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

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
ETA and before I forget, Grinder will also tell us he takes his favourite fish knife everywhere when visiting friends for dinner, just in case they don't have one. Puh-leeeezzze!
Click to expand...

I thought that was Raf. Are you angling for a peaceful evening? :p
 
Grinder said:
Now? :D

For the defense argument to work the time on the CCTV needed to show a time before the actually PP arrived. The clock had to be slow.
Click to expand...

Either way works against the defense or the prosecution on the Postal Police argument. If the police argues that is Amanda and it is 9:03, then their argument that Raffaele called the Postal police after Meredith arrived is wrong. Or contradicting that if that is Amanda and 8:43 then it is within a minute of when Ms. Popovich met her at the door of Raffaele's apartment but Raffaele DID call the police after the Postal police arrived. Cuts either way. so no one argued that this was Amanda.
 
anglolawyer said:
But tesla, he did get caught sooner or later (in Milan with a stolen laptop - duh). That doesn't prove he wasn't a dumb schmuck using a bad business model, but the opposite.
Click to expand...

??? :boggled: No, it proves that sooner or later he is going to get caught and the effort involved in selling a couple of laptops doesn't bring enough money to go to jail. ...but of course he didn't go to jail. Give me an art or jewelry thief over someone who steals electronics Anglo. Give me something of real value. Let me sucker people into buying worthless stocks like Jordan Belfort or Bernie Madoff. I mean, if you're going to steal and cheat, make it worthwhile....become a lawyer...grin
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
I thought that was Raf. Are you angling for a peaceful evening? :p
Click to expand...

Actually, I am pretty sure you did once say something about taking your cutlery with you on social occasions. You were deflating my mockery of Machiavelli's fish dinner theory of the crime, now consigned to the trash can of history by Nonsencini. In that theory, Raf and Amanda headed over to her place for a fish dinner, followed by the town cats, with Raf bringing the indispensable knife. It fell down on extraordinarily accurate Toto's stubborn refusal to admit he saw any cats, but for which it was doing OK for a while.
 
Grinder said:
Now? :D

For the defense argument to work the time on the CCTV needed to show a time before the actually PP arrived. The clock had to be slow.
Click to expand...

I am a bit slow here. Amanada in her blog just states to a PGP poster that the time on the CCTV footage is 8.53. So, should she have further explained what the true time actually was?

And what in fact was the true time, according to posters here?
If the real time was 9.03 then the clock is slow
If the real time was 8.43 then the clock is fast.

What answer helps the defence in terms of arguing that Sollecito did not ring the police. Grinder, you say that 8.43 would be the better time for the defence argument. Can anyone kindly provide a link for this being the correct time? (And are we certain that this clock is relevant to this particular point?)
Why does Amanda not go into more detail about the time controversy in her post rather than just point out that the time states 8.53?
As she says:  This video is dated at 8:53 pm. the night of the murder. It is a proven fact that Raffaele and I were both at his apartment at that time. Whoever that woman was, she wasn’t me.
This is simply another desperate attempt to use equivocal clues outside of the crime scene itself in order to try to put me at the crime scene. But the crime scene exonerates me. If I had participated in Meredith’s murder, there would be physical evidence of my presence.

If the real time was 9.03 (clock slow) does this help her argument that she was at Sollecito's at the time, or does it make it slightly less rock solid? (Even though it clearly isn't Amanda and the slow clock argument helps the defence argument that Sollecito did not ring the police late)
Have I sort of got the arguments right?
I appreciate the posters on this site.
 
acbytesla said:
??? :boggled: No, it proves that sooner or later he is going to get caught and the effort involved in selling a couple of laptops doesn't bring enough money to go to jail. ...but of course he didn't go to jail. Give me an art or jewelry thief over someone who steals electronics Anglo. Give me something of real value. Let me sucker people into buying worthless stocks like Jordan Belfort or Bernie Madoff. I mean, if you're going to steal and cheat, make it worthwhile....become a lawyer...grin
Click to expand...

Look, this is my wheelhouse! Got that? :D

If your point is there are more lucrative lives of crime, fine. Rudy was a schmuck bound to get caught sooner or later as in fact he was. Now, stop arguing. I have thoroughly researched his business model and satisfied myself beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a pro-burglar (so sue me supercal! :p) operating near the bottom of the market, going up and down to Milan to hawk his wares, until he got busted.
 
Diocletus said:
Right, but I think that the point that is being made is that the prosecution was claiming in 2009 that the clock was 10 minutes fast (so they could prove their lie about calling 112 after the police arrived), and therefore they could not use an 8:53 video of "Amanda" at the garage, because she would have been talking to Popovic at that time (i.e., 8:43 if the clock is fast as claimed by the prosecution).

So, weighing the damage that would be done by the 112 Call issue, against the possibility of anyone identifying the video to Amanda Knox, they went with the "clock fast" story and disregarded the video.

Now we know the video is really from 9:03. In fact, the person in the video might be the second-to-last person to have seen Kercher alive. Too bad the police didn't investigate the lead, but I suppose it would have rubbished their silly 112 argument/lie if they had actually done their job, investigated, and found the person. So, they didn't.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your insightful post, Diocletus. You have dissected the Perugia detective squad and proven them incompetent once again. There is no reason for them to fail to identify the person who was videotaped walking through the parking garage within two minutes of Meredith approaching her home. If I were Meredith's family, I would be outraged at this blatant failure!
 
toto said:
If the real time was 9.03 (clock slow) does this help her argument that she was at Sollecito's at the time, or does it make it slightly less rock solid? (Even though it clearly isn't Amanda and the slow clock argument helps the defence argument that Sollecito did not ring the police late)
Have I sort of got the arguments right?
I appreciate the posters on this site.
Click to expand...

Not sure why it matters. . . . .Almost certainly it is not her.
Did you know that NASA found Bigfoot on Mars?
See, Pictures
 
toto said:
I am a bit slow here. Amanada in her blog just states to a PGP poster that the time on the CCTV footage is 8.53. So, should she have further explained what the true time actually was?

And what in fact was the true time, according to posters here?
If the real time was 9.03 then the clock is slow
If the real time was 8.43 then the clock is fast.
Click to expand...

The clock was slow. The PP arrived later than the time stamp making Raf's 411 call before they arrived.

What answer helps the defence in terms of arguing that Sollecito did not ring the police. Grinder, you say that 8.43 would be the better time for the defence argument. Can anyone kindly provide a link for this being the correct time? (And are we certain that this clock is relevant to this particular point?)
Click to expand...

See above. 9:03 is better for the calls worse for "Amanda" arriving.


Why does Amanda not go into more detail about the time controversy in her post rather than just point out that the time states 8.53?
As she says:  This video is dated at 8:53 pm. the night of the murder. It is a proven fact that Raffaele and I were both at his apartment at that time. Whoever that woman was, she wasn’t me.
This is simply another desperate attempt to use equivocal clues outside of the crime scene itself in order to try to put me at the crime scene. But the crime scene exonerates me. If I had participated in Meredith’s murder, there would be physical evidence of my presence.
Click to expand...

She didn't cite Locard :confused:

Sometimes it seems insiders miss some important things.

If the real time was 9.03 (clock slow) does this help her argument that she was at Sollecito's at the time, or does it make it slightly less rock solid? (Even though it clearly isn't Amanda and the slow clock argument helps the defence argument that Sollecito did not ring the police late)
Have I sort of got the arguments right?
I appreciate the posters on this site.
Click to expand...

To me 8:43 would be better as Popovic was there at Raf's at about that time. The interaction with the computer after 9 would help more if the video had a man in it as well.

Where's FB face recognition?
 
Grinder said:
The clock was slow. The PP arrived later than the time stamp making Raf's 411 call before they arrived.



See above. 9:03 is better for the calls worse for "Amanda" arriving.




She didn't cite Locard :confused:

Sometimes it seems insiders miss some important things.



To me 8:43 would be better as Popovic was there at Raf's at about that time. The interaction with the computer after 9 would help more if the video had a man in it as well.

Where's FB face recognition?
Click to expand...

Thanks Grinder, and I should really have read the preceding posters, but I have got it now.
 
What were Lalli's reasons?

Grinder said:
Chris - the same coroner that declared there was nothing in the duodenum determined that the sex was consensual IIRC. I can give links to stories from the 3rd and 4th if you want. That was the genesis for the sex party gone wrong.
Click to expand...
Grinder,

What was the evidence behind his assertion? The Duke lacrosse case (more specifically, Tara Levicy's report) is instructive on why one should not take these things at face value. If the links have that sort of information, they would be very interesting. A visual exam may not pick up everything. That is why I provided another citation for a colposcope yesterday. IIUC there is a recording of Dr. Lalli correctly tying off the duodenum; therefore, we have independent evidence on that front. And I don't have any reason to believe that he did anything incorrectly in his determination of alcohol levels.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Look, this is my wheelhouse! Got that? :D

If your point is there are more lucrative lives of crime, fine. Rudy was a schmuck bound to get caught sooner or later as in fact he was. Now, stop arguing. I have thoroughly researched his business model and satisfied myself beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a pro-burglar (so sue me supercal! :p) operating near the bottom of the market, going up and down to Milan to hawk his wares, until he got busted.
Click to expand...

I see your point, anglolawyer, about Rudy being a burglar but I wonder if he regularly went to peddle items in Milan. Did he go there that often that it was a regular way for him to convert items into cash?

As for the computers in his room, they are desktops aren't they? If they were laptops, I would have expected them to be described as laptops/notebooks. Desktops are not very portable. Kinda bulky to take with you to Milan. Which may be why they were piling up in his room.

I think he was a burglar who sold small items for cash, but was likely stuck with bigger computers that he couldn't easily unload. And that is an issue the police should have looked into. Turn on those computers and see to whom they belonged. And don't fry them in the process.

Is there any information on whether or not the police investigated the computers? The defense should know this, just as they should know all about Rudy's cell phone call history. Unless the police and prosecution keep this relevant and crucial information from the defense. :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Look, this is my wheelhouse! Got that? :D

If your point is there are more lucrative lives of crime, fine. Rudy was a schmuck bound to get caught sooner or later as in fact he was. Now, stop arguing. I have thoroughly researched his business model and satisfied myself beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a pro-burglar (so sue me supercal! :p) operating near the bottom of the market, going up and down to Milan to hawk his wares, until he got busted.
Click to expand...

lmao... I agree with everything you said except the part that Rudy was a pro-burglar. I think he was semi-pro...a beginner...someone who had committed probably under twenty or thirty burglaries. If he was truly a professional, he would have gotten in and gotten out of his victims homes as quickly as possible. The last thing a burglar really wants is to encounter is the resident. That is what made him very dangerous and scary. Look at it his burglaries... He surprises Cristian, while he's home..he hangs out and eats at Ms. Diaz home and is caught in the nursery and then the cottage.

I saw a Dateline special once where it showed a "true professional". The thief showed how he could break into just about any house in under 30 seconds and how they would race into a house and get out usually in under a few minutes tops. He said he would often burglarize ten or twenty homes in a day!
 
anglolawyer said:
Look, this is my wheelhouse! Got that? :D

If your point is there are more lucrative lives of crime, fine. Rudy was a schmuck bound to get caught sooner or later as in fact he was. Now, stop arguing. I have thoroughly researched his business model and satisfied myself beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a pro-burglar (so sue me supercal! :p) operating near the bottom of the market, going up and down to Milan to hawk his wares, until he got busted.
Click to expand...

It is clear he was a fence and knew he could only be charged with possession of stolen property.

The question is for whom was he fencing. Did he work this business with Koko or another Albanian?

Anglo the research on the value of the computers is proof that he had plenty of resources to pay his rent.
 
Grinder said:
It is clear he was a fence and knew he could only be charged with possession of stolen property.

The question is for whom was he fencing. Did he work this business with Koko or another Albanian?

Anglo the research on the value of the computers is proof that he had plenty of resources to pay his rent.
Click to expand...

Man, I like you Grinder. You may just be the most argumentative person on the planet. Are you sure you weren't the lawyer? How may computers did he have? Three? Four? Five??

I could show you a pile of computer equipment and unless you know what is inside them, you wouldn't be able to assess whether it had real value or if it was worthless. So the Spanish girls saying there was a bunch of computers in his apartment doesn't really tell us all that much
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom