document has ever surfaced and the information was definitely excluded from the 1:45 and 5:45 statements. Horsehair tries to imply that the interrogation didn't start until Ficarra arrived at 23:00. It's little better than Mignini insinuating that the interrogation did't start until the interpreter arrived after 00:30. Ficarra though states that when she arrived Amanda was already accompanied by other inspectors.


Horsehair quotes Ficarra saying: "I wanted to specify that she had made ​​that list of names of persons mentioned in the annotation. I was starting to write, and I started to Patrick because he was the owner of where she worked , then when ... that is, I have not had time to write, because otherwise you would have also found all the subjects that I have written in the record."

This passage almost sounds like Ficarra offering to conspire to withhold the written record for that evening. Probably just a google translation issue that will be straightened out later. :roll eyes:
 
A purse is not a phone. There is nothing valuable inside a phone, except the phone itself. Thieves don't steal bycicles to dispose of them immediately, don't steal cell phones to throw them away. It might be an impulsive changing of mind, but then it's unclear why he took them in the first place; the first, more strong hypothesis is just the more simple and logical one, the thief did not intend to keep the phones.

They tossed them in a ravine. Theit intent was to dispose of them for ever. They were unlucky, because it's was dark. They didn't know that right in that point below the road there was a house and a garden.

It is not logical in any world to stage a burglary in one room but steal nothing from that room, instead stealing items from a different room. It also is not logical to stage a burglary by stealing only phones when there were at least three computers in the house.

Nevertheless, in order to effect a plan for disposing of the phones for whatever reason, the phones first had to be removed from the house without permission of the owner. That is theft.

No, my purpose is not to minimize them, it's to attribute them to someone who is not Rudy Guede and to see them as unrelated to Rudy Guede. These phones are taken by someone who is maybe not called "thief", and our "thief" Guede is not the charachter with a logical motive or propensity for stealing the phones and toss them away.

My personal opinion is that Rudy took the phones in order to prevent Meredith from calling for help; that is a logical motive from the point of view of someone who just attacked a victim and wants to give himself time to get away. He also may have considered using them or selling them, but then realized it might not be worth the danger to himself and discarded them.

This is what I am thinking, not what you try to put in my mouth.

It is fair to say that with this post, you were trying to minimize Rudy's pattern of criminal behavior.
 
You could have spit on my house, right Anglo? ;)
:) the fourth shrub from the right looks withered and I have been meaning to speak to you about your unscrubbed walls.

I didn't use the word "because", neither Mignini did. I report elements of the vivid description that Mignini gave me.
PS: I cannot spot a lie at 100 paces. It may be impossible to spot a lie, when it's possible its because you can spot the lie because of its lack of congruence.
Got a tape of this conversation? Sounds a bit surreal.

Might be? Good luck with proving that. Or with presenting a plausible conspiracy theory.
I wonder on what basis you reach you "conclusion".
Back at you Mach. What 'conclusion'? I said 'might' right? But why not? Mig lied about his role in the interrogations and the tape recording and his 24/7 driver certainly isn't going to depart from the script. As for Giobbi, could you favour me with the relevant extract from the transcript?

Currently Mignini does not know what "turned on it". He does not follow English forums as far as I know. He has no idea about the existence of the speculations on your side. Nothing on the topic has been ever said in the courtroom so this is a non-issue in the trial (the argument does not belong to the trial, no defence ever brought arguments about that. No defence lawyer ever suggested Mignini was present at Knox's interrogation). Actually Mignini did not even know the existence of PMF, at least until few months ago.
I would not expect him to follow this discussion but I would expect him to know the significance of his arrival time that night given the criminal conduct that was taking place there. Defence strategy seems to have been to avoid at all costs making accusations of fraud and dishonesty. This could be for a variety of reasons, some of them including the lack of privilege accorded to statements made in the course of proceedings. We here are beyond Mignini's reach and can say more or less what we like. Why do you think he has preserved his memory of REM sleep from this one night and included in his tale to you?

Why did he need a driver to take him? Doesn't he have a car? Can he not drive? Who called the driver and woke him out of bed at 2.00 a.m? Was the driver a cop sent to pick him up?

At the front entrance there were CCTVs, but the police cars would enter through a rear entry, I don't know if there was CCTV.
Maybe somebody keeps a record of cars coming in and out of the pound, especially if he was collected by the police.

I seriously doubt there could still be a video in 2014. But there was a defence team on this case.
I got that point, thanks.

Funny that Follain would have this very specific story with times and everything. In a book that is full of material that he can only have got from Mignini himself. Can you explain it?
 
If we assume that there is foul play in the police department, how many people would need to be involved?
Not a big fan of far reach conspiracies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom