Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

You'll find all the posters here - apart from me - make the leap of logic that being in possession of stolen property means, "Rudy's MO was as a cat burglar", when all it means is he had a stolen laptop.

Mike, what you will find if you continue reading this thread is that there is one current poster that is evidence deprived. Not only is Rudy in possession of the stollen laptop from the Lawyers office, he had the stollen phone from the same office. And, after he got sent back to Perugia he shows knowledge of the crime by returning to the scene.

I don't know why Vixen thinks it is important to bring up Rudy's race or the color of his skin in this debate. Most posters here don't even mention it except where it is quoted in the case file material. For some reason though, most PG posters such as Vixen think it is necessary to inject racial bias into this debate. Give it no mind.

 

[Grinder]

Some woman Rudy met in Milan in the nighclub and employee of a nursery, gave him the key so he could crash there for the night. She was sacked shortly after. Rudy was caught with a stolen laptop and a knife in his rucksack.

Fascinating Has this woman been identified? Is there an interview? Did he tell her about the laptop? Please provide a few links to sources on this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Vixen]

Koo koo

Are you an Italian lawyer Vixen? If not, what makes you qualified to make such a statement?

It's just my personal opinion. There are two leading theories as to the reason for the acquittals:

1. Mafia intervention (bribery and corruption)*
2. US State intervention

As no new evidence was introduced at the appeal stage, nor new legal points not already argued at trial, we can conclude the annulment was nothing to do with the evidence and facts found by Massei and Nencini.

*This theory includes Hellmanns intervention.

 

[Samson]

Country yes. As for gender and demograph, who can say? I don't think where people are from seems to have as much relevance as some seem to think on these forums.

I dunno. I see no reason to disregard biographical detail volunteered by posters. It would be against the MA to speculate though I imagine.

I can't imagine a world where age gender and ethnicity are irrelevant to the shaping of a discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Some woman Rudy met in Milan in the nighclub and employee of a nursery, gave him the key so he could crash there for the night. She was sacked shortly after. Rudy was caught with a stolen laptop and a knife in his rucksack.

Fascinating Has this woman been identified? Is there an interview? Did he tell her about the laptop? Please provide a few links to sources on this.

Thanks in advance.

Ask Nina Burleigh, it's all there in her dirt digging campaign to deflect blame away from her client, Amanda, whose pay she is/was in.

 

[Vixen]

Those that claim Raf says AK was out are saying he wasn't involved? They must be saying Curatolo lied. It's so hard trying to show they arre guilty.

IMV very much involved.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thus when he went to a party in Milan he found himself with nowhere to stay the night. Many a young partygoer ends up sleeping on a floor after missing the last train home.

Guede went to Milan to go to a party? Any evidence for that?

Some woman Rudy met in Milan in the nighclub and employee of a nursery, gave him the key so he could crash there for the night. She was sacked shortly after.

Are you sure about this? Who is this alleged woman who gave Guede the key? Where's the evidence about all this?

Rudy was caught with a stolen laptop and a knife in his rucksack.

Yes, and the stolen laptop just happened to come from a recently-burgled law office in Perugia, some 450km from Milan, and (purely coincidentally, of course), Guede's home town, from whence he'd just travelled to Milan. What are the odds, eh?!

Rudy claimed he bought it cheap. Burglars target laptops as they are easy to carry and highly saleable. It follows there is a market for stolen laptops, as there is for stolen mobile phones.

Yes, he did claim that. And yes, there is indeed a thriving black market in stolen laptops. But Guede claimed he "bought" it in Milan - a city 450km (that's 450km) away from Perugia, which is where the laptop was stolen. And we've already established that Guede had so little money he was dossing in a kindergarten. he also claims not to have had a mobile phone. Why therefore would he be buying a hot laptop?

In short, the circumstances make it entirely reasonable to conclude that Guede was only in possession of this laptop because he himself had stolen it, and that he was in Milan in part to try to sell it (I imagine that a) the market for this stuff in Milan was much more vibrant than in Perugia, and b) it would make much more sense to sell a laptop stolen in Perugia into a market a long way away from Perugia). That, and attending this mythical party, of course

 

[LondonJohn]

Ask Nina Burleigh, it's all there in her dirt digging campaign to deflect blame away from her client, Amanda, whose pay she is/was in.

Any shred of evidence (far less proof) for this nonsense?

Or is it even worth bothering asking for evidence/proof by now? After all, supporting evidence doesn't seem to be a strong point for Vixen. Especially as the claims and accusations get more and more whacky and fantastical. What would a psychologist have to say about that....?

 

[Grinder]

It is certainly possible that the Italian government was embarrassed by the case and that the State Department let them know extradition wouldn't be happening, in subtle ways.

Why is it permissible to postulate bribery or other corruption to account for the ISC's verdict but not for the investigation and trial of the first instance?

Why is it okay for Massei to alter the testimony of a witness to fit "facts" that turned out to be erroneous, but it is not okay for PIP to suggest his testimony is worthless?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's just my personal opinion. There are two leading theories as to the reason for the acquittals:

1. Mafia intervention (bribery and corruption)*
2. US State intervention

As no new evidence was introduced at the appeal stage, nor new legal points not already argued at trial, we can conclude the annulment was nothing to do with the evidence and facts found by Massei and Nencini.

*This theory includes Hellmanns intervention.

Complete and utter nonsense. And, of course, entirely unsupported by even a shred of evidence to that effect.

 

[lonepinealex]

I dunno. I see no reason to disregard biographical detail volunteered by posters. It would be against the MA to speculate though I imagine.

I can't imagine a world where age gender and ethnicity are irrelevant to the shaping of a discussion.

What I meant was, some people (e.g. Vixen) have made sweeping generalisations about the nationality of typical pro-innocence or pro-guilt posters, which I don't see borne out in reality. I haven't seen any consistency in age or gender in relation to views either. In any case, most of us are anonymous and could all be dogs, so any stats are suspect.

Vixen is clearly British, but I have no idea of their age or gender - what makes you think I am of a similar age?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is certainly possible that the Italian government was embarrassed by the case and that the State Department let them know extradition wouldn't be happening, in subtle ways.

Why is it permissible to postulate bribery or other corruption to account for the ISC's verdict but not for the investigation and trial of the first instance?

Why is it okay for Massei to alter the testimony of a witness to fit "facts" that turned out to be erroneous, but it is not okay for PIP to suggest his testimony is worthless?

Be careful of using the term "government". If by "government" you mean the executive branch of government (as I think you do), then this branch would have zero power to influence the judiciary (which is another branch of government). The separation of the judiciary from the rest of government is one of the inviolate rules of a democracy - even in Italy.

So either the judiciary itself (at Supreme Court level) was embarrassed by the case, or the judiciary (at Supreme Court level) decided that the case was fatally flawed and that the combined lower courts (excepting the already-annulled Hellmann) had got it wrong. I know which one my money would be on.

 

[Vixen]

And once again it is necessary to show Vixen the evidence that he can't find for himself.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=6976[/qimg]

Sorry, Dan O., you yourself said you post fake photos to fool the "guilters".

 

[Samson]

It is certainly possible that the Italian government was embarrassed by the case and that the State Department let them know extradition wouldn't be happening, in subtle ways.

Why is it permissible to postulate bribery or other corruption to account for the ISC's verdict but not for the investigation and trial of the first instance?

Why is it okay for Massei to alter the testimony of a witness to fit "facts" that turned out to be erroneous, but it is not okay for PIP to suggest his testimony is worthless?

Complete and utter nonsense. And, of course, entirely unsupported by even a shred of evidence to that effect.

Hmm, I would be surprised if the state department was uninvolved, after all there was an extremely proactive movement treading their corridors, making damn sure they were thoroughly versed in all aspects of the hoax. My view of American foreign efficacy would have been irreparably damaged if they had not engineered the acquittal.

 

[Grinder]

Every Rational Good Opinion Never makes it to the PGP.

Did Rudi steal the lawyers' laptop? I'm not positive but I am positive that the kids didn't steal it and they certainly didn't have an MO of second story burglaries.

The kids at worst were able to take part in a brutal murder and only left behind two pieces of microscopic evidence. They somehow disposed of bloody clothes, shoes and cleanup materials. But, they forgot to wipe the blood from the sink and do something with the mat. Why wouldn't they have stolen some of K's stuff and A's stuff and ditch those things as well?

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy also said he listened to 3 songs on his ipod for about 10 minutes. If Meredith came home at 9pm, that puts the assault beginning at 910pm. WHich is consistent with Kercher not having had a chance to take off her jacket, and the undigested food TOD indications. So how long did it take Rudy to kill Merddith, 10-15 mins? Seems about right.

Rudy's on the toilet, hears Meredtih come home. Maybe he waits quietly for her to go to her room, and then tries to leave out the front door to avoid confrontation, but the faulty front door won't open without a key. Perhaps Meredith hears and discovers him, and starts screaming. End of.

An alternate scenario is that Rudy hears someone enter the front door and waits quietly in the bathroom for a sign that it is safe to try and leave. When he hears for the second time the front door being opened, closed and locked he thinks whoever it was has just left so he sneaks out to have a look and comes face to face with Meredith. If Meredith had just opened the door when she arrived home to grab the downstairs key from the key holder in the hall and went downstairs to tend to the cat and perhaps take a drink, after 10-15 minutes she returns, locks the door behind her and then meets Rudy coming around the corner in the kitchen.

Rudy talks about falling in the kitchen and grabbing a chair to defend himself. He talks about a chase through the hall knocking papers from the shelf and upsetting the drying rack. But Rudy's scenario doesn't work in the direction he says it happened. Rudy says the stranger sliced his hand with a knife at the door to Meredith's room and he backed away when his pants fell to his ankle and he fell down. Later he says he was running through the hall and his hand instinctively reached out and knocked the papers from the shelf trying to get away from the stranger. Rudy is making up stories to try and explain the evidence and he is doing it badly.

A scenario that fits and creates the same evidence is Rudy exits the bathroom and encounters meredith in the kitchen. His pants fall and he falls perhaps aided by a kick to his groin. Meredith runs for the safety of her room trying to knock obstacles in the path to slow the attacker. Rudy pulls up his pants and chases after her like an enraged bull.

 

[Dan O.]

Even compulsive liars tell the truth sometimes. Strengthens their lies, half-truths and omissions.

Do you think that helps your argument?

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmm, I would be surprised if the state department was uninvolved, after all there was an extremely proactive movement treading their corridors, making damn sure they were thoroughly versed in all aspects of the hoax. My view of American foreign efficacy would have been irreparably damaged if they had not engineered the acquittal.

The US State Department cannot exert direct or indirect influence over the Italian judiciary.

I imagine that State did indeed have discussions with representatives of the Italian Executive, pointing out that if the convictions were confirmed, the US would be minded not to extradite Knox (and remember, extradition is a political process governed by the executive, not the judiciary).

But the Italian Supreme Court, I can guarantee you, jealously (and correctly) protects its independence - whether from other arms of the Italian Government, or from foreign governments of any sort. In the same way, the US Supreme Court (and, for that matter, every federal and state court in the US) operates entirely independent from any influence - whether from any other branch of US federal/state government, any foreign government, or any outside interests of any sort.

There's only one reasonable, rational explanation for the Italian SC's decision to acquit in this case: the SC concluded that a) there was in fact no credible, reliable evidence pointing to guilt, and b) the combined lower courts got things badly wrong. Now, one can argue whether or not the SC was competent in its judgement (and I of course would argue that - at last - it was wholly competent), but I really don't think one can coherently argue that the SC was "nobbled" by any sort of outside interests.

 

[Vixen]

You can't be serious? Are you really this scientifically illiterate? Darwin's theory is about as proven a scientific construct as 2+2=4. Every single scientific experiment ever conducted validates it. BTW, Quantum mechanics is also a theory. One that is validated every day by billions, probably trillions of electronic devices. The modern world would NOT exist without these proven theories.

No wonder you fail to understand the science and logic in this case.

Calm down. Antony made a flippant comment that Genesis was disproved by by the existence of dinosaurs. I simply asked him to think critically before assuming his possibly mindless comment was true.

As an example, schools were still teaching there were three laws of thermodynamics even in the 90's, more for convenience, rather than ignorance.

I do have nineteen letters after my name, including BSc(Hons).

 

[Dan O.]

...
It is a huge logic fallacy to boldly assert, "Rudy was responsible for all the laptop thefts in Perugia."

Nobody said "Rudy was responsible for all the laptop thefts in Perugia", that is just another of your own lies. The circumstances indicate that Rudy was responsible for the theft of that laptop and the phone from the Lawyers office. As for the rest, there is only the rumor that Rudy had a room full of computers. This has not been verified and is not part of the discussion.