Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

While I agree with this, it is amusing as always that you accept RG's self serving statements like " a stranger let me in" as opposed to not believing him when he says the murder took place around 9:30. As has been pointed out, Rudy admits being there so why lie about the time?

Rudy in his witness statement states he waited outside the cottage, Mez came along at 9:00-ish, saying, "Have you been waiting long?"

I don't believe a single word of liar Rudy, but I don't believe, on balance, he came in through the window.

Whether it was Mez or Amanda who let him in, I do think he was there expecting to socialise and take drugs.

 

[Vixen]

Nobody is asserting that.

Did you know that one of Spanish students who befriended Rudy noted that his very small apartment was full of computers? She found their presence surprising because he had no Internet service. Rudy explained the presence of all the computers by saying that he worked in IT for Armani, preparing computers for presentations and fairs.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede-murderer-perugia/

Of course, Rudy hadn't really a job since he lost his Milan cafe job in the Spring of 2007. The wife of his former benefactor felt sorry for him and helped him rent his apartment in Perugia as a final favor. She was not paying his rent. So how did he make a living all summer long and through the months of September and October?

Lots of people have a load of IT junk in their homes. Doesn't logically follow they nicked the stuff. If Rudy worked in IT, then it rings true, as the IT buffs I know, also retain IT junk.

There are lots of young people in the UK who haven't found work many months after graduating. It's a crisis in Europe. In Spain, it's something like 25% of young people. Doesn't turn them into cat burglars.

 

[Vixen]

No. There you go with another lie. Her is what Mike said in his only post on this forum:

​

It is unfortunate that you have driven him away by emphasizing race and biggotry when nobody else here sees it as relavent.

Er, I've driven Mike1711 away, within the last couple of hours, since I wrote my response to him?

How do you know that, or are you indulging in crude emotional blackmail.

How contemptible.

 

[Kauffer]

I have not said there should be a shift in the burden of proof. I was all ears wanting a bone I could grip my teeth into so that I could say, here indeed, is a grave injustice.

I am still here, so please, someone, throw me a line.

There is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in Kercher's small room of Amanda's presence at a scene in which a close quarters stabbing murder took place - no physical evidence whatsoever.

Not difficult. Analyse this properly and try to refrain from postulating any other scenario by reference to a logical fallacy or else referring to other erroneous erroneous argument or discredited theory.

 

[Kauffer]

By the same token you could argue Amanda has police tickets for wild partying and encouraging her guests to throw rocks at passing traffic, making cars swerve. This is far more dangerous than being in possession of a stolen laptop, which is all Rudy had been charged with, prior to the murder. It is a mercy none of these drivers crashed and suffered injury and fatalities, some with young children as passengers, possibly.

Nobody here seems the slightest bit horrified by this behaviour, yet fixate on a stolen laptop as proof Rudy was lone perpetrator.

Raf, too, had a conviction for being in possession of drugs. Some would argue, buying illegal drugs - associated with serious organised crime - is equally as bad as someone buying stolen goods, if not more so.

Yet we only ever hear about one of the alleged perps. At Rudy's trial and at Massei and Nencini, it was not judged Rudy was the actual killer, nor that there was a burglary, other than the murder perps stealing Mez' cash, credit cards and mobile phones (x 2), strangely, for MO cat burglar Rudy, leaving the laptop completely behind.

It's not "by the same token" and Guede is not an "alleged perp". You continue to make false claims. Amanda does not have "police tickets for wild partying" nor was it ever alleged that she was ever "encouraging her guests to throw rocks at passing traffic".

We've been hearing allegations against Amanda and Raffaele for seven and a half years. You apparently have only heard about the ones directed at Rudy, for which there is solid physical evidence.

Why do you lie so often when you post?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

BBC programs on DNA gone bad - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05stg0j

A suitably pro-innocence account, let BBC haters take note.

 

[anglolawyer]

Rudy in his witness statement states he waited outside the cottage, Mez came along at 9:00-ish, saying, "Have you been waiting long?"

I don't believe a single word of liar Rudy, but I don't believe, on balance, he came in through the window.

Whether it was Mez or Amanda who let him in, I do think he was there expecting to socialise and take drugs.

You are right to treat what Guede says with caution but what he says is still useful because we can assume he crafted his story, as far as possible, so as to gel with the evidence he thought he left behind and, later, to coincide with what must have seemed to him the miraculous involvement of Knox and Sollecito.

For example, we can probably credit his timing of his presence at the flat at around 8.30 to 9.00 because he will have figured that if he gave an inaccurate time his story might be undermined by a passing witness or CCTV camera. If we do that, then we know it cannot have been Amanda who let him in as she was at Raf's.

If we have him there at 9, asking to use the bathroom, what would he still be doing there a good half hour later when A & R showed up (at the very earliest)? Do you think Meredith was fraternising with him and that things turned nasty afterwards? Do you see Guede as a patsy in all this?

 

[anglolawyer]

I have not said there should be a shift in the burden of proof. I was all ears wanting a bone I could grip my teeth into so that I could say, here indeed, is a grave injustice.

I am still here, so please, someone, throw me a line.

You still have it the wrong way round. You need to throw us a line.

 

[js202]

By the same token you could argue Amanda has police tickets for wild partying and encouraging her guests to throw rocks at passing traffic, making cars swerve. This is far more dangerous than being in possession of a stolen laptop, which is all Rudy had been charged with, prior to the murder. It is a mercy none of these drivers crashed and suffered injury and fatalities, some with young children as passengers, possibly.

Nobody here seems the slightest bit horrified by this behaviour, yet fixate on a stolen laptop as proof Rudy was lone perpetrator.

My god. What patent, astonishing lunacy! You are so clearly skilled in the ways of the Guilters, Padawan.

 

[Vixen]

Leading theories among who?

BTW, there was no new evidence presented to ISC, the first time around and the only new evidence introduced at the Nencini trial were the results from the RIS lab in Rome which went entirely in favor of the defendants.

Your arguments don't have any logic.

Soz, correction: the new evidence as demanded by Chieffi, the trace DNA 36i, Vecchiotti and Conti insisted was vegetable starch and "too low number copy to replicate".

It turned out it was replicable, was not vegetable and belonged to Amanda.

36i was found at the knife hilt, with Mez' DNA on the blade.

This is not at all "in favour of Amanda" - in fact, it underlines, Amanda held the fatal murder weapon - and that Vecchiotti and Conti were either incompetent, or more likely, not unimpartial and deliberately set out to mislead the court.

 

[Sonia]

Lots of people have a load of IT junk in their homes. Doesn't logically follow they nicked the stuff. If Rudy worked in IT, then it rings true, as the IT buffs I know, also retain IT junk.

It doesn't ring true for Rudy, however, because Rudy never had any kind of job in IT.

There are lots of young people in the UK who haven't found work many months after graduating. It's a crisis in Europe. In Spain, it's something like 25% of young people. Doesn't turn them into cat burglars.

Even unemployed people survive on some form of support. Maybe they live with their parents, maybe they receive state relief of some kind. But Rudy had none of that. So how did Rudy support himself after he lost his cafe job in Milan? He had to pay his rent somehow on his new apartment in Perugia and also buy stuff like food and drinks in clubs.

An apartment full of computers in these circumstances says a lot.

 

[Vixen]

There is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in Kercher's small room of Amanda's presence at a scene in which a close quarters stabbing murder took place - no physical evidence whatsoever.

Not difficult. Analyse this properly and try to refrain from postulating any other scenario by reference to a logical fallacy or else referring to other erroneous erroneous argument or discredited theory.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of Rudy in the burglary room, yet you claim he was a cat burglar who came in through the window.

Why is there this inconsistency in your reasoning?

 

[Numbers]

Case law precedence has little to do with Italian trials. It's a civil law not a common law system - judge made law.

This is one of the major challenges for the Italian system - the ECHR is based on case law and Italy has incorporated the case law of the ECHR into its system. It's civil law judges, however, are not trained how to understand it and apply it.

If I'm not mistaken, there is not one citation from ECHR case law in any of the motivation reports of any one of the three trial courts or any of the pre trial judge's reports or the Chiefi reports despite citation in defence appeals.

Several judges (including Massei and Nencini)also failed to apply domestic Italian law in this case. For example, a verdict of guilty requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt under Italian law. But there were several procedural laws that the judges ignored.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have read the translation of Hellmann, as referred to me by Carbo, on the IIP site.

Was that it???

I presume huge swathes are missing (untranslated?) as it tells us sweet Fanny Adams as to his reasoning for acquittal and declaration of "innocent".

Don't think I throd you a specific cite, but I did ask you to provide one or more paragraphs from Hellman that you felt were not well reasoned, or deficient in some way.

Of course, I'm still waiting for you to do so, and give some concrete indication of why you are not fond of Hellman's motivation report for the 2011 acquittals.

I'm sure the link Anglo provided is fine. SO, still here, still waiting, and hoping for the best...

 

[Vixen]

It's not "by the same token" and Guede is not an "alleged perp". You continue to make false claims. Amanda does not have "police tickets for wild partying" nor was it ever alleged that she was ever "encouraging her guests to throw rocks at passing traffic".

We've been hearing allegations against Amanda and Raffaele for seven and a half years. You apparently have only heard about the ones directed at Rudy, for which there is solid physical evidence.

Why do you lie so often when you post?

Ad hominem attack: the very last refuge of someone who has used up all other logical fallacies and cannot reason without hurling insults.

 

[Grinder]

You are right to treat what Guede says with caution but what he says is still useful because we can assume he crafted his story, as far as possible, so as to gel with the evidence he thought he left behind and, later, to coincide with what must have seemed to him the miraculous involvement of Knox and Sollecito.

Oh Anglo what are we going to do with you? Amanda tells the truth as much as possible to make her lies work better but Rudi never tells the truth because he's a liar unless he implicates the kids. Got it?

For example, we can probably credit his timing of his presence at the flat at around 8.30 to 9.00 because he will have figured that if he gave an inaccurate time his story might be undermined by a passing witness or CCTV camera. If we do that, then we know it cannot have been Amanda who let him in as she was at Raf's.

Perhaps but remember he lies all the time unless it keeps the kids from proving innocence. Got it?

If we have him there at 9, asking to use the bathroom, what would he still be doing there a good half hour later when A & R showed up (at the very earliest)? Do you think Meredith was fraternising with him and that things turned nasty afterwards? Do you see Guede as a patsy in all this?

But what about Curatolo?

 

[Dan O.]

If we have him there at 9, asking to use the bathroom, what would he still be doing there a good half hour later when A & R showed up (at the very earliest)? Do you think Meredith was fraternising with him and that things turned nasty afterwards? Do you see Guede as a patsy in all this?

Rudy's "Witness statement"?

Rudy wrote a diary entry while in prison in Germany which Vixen may be conflating facts from. Mignini interviewed Rudy as a suspect (in the presence of his lawyer) on 2008-03-26. The account of meeting Meredith in front of the cottage begins on page 57. Rudy was never a witness.

According to Rudy (and his lawyer), Rudy and Meredith have their pants off in the living room before Rudy has to rush to the bathroom. If course, he has to go there in his story to explain Rudy's DNA found inside Meredith. But he concludes that Meredith was fully dressed when he left. This kills Rudy's entire story because the forensic evidence is conclusive that Meredith was undressed and the bra removed while Meredith was still breathing.

 

[Vixen]

It doesn't ring true for Rudy, however, because Rudy never had any kind of job in IT.



Even unemployed people survive on some form of support. Maybe they live with their parents, maybe they receive state relief of some kind. But Rudy had none of that. So how did Rudy support himself after he lost his cafe job in Milan? He had to pay his rent somehow on his new apartment in Perugia and also buy stuff like food and drinks in clubs.

An apartment full of computers in these circumstances says a lot.

Did he not get any welfare benefits, being a Italian citizen? Do you know for a fact he didn't get any welfare, or is that just conjecture?

 

[anglolawyer]

Soz, correction: the new evidence as demanded by Chieffi, the trace DNA 36i, Vecchiotti and Conti insisted was vegetable starch and "too low number copy to replicate".

It turned out it was replicable, was not vegetable and belonged to Amanda.

36i was found at the knife hilt, with Mez' DNA on the blade.
This is not at all "in favour of Amanda" - in fact, it underlines, Amanda held the fatal murder weapon - and that Vecchiotti and Conti were either incompetent, or more likely, not unimpartial and deliberately set out to mislead the court.

Wrong. There was no DNA of 'Mez' on the blade. Alternatively, and which amounts to the same thing, there is no reliable, credible, scientifically valid evidence to this effect. I know it's a chore, but try reading Conti-Vechiotti instead of inventing fantasies about them.

 

[Grinder]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of Rudy in the burglary room, yet you claim he was a cat burglar who came in through the window.

Why is there this inconsistency in your reasoning?

Ah he said he was in her room when he saw the woman leaving that might was Amanda