Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[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.

You said in your own original post Rudy did IT work and presentations for Giorgo Armani. As we have seen Rudy posing with Armani, then the pair met at some point.

 

[Kauffer]

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?

As we have already pointed out to you, the investigation into the burglary was absent. But the murder did not take place in Romanelli's room.

You ask for evidence of Amanda's innocence and it is given to you. Instead of considering the merits of this argument for innocence, you ignore it and refer to some other aspect of the case.

But there is no evidence that Amanda committed the burglary either.

But let's set Guede aside for a moment and consider how it could be possible to reconstruct this crime in a manner which places Amanda in Kercher's room, actually stabbing her to death, when that room was extensively sampled and no evidence was found for her being there.

Consider also the absence of any transfer evidence, in particular, blood from Kercher's room, on Amanda's clothes.

Are you going to address these points, rather than some other point, distractingly?

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Didn't Mignini also interview Rudy with his lawyer on Dec 7, 2007, when he first returned from Germany?

However, that interview IIUC, is still under seal for some reason. No one knows why that we have heard from anyway.

 

[Kauffer]

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

No it's not. I'm attacking your statements, not you.

Would you prefer falsehoods?

Why did you post falsehoods about Amanda, as I demonstrated in my post?

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is incontrovertible that a remarkably full DNA profile of Mez was found on the blade, notwithstanding from the striation marks, an attempt by someone to scrub it clean with possibly something like a Brillo pad (steel wool).

The defense concurred and did not challenge that the DNA was not Mez'.

 

[Vixen]

No it's not. I'm attacking your statements, not you.

Would you prefer falsehoods?

Why did you post falsehoods about Amanda, as I demonstrated in my post?

It is not a falsehood. It is my opinion and thus falls foul of forum rules to call everything I say a lie. It indicates someone unable to debate without getting personal.

 

[Grinder]

You said in your own original post Rudy did IT work and presentations for Giorgo Armani. As we have seen Rudy posing with Armani, then the pair met at some point.

Rudy explained the presence of all the computers by saying that he worked in IT for Armani, preparing computers for presentations and fairs.


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?​

At best it was said Rudi claimed the IT work but the comment clearly cast total doubt on the claim.

 

[Sonia]

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?

There is no evidence that he ever received any state benefits after losing his Milan cafe job. He also was in trouble with his landlord in Corso Garibaldi for non-payment of rent.

 

[Grinder]

It is incontravertible that a remarkably full DNA profile of Mez was found on the blade, notwithstanding from the striation marks, an attempt by someone to scrub it clean with possibly something like a Brillo pad (steel wool).

The defense concurred and did not challenge that the DNA was not Mez'.

No the defense agreed it was not Mez's DNA or at least it wasn't shown that it was connected to the murder or that it wasn't shown it wasn't from contamination.

 

[Sonia]

You said in your own original post Rudy did IT work and presentations for Giorgo Armani. As we have seen Rudy posing with Armani, then the pair met at some point.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I said that Rudy explained away the presence of so many computers by saying that he worked in IT. There was no truth to his claim.

His encounter with Giorgio Armani in Milan was a random occurrence.

 

[Vixen]

As we have already pointed out to you, the investigation into the burglary was absent. But the murder did not take place in Romanelli's room.

You ask for evidence of Amanda's innocence and it is given to you. Instead of considering the merits of this argument for innocence, you ignore it and refer to some other aspect of the case.

But there is no evidence that Amanda committed the burglary either. But let's set Guede aside for a moment and consider how it could be possible to reconstruct this crime in a manner which places Amanda in Kercher's room, actually stabbing her to death, when that room was extensively sampled and no evidence was found for her being there.

Consider also the absence of any transfer evidence, in particular, blood from Kercher's room, on Amanda's clothes.

Are you going to address these points, rather than some other point, distractingly?

I have indicated elsewhere why it is not true "there is no evidence of Raf or Amanda in Mez' room".

This is fallacious anyway, as the police treated the entire apartment as the murder scene.

Amanda, unlike Rudy, has a forensically proven presence in the burglary room.

There are two Amanda DNA traces in the burglary room mixed with Mez', which are highly incriminating, not explained away by "Amanda & Mez lived there".

A shard of glass from the burglary room - which has no forensic trace of Rudy - was deposited inside the locked murder room. This could only have been from the two perps at large, as forensics established the burglary was staged after the fact of murder to conceal the identities of the perps.

In addition, Amanda transported Mez' DNA from the murder room to the bathroom for her DNA is also found there, mixed with Mez'.

There is no innocent explanation for any of this.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is incontravertible that a remarkably full DNA profile of Mez was found on the blade, notwithstanding from the striation marks, an attempt by someone to scrub it clean with possibly something like a Brillo pad (steel wool).

The defense concurred and did not challenge that the DNA was not Mez'.

Wrong on several counts, namely:

1 it is controvertible
2 nothing was found on the blade
3 the Brillo pad is a figment of your imagination, and
4 the defence did not concur

Apart from that, you're spot on.

 

[Sonia]

It is not a falsehood. It is my opinion and thus falls foul of forum rules to call everything I say a lie. It indicates someone unable to debate without getting personal.

No, it indicates that you must support your opinion with evidence, not with falsehoods that were disproved long ago.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I said that Rudy explained away the presence of so many computers by saying that he worked in IT. There was no truth to his claim.

His encounter with Giorgio Armani in Milan was a random occurrence.

Rudy's Spanish girlfriend's claim there were a lot of computers in Rudy's small room, is legally pure hearsay unless this woman was prepared to make a statement and take the stand under cross examination.

Otherwise, it remains an interesting anecdote.

 

[Kauffer]

By the same token you could argueAmanda 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 is not a falsehood. It is my opinion and thus falls foul of forum rules to call everything I say a lie. It indicates someone unable to debate without getting personal.

I've highlighted it for you. This matter is not a question of opinion. It is a question of evidence, of fact. Your claims are falsehoods.

Retract them or alternatively, prove me wrong by citing the evidence which supports your claims.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong on several counts, namely:

1 it is controvertible
2 nothing was found on the blade
3 the Brillo pad is a figment of your imagination, and
4 the defence did not concur

Apart from that, you're spot on.

Citation please, where the defense challenged the DNA on exhibit 36 being a full profile of Mez.

 

[Vixen]

I've highlighted it for you. This matter is not a question of opinion. It is a question of evidence, of fact. Your claims are falsehoods.

Retract them or alternatively, prove me wrong by citing the evidence which supports your claims.

It is common knowledge. Absedefghi (?) says they know the cop who issued the ticket.

 

[anglolawyer]

Citation please, where the defense challenged the DNA on exhibit 36 being a full profile of Mez.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether exhibit 36C (not 36) is a profile of tissue sampled from the blade of the knife.

 

[Sonia]

I have indicated elsewhere why it is not true "there is no evidence of Raf or Amanda in Mez' room".

This is fallacious anyway, as the police treated the entire apartment as the murder scene.

Amanda, unlike Rudy, has a forensically proven presence in the burglary room.

The problem with this statement is that there is no way to date DNA. Amanda, unlike Rudy, had a perfect right to--and would be expected to--scatter her own DNA anywhere in her own home, at any time during her residence there.

There are two Amanda DNA traces in the burglary mixed with Mez', which are highly incriminating, not explained away by "Amanda & Mez lived there".

A shard of glass from the burglary room - which has no forensic trace of Rudy - was deposited inside the locked murder room. This could only have been from Amanda or Raf, as forensics established the burglary was staged after the fact of murder to conceal the identities of the perps.

In addition, Amanda transported Mez' DNA from the murder room to the bathroom for her DNA is also found there, mixed with Mez'.

There is no innocent explanation for any of this.

All court verdicts that accepted the "staged burglary" have been overturned. So it is not established at all.

Amanda transported her own DNA to her own bathroom sink every day when she washed and brushed her teeth. "Mixed" just means it was collected together with Meredith's DNA in the swiping motions used by the technicians who collected it.

 

[Vixen]

Didn't Mignini also interview Rudy with his lawyer on Dec 7, 2007, when he first returned from Germany?

However, that interview IIUC, is still under seal for some reason. No one knows why that we have heard from anyway.

Perhaps so as not to prejudice Raf and Amanda's trial? It'll be interesting to read it once the Bruno-Marasca report is signed, sealed and out of the way.