• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please post them here if you can Bill, but I've probably seen them all already, but ya never know.

The truth is that if I hadn't read my fair share of false confessions already (which are essentially lies told by innocent people), I would probably be more susceptible to believing lies do prove guilt. It's just another one of them absurd assumptions that really don't help the Gumpers case for guilt in any logical way,

d

-

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie.)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a sontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.
Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)
Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.
 
Charlie what is the status of the interview transcripts - the ones before the 5th.
 
Almost all of your interview quotes come from Amanda's 1:45 and 5:45 statements/interview. Raffaele's I assume is from the November5-6 interview as well. Whether these documents were available to journalists at the time of the articles or fed to them by police I don't know.

I think, but am not certain, that the paper was able to obtain (or have fed to them) Sophie's interview by police (she was asked to stay longer and interviewed more than once).

Well if they had Raf's that would be interesting as I don't think we ever saw it.
 
-


-

All good points Bill. Personally, I believe that Grinder believes in innocence over guilt, but not because he wants to believe in their innocence.

Like a lot of the folks here, he really has no choice in the matter.

His logical mind won't allow it.

I myself have the same kind of problem except in a different way. Because Amanda looks so creepy to me, I would rather believe she's guilty, but all the crazy crap I explained in many of my earlier post won't allow me to comfortably believe this.

That's why I wish some of the Gumpers who come here would help change my mind, but absurd assumptions and illogical arguements make that practically impossible.

Come on Gumpers, give me something I can work with to reconcile my impression of Amanda and again feel good about my ability to make snap judgements about people.

Is that really too much to ask?

d

-

What pictures or video could you be referring to where you think Amanda looks creepy or strange?

I don't see that at all.

Many of the photos used in the tabloid articles are carefully selected to achieve the objective you describe.

I just find this a really weird comment.

How charming can one look, when wrongfully accused of a satanic orgy murder, by a madman trying to make a career out of similar accusations?

Since someone else mentioned religion, a phrase comes to mind; "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"...
 
I really wouldn't take anything in a newspaper article at face value. "sources reveal" and other such phrases are classic fudges. That article could be a re-hashed press release from the questra or prosecution for all we know. The reporters may never have seen an actual transcript.

To me it just reads like the police saying NOW we have the truth, and everything she said she was doing before (i.e. staying at her boyfriend's) was a lie. Nothing more. I think you're over-complicating this issue.

ETA in fact it seems very obvious from that article that the excerpts quoted are just the ones fed by the police. It doesn't say the newspaper selected them from transcripts.

ETA again: I haven't read her book, we can't get it over here. I don't find it odd that every single detail of this case wasn't covered in the book, because stuff like this probably doesn't seem very important to most people (or anyone except you, dare I say :D). Also, she had an editor, who will have whittled it all down. Same as the newspapers do. As you keep saying, only the transcripts might help, and for all we know they've been destroyed by the police due to budget cuts to storage space.

Can't you just go to the US Amazon site, and buy an ebook, or get it shipped? Doesn't Amazon let you loan ebooks books to friends? Are you really "prohibited" from getting it? That's just nutty.

Also, I seem to remember Amanda's first draft was voluminous, and had to be cut down considerably to get to 330 pgs or so. I think the original was reported at 500 or 700 pages, she was said to have included, "everything".

But I think her book is a great read, especially if you're interested in her first hand account.

One more point that's interesting in this regard, being at the center of the story, in some ways makes one a poorer observer than someone who has more or better perspective on different aspects of the case. It really is like untangling a kaleidoscope to reassemble a coherent picture of what really happened, and even then, its always unfinished...
 
Last edited:
Sad, so sad...

-

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie.)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a sontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.
Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)
Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.
-

Thanx Bill. Most of those I've already seen or read somewhere. No surprises here really.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but most of those (except for the letters, although I've never seen or read them, and Raffaele's prison diary) come from the police or the imagination of Gumpers, and have nothing to collaborate their truthfullness what so ever, as far as I know.

The lie about Meredith and the knife is an interesting one though. The veracity of it has been debated here enough (Raffaele believed the police were being honest about her DNA being on the knife and was trying to think on paper how that could have happened) so i won't dwell on it too much. Even if it is a lie (and you could be right there), it doesn't prove anything substantial.

I will add this though. I've been in jail before, but never with the possibility of spending half of my life there, but I do know that being in jail did some crazy things to my mind, especially since you're more or less forced (with nothing else to do really) except think about why you're there. You can literally convince yourself something is true that really isn't. Sometimes a form of Stockholm Syndrome can result, and sad things can happen, and if you're innocent... it can be devastating to your psyche, and your memory, but that's just an assumption that I can't prove except through personal experience, so I'll just let others decide if it's true or not.

The one about cannabis is another interesting one. I've smoked pot myself and I do know it has caused short-term memory loss for me. Not so much remembering the next day what I did while smoking it, but remembering things that happened in the here and now. Like, not remembering why I went into a room, or how a conversation started, or if I did something or not. I will literally do something over and over again that I wasn't sure I did or not. Although, out of all my friends, and if I think hard enough, I'm usually the one who remembers how a conversation got turned around to what we finally ended up talking about. Everyone thinks it weird or odd that I can do that while smoking pot.

But the next day, I can usually remember what happened the day before, maybe not small details like what time I ate, especially since pot gives me the munchies so bad that I'm almost literally eating anything I can get my hands on and IT ALL TASTE SIMPLY AWESOME!!!

Or, what exactly we talked about all night, but Hell, I have a hard time remembering what exactly I did the day before anyway and everything I did or talked about also, especially at what time I did them. I don't think most people could do that perfectly either.

As a matter of fact, I once proposed that someone here do an experiment, that I finally did myself, which was to get separate accounts of what happened from two people who spent time together a day or two before. Guess what the two most inconsistent things were? People's accounts roughly agreed with each other, but the times were almost all different, and the sequence of events too. A couple people, trying to remember a day before, even got the days wrong. Take from that what you will and if you don't believe me, do the experiment yourself. Believe me, it's an eye opener.

It's sad that people will happily criticize others for not doing something under stressful circumstances, that they probably can't even do themselves either.

Next to Meredith's horrifying death, and the railroad job from hell, that's one of the sadder aspects of this case, in my opinion.

Thanx again Bill,

d

-
 
I guess it's just me than...

-

What pictures or video could you be referring to where you think Amanda looks creepy or strange?

I don't see that at all.

Many of the photos used in the tabloid articles are carefully selected to achieve the objective you describe.

I just find this a really weird comment.

How charming can one look, when wrongfully accused of a satanic orgy murder, by a madman trying to make a career out of similar accusations?

Since someone else mentioned religion, a phrase comes to mind; "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"...
-

I remember when the story broke in 2007. Since I lived here in Seattle at the time, the videos and pictures of her and them were everywhere, especially the ones where Raffaele and her were kissing outside the day of the discovery of Meredith's body. That was creepy to me. Most of the pictures back then of her looked creepy to me (Raffaele not at all, he looked like Harry Potter), in my opinion. That doesn't make her creepy, but to me they did.

I have met many people in my life who looked evil to me, but turned out to be the nicest and most giving and caring people you would ever want to meet. Most people can't control how they look to others and to judge them because of how they look is as shallow as you can get, in my opinion. Sadly, I have to include myself here.

Many people have told me I sometimes look creepy, and every picture I've seen of myself, I find it really hard to argue with them in my favor.

But after a time, I started seeing pictures where she didn't look creepy. As a matter of fact, I could tell instantly the slant the article was going to take (guilt or possible innocence) by the photo they used at the top and most of the time I was right.

Maybe it's just me, but I've mentioned this many times before here that I thought she looked creepy and that's why at first I thought she was guilty. I think it's because of her eyes and if they are in the shadows or not. Most of the time it's when she looks down slightly, but like I said, maybe it's just me.

But you're right, it was a weird and odd comment, but maybe that's why I sympathize with Amanda and some of her odd behavior and things she's said so much, in my opinion, because I'm a little like that myself,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Can't you just go to the US Amazon site, and buy an ebook, or get it shipped? Doesn't Amazon let you loan ebooks books to friends? Are you really "prohibited" from getting it? That's just nutty.

Also, I seem to remember Amanda's first draft was voluminous, and had to be cut down considerably to get to 330 pgs or so. I think the original was reported at 500 or 700 pages, she was said to have included, "everything".

But I think her book is a great read, especially if you're interested in her first hand account.

One more point that's interesting in this regard, being at the center of the story, in some ways makes one a poorer observer than someone who has more or better perspective on different aspects of the case. It really is like untangling a kaleidoscope to reassemble a coherent picture of what really happened, and even then, its always unfinished...

I don't think the book is great if you are looking to go over the evidence. I thought Candace's book was the best for that. But I enjoyed Amanda's the best. Particularly the second half of the book.
 
Well if they had Raf's that would be interesting as I don't think we ever saw it.


We do have his statement in front of Judge Matteini from the afternoon of November 8. With that, Matteini's report of November 9, the excerpts from the press and Raffaele's diary, it should be possible to reconstruct most of the content of Raffaele's interrogation.

ETA: And lets not forget the Kate Mansey interview which appears to be the source of much error.
 
Last edited:
Thanx Bill. Most of those I've already seen or read somewhere. No surprises here really.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but most of those (except for the letters, although I've never seen or read them, and Raffaele's prison diary) come from the police or the imagination of Gumpers, and have nothing to collaborate their truthfullness what so ever, as far as I know.

It was because that other guilter would not let go of this, "Amanda's lies" as proof of her guilt that I went looking for this list.

This is not a list I compiled, this is a list The Machine/Harry Rag compiled. Most of them are "WTF" to me... and seem to assume guilt to make them even appear deceitful. These statements also fit a scenario that the kids were simply hostage to the information they were given (in isolation), or even information the cops let out while hiding other stuff.

These are the lies I could find as claimed by guilters of note. If someone has more, I'd like to see them.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see any others also...

-

It was because that other guilter would not let
go of this, "Amanda's lies" as proof of her guilt that I went looking for this list.

This is not a list I compiled, this is a list The Machine/Harry Rag compiled. Most of them are "WTF" to me... and seem to assume guilt to make them even appear deceitful. These statements also fit a scenario that the kids were simply hostage to the information they were given (in isolation), or even information the cops let out while hiding other stuff.

These are the lies I could find as claimed by guilters of note. If someone has more, I'd like to see them.
-

I hope you didn't think I was saying that you believed all of them either. If so, I apologize for giving you that impression. That was not my intent at all.

I know you do believe the Raffaele pricking Meredith one, that one has definitely been collaborated and discussed here to death.

What I'd also like to see is some sources, especially from a Gumper, and not just a quote from an article or the LPE, but real sources like something from either Raffaele or Amanda's book, or better yet, the videos (or even the audios) from their interrogations.

What you say (pretending to talk with a Gumper here), these videos (or audios) don't exist? How conveeeeeeenient is that,

d

-
 
Last edited:
-


-

I remember when the story broke in 2007. Since I lived here in Seattle at the time, the videos and pictures of her and them were everywhere, especially the ones where Raffaele and her were kissing outside the day of the discovery of Meredith's body. That was creepy to me. Most of the pictures back then of her looked creepy to me (Raffaele not at all, he looked like Harry Potter), in my opinion. That doesn't make her creepy, but to me they did.

I have met many people in my life who looked evil to me, but turned out to be the nicest and most giving and caring people you would ever want to meet. Most people can't control how they look to others and to judge them because of how they look is as shallow as you can get, in my opinion. Sadly, I have to include myself here.

Many people have told me I sometimes look creepy, and every picture I've seen of myself, I find it really hard to argue with them in my favor.

But after a time, I started seeing pictures where she didn't look creepy. As a matter of fact, I could tell instantly the slant the article was going to take (guilt or possible innocence) by the photo they used at the top and most of the time I was right.

Maybe it's just me, but I've mentioned this many times before here that I thought she looked creepy and that's why at first I thought she was guilty. I think it's because of her eyes and if they are in the shadows or not. Most of the time it's when she looks down slightly, but like I said, maybe it's just me.

But you're right, it was a weird and odd comment, but maybe that's why I sympathize with Amanda and some of her odd behavior and things she's said so much, in my opinion, because I'm a little like that myself,

d

-

I might have read more into your comment than you meant. I'm just shell shocked to read comments in the daily mail articles for example, where people write, "you can see she's guilty just by her eyes", etc, etc. I'm sure you're not the least bit strange, relatively speaking :)
 
I suppose I could ask, but if I do, I will wait for the right opportunity.

Why do you want this material?

Just for general interest. I'm very curious as what things the PLE and Amanda found contrasting. I will change my mind about things if she was more precise than we have been led to believe she was. By that I mean why they even were suspicious. It has nothing to to do with guilt as far as I'm concerned.
 
I might have read more into your comment than you meant. I'm just shell shocked to read comments in the daily mail articles for example, where people write, "you can see she's guilty just by her eyes", etc, etc. I'm sure you're not the least bit strange, relatively speaking :)

Has anybody else seen those people who proclaim guilt based on mannerisms in an interview? Interesting, they have taken cops and tested them on people who were lying or telling the truth and they did worse than chance. Just normal people had a success rate of chance.
 
We do have his statement in front of Judge Matteini from the afternoon of November 8. With that, Matteini's report of November 9, the excerpts from the press and Raffaele's diary, it should be possible to reconstruct most of the content of Raffaele's interrogation.

ETA: And lets not forget the Kate Mansey interview which appears to be the source of much error.

Yes Kate's article was a stroke of genius by the kids. Instead of agreeing on a alibi which could even have included a stop at the plaza if they had been there they just made stuff up on the fly. The pure genius of making up a party that could be checked in a jiffy.

I would like to see the actual transcript where he supposedly said the "pack of lies" or pile of crap or whatever it was.
 
It's ok CJ...

-

I might have read more into your comment than you meant. I'm just shell shocked to read comments in the daily mail articles for example, where people write, "you can see she's guilty just by her eyes", etc, etc. I'm sure you're not the least bit strange, relatively speaking :)
-

I'm actually proud of the fact that I'm a little odd like Amanda. We're kind of kindred spirits in that sense.

When I first realized I was wrong about Amanda, I felt so sad for her, because I've been through the same kind of thing (just not in the same horrible kind of way), and then I got mad. What right do these ********s have to base their whole guilt system on how she looks and then egocentrically twisting everything wrong with it so they're right. Being right is more important to them than being an honest good person and treating others like they themselves would like to be treated.

They're bullies, plain and simple.

I can be that way sometimes also, and most of my younger life, I was even worse, but now a days, I am more aware of it and like I've said before, I will change my mind and admit it when I'm wrong. I will even research opposing views to make sure I didn't get it wrong.

I'm not perfect by any means, but I do try really hard to not be like I was before, and I do not excuse myself for being that way. It's actually what inspires me to speak out against such stupidity, because I was that stupid once myself, and I do not accept ignorance as an excuse to continue acting that way.

I've even been fired once for speaking up at work for someone who was getting railroaded by a lot of mean (behind their back) bully talk. I don't regret it one bit,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom