Questions About The Case

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 1:30 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.


The police typed it, Raffeale signed it. We have no idea what was actually said by both sides during the interrogation, because no records of any kind were kept and no lawyer was present.


So we're in agreement then? Whether he volunteered it or signed his statement under duress Raffaele's Nov 6 statement is a pile of dung? I'm happy with that.


It's not authored or written by him. So it's not 'Raffaele's statement'. What didn't you understand about that?
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Sun May 29, 2016 1:41 pm

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.


The police typed it, Raffeale signed it. We have no idea what was actually said by both sides during the interrogation, because no records of any kind were kept and no lawyer was present.


So we're in agreement then? Whether he volunteered it or signed his statement under duress Raffaele's Nov 6 statement is a pile of dung? I'm happy with that.


It's not authored by him. So it's not 'Raffaele's statement'. What didn't you understand about that?

If the issue is, "how does Raffaele regard that statement - as his or as one coerced onto him," he covers all this in his book. His book has been out since 2012.

All this eminates from the original exchange in this thread:

dfkHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since.

Raffaele covers that in his book, which has been out for four years now. It's important to realize the timeframe, because one of the thing Raffaele has not been, is "shifty about it ever since." It's the setpiece for why Raffaele knows Amanda could not possibly be the murder - not just that he knows himself to have been innocent, but Knox as well. You're free to make of it what you will, accuse him of being a liar if that's what floats your boat.....

,,,,,, but ever since 2012 his consistent story has been - I cannot say for sure if she'd gone out, but the reason I can reasonably surmise she didn't, was that she'd have had to ring the bell to get back in. Again, make of that what you will, but that's been his position ever since; and he staked his own personal liberty on never wavering from that; or Knox's own innocence.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 1:51 pm

Just reviewed this person's previous posts under the name Holmes. He appears to think Rudy didn't rape Meredith despite his DNA being in her body.

Sounds like one of those guilter sickos who fantasise about Rudy to be honest.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 1:54 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Hi B-Real,
It's not bad faith to analyze Raffaele's statements. You may feel that I'm attacking your position. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the truth.


The police typed it, Raffeale signed it. We have no idea what was actually said by both sides during the interrogation, because no records of any kind were kept and no lawyer was present.


So we're in agreement then? Whether he volunteered it or signed his statement under duress Raffaele's Nov 6 statement is a pile of dung? I'm happy with that.


It's not authored by him. So it's not 'Raffaele's statement'. What didn't you understand about that?

If the issue is, "how does Raffaele regard that statement - as his or as one coerced onto him," he covers all this in his book. His book has been out since 2012.

All this eminates from the original exchange in this thread:

dfkHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since.

Raffaele covers that in his book, which has been out for four years now. It's important to realize the timeframe, because one of the thing Raffaele has not been, is "shifty about it ever since." It's the setpiece for why Raffaele knows Amanda could not possibly be the murder - not just that he knows himself to have been innocent, but Knox as well. You're free to make of it what you will, accuse him of being a liar if that's what floats your boat.....

,,,,,, but ever since 2012 his consistent story has been - I cannot say for sure if she'd gone out, but the reason I can reasonably surmise she didn't, was that she'd have had to ring the bell to get back in. Again, make of that what you will, but that's been his position ever since; and he staked his own personal liberty on never wavering from that; or Knox's own innocence.



So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sun May 29, 2016 1:57 pm

B_Real wrote:Just reviewed this person's previous posts under the name Holmes. He appears to think Rudy didn't rape Meredith despite his DNA being in her body.

Sounds like one of those guilter sickos who fantasise about Rudy to be honest.

I haven't reviewed Holmes posts, but you might want to keep in mind, that not everyone "asking questions" or "coming up with alternative scenarios" is automatically a "guilter" or a "hater". Injustice Anywhere is not PMF or TJMK...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 1:58 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.


Except it's not Raffaele's deposition. It's a statement typed by the police in the absence of recording, police notes, or a lawyer.

If you persist in ascribing responsiblity for this police generated piece of paper to Rafaelle, my view would be that you are here as (another) troll.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sun May 29, 2016 1:59 pm

fkaHolmes wrote: So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.

The question is "Where" this is going to go...?
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 2:01 pm

Hans wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote: So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.

The question is "Where" this is going to go...?


Depends if you accept the poster's premises, which I don't.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Hans » Sun May 29, 2016 2:06 pm

B_Real wrote:
Hans wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote: So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.

The question is "Where" this is going to go...?


Depends if you accept the poster's premises, which I don't.


Let's see, and try to keep it civil. ::scotch::
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 2:13 pm

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.


Except it's not Raffaele's deposition. It's a statement typed by the police in the absence of recording, police notes, or a lawyer.

If you persist in ascribing responsiblity for this police generated piece of paper to Rafaelle, my view would be that you are here as (another) troll.


I'm not. But it's your prerogative to think otherwise.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 2:19 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.


Except it's not Raffaele's deposition. It's a statement typed by the police in the absence of recording, police notes, or a lawyer.

If you persist in ascribing responsiblity for this police generated piece of paper to Rafaelle, my view would be that you are here as (another) troll.


I'm not. But it's your prerogative to think otherwise.


You are. You're naming the statement as 'Raffaele's deposition', thus ascribing authorship and responsibility to him, not the real authors.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Sun May 29, 2016 2:24 pm

B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.


Except it's not Raffaele's deposition. It's a statement typed by the police in the absence of recording, police notes, or a lawyer.

If you persist in ascribing responsiblity for this police generated piece of paper to Rafaelle, my view would be that you are here as (another) troll.


I'm not. But it's your prerogative to think otherwise.


You are. You're naming the statement as 'Raffaele's deposition', thus ascribing authorship and responsibility to him, not the real authors.


I was referring to the troll thing. I don't care about the subtleties of authorship (said the author ::razz:: )
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Sun May 29, 2016 2:29 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
B_Real wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
So you both agree that Raffaele's Nov 6 deposition isn't true. Excellent. We're getting somewhere.


Except it's not Raffaele's deposition. It's a statement typed by the police in the absence of recording, police notes, or a lawyer.

If you persist in ascribing responsiblity for this police generated piece of paper to Rafaelle, my view would be that you are here as (another) troll.


I'm not. But it's your prerogative to think otherwise.


You are. You're naming the statement as 'Raffaele's deposition', thus ascribing authorship and responsibility to him, not the real authors.


I was referring to the troll thing. I don't care about the subtleties of authorship (said the author ::razz:: )



You should care about your fundamentally dishonest statements.

And I guess we'll see about the other matter.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Sun May 29, 2016 4:38 pm

The guilters must think it's impossible for an innocent person to be strongly pushed by the police to concede it's possible some girl he just met managed to slip out several nights ago when he wasn't paying attention that they are all insisting actually happened with great enthusiasm. The problem with the guilters is they're incapable of viewing anything that happened from the standpoint of innocence. Being able to step into the opposing side's view and analyze from that position is an important part of critical thinking.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sun May 29, 2016 5:22 pm

What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Sun May 29, 2016 5:37 pm

Dan O. wrote:What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.

No one has offered a plausible theory, or a timeline, for why a guilty-Raffaele would do this. Why would a guilty-Raffaele NOT say, "well she went out" as part of his enduring narrative? Rather than this, he writes what he writes in his book, and has said, "AFAIK Amanda is innocent" since. Can someone explain why a guilty-Raffaele would do that?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Kauffer » Sun May 29, 2016 6:23 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Hans wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
welshman wrote:My apologies if this subject has been covered before. An accusation the haters often make against Raffaele is that he dropped Amanda's alibi and he never confirmed afterwards or at least until late in the Hellman trial that Amanda was with him at his apartment. What is the truth about this?


Actually, the “haters” are right on this one. Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement. And he’s been shifty about it ever since. The facts are in the files (all quotes are lifted from files at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statement ... ntercepts/):

11-2-2007 witness deposition:
Around 16:00 Meredith went out without saying where she was going, while we stayed at the house until about 17:30. After that time, Amanda and I went for a quick walk in the centre and then went to my house where we stayed until this morning.

11-6-2007 deposition:
A.D.R. We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
A.D.R. We stayed in the center from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
A.D.R. At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
A.D.R. I went home alone, went on the computer and smoked a joint. I’m certain I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
A.D.R. I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00

11-8-2007 Matteini hearing:
At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda. I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

Entry prison diary dated Nov 7 2007 (misdated, should be Nov 8):
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

A bit further down, same entry:
The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem?


I can see “the big problem” with Raffaele’s statements. Can the people at this forum see it too?


Hello fkaHolmes, Welcome aboard.

fkaHolmes wrote:Raffaele did sink Amanda’s (and his own) alibi in his Nov 6 statement.

I'll give you that one. Changing the narrative is suspicious. The problem is that it is quite clear that in his Nov 2nd deposition he's talking about the night of the murder and it's obvious that in his Nov 6th statement he's talking about the night of Halloween, which he somehow substituted for the night of the murder even until the Matteini hearing.
I wonder if he had made the statements in front of judge Matteini, if he had been able to consult with his lawyer ahead of that hearing to sort it out? The ramblings in his "prison diary" are not official statements, to me they are only a record of his confusion.
So we only have his change of story on Nov 6th (or better Nov 5th in the light of the latest motivations report) which made him and with him Amanda "suspects". The problem I (and apparently the latest judge) see here is the question: "Why would a mere witness need an alibi?"



Hi Hans,

Thank you for responding.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened. And one of the things that really happened imho is that Raffaele lied, deliberately, desperately, on that fateful evening, Nov 5. And he’s been haunted by it ever since.

Why do I think he lied?

1] Raffaele’s Nov 2 deposition is basically true. It may not be the whole truth but his and Amanda’s whereabouts (until 9 pm) are confirmed by Jovana Popovic, dad’s phone call and the computer logs. On Nov 2 he doesn’t show any signs of confusion or memory loss. He remembers what happened the previous night and that’s what he tells the police.

2] ]It’s very unlikely that just three days later (Nov 5) his memory is gone and a] he gets his days mixed up, and b] he doesn’t remember his previous statement. In fact, he does remember his earlier statement:
A.D.R. In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies.
This proves to me that he knows what he’s doing. He is substituting a basically true story with a lie.

3] He confirms this in his prison diary/letter to his father: he’s “talking crap” in his second version (his Nov 5/6 deposition). I refuse to dismiss this statement just because it isn’t an official one. On the contrary. It is an uncensored cri de coeur directed at his father. He knows he’s in big trouble. If he’d made an honest mistake he would’ve told dad. He doesn’t. Instead he blames Amanda. She made him lie. That is of course a whole lot of crapola. Amanda never asked him to tank her alibi.

4] The same goes for his statement at the Matteini hearing. If he’d made an honest mistake that would have been the time to fess up: “I’m sorry Your Honor. I got my days mixed up.” He doesn’t say that, even though she confronts him with his changing alibi.

Everything points to Raffaele lying during his Nov 5/6 deposition. And the reason is obvious. He isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s just a terrified young man, in many ways still a kid. He understands that his interrogators are suspecting Amanda. His first instinct, everyone’s first instinct, is to run. He tries to distance himself by concocting a story about them going their separate ways. It’s not very heroic or noble but totally understandable. It is a terrible, terrible mistake.


Tell me, because this doesn't seem to come up often, why shouldn't Raffaele have had a lawyer for his interrogation? And if not then, when? I should be fair to you and point out that there's a great deal of ECHR case law, which points to the right answer. Of course, Raffaelle has nothing to do with the ECHR, but the convention is actually the law in Italy and it is the convention from which his procedural rights ultimately derive.
Kauffer
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby LarryK » Mon May 30, 2016 2:26 am

I hold that Raffaele was in a stressful interrogation on Nov. 5/6 similar to Amanda's, and should no more be held accountable for signed statements than she was, and nothing from that night should be usable against him or her. His book Honor Bound shows his thinking in why he refused to dissociate his legal fate from hers, though he likely could have gotten out of jail earlier than he did if he had abandoned her--while condemning her to a lot longer stay. I honor his refusal to save himself by throwing her under the bus.

With regard to Amanda, according to Numbers, if Boninsegna's motivation report becomes final, it's so favorable to her, as opposed to the police, that she may be able to request a revision trial directly from Italy concerning her original calunnia conviction against Lumumba. (The latter was only based on what she said/signed on Nov. 6.) I hope her lawyers are checking this out. If this is resolved without needing a ruling from the ECHR, great, but certainly they should keep the ECHR appeal open until they learn whether Italy will vacate that conviction. Also, they should account for whether a ECHR ruling would give them more leverage for a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against Italy.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Mon May 30, 2016 7:50 am

LarryK wrote:I hold that Raffaele was in a stressful interrogation on Nov. 5/6 similar to Amanda's, and should no more be held accountable for signed statements than she was, and nothing from that night should be usable against him or her. His book Honor Bound shows his thinking in why he refused to dissociate his legal fate from hers, though he likely could have gotten out of jail earlier than he did if he had abandoned her--while condemning her to a lot longer stay. I honor his refusal to save himself by throwing her under the bus.

With regard to Amanda, according to Numbers, if Boninsegna's motivation report becomes final, it's so favorable to her, as opposed to the police, that she may be able to request a revision trial directly from Italy concerning her original calunnia conviction against Lumumba. (The latter was only based on what she said/signed on Nov. 6.) I hope her lawyers are checking this out. If this is resolved without needing a ruling from the ECHR, great, but certainly they should keep the ECHR appeal open until they learn whether Italy will vacate that conviction. Also, they should account for whether a ECHR ruling would give them more leverage for a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against Italy.

This!

Naysayers and guilters have attacked Raffaele, mainly solely on this point. For tears they have tried to claim he actually did throw her under a bus - most notably in the days leading up to the final exoneration, trying to turn his separation strategy into a betrayal - one that the guilters would have congratulated him for!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Mon May 30, 2016 12:50 pm

Zrausch wrote:The guilters must think it's impossible for an innocent person to be strongly pushed by the police to concede it's possible some girl he just met managed to slip out several nights ago when he wasn't paying attention that they are all insisting actually happened with great enthusiasm. The problem with the guilters is they're incapable of viewing anything that happened from the standpoint of innocence. Being able to step into the opposing side's view and analyze from that position is an important part of critical thinking.


I don’t really know what the “guilters” are thinking. They seem to be a funny lot, but what do I know? I’m more of an independent thinker myself. I totally agree with your take on critical thinking. It makes me wonder: howz the critical thinking on this forum coming along?
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Mon May 30, 2016 12:56 pm

Dan O. wrote:What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.


Holmes here, answering your questions.
Q1: He got scared.
Q2: He panicked. He told a bunch of lies. He got scared.
Q3: Like I said. Raffaele’s Nov 5/6 statement is a stupid, stupid lie. He got scared. How often do I have to repeat myself?
Q4: He got scared.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Mon May 30, 2016 1:04 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Dan O. wrote:What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.

No one has offered a plausible theory, or a timeline, for why a guilty-Raffaele would do this. Why would a guilty-Raffaele NOT say, "well she went out" as part of his enduring narrative? Rather than this, he writes what he writes in his book, and has said, "AFAIK Amanda is innocent" since. Can someone explain why a guilty-Raffaele would do that?


Exactly. Guilty people should know better than to tank their coconspirator's alibi. Raffaele's Nov 6 statement (and him lying at that time ) points to him being innocent.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Mon May 30, 2016 1:11 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Dan O. wrote:What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.

No one has offered a plausible theory, or a timeline, for why a guilty-Raffaele would do this. Why would a guilty-Raffaele NOT say, "well she went out" as part of his enduring narrative? Rather than this, he writes what he writes in his book, and has said, "AFAIK Amanda is innocent" since. Can someone explain why a guilty-Raffaele would do that?


Exactly. Guilty people should know better than to tank their coconspirator's alibi. Raffaele's Nov 6 statement (and him lying at that time ) points to him being innocent.

Not exactly. Raffaele turning back to the first story he had back when he didn't realize he was anyone's alibi, and turning back to it knowing he now was facing the whole shooting match thrown at him.....

..... THAT'S what a guilter cannot explain, or put forward a timeline to explain. Why would a guilty-Raffaele maintain Knox's innocence from solitary confinement onwards, through three trials?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Mon May 30, 2016 1:25 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
fkaHolmes wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Dan O. wrote:What happened in the November 5/6 interrogation that would be cause for Raffaele to suddenly start telling lies? I'd like to see Holms try to answer that. And why would Raffaele start telling what he would know were provable lies?

1. The deposition says he browsed the internet. As a computer science major he would know that all browsing activity is monitored in Italy.
2. The deposition says he got a phone call on his landline from his father. Who doesn't know that the phone calls are logged and can be verified?
3. The deposition says Amanda went her own way and didn't get back to his place till after 1 am. But Jovana saw Amanda there twice and there could be computer and phone records showing she was there.

Simply saying he doesn't remember if Amanda went out or not would separate his fate from hers without leaving a trail of provable lies. But Raffaele doesn't leave it there, he locks in his fate by declaring that Amanda couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. It is a strong testament to his character that he acknowledges in his diary that his troubles would be over if he simply said Amanda had left that evening, yet he holds to the truth and suffers 4 years in prison for it.

No one has offered a plausible theory, or a timeline, for why a guilty-Raffaele would do this. Why would a guilty-Raffaele NOT say, "well she went out" as part of his enduring narrative? Rather than this, he writes what he writes in his book, and has said, "AFAIK Amanda is innocent" since. Can someone explain why a guilty-Raffaele would do that?


Exactly. Guilty people should know better than to tank their coconspirator's alibi. Raffaele's Nov 6 statement (and him lying at that time ) points to him being innocent.

Not exactly. Raffaele turning back to the first story he had back when he didn't realize he was anyone's alibi, and turning back to it knowing he now was facing the whole shooting match thrown at him.....

..... THAT'S what a guilter cannot explain, or put forward a timeline to explain. Why would a guilty-Raffaele maintain Knox's innocence from solitary confinement onwards, through three trials?


Oh my effin god. please stuff your guilters' neurosis where the sun doesn't shine. i so don't care. I'm going to repost a sliver of a previous post of mine. that's where i stand okay?
Thank you.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby fkaHolmes » Mon May 30, 2016 1:29 pm

Sliver, as promised.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened.
fkaHolmes
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Mon May 30, 2016 1:42 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:Sliver, as promised.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened.

If your sole interest is to "figure out what happened," you are going to have to deal with what you said, "oh my effin God" to. If you don't what to deal with that, and would prefer to address the poster, then that's fine.

Have a good day.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Mon May 30, 2016 2:17 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda.


I think there's some healthy middle ground between throwing Amanda under the bus and being an honorable knight. The police never questioned him about that night until the interrogation, so enough time had passed to slightly haze the events up. And they insisted Amanda was involved. Why would the police insist something if it wasn't true? Raffaele had no way of knowing the police were incompetent and stupid. I think he allowed himself to believe it was possible she slipped out because it was a way to distance himself from the girl he just met the police were all over.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Mon May 30, 2016 5:03 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:Sliver, as promised.

“Why would a mere witness need an alibi?” I know you meant it as a rhetorical question but I’m going to answer it anyway. In order to exclude him (her) as a potential suspect. That’s Murder Investigation 101. If a witness changes his alibi a couple of times he places himself under suspicion. That’s MI-101, Chapter 2. And that’s what Raffaele did. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of Meredith’s murder. As far as I am concerned his only crime is lying to the police, and by doing so messing up his (and Amanda’s) alibi.

You believe his Nov 6 deposition was an honest mistake. I don’t. I’m certain it was a deliberate, a totally stupid and desperate, but deliberate attempt to distance himself from Amanda. It backfired big time. I’m not making excuses for Mignini and friends btw. There is no excuse for their level of incompetence, their lying, their perjury, their… everything. This whole calunnia-thing you’re referring to is an absolute disgrace. Just to make clear where I stand.

My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened.


Well I totally disagree with you and see little purpose in dredging up tired old material that's already been debated to death over the years.

Your position that Raffaele intentionally lied cannot be proven and never will be.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Mon May 30, 2016 7:26 pm

Is he actually living in his own little bubble and not capable of seeing the absurdity of his own position? Or are we dealing with another troll?

The search for the truth begins by accepting that there are multiple possible truths when the known information is limited. Those possibilities can be grouped into general theories. Then you can proceed to eliminate those theories that are impossible by better analysis of the information or uncovering new information. Only when you can eliminate all other theories can the one that is left be declared the truth.

The search for the truth does not begin with a blatant declaration like: "he lied". That is but one theory to explain the inconsistancies between what is written in a deposition and the facts as we understand them. Other theories include the subject not knowing that the statement was contrary to fact, the author of the document not faithfully recording the statements of the subject or the facts not being what we understand them to be These other theories cannot simply be waved away. They have to be proven impossible before the truth can be declared.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby B_Real » Tue May 31, 2016 6:46 am

Dan O. wrote:Is he actually living in his own little bubble and not capable of seeing the absurdity of his own position? Or are we dealing with another troll?



He is also reposting his own posts, at nobody's request. As though we haven't already read them and responded to them.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:32 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Zrausch wrote:The guilters must think it's impossible for an innocent person to be strongly pushed by the police to concede it's possible some girl he just met managed to slip out several nights ago when he wasn't paying attention that they are all insisting actually happened with great enthusiasm. The problem with the guilters is they're incapable of viewing anything that happened from the standpoint of innocence. Being able to step into the opposing side's view and analyze from that position is an important part of critical thinking.


I don’t really know what the “guilters” are thinking. They seem to be a funny lot, but what do I know? I’m more of an independent thinker myself. I totally agree with your take on critical thinking. It makes me wonder: howz the critical thinking on this forum coming along?


Boy, you sure do have us bamboozled. You are great at this!
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:57 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
My sole interest in this case is to figure out what really happened.


Hmm the cops simply assumed a break-in was staged so roughed up the girl with the key, her boyfriend alibi, and the black man she texted about a secret meeting just before the time of the murder. It turns out none of their forensics matched the trio but did match a local burglar who was arrested two weeks prior in connection with a break-in a few blocks away involving climbing up metal bars to a second story window, bashing it with a large rock, and tossing clothes on the floor. The cottage where Meredith was killed and this burglar left 16 bloody footprints and a bloody palm print, had a rock bashed window in a clothes strewn room above climbable metal bars on the window below. Hmm I wonder what happened.

This is and always was a simple case. You're drowning in cognitive bias and delusion from which you will never escape. I can't help you. Nothing can at this point. I find that interesting.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby struoc » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:29 am

Ive a question no one can probably answer but a Italian Lawyer... did Edgardo Giobbi of the SCS told to take down Amandas picture off his pictures of criminals?
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Mon Jul 11, 2016 2:51 am

One of the accusations made against Raffaele and Amanda is that they said they slept through the night but records show a computer had been used and Raffaele had switched on a mobile phone. The haters argue this is suspicious and have used the snowball argument. If they have lied about one thing what else have they lied about. What is the truth about what Amanda and Raffaele said about using the computer in the night.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:12 am

The truth is that we don't know exactly what they did and they probably don't know either. But we can construct a plausible scenario of what happened based on the evidence and their combined statements. The hard evidence comes from time stamps on Raffaele's computer and from his phone. The computer shows periodic interactions through the night the log files show several VLC crashes in the early morning hours and the creation of an iTunes play list around 6am. The phone log shows the receipt of a text message around 6am that had been sent the previous night. Raffaele"s recollection was that after Amanda went to sleep, he stayed up, played some music or videos on his computer, received the message from his father around 11pm and went to bed. My interpretation is that Raffaele was unaware of how long he had stayed up, before going to bed he moved his phone to plug it in and this allowed it to reconnect to the network where it received the text message showing a time stamp of 11pm. Raffaele is awoken a few hours later by a phone call from his father. Amanda then wakes up and heads off to the cottage to fetch the mop and change for the planned trip. Raffaele having only gotten 3 hours of sleep goes back to bed and doesn't get up until shortly before Amanda returns.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:46 am

Dan O. wrote:The truth is that we don't know exactly what they did and they probably don't know either. But we can construct a plausible scenario of what happened based on the evidence and their combined statements. The hard evidence comes from time stamps on Raffaele's computer and from his phone. The computer shows periodic interactions through the night the log files show several VLC crashes in the early morning hours and the creation of an iTunes play list around 6am. The phone log shows the receipt of a text message around 6am that had been sent the previous night. Raffaele"s recollection was that after Amanda went to sleep, he stayed up, played some music or videos on his computer, received the message from his father around 11pm and went to bed. My interpretation is that Raffaele was unaware of how long he had stayed up, before going to bed he moved his phone to plug it in and this allowed it to reconnect to the network where it received the text message showing a time stamp of 11pm. Raffaele is awoken a few hours later by a phone call from his father. Amanda then wakes up and heads off to the cottage to fetch the mop and change for the planned trip. Raffaele having only gotten 3 hours of sleep goes back to bed and doesn't get up until shortly before Amanda returns.


Is listening to music on your computer the sort of thing you are likely to do when you have commented a brutal murder just a few hours ago.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:02 pm

fkaHolmes wrote:
Holmes here, answering your questions.
Q1: He got scared.
Q2: He panicked. He told a bunch of lies. He got scared.
Q3: Like I said. Raffaele’s Nov 5/6 statement is a stupid, stupid lie. He got scared. How often do I have to repeat myself?
Q4: He got scared.


To Holmes

Wow I should been here sooner. But I never show up. I was to busy of being busy even now Holmes you come up here and said, these 4 questions of answers. So here what you said!!!

Q1: He got scared. My thoughts: Don't we all get scared Holmes, even yes a police officer love to scary us.
Q2: He panicked. He told a bunch of lies. He got scared. Once again people lies to get scared! It happen into every detail of a Police force to hurt the client, remember the cop want to hurt the innocent of not knowing criminal law, even yes me. I lied as well even very good at it!!!
Q3: Like I said. Raffaele's Nov 5/6 statement is a stupid, stupid lie. He got scared. How often do I have to repeat myself? It ok you can repeat yourself over and over again. I can care less. I just like your a hurt man of not knowing criminal law. Remember Sherlock Holmes is only adding evidence to criminal law. He never figure out the lies because the police hurt the person with the lies!!!
Q4: He got scared. We know! Haven't you said enough, of your lies!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:20 pm

The fact is that there is no public record of the content of the November 5/6 interrogations. It is not factual to say he lied when what he actually said in that interrogation is not a known fact. All we have is what the police believed which is provably inconsistent with reality on a number of points.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:05 pm

If Rudy Guede leaves his apartment at 7:30 pm the night of the murder and arrived at the parking garage at around 7:40 pm and walks straight into the parking garage through the entrance across from the gate. What would be the time on the time stamp? That of course someone entering the garage sets the motion detector off.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:59 am

schmidt53 wrote:If Rudy Guede leaves his apartment at 7:30 pm the night of the murder and arrived at the parking garage at around 7:40 pm and walks straight into the parking garage through the entrance across from the gate. What would be the time on the time stamp? That of course someone entering the garage sets the motion detector off.


19:28.

If he entered through the gate where camera 7 was positioned he would have been recorded. At 19:29:03 a man (not Rudy) enters past this gate and is fully captured by the CCTV.

If he is going through the car park, regardless of which entrance he uses, he has to come out on the upper deck where camera 15 would pick him up. Camera 15 does pick up individuals walking across the upper deck without any other triggers. If Rudy was there he would be on tape.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:31 pm

Dan O. wrote:
schmidt53 wrote:If Rudy Guede leaves his apartment at 7:30 pm the night of the murder and arrived at the parking garage at around 7:40 pm and walks straight into the parking garage through the entrance across from the gate. What would be the time on the time stamp? That of course someone entering the garage sets the motion detector off.


19:28.

If he entered through the gate where camera 7 was positioned he would have been recorded. At 19:29:03 a man (not Rudy) enters past this gate and is fully captured by the CCTV.

If he is going through the car park, regardless of which entrance he uses, he has to come out on the upper deck where camera 15 would pick him up. Camera 15 does pick up individuals walking across the upper deck without any other triggers. If Rudy was there he would be on tape.



Since the time stamp is slow by 10 minutes and since he didn't go through the gate where camera 7 would have caught him. He most likely entered the bottom part of the garage through the stairs on the top level video the police never released. He could have used the ramp next the gate or the metal stairs coming off Via Pinturicchio. He would then go along the edge overlooking the road and the cottage which
would give a good view of the balcony side, the side where the front door is plus the front side of the cottage where Filomena's window is located. He would also be see how well each of these areas are lite by the street lights.

I think what caused Guede to use the stairs was a car driving up the ramp. So went down the stairs then though the gate, crosses the street to the cottage gate. I think this because what he says in Italian deposition:

Page 41 About what he saw when Meredith arrived.

Guede: From the gate....she enter the yard, let's say, as I to my attorneys I hope the video cameras adjacent to car park are working.... or that they working that evening because when Meredith arrived, in that moment above the car park and in any case if there a person up there you can hear it even if speaking with a normal voice and there were, in that moment, some people up there. There in the car park.

Profazio How many?

Guede We hard someone locking their car.

Attorney In the open-air part in other words

Guede Yes above the top part.

So the question since I doubt Guede ever met Meredith in the driveway is it more likely Guede heard the voices and someone locking a car door when he first arrived at the cottage alone.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:21 pm

Camera 15 shows the east end of the top section of the car park from the eastern most stairs to the exit gate. In that video we can see people using an exit to the south which presumably leads to Via Pinturicchio between buildings 54 and 56. I have not heard of there being another exit from the upper deck so if Rudy goes through the car park, how does he get out without being seen by camera 15?
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby schmidt53 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:11 am

Dan O. wrote:Camera 15 shows the east end of the top section of the car park from the eastern most stairs to the exit gate. In that video we can see people using an exit to the south which presumably leads to Via Pinturicchio between buildings 54 and 56. I have not heard of there being another exit from the upper deck so if Rudy goes through the car park, how does he get out without being seen by camera 15?


So don't you believe its Rudy going out of the gate caught by camera 7?
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Dan O. » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:44 pm

schmidt53 wrote:So don't you believe its Rudy going out of the gate caught by camera 7?


Rudy admits to being at the cottage at that time. It's part of his narative. He has every reason to point to the video and say "there I am, it proves I am telling the truth". Yet Rudy himself claims that this is not him.

Also, Rudy knows about the CCTV cameras. If his plan that evening involved breaking into the cottage to steal the girls rent monies, he would try to avoid leaving evidence that places him in the vicinity.

I would need more than the "possibly could be" evidence from that video to say it is Rudy.


If people were willing to put more effort into this case, the videos should be analized to build a timeline of all arrivals and departures for the car park. Nobody lives in the car park so each arrival should have a corresponding departure within a relatively short period. If that person had to be matched to a car driving in, would you then say that it could not be Rudy?
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby aflashman » Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:50 pm

I am taking part in a debate with a couple of guilters on the Amanda Knox documentary page, this thread especially (I am Spookyman on IMDB).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952332/boa ... 498019?p=1

One thing that has been claimed is the the final trial accepted it as proven that Knox was definitely in the house at the time, and that there was definitely more than one attacker. This seems absurd to me.

Is this true? If not how should I respond?
aflashman
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:35 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby aflashman » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:04 pm

Another question that I have concerns expert testimony regarding the DNA evidence.

Were Conti and Vecchiotti independent experts or were they hired by the defense?

Have other independent experts of similar standing offered their opinions about Conti and Vecchiotti's criticisms of the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito?
Are there independent experts who have criticised Cont and Vecchiotti or is expert opinion generally on their side?

One criticism that the guilters claim about Vecchiotti is she was biased and corrupt (for example apparently she shook hands with Sollecito's father at the trial). And had previously been found guilty of professional misconduct on another case and that her lab at the University of Rome had actually been shut down due to her alleged incompetence. Is there any truth to any of these claims.
aflashman
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:35 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:48 am

Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts, not prosecution or defense experts. Chapter 5 of Peter Gill's book ("Misleading DNA Evidence") also criticizes the prosecution's use of DNA. Professor Gill also wrote an article in a refereed journal about the case. Dr. Gill is one of the foremost forensic DNA scientists in the world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26971315

There is less than 10% truth to the claims you bring up. You are probably arguing with a hard-core pro-guilt commenter. No amount of reasoning will get through to them, but feel free to try.
EDT
IMO Dr. David Balding has taken a more pro-guilt stance than Conti and Vecchiotti. However, his expertise lies in statistics as applied to DNA profiling, not so much in the area of collection of DNA samples.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:04 pm

Corpus Vile and MortyToad are well known PG-ers, who will not concede anything but love to play word games. I have examined the YSTR DNA electropherogram myself, and it is available publicly. Besides Sollecito there are two to four more male profiles.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:21 pm

Corpus Vile believes the M&B Supreme Court decision to overturn the conviction and acquit was not just an outcome he disagreed with, but actually illegal, because the Supreme Court shouldn't re-examine the evidence.

When asked if the Chieffi Supreme Court overturning Hellmann was therefore also illegal, since it re-examined the evidence and decided Hellmann shouldn't have acquitted, he says no, that decision was fine.

So when the Supreme Court does something he agrees with it's fine. When he disagrees with it, it's illegal. In other words he's a fanatic. A fanatic that has been obsessing over this case for years. You're completely wasting your time arguing with him about this case. You might as well find an ISIS forum and convince them their interpretation of Islam is wrong... actually you might have better luck there.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Zrausch wrote:Corpus Vile believes the M&B Supreme Court decision to overturn the conviction and acquit was not just an outcome he disagreed with, but actually illegal, because the Supreme Court shouldn't re-examine the evidence.

When asked if the Chieffi Supreme Court overturning Hellmann was therefore also illegal, since it re-examined the evidence and decided Hellmann shouldn't have acquitted, he says no, that decision was fine.

