Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I think the case is sound and closed beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see it as weak. It is iron-clad as for the amount of evidence.

There is lack of information on certain areas about events, but this is normal and must nor be confused with weakness of a case. A case does not equate to a scenario or a narrative or timeline of events, this needs to be clear.

LOL.

 

[Machiavelli]

All of it. It is a fraud.

Here is a real photo of what stain may be left when a red liquid (somewhat viscous) is placed on a knife, the knife is placed on a paper towel, lifted off, and the resulting stain photographed.

(..)

I am afraid I can't make sense of what you say. You are saying that the print is not compatible with the murder weapon, because you immersed your knife handle into spaghetti sauce?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.

So say you.

Come visit me and I'll introduce you to someone who says it is a highly probable point of entry, with a high probability of fast and easy success.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, y'know, he could have acquitted her on the grounds of not proven, as it were. Since there was no record of the interview, he couldn't adjudicate on which party was lying.

But otherwise, yes, the spirit of Lord Denning is alive and well.

She said she wrote her written memorials voluntarily.
And, in fact, there is not much difference between Knox's claims and the police version about the 01:45 interrogation, the only difference being the hitting at the back of her head.

 

[Numbers]

Rudy's alleged MO would be to use the metal grating of the downstairs door at the back to reach the balcony, and break in through the windows not visible from the street (as the newspapers correctly reports btw) just like the other true burglars did as they broke into the cottage.

But in fact if you believe he entered though Filomena's windows, rather than asking him, you should prove it.
I think there is evidence it is a staging.

There is no credible evidence of staging.

The alleged staging is a fraudulent proposition of the Italian police, prosecutors, and some of the Italian judiciary.


Here is some evidence:

The rock was clearly thrown from the outside, as shown by the glass shard in Filomena's room. There was shard embedded in the wooden shutter/casement. There was a glass shard photographed by Guede's shoe print in blood in the murder room.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito knew that Guede was a second-story man burglar, or that he was a burglar. Sollecito and Guede had never met until the pre-trial. Knox had met Guede once at the boys' flat downstairs and once when Guede came into Lumumba's bar. They would not have been familiar with his burglary MO.

However, the Perugian police may have been familiar with Guede's burglary MO.

 

[Machiavelli]

So say you.

Come visit me and I'll introduce you to someone who says it is a highly probable point of entry, with a high probability of fast and easy success.

The balcony will be still the logical point of entry, to any burglar (besides the other evidence of staging, of course).

 

[Samson]

Rudy's alleged MO would be to use the metal grating of the downstairs door at the back to reach the balcony, and break in through the windows not visible from the street (as the newspapers correctly reports btw) just like the other true burglars did as they broke into the cottage.

But in fact if you believe he entered though Filomena's windows, rather than asking him, you should prove it.
I think there is evidence it is a staging.

Mach, my post 2899 and Dan O post 2968 refute in multiple ways your proposition Amanda Knox knew there would be no one around in the 18 hour period under discussion. There is no way that Amanda could be sure to be uninterrupted in a staging, which is totally contrary to what you say. How do we deal with this, or are you happy for that false statement to be used in a portfolio of proveable false statements by you?

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no credible evidence of staging.

The alleged staging is a fraudulent proposition of the Italian police, prosecutors, and some of the Italian judiciary.


Here is some evidence:

The rock was clearly thrown from the outside, as shown by the glass shard in Filomena's room. There was shard embedded in the wooden shutter/casement. There was a glass shard photographed by Guede's shoe print in blood in the murder room.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito knew that Guede was a second-story man burglar, or that he was a burglar. Sollecito and Guede had never met until the pre-trial. Knox had met Guede once at the boys' flat downstairs and once when Guede came into Lumumba's bar. They would not have been familiar with his burglary MO.

However, the Perugian police may have been familiar with Guede's burglary MO.

Guede is not a "second story burglar", at best - even if not proven - he is a "balcony burglar", who never expressed a penchant for hazardous climbings over easy ones.

The rock could be well thrown from the outside, yet it is not sure and certainly that's not evidence, because also a stager would do that. Anyway, even on this point you do not take into account the external window shutters.

The glass also is just in the room but has little to do with Guede's shoeprint, unless you prove it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, my post 2899 and Dan O post 2968 refute in multiple ways your proposition Amanda Knox knew there would be no one around in the 28 hour period under discussion. There is no way that Amanda could be sure to be uninterrupted in a staging, which is totally contrary to what you say. How do we deal with this, or are you happy for that false statement to be used in a portfolio of proveable false statements by you?

No but this is not what I'm saying Amanda Knox just knew Metedith and her would be alone at the cottage that night, since the downstairs boys were on holiday and Laura and Filomena IIRC used to leave at night on every weekend and holiday.

 

[Bill Williams]

The balcony will be still the logical point of entry, to any burglar (besides the other evidence of staging, of course).

Machiavelli - the one thing i will say in your favour, is that you show NO burglary instincts. If you were my neighbour, i would be safe from you.

You simply do not have a clue. By the time you read my post, a young reasonably fit male would be up and in Filomena's window. My friend who you will meet when you visit will walk you through it.

 

[Bill Williams]

She said she wrote her written memorials voluntarily.
And, in fact, there is not much difference between Knox's claims and the police version about the 01:45 interrogation, the only difference being the hitting at the back of her head.

Not much different!? LOL.

 

[Numbers]

I am afraid I can't make sense of what you say. You are saying that the print is not compatible with the murder weapon, because you immersed your knife handle into spaghetti sauce?

I don't expect you to understand.

A (rough) blood substitute - watered-down spaghetti sauce - was spooned onto the knife - handle and blade. I could have used some other liquid, but a small amount of spaghetti sauce was left over and convenient.

The point is to illustrate the stain that a liquid on a knife creates. There are obvious differences between blood, which has a viscosity that changes after it leaves the body, and is sticky, and clots over time, and the blood substitute I used. The points demonstrated by the experiment:

1. There is a gap in the stain between the handle and the blade. This is due to the knife resting on the blade tip area and the handle area nearest the blade. Thus, there is no contact with the paper towel (or sheet) in the area of the blade adjecent to the handle.

2. The part of the handle in contact with the paper towel (or sheet) leaves an approximately rectangular stain, conforming to the geometry (shape) of the handle.

3. In this experiment, the stain left by the blade was solid, while in the murder case, the stain of the blade consisted of edge markings. The difference is likely a result of the difference in material properties of the blood substitute in the experiment compared to real blood.

4. Based on the results mentioned in (2) and (1), the mock-up showing the large kitchen knife blade covering the solid approximately rectangular blood stain of the real case cannot be correct. The real knife blade had to be smaller, and the approximately rectangular stain is the image of the part of the handle nearest the blade.

 

[platonov]

The neverending story

If you were familiar with the evidence you would know that empirical simulations showed that no glass would be deposited in the garden if the glass was broken from the outside but would be if it was broken from the inside as suggested by the prosecution. therefore the lack of glass in the garden proves that the window was broken by a stone from outside.

And Wow again I’ll look back in tomorrow to see if you have figured it out.

And yet another case of ‘broken window perplexity’ – Kaosium don’t be angry with me but you must admit the recurrence of this stuff is astonishing.

Humour me Planigale (and I mean that literally) - What do you understand to be ‘the prosecution suggestion’ of how the window was broken?

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the case is sound and closed beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see it as weak. It is iron-clad as for the amount of evidence.

There is lack of information on certain areas about events, but this is normal and must nor be confused with weakness of a case. A case does not equate to a scenario or a narrative or timeline of events, this needs to be clear.

Any case has weaknesses unless you have video of the crime being done. . .
That you are not even willing to admit those problems shows that you are not being objective.

You keep talking about this evidence but you have none that holds up under scrutiny.

 

[Numbers]

Guede is not a "second story burglar", at best - even if not proven - he is a "balcony burglar", who never expressed a penchant for hazardous climbings over easy ones.

The rock could be well thrown from the outside, yet it is not sure and certainly that's not evidence, because also a stager would do that. Anyway, even on this point you do not take into account the external window shutters.

The glass also is just in the room but has little to do with Guede's shoeprint, unless you prove it.

No, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of someone.

Again, merely showing the association of the shard and the shoe print is a disproof of the prosecution case. Your attempting to reverse the burden of proof is illogical and laughable.

I believe I mentioned the shutters earlier, but they were pushed open, if they were closed (and Filomena stated in her first interview with police that she did not recall latching them), by the impact of the rock from outside. The rock would have not been slowed much by collision with the glass pane, because glass is a brittle material and shatters easily (meaning, taking little energy from the object impacting the glass). So the rock preceded the glass shards, forcing the shutters open if they were closed, and flying into the room followed by the shower of glass shards.

If you have ever broken a window accidentally with a baseball or softball, you will appreciate what I have written here.

ETA: My understanding is that Guede had to make a "hazardous" (to whom?) climb to the second-story balcony. The climbs he undertook had many handholds and footholds, they were not hazardous to an athletic person. Maybe the out-of-shape police and prosecutor of Perugia would find such climbs hazardous; the exertion could cause a heart-attack in a vulnerable person.

 

[lonepinealex]

If the balcony is such an obvious and concealed entry point, why wasn't it used in the staging?

 

[platonov]

Spoiled for choice

Platonov - you have actually raised salient points in the post above, but it gets lost in the strawman silliness. I wonder WHY you're here... but let me say:

The separation strategy is well spelled out in Raffaele's appeals document to Cassazione. Please read it. It's all there and you do not need to rely on the hate sites to misconstrue what Raffaele is saying, and has always said.

What you interpret as Raffaele throwing Knox under a bus, is summarized in that document approximately:

If you are going to accuse Amanda of those things, what does this have to do with me?​

This is in direct contrast to Nencini, for instance, saying that a piece of evidence which condemns one, equally condemns both. The separation strategy is a challenge to the condemning-court finding that all the evidence against either applies to the other.

​

This is both a strawman and a salient point, I guess. I'm not sure how you can say, "barely a mention of why this betrayal happened", when the ONLY people who are saying that are the pro-guilt lobby. Everyone else is mentioning it ad nauseum!!! It's just that they are talking about it in a way that "barely mentions" your strawman, that's all.

If you would read the consistent view Raffaele has had on that subject, he is up front in saying that it was his own confusion of Oct 31 and Nov 1, without the cops telling him, really, why it was important to distinguish the two. It only gradually dawned on him that Chiacchiera et al. were accusing Amanda of something sinister; and only gradually later that he was being dragged into this.

I wish you would actually read something other than the pro-guilt hate sites - they have the confirmation-biased, redacted view of all this.

Read the originals. Read his book, and read his appeals documents. (At the very least, post proof of your "news conference" nonsense, or quit appealing to it!)

Oh Bill - this is priceless

I may get back to you on the rest of the confusion in your post but I regret to inform you that despite this latest gem you may no longer be my favourite poster here.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmm. No that was the Birmingham 6.*
You appear to know as much about those cases [slightly famous MoJ’s in the UK I believe] as you do about the Perugia three.

So sue me. The May Inquiry was into the group of wrongful convictions of alleged IRA bombers. And I reported what was said about the forensics lab accurately. They were bent as a corkscrew. Cherry-picked results, conclusions massaged to what the police wanted.

I'd have thought you'd have been relieved that the Italian forensics lab wasn't alone in its shame.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei's conjecture

If you were familiar with the evidence you would know that empirical simulations showed that no glass would be deposited in the garden if the glass was broken from the outside but would be if it was broken from the inside as suggested by the prosecution. therefore the lack of glass in the garden proves that the window was broken by a stone from outside.

Planigale,

IIUC Massei's hypothesis is that someone broke the window by hitting the outside face, but only after the window had already been swung into the room. No one ever tested Massei's conjecture, but Sgt. Pasquali did test the defense's hypothesis. IMO Massei's theory predicts a different distribution of glass inside the room because the position of impact with respect to the room and the momentum of the rock are both different.

The other problem I have with Massei's version of events is that Amanda or Raffaele would have to break the window with a dead body in the flat, potentially alerting neighbors or anyone passing by. (because of the valley effect, the noise would amplify in the vicinity of Nara's apartment, and she would have heard it)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So sue me. The May Inquiry was into the group of wrongful convictions of alleged IRA bombers. And I reported what was said about the forensics lab accurately. They were bent as a corkscrew. Cherry-picked results, conclusions massaged to what the police wanted.

I'd have thought you'd have been relieved that the Italian forensics lab wasn't alone in its shame.

Rolfe,

Both Machiavelli and Platonov managed to score own goals recently, by bringing up sloppy and/or fraudulent forensics. It is both reassuring and disappointing that the same themes keep coming up in wrongful convictions based on poor forensics: poor record-keeping, cherry-picked results, lack of discovery, inability to understand the limitations of a presumptive test, etc.