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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
Exactly. If they had this message from Patrick why not give Matteini the theory that this was Patrick saying that he wanted to start the caper, prank, sex game or whatever they were planning that went bad?

Why would they take PL's message at face value, meaning he really was saying don't come to work, and then go on with the line of accusation?
Click to expand...
Because they could see what you will not: it is a ridiculous idea. It assumes that as of the night of 01 Nov Amanda and Patrick were conducting deep anti-surveillance activity, as if they knew their messages would be reviews later. If that were true, her message would not say 'see you later', would it? You are usually much sharper than this.

I must have missed how it is known that he didn't delete it. He had a different phone by then and IIRC SMS messages were stored on phone memory not the sim card.

Btw, I do agree that conspiracies do happen but they also unravel when someone lets the cat out of the bag.
Click to expand...
It isn't known he didn't delete it. His evidence was that he did. I say he lied.

ETA please identify someone with a motive to let the cat out? Sometimes the cat gets out only after a very long time.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Diocletus
Maybe the cops didn't want Mignini to know that they had suggested Patrick's name to Knox, and so they got rid of Patrick's text to Amanda?
You are protecting Mig too much.

anglolawyer said:
You are protecting Mig too much.
Click to expand...

Interesting. On the one hand, there are things that Mignini would not want to know, but there are other things that he does need to know.

Mignini would not want to know, for example, that Knox was hit. For then he might have to inquire about it and it is best, as the cops brief him just before he meets the prisoner at 2:30 am, that he not be told "we hit her a couple of times". After learning from Knox that she was hit, he can appear neutral and independent and ask Napoleoni or another about it and be told, "No, she was not hit". And later say if pressed that when he heard Knox's allegation he inquired of Napoleoni and learned from the police that Knox was not hit.

I can see the police withholding dirty little details so that Mignini can pretend the interrogation was proper. And I can see Mignini not wanting to know some of what really occurred.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Originally Posted by Diocletus
Maybe the cops didn't want Mignini to know that they had suggested Patrick's name to Knox, and so they got rid of Patrick's text to Amanda?
You are protecting Mig too much.



Interesting. On the one hand, there are things that Mignini would not want to know, but there are other things that he does need to know.

Mignini would not want to know, for example, that Knox was hit. For then he might have to inquire about it and it is best, as the cops brief him just before he meets the prisoner at 2:30 am, that he not be told "we hit her a couple of times". After learning from Knox that she was hit, he can be appear neutral and indendent and ask Napoleoni or another about it and be told, "No, she was not hit". And later say if pressed that when he heard Knox's allegation he inquired of Napoleoni and learned from the police that Knox was not hit.

I can see the police withholding dirty little details so that Mignini can pretend the interrogation was proper. And I can see Mignini not wanting to know some of what really occurred.
Click to expand...

His focus was on the Matteini hearing. He needed ammo to get them locked up. I don't think people really get that. They should try being locked up. Failing that, try having clients who are in custody and desperate to get out, as I have.

The 5.45 statement is fiction. It came out of somebody's head. Amanda's or Mig's? Your choice.
 
RoseMontague said:
Vogt talks about the documentary

http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/conver...-bbc-film-maker-about-meredith-kerchers-death

This is an earnest effort to tell the story in an objective manner, free from the influence of partial outside interests.
ETA,,ninja'd LOL
Click to expand...


As I mentioned before, this - in my opinion - was the single most pernicious and insidious thing about the "documentary".

In reality, this "documentary" - while constructed and presented in the ostensible style of a truly-objective piece of neutral reportage - was in fact thinly-disguised polemic with a clear agenda. Therefore, uninformed viewers were without doubt deceived - both factually and intellectually.

Vogt and Russell would be ashamed of themselves if they actually had any intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. But they can possess neither of these qualities, since (after all) they made the program and gave it to BBC Three, and then Vogt had the even bigger brass balls to make explicit claims about the "documentary's" objectivity. I think we can therefore take it as read that neither Vogt nor Russell has any shame. I'm not altogether surprised, but I guess I continue to be disappointed.
 
Samson said:
This interview with Vogt has surfaced, looks quite new

graziadaily.co.uk/conversation/entertainment/exclusive--is-amanda-knox-guilty-we-talked-to-a-bbc-film-maker-about-meredith-kerchers-death

quote
"It is a complex, controversial and ongoing saga involving beautiful young people from four different countries. The twists and turns are unpredictable, yet constant."
Click to expand...

That woman is a disgrace. Can she not find a way to make an honest living? Must she capitalize on suffering even as she helps create it?

Entertainment exclusive, my bubba's right nostril.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
You guys have more chance of ensuring UK folks use BBC iPlayer and actually watch the programme with the free advertising you are giving it, by all means complain to the BBC “Outrage of Oxshott” this programme was a travesty!!, make a fuss; who knows maybe a rerun on BBC 2 if enough of you complain, come on you can do it. Dare I say (in hushed tones, Panorama (BBC 1)), if and when the Italian Supreme Court ever confirm anything.

Go for it!
Click to expand...

What is strange is that I kind of agree with you about this...to a point..

One of the things you learn in a career in sales is three ways to handle objections.

One is immediately.
Two is later
and
Three is not at all.

If not many people saw this, I'd say not to address any of it. Who cares about a documentary that was totally baseless no one saw? Arguing about every little detail also isn't always wise if people didn't pay attention to the original point. Don't give it legs. However, if many many many people saw it and it has the effect of changing people's perspective. Then yes...address it.