So when the Supreme Court does something he agrees with it's fine. When he disagrees with it, it's illegal. In other words he's a fanatic. A fanatic that has been obsessing over this case for years. You're completely wasting your time arguing with him about this case. You might as well find an ISIS forum and convince them their interpretation of Islam is wrong... actually you might have better luck there.


According to Italian procedural law, a final acquittal cannot be reversed. Nor, according to Italian procedural law, can a person who has been finally acquitted, dismissed, or convicted be prosecuted again on the same charges or the same facts. The definition of "final", also called "definitive", judgment (of acquittal, dismissal, or conviction) is that the judgment may not be appealed under Italian law except by a request for revision. Revision is a judicial procedure that only applies to convictions which are alleged to be wrongful and are only granted to a convicted person under certain circumstances defined by Italian procedural law and Supreme Constitutional Court decisions, such as, for example, a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that the person's rights had been violated by an unfair trial.

Thus, comments by guilters claiming that Knox or Sollecito, who were finally acquitted by the Supreme Court of Cassation, may be again prosecuted in a criminal or civil trial for Kercher's murder/rape are simply absurd and do not have any merit whatsoever.

The relevant Italian procedural laws include: CCP (Code of Criminal Procedure; abbreviation in Italian is CPP, for Codice di Procedura Penale) Articles 648, 649, 651, 652, and 654 (these define the finality of trials, and prohibition of double jeopardy after a final judgment, including civil retrials after acquittal in the criminal trial), and CCP Articles 629 - 647, with Supreme Constitutional Court judgment Number 113/2011 (defining the revision procedure for alleged wrongful final conviction).
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Zrausch » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:15 pm

Which would lead a reasonable person to conclude there were weaknesses in the case. But if you believe the evidence against Amanda Knox is stronger than the evidence against Rudy Guede (a really whacky belief Corpus Vile holds) your only way to resolve the cognitive dissonance is to assume the result was fixed. IIRC he believes there was mafia involvement in fixing the Supreme Court verdict.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:40 pm

It is rubbish to claim that a six-day delay precludes contamination. There were 1-2 day delays in the Farah Jama and Jaidyn Leskie cases. The delay in the Gary Letterman case may have been much longer. None of these were low template DNA cases, and stamping out contaminants in low template work is more challenging. And my understanding is that Vecchiotti said that it should be enough, not that it was enough.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:52 am

aflashman wrote:I am taking part in a debate with a couple of guilters on the Amanda Knox documentary page, this thread especially (I am Spookyman on IMDB).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952332/boa ... 498019?p=1

One thing that has been claimed is the the final trial accepted it as proven that Knox was definitely in the house at the time, and that there was definitely more than one attacker. This seems absurd to me.

Is this true? If not how should I respond?


That is hilarious, even the low life fraudster Ergon :::WeatherWhisperer::: is posting there pimping his fake wiki.

CorpusVile and MortyToad are 2 of the most obsessed fanatics still posting about AK. They are in the comment sections of every article, YouTube, forums and twitter everyday. Hating on her is a full time job. They are obviously seriously disturbed individuals who can't be reasoned with. Personally I think both are really stupid thick as a brick types who don't know much about the case other than what they've read on TJMK and in tabloids.

The guilters have spread the lie all over the internet that the SC ruled Amanda was there and washed blood off her hands. They latch onto anything they can and still teeet it everyday over and over. It's just like every other lie/smear over the years. Another lie they spread everywhere is 'she wasn't exonerated'. Of course they couldn't care less about Raffaele. He's just the other bloke, what's his name.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf

Section 9.2 speaks for itself. It says what they're about to set out below are hypothetical scenarios that even if true wouldn't mean they are necessarily guilty as charged.

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.


Section 9.4 says it's merely 'hypothesised' they were there. It's not a factual finding.

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby MichaelB » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:21 am

Here's another of their favourite lies.....

CorpusVile writes:

"No they didn't stop lying. They admitted under cross examination that it was Meredith's DNA profile on the knife, you liar."
"They said it was Meredith's profile on the knife,"

And then read the actual testimony:

PM: She said there is a complete profile, did I not hear correctly?
President: … it’s futile that…
GB: That’s not what she said.
President: … that we speak of contamination of Meredith.
PM: Did I not hear correctly? Is there a complete profile?
Vecchiotti: There is an unreliable profile. Absolutely not interpretable.
PM: Is it complete or is it not complete? How many loci are there?
Vecchiotti: Well it’s a complete profile, not reliable and not repeated…
PM: Is it incompatible with Meredith’s profile?
Vecchiotti: Well, according to the standards that are followed, it is necessary to examine all of the alleles that are above 50 RFU, there is not one or maybe there are two that are above 50 RFU, and I can show you and there is a complete imbalance of the alleles. If we then evaluate also those that are of height 15 and not 50 well then we can make it all come out but it absolutely should not be evaluated this way. This is what was done.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

Whenever CorpusVile gets cornered and shown he's wrong he just calls you a liar and asks more stupid questions. He's boring.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:06 am

In "Inside the cell: the dark side of DNA" Erin Murphy wrote, "Study after study has shown that DNA has a way of ending up where it should not be. And as labs porcesss more low-quantity samples, even the slightest amount of contamination may compromise the entire test result. (p. 56)
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:07 am

The other important thing to realize about profile 36B is that there is no way to be absolutely certain that it did or did not originate from the knife. However, the lack of blood on the knife suggests that the DNA originated elsewhere. Also, there is DNA forensic literature to suggest that if bleach had been used to remove some DNA, the remaining DNA would produce an hlectropherogram that slopes downward in peak height, as one proceeds left to right. I detect no slope in 36B.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Samson » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:08 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:The other important thing to realize about profile 36B is that there is no way to be certain that it did or did not originate from the knife. However, the lack of blood on the knife suggests that the DNA originated elsewhere.

Chris, would you also conclude the lack of neurons, conceded by Rod Miller, suggests that whatever was on Lundy's shirt originated elsewhere than the crime scene?
It seems a pedantic question, but monumentally important.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:06 am

Samson, I don't have as strong an opinion on that question at the moment, although Dr. Miller's explanation is a hand wave, as far as I am concerned.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby TomZ53 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:21 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:The other important thing to realize about profile 36B is that there is no way to be absolutely certain that it did or did not originate from the knife. However, the lack of blood on the knife suggests that the DNA originated elsewhere. Also, there is DNA forensic literature to suggest that if bleach had been used to remove some DNA, the remaining DNA would produce an hlectropherogram that slopes downward in peak height, as one proceeds left to right. I detect no slope in 36B.


Chris,

It is difficult to construct an argument that putative Meredith Kercher DNA in sample 36B was actually derived from blood, I agree. Given the fundamental irreproducibility of the result, it is essentially impossible to know where this result came from. It has the look and feel of a lab screw up.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:50 am

TomZ53 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:The other important thing to realize about profile 36B is that there is no way to be absolutely certain that it did or did not originate from the knife. However, the lack of blood on the knife suggests that the DNA originated elsewhere. Also, there is DNA forensic literature to suggest that if bleach had been used to remove some DNA, the remaining DNA would produce an hlectropherogram that slopes downward in peak height, as one proceeds left to right. I detect no slope in 36B.


Chris,

It is difficult to construct an argument that putative Meredith Kercher DNA in sample 36B was actually derived from blood, I agree. Given the fundamental irreproducibility of the result, it is essentially impossible to know where this result came from. It has the look and feel of a lab screw up.

Add to this what the screw up was outside of the lab......

......meaning, of course, the screw up in the courts with the way they adjudicated the DNA evidence.

Both the 2013 Supreme Court which annulled the Hellmann acquittals, as well as the 2015 Supreme Court which annulled the convictions made mention of the screw ups. The 2013 court expressed the fear that the way the Hellmann court adjudicated the DNA evidence would result in, potentially, every DNA conviction since 1986 being called into question. That was quite the statement.

But sitting there plain as day in the 2015 Supreme Court motivations report is (what looks to me to be) a full discussion on the problem with Italian courts dealing with expert evidence/testimony. The 2015 Supreme Court annulled the Nencini convictions based partly on the Nencini lower-court thinking of itself as the "expert of the experts" which perhaps once was, but was fast becoming outmoded in modern Italian law. Modern forensics takes this kind of evidence/testimony to a level where no judge can hope to properly assess this stuff without at least some outside, independent expert analysis.

And there's the rub. It was the rub the 2013 Supreme Court used to criticise (not Vecchiotti or Conti, but) Judge Hellman for de facto ceding his judicial authority to the experts. as if the experts were the law-judge.

Non-experts in both law and forensics like me had to read the Marasca-Bruno report a couple of times to "get" it. And once read, one can return to the 2014 Nencini motivations report and easily spot where Nencini just soils the forensic-narrative with his own forensic incompetence - choosing between Stefanoni on the one hand and Conti-Vecchiotti on the other purely on his own status as a presumed expert-of-the-experts.

When people in Italy talk of how the Marasca-Bruno report sent shock-waves throughout the country (at the judicial level) this is part of it. This strikes at the hearts of where the country is stuck - halfway between the Inquisitorial system and the Adversarial one. It's only plainly laid out for us way up here in the cheap seats on the second or third read-through.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:22 pm

Below is my post from ISF where I pointed out that the allegations made against Amanda and Raffaele in the interrogations were completey different from the allegations later made against Amanda and Raffaele and the prosecution could not come up with a coherent narrative of the roles Amanda and Raffaele played in the murder of Meredith. Do you think the defense should have made an issue of this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 658&page=5
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:14 pm

welshman wrote:Below is my post from ISF where I pointed out that the allegations made against Amanda and Raffaele in the interrogations were completey different from the allegations later made against Amanda and Raffaele and the prosecution could not come up with a coherent narrative of the roles Amanda and Raffaele played in the murder of Meredith. Do you think the defense should have made an issue of this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 658&page=5

Yes.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:22 pm

Indeed the incoherence of the entire case is something upon which I have remarked.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:45 pm

welshman wrote:Below is my post from ISF where I pointed out that the allegations made against Amanda and Raffaele in the interrogations were completey different from the allegations later made against Amanda and Raffaele and the prosecution could not come up with a coherent narrative of the roles Amanda and Raffaele played in the murder of Meredith. Do you think the defense should have made an issue of this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 658&page=5



There are really 3 major reasons I concluded that they had to be innocent - 1. no evidence of either of them in the room where the crime was committed or evidence of the crime on them, their clothes or other possessions, in RS's apartment or in his car, 2. overwhelming evidence of an early time of death (probably around 9:30) which made it impossible for them to be involved, and 3. no plausible motive or scenario in which they would combine with Rudy to commit the crime.
The prosecution never really developed any kind of plausible scenario under which they would rush over to the cottage so that the crime would be committed early enough to be consistent with the TOD and they would somehow cooperate with Rudy in the crime. It just doesn't make any sense.
The prosecution tried to solve the TOD problem by arguing for a much later TOD - this was a very weak argument that the prosecution made only because it had to. Even Rudy stated that the TOD was early but the prosecution ignored him on this point. The rest of the "evidence" was assembled and interpreted to fit the "confirmation bias" that infected the prosecution's mind from the first day they visited the crime scene.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Questions About The Case

Postby welshman » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:27 pm

As can be seen from the link below, the British girls were caught by Amanda's defense lawyers changing their testimony. Has evidence ermerged the prosecution told the British girls to change their testimony. If the prosecution made the girls change their testimony, this raises the issue why would the prosecution need to encourage witnesses to change their stories and lie if they had a strong case.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests