Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

I'm glad of this as Ergon answered me a few hours ago this way.

what's the distance from the concrete planter to the window? I know, clearly you do not. It's impossible to swing across the way you describe.

Are you suggesting holding the wall corner or the roof tiles as I suggest? The wall corner risks a three metre plummet at a bad angle unless my imagination is wrong.

Why do they make this harder than it is? YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOLD THE WALL CORNER OR THE ROOF TILES. There a sill and a window frame, that is actually quite deep.

 

[Samson]

Why do they make this harder than it is? YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOLD THE WALL CORNER OR THE ROOF TILES. There a sill and a window frame, that is actually quite deep.

The discussion is about opening the green shutters before throwing the rock, not climbing in, as in Ron Hendry which was my first exposure to the case. Before I heard of Dan.

 

[Dan O.]

Do I really need to post a buncha pix of fibers and hair strands, some even over exposed,
to prove my point that it was a blonde hair strand that Miss Kercher was found clutching in her dying hand?
Another 1 was found upon examination of her vagina. Weird how they were BOTH lost.
And yet you don't believe me they were blonde hairs...

I wouldn't believe a bunch of photos. But if you had an expert eye witness that examined this in person and declared that it was a blond hair I would have to accept that in lou of any contrary evidence. Or maybe not. Perhaps I would hold out for a contemporaneous video of the discovery where the witness makes the declaration.

 

[Dan O.]

Final version AK Phone Traffic Oct 1 - November 6

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AK_Phone_Traffic.pdf

It could use a summary. Especially for the unidentified numbers. What is the country, city and provider for each number.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm glad of this as Ergon answered me a few hours ago this way.

what's the distance from the concrete planter to the window? I know, clearly you do not. It's impossible to swing across the way you describe.

Are you suggesting holding the wall corner or the roof tiles as I suggest? The wall corner risks a three metre plummet at a bad angle unless my imagination is wrong.

The reach from the wall corner to the center of the shutters is something like 1.5 - 1.6 meters. A foot can be placed either on the rock outcrops of the slope or the window grate below for stability.

The alternative is just climbing up from below. We've seen the video of how easy that is. In that video we also see there is a slope oposite the window which offers a superior intermediate position for the rock toss.

 

[Samson]

The reach from the wall corner to the center of the shutters is something like 1.5 - 1.6 meters. A foot can be placed either on the rock outcrops of the slope or the window grate below for stability.

The alternative is just climbing up from below. We've seen the video of how easy that is. In that video we also see there is a slope oposite the window which offers a superior intermediate position for the rock toss.

Hendry says

Rudy climbs atop the two foot high concrete planter under the roof overhang and near Filamena Romanelli’s window. Rudy carefully positions himself next to and facing the corner of the brick wall. Then he leans out with his left hand while holding onto the brick wall corner with his right hand until he reaches the right outer window shutter. He grabs the shutter and pulls it to a fully open position.

Having re-examined the photos it makes sense if reachable, to stand on the ground/rocks below, with right hand grasping the top of planter and corner of house, grasp low left corner of right shutter with left hand, and open.

I will assume this is what you mean, if it is all stretchable. It is much more out of sight so better.

 

[anglolawyer]

Final version AK Phone Traffic Oct 1 - November 6

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AK_Phone_Traffic.pdf

Machiavelli

Please pick out the calls to and from the drugs ring.

I work in addictions and definitely agree that some people can keep up a reasonable facade of normality and respectability, even when using large amounts of drugs. However, this is usually because they have money and very good social and family support - and often because they are still reasonably young. However, even in the most respectable looking people, there is usually huge amounts of chaos if you scratch beneath the surface of their lives.

However, Curatolo didn't have money and didn't have any social support - and was in his 50s and was definitely not someone who was still managing to live a productive and in any way reliable life. Twice a day he would have started to feel withdrawal symptoms kicking in and then there would have been the scramble and chaos of finding more heroin. He would unlikely still be smoking heroin as this just wouldn't be affordable and injecting takes a huge toll on your body. As a long term injector of heroin, he would likely have vein and nerve damage, possibly be Hep C +ve, possibly had bacterial endocarditis, likely suffered from blood clots and pulmonary emboli - usually by someone's 50s, their body is not in a good way, which would likely explain why he died shortly afterwards at such a young age.

It's also rare that people using heroin will only use heroin - this might be possible if you have enough money to always have a large supply of heroin. However, if living on the street there was likely days he couldn't get enough of what he needed and instead would drink heavily, use cannabis, benzodiazepines - whatever he could get his hands on to stop the withdrawals from getting too bad.

Even saying all this, being a heroin addict in itself does not make you an unreliable witness. If he had reported to the police the day after the murder that he had seen two young people in the square, accurately described them and then picked them out of a line-up, his testimony would likely be believable. Instead you have him coming forward a year later, which would have been after seeing pictures of Amanda/Raffaele in the papers daily - and claiming super human feats of memory, even though he would have seen them in the dark, had never met either of them, had no reason to preseve this memory and was obviously even confused about the date when questioned. He would also be likely to tell the journalist, prosecution whatever they wanted to hear, if they gave him enough money to get his next heroin

Thanks Nancy. When is Vibio going to acknowledge the value of this information?

Hendry says

Rudy climbs atop the two foot high concrete planter under the roof overhang and near Filamena Romanelli’s window. Rudy carefully positions himself next to and facing the corner of the brick wall. Then he leans out with his left hand while holding onto the brick wall corner with his right hand until he reaches the right outer window shutter. He grabs the shutter and pulls it to a fully open position.

Having re-examined the photos it makes sense if reachable, to stand on the ground/rocks below, with right hand grasping the top of planter and corner of house, grasp low left corner of right shutter with left hand, and open.

I will assume this is what you mean, if it is all stretchable. It is much more out of sight so better.

Why can't the shutter have been open anyway, due to the wind? Whatever. If the stupid PGPs want to argue the break-in was impossible due to the inaccessibility of the shutter, let them. They obviously haven't read the collected works of The Great Nencini (an Italian pro-guilt judge and therefore a fount of wisdom). Rudy, the pro-burglar would have snorted at the window and gone in through the door making this discussion irrelevant.

 

[Dan O.]

Hendry says

Rudy climbs atop the two foot high concrete planter under the roof overhang and near Filamena Romanelli’s window. Rudy carefully positions himself next to and facing the corner of the brick wall. Then he leans out with his left hand while holding onto the brick wall corner with his right hand until he reaches the right outer window shutter. He grabs the shutter and pulls it to a fully open position.

Having re-examined the photos it makes sense if reachable, to stand on the ground/rocks below, with right hand grasping the top of planter and corner of house, grasp low left corner of right shutter with left hand, and open.

I will assume this is what you mean, if it is all stretchable. It is much more out of sight so better.

For the climb up the stretch is less. Standing on the lower bar of the lower window while grabing the top bar, the shutter is only 1.51 meters up. Any amature 180 cm climber should be able to do that

Of course, if he didn't want to hang out there, he could just grab the mop that Laura says was in the garden area outside (planters?) and use that to reach and open the shutter. Task complete and nobody from a distance would even notice anything unusual in the dark.

 

[Dan O.]

Why can't the shutter have been open anyway, due to the wind? Whatever. If the stupid PGPs want to argue the break-in was impossible due to the inaccessibility of the shutter, let them. They obviously haven't read the collected works of The Great Nencini (an Italian pro-guilt judge and therefore a fount of wisdom). Rudy, the pro-burglar would have snorted at the window and gone in through the door making this discussion irrelevant.

The door was a solid wood construction with a tripple deadbolt lock. Of course, Rudy would have no way of knowing that two weeks earlier Laura's handyman friend that spent the night unannounced to the other residents apparently jimmied the lock so that two of the deadbolts operated by the handle would no longer function and only the center lock engaged with the key would keep the door closed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Who is this Hendry poser? I had posted within these threads the calculated distance from the the corner of the wall to the center of the shutters and demonstrated for myself by marking the distance on a similar wall and making the reach that this was indeed doable and quite easy and this was all long before the name Hendry is mentioned.

I'm glad of this as Ergon answered me a few hours ago this way.

what's the distance from the concrete planter to the window? I know, clearly you do not. It's impossible to swing across the way you describe.

Are you suggesting holding the wall corner or the roof tiles as I suggest? The wall corner risks a three metre plummet at a bad angle unless my imagination is wrong.

Guilters like Ergon keep needing to reinterpret the obvious. Rather than simply be led by the obvious - that everything to do with the actual break-in Rudy Guede achieved through Filomena's window - they need to make it be something else.

Like Judge Massei did in his 2010 motivations report, explaining why in Dec 2009 he convicted Sollecito and Knox. His section on why Rudy wouldn't have climbed in the window...

...... please read that it was Massei's position that he wouldn't have....

..... not that it was "impossible to do", but that Rudy would not have gone up to Filomena's window the necessary three times (in Massei's reconstruction)......

.... his section is designed to explain away the obvious. The obvious is what was demonstrated in the channel 5 documentary, where it was obvious that a reasonable fit 20-something pick-up basketball player could have done the thing with ease.

ETA - please also note that Judge Nencini in 2014 does not argue the climb's impossibility. Using an explanation no one before him used, Nencini argued that Rudy was too professional to do the climb, that an accomplished burglar like Rudy would have had no trouble going in through the front door, even if locked.... but pay attantion to "couldn't have" versus "wouldn't have" as guilters try to explain away the obvious....​

​

Ok, this is not the rock-throwing.... but that, too, requires guilters to explain away the obvious. One guilter, many moons ago, apparently ruined the family dining room china cabinet throwing oranges against it. What his conclusion was is anyone's guess.

It is hard work being a guilter. And rest assured all this will be repeated when the next guilter comes out trying to make difficult the simple stuff.

 

[Dan O.]

Final version AK Phone Traffic Oct 1 - November 6

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AK_Phone_Traffic.pdf

OMFSM!! There is a huge gap in Amanda's phone record from the evening of October 24 to late morning of the 26 when Amanda first calls Raffaele. We're they out on a mass murder spree for those 38 hours? Why have no bodies been discovered? Why are there no missing persons reports?

 

[carbonjam72]

Not sure if Randy posted this, but Frank claims Curatolo said he never saw AK/RS that night. Here's a quote from the link Randy provided.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182717/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

See Entry for April 18, 2008 ( a bit down the page).

QUOTE: By the way, about the facts, what Antonio Curatolo told me is that that night he didn't see anyone at the basketball court. But what counts is what he told the police and to the police he said to have seen Amanda and Raffaele out of the cottage. After all he's an expert witness. Already in 2001 he testified against a a Tunisian (who allegely killed his girl by the swimming pool) and he got him condemned.

For his tv appearance it seems that Toto has been tricked: he didn't know his interview as anonymous, supercovered and superprotected "supertestimone" was for Porta a Porta, otherwise, he says, he would have never released it. As for Bruno Vespa, indeed, his judgment is clear: "I can't stand him". END QUOTE

 

[Planigale]

Going back to the police report about drug use mentioning Amanda KNOX. This is dated a full year prior to the trial of Sollecito and Knox, when they were being held in prison. This would be part of the police investigation of Sollecito and Knox. This was an internal police document, background briefing. I think that what is important is what it does not say. It does not speculate about Knox being in contact with the circle of drug dealers. If she had been it would have said so. This means that the police had investigated and failed to find any contact. As this was part of their investigation, if they had found evidence it would likely have formed part of their subsequent case. So what I think one can logically conclude from this document is that the police attempted to find a direct connection between Knox and drug dealers named in this document and failed to do so. They also failed to find any evidence of cocaine use. It would seem possible the 'Frederico' may have supplied cannabis / marijuana to Knox. Something she admitted to and so there was no point in the prosecution pursuing. If the prosecution had been able to demonstrate she used cocaine they would have done so as she denied it, and this would have been used to discredit her. So I think what one can conclude from this document is that the prosecution / police investigated Knox for cocaine use and links to drug dealers and failed to find any evidence.

The assumption of a sexual relationship is one echoed by Mach. It seems to be assumed (in Italy) that all women will be in sexual relationships with their 'dealer'. Even if this involves soft drugs such as marijuana. Since all four women in this flat used marijuana, one can assume all four were in a relationship with a dealer. This may be true for MK whom we know was in a relationship with a boy downstairs who was growing marijuana, and presumably supplied it to her.

Claiming that this shows Knox was in contact with a drug dealing ring, or was using cocaine is almost the opposite of what this document says.

 

[Bill Williams]

Going back to the police report about drug use mentioning Amanda KNOX. This is dated a full year prior to the trial of Sollecito and Knox, when they were being held in prison. This would be part of the police investigation of Sollecito and Knox. This was an internal police document, background briefing. I think that what is important is what it does not say. It does not speculate about Knox being in contact with the circle of drug dealers. If she had been it would have said so. This means that the police had investigated and failed to find any contact. As this was part of their investigation, if they had found evidence it would likely have formed part of their subsequent case. So what I think one can logically conclude from this document is that the police attempted to find a direct connection between Knox and drug dealers named in this document and failed to do so. They also failed to find any evidence of cocaine use. It would seem possible the 'Frederico' may have supplied cannabis / marijuana to Knox. Something she admitted to and so there was no point in the prosecution pursuing. If the prosecution had been able to demonstrate she used cocaine they would have done so as she denied it, and this would have been used to discredit her. So I think what one can conclude from this document is that the prosecution / police investigated Knox for cocaine use and links to drug dealers and failed to find any evidence.

The assumption of a sexual relationship is one echoed by Mach. It seems to be assumed (in Italy) that all women will be in sexual relationships with their 'dealer'. Even if this involves soft drugs such as marijuana. Since all four women in this flat used marijuana, one can assume all four were in a relationship with a dealer. This may be true for MK whom we know was in a relationship with a boy downstairs who was growing marijuana, and presumably supplied it to her.

Claiming that this shows Knox was in contact with a drug dealing ring, or was using cocaine is almost the opposite of what this document says.

This.

But like everything that has been lobbed at Knox and Sollecito recently, even this allegation will fade... because as part of the guilter-PR machine, it is simply lobbed out there not to prove anything, but to create an impression.

The PR machine is even bragging about their efforts on Twitter.

 

[Desert Fox]

This.

But like everything that has been lobbed at Knox and Sollecito recently, even this allegation will fade... because as part of the guilter-PR machine, it is simply lobbed out there not to prove anything, but to create an impression.

The PR machine is even bragging about their efforts on Twitter.

Maybe it is just me but if the best you can throw out is PR not actual evidence, just makes you look like a smuck.

 

[Annella]

Bruce Fischer has just posted Amanda Knox Appeal summary to Supreme Court at wrongfulconvictionnews. A summary by Luca Cheli.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Makes for great reading IMO.

 

[MichaelB]

Delete

 

[Desert Fox]

Bruce Fischer has just posted Amanda Knox Appeal summary to Supreme Court at wrongfulconvictionnews. A summary by Luca Cheli.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Makes for great reading IMO.

I wonder about something here. . . .
The Italian Supreme Court probably does not want to say that the courts of appeal are wrong. Therefore, I wonder if the first one might be what they might choose to lock into. This way they could repeal the verdict based on a technicality while still protecting the other courts.

 

[Strozzi]

The Washington Post just published an article concerning the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas. The article details efforts by the prosecutor in that case to secure testimony against Willingham by an inmate and then to reward the inmate for it, even though the prosecutor and inmate claimed at the time of the Willingham trial that there was no offer of assistance. Letters from the prosecutor to the inmate prove the assistance, which indicate prosecutorial misconduct and would have been grounds for a mistrial or appeal.

You may see the article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-doubts-over-a-texas-execution/?hpid=z1

 

[anglolawyer]

Bruce Fischer has just posted Amanda Knox Appeal summary to Supreme Court at wrongfulconvictionnews. A summary by Luca Cheli.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Makes for great reading IMO.

Great work by Luca Cheli. Some strong stuff in there. For no particular reason I pick out this part:

It is also a serious violation of the principles of evidence evaluation the fact that multiple times the Judge has considered as evidence against the defendant the lack of justification by the latter and her lawyers for elements which are extraneous or unknown to the defense, as well exemplified on page 88 of the challenged ruling:
“And indeed the insisted ringing of a cell phone inside a locked room could have made suspicious anyone who had found himself inside the apartment, causing the premature opening of the door and discovery of the murder.
With respect to this explanation, which appears to be the only rational one this Court reckons being able to give to the factual datum, it is also easy to notice how an alternative explanation to this singular fact has not been given by any of the defendants, nor by their lawyers. The theft of the cell phones has been completely ignored by the defendants’ defenses when reconstructing the events of that night”.
Why should have the defense found an explanation for extraneous, unknown facts?

I had to read that a couple of times to get it. The phones were stolen because otherwise they might have been heard ringing unanswered through Meredith's locked door causing an earlier-than-desired intervention. The defence offered no other explanation and this failure adds weight to the inference. Unbelievable, and not only because switching off the phones would have served the purpose much better since it would not have risked being spotted in a strange part of town. Rudy may have stolen the phones and locked the door because he thought others would be returning later that night (Nencini's theory IOW but one that is consistent with innocence) or he may have stolen them as valuable property before ditching them after realising they were too hot.

Any PGPs want to argue this one out or are we all agreed that Nencini is a moron whose ruling must be quashed in the interests of justice?