A better way to address it is to talk past it with your own documentary really going into the facts in an entertaining fashion. (Can be a challenge with minutiae.
 
anglolawyer said:
His focus was on the Matteini hearing. He needed ammo to get them locked up. I don't think people really get that. They should try being locked up. Failing that, try having clients who are in custody and desperate to get out, as I have.

The 5.45 statement is fiction. It came out of somebody's head. Amanda's or Mig's? Your choice.
Click to expand...

That means they are all willing to lie or distort to come up with a version that gives them a justification to lock them up. They just need to be sure that what they claim was said will survive defense pushback. And that is reason to deny the defendants access to attorneys until the moment the defendants appear before a judge for their first detention hearing.
 
suspect-centered analyses are suspect

In a BBC News article on DNA contamination, Dr. David Balding was quoted: "'Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment,' he says.

"The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA.'" I responded to his comments previously on this thread. One slightly different way of looking at it has since occurred to me. How does one know which DNA is the suspects unless one has the suspect's reference profile? This sounds as if it could be a suspect-centered approach.
 
anglolawyer said:
Because they could see what you will not: it is a ridiculous idea. It assumes that as of the night of 01 Nov Amanda and Patrick were conducting deep anti-surveillance activity, as if they knew their messages would be reviews later. If that were true, her message would not say 'see you later', would it? You are usually much sharper than this.
Click to expand...

But just having the response is better? What do you think the theory of the police is at this time? What do you believe they thought the meeting was going to result in? Did they think that Amanda was just going to bring Patrick over for a visit? Did they think that Patrick went berserk and killed without Amanda's involvement?


It isn't known he didn't delete it. His evidence was that he did. I say he lied.

ETA please identify someone with a motive to let the cat out? Sometimes the cat gets out only after a very long time.
Click to expand...

Patrick for one. Move to Poland or back to the Congo after selling his story for a lot more than Vogt.

Some of Napoleoni's buddies might be looking for a way out.
 
NancyS said:
Well the BBC3 programme is already dreadful - they've firstly claimed that Amanda was different to Meredith due to her attitudes to hygiene, money and sex - and they've now also claimed that Raffaele called the police after the postal police arrived - and now that the rock was too big to go through the windows - and now onto two knifes - and now onto too many wounds and even showing the cartoon.
And according to Comodi, not even Superman could have attacked Meredith due to her karate background
Click to expand...


I thought the cartoon was held by the prosecution with orders from the court that it not be released. How could BBC have gotten hold of it?
 
Strozzi said:
That means they are all willing to lie or distort to come up with a version that gives them a justification to lock them up. They just need to be sure that what they claim was said will survive defense pushback. And that is reason to deny the defendants access to attorneys until the moment the defendants appear before a judge for their first detention hearing.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.
 
platonov said:
I see [as I have stated to London John on several occasions] that this confusion is not amenable to a text based solution:)

Are the bolded parts too difficult to follow ;)

No further information required !!
We have more than enough to conclude this episode.
Click to expand...

Sorry being a little naive I did not think you would cheat. What you originally said was...

platonov said:
So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault
Click to expand...

To which I replied

FWIW RG was not charged or convicted of sexual assault of MK despite evidence of sexual contact (I do not know if the family were agreeable to this); AK and RS were charged with sexual assault (although there is zero evidence of sexual contact) the family seem agreeable to this. Whilst I cannot reference family views this is clearly the prosecution view and the family seem supportive of the prosecution approach in general.

You then asked for the evidence which I referenced.

Now you try and change the question to homicide with sexual aggravation a completely different offence from sexual assault. I am happy to agree AK, RS and RG were all charged with homicide with sexual aggravation. Will you agree that RG was not charged with sexual assault and AK and RS were charged with sexual assault which is what I originally asserted and you asked to evidence.

This is why I asked for a specific question so you would not try and weasel out of an error by trying to pretend you asked a different question in the first place.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Acbytesla

I would guestimate that more people outside the UK watched this programme than UK citizens.

Absolutely nothing has changed, ask LondonJohn.
Click to expand...

Really? I obviously don't live in the UK. I didn't see it. I'm curious if they ever show any American shows like Dateline or 48 Hours that have examined the case?
 
Grinder said:
But just having the response is better? What do you think the theory of the police is at this time? What do you believe they thought the meeting was going to result in? Did they think that Amanda was just going to bring Patrick over for a visit? Did they think that Patrick went berserk and killed without Amanda's involvement?
Click to expand...
The theory of the police is they arranged to meet, they met, then the dirty black killed her. They only had the timings prior to the interrogations. They knew a key holder was involved. They knew there was no burglary. They knew (don't ask me how) a black guy was in there somewhere. They knew about Patrick: they exchanged texts, he called her at the questura the night of the 2nd and they met face to face the morning of the 5th. On a hunch they get them in and when they look at her phone - Eureka! 'See you later'! That drives everything else out. Case closed! Sign here. They aren't bothered that his message said don't come to work. They even put that in the statement. Read the statement. It's right there! Then there is time to reflect. They got her to say she lied to Raffaele. She fave him an alibi. Face palm! All this is corrected by 5.45. You don't follow your own logic Grinder. I just set out what they already knew to be true. What's your version?




Patrick for one. Move to Poland or back to the Congo after selling his story for a lot more than Vogt.

Some of Napoleoni's buddies might be looking for a way out.
Click to expand...
One day, maybe. If you want an example of a much bigger and longer lasting conspiracy, try Hillsborough.
 
I have a question for everybody
I have heard an argument that the US should extradite Amanda back to Italy whether guilty or innocent.
The argument is that the US cannot have it both ways.
The problem though is that many countries, even ones which we have treaties with, will refuse to extradite defendants.
I don't see this as really being any different

Opinions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom