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

[Desert Fox]

I meant for this break in. If it had just been a burglary, he'd have spent the cash and found a way to sell the computers.

But obviously he was capable of murder, and it was just a matter of time. Still is.

I wish we were wrong but unless he is specifically treated for psychological problems, odds are high that he will do it again.
What will those who believe in Amanda and Raffale's guilt say then?

 

[anglolawyer]

I really wasn't going to reply but....

My theory follows the evidence without trying to distort, manipulate, ignore or overlook the evidence. I do not need a hundred or so decent people to be outright liars, completely inept or utter idiots. I don't need a complete police force to be the way PIP's claim, nor the entire Italian justice system, nor their science labs.

Yes I have a theory, and it is only a theory, but I can admit that without having to do what most the PIP and PGP do. Amanda and Raf are involved, I just do not know the exact extent and neither do you or anyone else. (Of course those involved know, possible a select few others) I hope to find out myself some day, but I'm not holding my breath.

There is way more evidence pointing to guilt than innocence, (Two convictions so far), so who's side doesn't hold the water?

Your theory is ridiculous. Sometimes lots of people do lie all at once. Or lots of them are stupid enough to swallow what should be obvious lies told by others. Or lots of people wrongly convince themselves of something, refuse to consider alternatives and ignore contradictory indicators. The fact you end up with a ridiculous theory ought to be telling you something but apparently it isn't. You are supposed to bring your own critical faculties to bear on the facts not just swallow them whole.

Consider this. . . .
Say Meredeth stayed with her friends a bit longer.
Say that Patrick called Amanda into work after all even though not busy.
After spending time with Raffaele, she likely would not have wanted to go to work smelling of sex.
As such, she runs home to shower and change.
Instead of Meredeth surprising him, Amanda surprises him.
Amanda gets raped and murdered instead of Meredeth.
All just the luck of how things work out.

In this scenario, Meredith would have come upon the same scene Amanda found but with a different locked door and, since the burglary was obviously staged, she would have become the suspect due to her promiscuous sexual history, fondness for drugs and anal sex and blatant flirting with Patrick as Le Chic.

 

[Desert Fox]

In this scenario, Meredith would have come upon the same scene Amanda found but with a different locked door and, since the burglary was obviously staged, she would have become the suspect due to her promiscuous sexual history, fondness for drugs and anal sex and blatant flirting with Patrick as Le Chic.

Was Meredeth just a bit more worldly and smart enough to get a lawyer however? Part of the problem is that the police got two people who are too innocent

 

[anglolawyer]

Was Meredeth just a bit more worldly and smart enough to get a lawyer however? Part of the problem is that the police got two people who are too innocent

I dunno. Part of the reason Raf and Amanda didn't lawyer up is the cops played softly softly catchee monkey. I assume they would have pulled that one on Meredith too and that she would have just been as trusting as Sherlock Holmes would have us all be.

 

[Antony]

Sherlock, where do you get thus stuff ?

Raffaele's sister is a Carabinieri officer in Rome. He's not afraid of the law, the way Rudy or Kokoman might be. If he was at his place at the time of attack interacting with his computer, as you and I both seem to agree, and he somehow, I repeat, somehow learned Meredith was being attacked by some guy, Raffaele in 2 seconds would have whipped out his cell phone and dialed the cops (112 - the Carabinieri number).

Where do you get this idea that Amanda was at the cottage, arranged for Rudy to come to see Meredith, let him it, witnessed the attack and fled back to Raffaele's? Amanda had a better place to be that evening than waiting around her empty cottage. Remember, too, that Amanda and Raffaele were with Meredith that afternoon at the girl's cottage until about 4 pm when Meredith went off to join her British clique for dinner. It was a Friday evening in Perugia. Given Meredith's and Amanda's late night hours, why would either one assume that the other would be home at a reasonable hour (9 pm) rather than midnight or 1 or 2 am?

It seems Sherlock would rather believe all this, without any facts to support it, than believe that the police and prosecution would engage in a series of illegal acts, evidence manipulation, and lying in order to promote an agenda. I once asked him what he had to say about the long list of police negligence and fraud and his reply was, "you would have to be blind to believe all of this".

This was throwing my words back at me after I commented in how it was being ignored by all the people who focus on meaningless details of Amanda and Raff's actions.

 

[Desert Fox]

I dunno. Part of the reason Raf and Amanda didn't lawyer up is the cops played softly softly catchee monkey. I assume they would have pulled that one on Meredith too and that she would have just been as trusting as Sherlock Holmes would have us all be.

Meredeth does seem more involved in indoor horticulture than Amanda which makes me think she might be a bit more perceptive of the whole issue.

 

[Desert Fox]

This was throwing my words back at me after I commented in how it was being ignored by all the people who focus on meaningless details of Amanda and Raff's actions.

The trouble is that being eccentric is not a crime. I wish people would get off that kick.

 

[Samson]

Meredeth does seem more involved in indoor horticulture than Amanda which makes me think she might be a bit more perceptive of the whole issue.

Then there is the chance the American girl was a better career catch for Mignini. This would be subliminal of course.

 

[Desert Fox]

Then there is the chance the American girl was a better career catch for Mignini. This would be subliminal of course.

Being that he sees Satanists everywhere, Mignini is more of a danger than most of the criminals he probably locks up.
I have to admit one of the early problems with the whole case was when I heard the words "Satanic Ritual."

 

[Samson]

Being that he sees Satanists everywhere, Mignini is more of a danger than most of the criminals he probably locks up.
I have to admit one of the early problems with the whole case was when I heard the words "Satanic Ritual."

I read the Wikipedia on Mignini, and remember wiki sceptics are statistically wrong to be so, it is a horror show. He presents as a fool among fools. It confirms he has a law degree, that is all, before embarking on a Quixotic circus of incompetence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I read the Wikipedia on Mignini, and remember wiki sceptics are statistically wrong to be so, it is a horror show. He presents as a fool among fools. It confirms he has a law degree, that is all, before embarking on a Quixotic circus of incompetence.

Speaking about Wiki, it is very important that people keep on top of the Wiki on the case. That is the first place where people usually go to look.
There is something called Gorilla Skepticism that does that for various skeptical issues.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nerw interview with Sollecito on BBC News website today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26338637

 

[Samson]

Nerw interview with Sollecito on BBC News website today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26338637

Thanks for posting Matthew, another journalist who has done no independent research. Frankly the two, Amanda and Raffaele, seem unaware that they will need to confront these people with hard scientific evidence to stop this. There are many questions they can ask point blank to these people that can not be answered sensibly without knowledge, and will stop them in their tracks. This will not prevent the false reporting, but will send these people away with a sense of uncertainty rather than a feeling they have a licence to promote continuance of this case unabated. Vogt Nadeau Follain, they are all interested in paydirt. Utterly despicable. The refrain never varies, complex case, maybe the truth will never be known.
BS.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the Italian from pages 96/97 of Filomena's testimony 2009-02-07:

​

From the Google translation these questions had the tone of the defense attorney trying to clear up the lamp issue. I was surprised to find that they are from the assistant prosecutor introducing the lamp issue with this witness. The section that roto already translated is a page or two further down and still by Ms Commode.

From roteoctober

Q - Ok. Listen, do you rememeber what were the light sources of your rooms, both mobile and static?
A - The lamps? Of the whole house?
Q - No, of your houses. [sic, but most probably meaning "bedrooms"]
A - Ok, I had two lamps, one on the nightstand and one on the desk,
Laura had in her room a rice paper lamp [a lamp with a foil of rice paper screening the light bulb],
Amanda had one [lamp] on the nightstand and Meredith had one, if I remember correctly near the bed.
Q - Sorry, can you repeat, I got shortly distracted, repeat the last part.
A - Amanda had one on the nightstand and Meredith, if I'm not wrong, one near the bed.

 

[Strozzi]

I wish we were wrong but unless he is specifically treated for psychological problems, odds are high that he will do it again.
What will those who believe in Amanda and Raffale's guilt say then?[/QUOTE]

They will say "Rudy was a good young man who was made a killer by Amanda and her boyfriend, what's-his-name. That Rudy would not have killed a second time if he had not been warped by the luciferina the first time. It's her fault! If Amanda is in Seattle the second time Rudy kills, she should still be charged as an accessory to the second murder."

 

[anglolawyer]

From roteoctober

So she establishes which lamp belonged to whom. At some point there has to be a punchline. Having proved that it was Amanda's lamp that is seen in the pictures in Meredith's room, she still has to prove it was there when the door was broken open. That can only be done with the small number of people who were present when the door was opened. Wake me up when we get to that part

 

[Dan O.]

From roteoctober

Q - Sorry, can you repeat, I got shortly distracted, repeat the last part.
A - Amanda had one on the nightstand and Meredith, if I'm not wrong, one near the bed.

Thanks. And that also captures the tone of the lying assistant prosecutor. Distracted she says, she just wanted to emphasize the point by having it repeated.


BTW, I went back to google and found that I get nearly the identical translation if I help google out by breaking the statement into short fragments. For some reason it assigns too high a precedence for the conjunction which causes it to parse incorrectly.

 

[Dan O.]

So she establishes which lamp belonged to whom. At some point there has to be a punchline. Having proved that it was Amanda's lamp that is seen in the pictures in Meredith's room, she still has to prove it was there when the door was broken open. That can only be done with the small number of people who were present when the door was opened. Wake me up when we get to that part

You are jumping ahead. She first goes on with a very detailed identification of Amanda's lamp. Did you for instance know that Amanda's lamp had a red button? This is very important some how.

Of course even if it were established that the lamp was already in the room when the door was kicked in. That still doesn't connect the lamp to the murder or theoretical cleanup. And even that doesn't touch on who done it.


Filomena was a good girl testifying for the prosecution. Just after her testimony the judge ordered that she could get her stuff back.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks. And that also captures the tone of the lying assistant prosecutor. Distracted she says, she just wanted to emphasize the point by having it repeated.

BTW, I went back to google and found that I get nearly the identical translation if I help google out by breaking the statement into short fragments. For some reason it assigns too high a precedence for the conjunction which causes it to parse incorrectly.

Nice one.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are jumping ahead. She first goes on with a very detailed identification of Amanda's lamp. Did you for instance know that Amanda's lamp had a red button? This is very important some how.

Of course even if it were established that the lamp was already in the room when the door was kicked in. That still doesn't connect the lamp to the murder or theoretical cleanup. And even that doesn't touch on who done it.


Filomena was a good girl testifying for the prosecution. Just after her testimony the judge ordered that she could get her stuff back.

I jumped ahead long ago, as you may have noticed. My theory predicts what you will find in your estimable enquiry: that the prosecution case on the lamp consisted of insinuation only, not direct evidence. This was unfair. Ask Diocletus.