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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Yes, but do we know that the window-entering burglars are "professionals"? Maybe that's Nencini's point: "professional burglars" go through doors, only the amateurs go through windows.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Hard to argue with people that make up their own language.
 
MDDVS said:
That's completely ridiculous. You can google in a few minutes dozens of examples of burglars entering though windows, sometimes at much greater heights than this case.
Click to expand...

But those might be amateurs

ETA ninja'd by that rat fink Diocletus
 
RWVBWL said:
Greatings all,
The surf sucks here in L.A. today, it's chilly and May Grey at the beach, The Los Angeles Clippers basketball team got soundly beaten last night by OKC, and I'm still wondering about Nacho and The Spanish Connection...

Why don't we know more about this story?
Here's Nacho, a newspaper writer who seemingly responds to questions:
http://comunidad.lne.es/entrevista-chat/4746/Deporte/Nacho-Azparren-responde/entrevista.html

When he wrote that article I'll link again,
http://www.lne.es/sucesos/2011/10/05/copas-asesino-perugia/1138272.html
Amanda and Raff were set free.

Now they both have been re-convicted,
(though strangely, convicted brutal murderer Raffaele Sollecito is still allowed to walk freely in Italy)
maybe Nacho might wanna talk and write again about this incident he wrote of back in 2011.

Can anybody really fluent in Spanish write down some important questions and email or tweet Nacho Azparren or call him directly to get more info on The Spanish Connection's direct knowledge of Rudy Guede? I might ask a bro, a Peruvian surfer, to help me do so if no one else does, for I feel that this needs to be explored more...

Have a great day,
RW
Click to expand...

Good luck with this line of enquiry Randy. Sorry me no hablar español.

Basketball you say. They might have better luck if they changed the name to the Dunkers.
 
There was a guy near my hometown who burglarized several apartments after climbing the side of the buildings as high as the fourth floor or something. He was nicknamed "Rambo" if I recall correctly. Don't know if he was a professional though.
 
Grinder said:
Here's what I was responding to:

That's odd I read it months ago and assumed it was common knowledge with the old timers. Grinder would never admit it to evidence I'm sure.
The stolen laptops in Milan prove he stole them from Perugia himself by a very high probability indeed. Perugia 160,000, Milan 1,200,000. Two Perugians meet per chance in Milan, no realistic chance. I expect he stole plenty more in Milan if his room was that well stocked.​

Now what would the phrase admitting to evidence mean? ADMITTING.

If people want to discuss it here and point to the computers as some sort of evidence that's fine. I am not convinced that he took all of these. It is very possible that he was a fence. It makes perfect sense that he took computers from Perugia to Milan to sell.

Tesla I never said anything about convicting him for burglary. It feels like
another straw man.

Just as I believe that the kids should be afforded their rights, which they weren't, and the same goes for all defendants. I don't exactly see how the computers could be admitted in this case against Rudi.​

Anglo as I understand it, having a stolen car doesn't prove you stole it unless you were seen taking it. I haven't heard the joy-riding issue but that could also be the case here.

Tesla - there could be an argument made that the libels made early were before they had become public figures and perhaps it could be argued that they never were seeking the status but at some point with the TV appearances that would be a tough argument even for Grinder :p
Click to expand...

I've never said that Rudy..with a Y should be denied his rights. Again, we ARE NOT talking about Rudy per se, but what is the most probable cause of the break-in in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Staged or real?

As for the libel argument, your point is well taken, but I think they become International public figures, almost right from the start. (totally unfair to them) But within a week they are in jail being accused of a high crime.
 
anglolawyer said:
Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
Click to expand...

When was this law written? "STEAM"??
 
A guy called roteoctober posted this snippet from Nonsencini at IIP:

“In conclusion, if in point of law this Judge expresses adherence to the principle mentioned above, adhering to its precepts, in point of fact the existence of a definitive judgement attributing the murder of Meredith Kercher to a specific culprit, Hemann Rudy Guede, in complicity with other people, makes unquestionable the assumption that any fact finding having to be carried out with reference to the evidentiary compendium emerging from the documents of this proceeding will have to be performed having as an inescapable reference point the aforementioned judicially ascertained fact, and hence facing the datum, definitively established in the proceeding, that Rudi Hermann Guede participated, along with others, in the murder of Meredith Kercher”
Click to expand...

To which a particularly astute poster has replied:

Clive Wismayer said:
Is this a ridiculous thought? Suppose Amanda and Raffaele were tried first and acquitted. Then Rudy was tried later. Given that the only people Rudy could reasonably be supposed to have committed the crime with were Amanda and Raffaele (according to Nencini) would that mean either:

A a finding of multiple killers would be impossible, or
B Rudy could not be convicted at all since the evidence pointed to multiple killers and the only people who could have been involved with him were acquitted?

Or something else?
Click to expand...
 
Things like this ******** about professional burglars is what irritates me about this case. How can someone take reasoning like this seriously? This is the type of arguments you hear in pre-school or something. Just making things up on the spot. "Professional burglars enter through doors, not windows". Give me a break.

What about "university students who are dating each other for a week don't go on a murderous rampage just to get a few 100 € "? Has something like that even ever happened?
 
MDDVS said:
Things like this ******** about professional burglars is what irritates me about this case. How can someone take reasoning like this seriously? This is the type of arguments you hear in pre-school or something. Just making things up on the spot. "Professional burglars enter through doors, not windows". Give me a break.

What about "university students who are dating each other for a week don't go on a murderous rampage just to get a few 100 € "? Has something like that even ever happened?
Click to expand...

I am sorry MDDVS but down the rabbit-hole this is how it works.
 
Wild Imagining

anglolawyer said:
There is nothing more to discuss about Rudy. It is a stipulated fact that he is a professional burglar.
Click to expand...

Stipulated by whom, precisely?

If I were Rudy I'd sue you for that. He may be a co-murderer but he has rights, which he might want to establish when he's served his time (and the other two are starting theirs).
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
Stipulated by whom, precisely?

If I were Rudy I'd sue you for that. He may be a co-murderer but he has rights, which he might want to establish when he's served his time (and the other two are starting theirs).
Click to expand...

Oh you would huh? Good luck to you. Stipulated by Nencini, actually. Got a problem with that, take it up with him.
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
Stipulated by whom, precisely?

If I were Rudy I'd sue you for that. He may be a co-murderer but he has rights, which he might want to establish when he's served his time (and the other two are starting theirs).
Click to expand...


Hi Supercalifragilistic,
Me thinks that AngloLawyer would luv to sit across a desk with Rudy Guede
and rip him a new ^^^^^^^, the lyin', rapist and murderer that Rudy is!
My thoughts only, :D
RW
 
Last edited:
Supercalifragilistic said:
Stipulated by whom, precisely?

If I were Rudy I'd sue you for that. He may be a co-murderer but he has rights, which he might want to establish when he's served his time (and the other two are starting theirs).
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that. It s pretty much agreed that Amanda and Raffaele wouldn't be able to sue any of the scumbags that have said some horrible and false things about them....but you think Rudy can?

So out of curiosity, do your really think the US is going to extradite "the girl next door"?
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
Stipulated by whom, precisely?

If I were Rudy I'd sue you for that. He may be a co-murderer but he has rights, which he might want to establish when he's served his time (and the other two are starting theirs).
Click to expand...

Judge Nencini in his motivations report refers to Rudy as a professional burglar. And for this reason, Nencini says such a professional would not break-in through a second story window - a professional would have more than enough expertise to come in the front door, lock or no lock.

Added to this, Nencini says that Rudy would have never stopped for a crap in the middle of a burglary, therefore he had to be there with *someone's* consent. Since this "consent" did not come from Meredith, acc. to Nencini, then it must have been Amanda who let him in.

Compare all this with Rudy Guede's actual claims. Y'know, the claims that are the sole source for the "Meredith and Amanda were fighting over rent money," Nencini says is the reason for the murder.

In those claims, of which the ONLY one Nencini cherry-picks is to do with the "rent money", Rudy also says he'd had a date with Meredith and Meredith had let him in. And in that version of Rudy's ever changing scenario, Amanda is not even there. It is an unknown assailant, acc. to Rudy, who strikes when he's (consentually, and non-professionally) crapping in the toilet.

What has always struck me as strange about Rudy's story of it being Meredith letting him in....

....... why's he crapping in Laura's/Filomena's toilet if he's Meredith's guest?

This is esp. germane given that Crini's theory, the Florence prosecutor, was that Meredith and Amanda were fighting over crap in Filomena's/Laura's toilet. Putting those two theories together, why would Meredith allow Rudy (the two of them alone in the cottage acc. to Rudy) to crap in Laura's/Filomena's toilet?

So it is Nencini who has stipulated what AngloLawyer has stated, and it will be Rudy suing YOU for your claim he was crapping in the wrong toilet.

Or will he be suing me? I get so confused....
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
<Snip>

However one thing I did notice, on I think the Daily Mail site; they had resized the photo to make the Amanda and mystery person appear to be the same size on the page. Mystery person image had clearly been zoomed, and the photo selected for comparison had the feet in the closest position possible to create the appearance of similarity in both size and body position.

That type of presentation is inherently deceptive, so WELL DONE BRITS! Once again you have distinguished yourselves as craven crazed 'guilters' baying at the moon like rabid wolves. (Apologies to all our non-rabid Brit friends, but let's face it, Italy and the UK have a perception issue on this case).
Click to expand...

I am only ever aware the Daily Mail has published something related to this case usually when a non-Brit posts a link here, weird.
 
Hi CoulsdonUK,
As you have followed the death of Meredith Kercher, a hometown girl,
and the Italian Court trials for years, what, if any questions would you ask of The Spanish Erasmus,
who had drinks with Rudy Guede the night before Miss Kercher was raped and brutally slain?

For 1 of them as an article posted that recently was "discovered" by the English speaking world!

Did they ever see Rudy meetin' up with Amanda Knox?
Or Raffaele Sollecito?
Or Meredith???

Esh, some of these Spanish girlz, livin' in the same building, did laundry with Rudy.
Surely they, like most girlz do, know the gist of what Rudy Guede is all about...
Got any questions?

Just wonderin' of your thoughts today,
here in L.A.
RW
 
Last edited:
MDDVS said:
Things like this ******** about professional burglars is what irritates me about this case. How can someone take reasoning like this seriously? This is the type of arguments you hear in pre-school or something. Just making things up on the spot. "Professional burglars enter through doors, not windows". Give me a break.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. For example, everyone knows that Santa Claus comes in through the chimney. Ergo, if a guy comes in through the chimney, then he is Santa. As proof of this, I know a guy who once tried to get into a house through a chimney and he got stuck and the fire department had to get him out. Not Santa.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I am only ever aware the Daily Mail has published something related to this case usually when a non-Brit posts a link here, weird.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity Coulsdon? Do you use Google News and Google alert? Lots of people are set up to receive an email alert any time anything is published about Amanda. Google spiders pretty much all the major publications and most of the minor pubs many times a day. And as soon as Google finds an article that used the term "Amanda Knox" any one that has a google alert set up gets an email.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom