Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Also, I remain neutral and undecided.

You guys have helped me see the truth. Thanks!

 

[Grinder]

Tesla claimed Diaz was alive and well in Perugia and had a Twitter account. He has been reluctant to provide the account link or any of the other proofs he claims exist.

I have searched far and wide for any sign that Mara Madu Diaz exists, that there was a fire/burglary or anything that even begins to corroborate the story. Nada.

For years from the first report of the story until just today we have been led to believe that the gold watch of Diaz's mother was lost or stolen by the police or even allowed to stay in the possession of Rudi. In fact, we now know that the watch was in the custody of the MLE. How many times was it written that it was such a shame the watch wasn't available for Diaz to identify. Oops.

Contrary to the go easy on Rudi meme they went after him for theft of the knife which amounted to throwing the book at him.

Interesting that in charge E they wrote: he bought or at least received from persons unknown, the following goods: but didn't even mention he might have stolen them. Sounds like he was a fence.

 

[Vixen]

Hi JREF2010,
This is from The Massei-Cristiani Report:


As I ask you folks this question,
consider how many keys you have on your person or in your purse.

How many keys did Rudy have on him?
He did not apparently have a car, nor a job, nor even a girlfriend.
It makes sense that he mighta only needed a key or 2 for his apartment,
right?


Yet I seem to recall reading, years ago,
that "Poor Rudy" had some stolen keys on him when he was busted in Milan.

If true,
what was he doing with stolen keys,
whom did they belong to and what were they for?

For that matter,
what dude cruises around town with a woman gold wristwatch in his possession,
and he does not even have a girlfriend?

Sure, if you are stopped by police with loads of keys, housebreaking tools and sundry goods without receipts, it will raise a red flag you are a housebreaker.

However, how does it prove sole murder and rape? That's a gigantic leap of logic.

 

[Grinder]

Sure, if you are stopped by police with loads of keys, housebreaking tools and sundry goods without receipts, it will raise a red flag you are a housebreaker.

However, how does it prove murder and rape? That's a gigantic leap of logic.

One set of keys. One little hammer. And though few carry receipts with them it was clear that the laptop and phone had been stolen.

Rudi was clearly there when Meredith died. There is no evidence that either Amanda or Raf were there when she was killed or anytime shortly before or after.

 

[Grinder]

There are no saved pages of newspapers mention shortly after the "fire" on Oct. 23.2007 using the WayBack machine.

Are there other papers in Perugia?

 

[acbytesla]

Raff's fingerprint on the inside door is cited in an early paperback.
Incidentally, you have the same resources as me, not sure why you think I ought to persuade you, when you have shown yourself to have entrenched views that are blind to reason. It is difficult to debate against perceived bigotry, so I doubt it would be constructive to even try.

Your claim to be "confused" is surely not a sincere one, but rather a quasi-stance, a form of logical fallacy, if you like.

wow!! What a nonsensical reply. Do you really believe an "unnamed paperback" ss a source? This reminds me of Rudy's stories. The unidentified man came I while he was on the john. An unidentified South American sold him a place to stay in the nursery

This case has plenty of reliable source material. More and more every day. It takes a great deal of chutzpah to suggest tabloids, old newspaper articles and guilter websites as citations.

 

[Kauffer]

Raff's fingerprint on the inside door is cited in an early paperback.
Incidentally, you have the same resources as me, not sure why you think I ought to persuade you, when you have shown yourself to have entrenched views that are blind to reason. It is difficult to debate against perceived bigotry, so I doubt it would be constructive to even try.

Your claim to be "confused" is surely not a sincere one, but rather a quasi-stance, a form of logical fallacy, if you like.

1) If you go looking for your evidence in paperbacks or any media particularly from early in the case, then you are likely to come up short if you cannot cross reference claims made, with reputable, primary sources. The mythology in this case is astonishing.

2) Actually, we all have the same resources as each other - the difference is, most of us here know which ones are reliable and how to interrogate them.

There is no "Raff" fingerprint on the inside of the door.

 

[Kauffer]

Sure, if you are stopped by police with loads of keys, housebreaking tools and sundry goods without receipts, it will raise a red flag you are a housebreaker.

However, how does it prove sole murder and rape? That's a gigantic leap of logic.

Here's one of your (many) leaps of logic:

You said that Amanda's lamp in Kercher's room is proof that she put it there and furthermore, proof that she was in the room on the night of the murder.

Do you see the problem?

 

[Dougm]

Raff's fingerprint on the inside door is cited in an early paperback.

Surely you jest. Mentioned in a book, yet not by the prosecution in court. Not in any other book, even not on the most pro-guilt websites. We don't even know which paperback. Next!

Incidentally, you have the same resources as me, not sure why you think I ought to persuade you, when you have shown yourself to have entrenched views that are blind to reason. It is difficult to debate against perceived bigotry, so I doubt it would be constructive to even try.

You don't need to persuade me. But surely the reason to come on a forum and post over 1000 times, taking a contrary position to almost every other poster present, is to put forth a point of view that might convince someone?

Also, I find it interesting that having a point of view, supported by factual information that you are unable to refute, adds up to me having "entrenched views that are blind to reason." What reason? That is exactly what I am talking about in the post you replied to.[/QUOTE]

Your claim to be "confused" is surely not a sincere one, but rather a quasi-stance, a form of logical fallacy, if you like.

You sure seem to think you know a lot about me, when I simply don't understand your arguments. I suspect I am not the only one. How is it a logical fallacy, based on, as you said, "bigotry", to be unable to discuss the meaning of facts another person has invented? Do you really think that makes sense?

It doesn't really matter, I just became more interested in your method of arguing than your arguments. I just don't see how you can ever succeed using that style.

 

[Strozzi]

What is extraordinary is that they managed to keep Amanda and Raffaele in preventative detention when they had no evidence against them - just supposition and speculation. Between 6th November and 18th December, the case unravelled entirely.

They did have evidence (fabricated evidence). Dr. Stefanoni testified that she examined the knife and that it had several hundred pictograms of the victim's DNA on the blade. Her testimony of several hundred picograms is of course false (IIRC, the blade data show it measured a few picograms - a number so, so small that it effectively means zero from a scientific standpoint).

What occurred is that Prosecutor Mignini issued an order to detain the suspects for murder, subject to a magistrate hearing, and he needed prelinary "evidence" presented at the hearing to justify their continued detention. Dr. Stefanoni, a police lab official, fabricated the claim that there were several hundred pictograms of the victim's DNA on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Amanda's DNA was (legitimately) on the handle.

 

[Wattson]

Tesla claimed Diaz was alive and well in Perugia and had a Twitter account. He has been reluctant to provide the account link or any of the other proofs he claims exist.

I have searched far and wide for any sign that Mara Madu Diaz exists, that there was a fire/burglary or anything that even begins to corroborate the story. Nada.

For years from the first report of the story until just today we have been led to believe that the gold watch of Diaz's mother was lost or stolen by the police or even allowed to stay in the possession of Rudi. In fact, we now know that the watch was in the custody of the MLE. How many times was it written that it was such a shame the watch wasn't available for Diaz to identify. Oops.

Contrary to the go easy on Rudi meme they went after him for theft of the knife which amounted to throwing the book at him.

Interesting that in charge E they wrote: he bought or at least received from persons unknown, the following goods: but didn't even mention he might have stolen them. Sounds like he was a fence.

You can believe the preposterous story. I'm not. He was caught red handed with a stolen knife in his backpack in the very building he broke in to. He's a burglar.

 

[Grinder]

You can believe the preposterous story. I'm not. He was caught red handed with a stolen knife in his backpack in the very building he broke in to. He's a burglar.

OMG he had a 5 dollar knife in his pack. Wow. I don't find it preposterous at all that he was directed to the nursery for a place to spend the night. Whether he was at the train station or at a club or wherever doesn't make any difference. What would be preposterous would be for Rudi to have robbed the 2000 Euros and then returned to the place and just hung out.

The outside gates would have been locked at night and his story fits with that.

While pushing the defective door open may technically be breaking in the reality is more of being tipped to the place for a crash spot.

 

[Vixen]

One set of keys. One little hammer. And though few carry receipts with them it was clear that the laptop and phone had been stolen.

Rudi was clearly there when Meredith died. There is no evidence that either Amanda or Raf were there when she was killed or anytime shortly before or after.

The preliminary courts (Matteini), Court of First Instance and Nencini found otherwise.

It's all very easy for someone sitting back in their armchair falsely claiming, "There's no evidence", as fact finding by courts of law, who have seen and heard the evidence, decreed there was.

 

[Bill Williams]

The preliminary courts (Matteini), Court of First Instance and Nencini found otherwise.

It's all very easy for someone sitting back in their armchair falsely claiming, "There's no evidence", as fact finding by courts of law, who have seen and heard the evidence, decreed there was.

It is strange to cite Nencini to make this point. In fact, both you and I HAVE seen as much of the evidence Nencini did. The only evidence in front of his court, really, were the three items decreed by the 2013 IC reversal of Hellmann's 2011 exonerations.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Other than those three things, Nencini did not see and hear the evidence - he joined the legions of people who just made stuff up, particularly about things they have not seen. Nencini had the option of putting stuff before his court - in fact, the defence made 19 motions to do exactly that. Nencini denied all by one of them.

In fact, Nencini had no evidence in front of him to convict - but he did anyway. Can you then wonder why the 2015 ISC completely exonerated the kids, without remand of issues to the Appeals' level again?

 

[Dougm]

The preliminary courts (Matteini), Court of First Instance and Nencini found otherwise.

It's all very easy for someone sitting back in their armchair falsely claiming, "There's no evidence", as fact finding by courts of law, who have seen and heard the evidence, decreed there was.

Correction. Some of those that have seen and heard the evidence in court, decreed that it was convincing to them. Others that also saw and heard the evidence thought it was totally unconvincing.

The most recent court judges that made the final decision are in the latter group.

 

[Wattson]

OMG he had a 5 dollar knife in his pack. Wow. I don't find it preposterous at all that he was directed to the nursery for a place to spend the night. Whether he was at the train station or at a club or wherever doesn't make any difference. What would be preposterous would be for Rudi to have robbed the 2000 Euros and then returned to the place and just hung out.

The outside gates would have been locked at night and his story fits with that.

While pushing the defective door open may technically be breaking in the reality is more of being tipped to the place for a crash spot.

He stole the knife. FACT. He had stolen goods on him from a burglary 300 miles away which just happened to be his city of residence. FACT. The guy is demented and a liar. You have ZERO evidence that he was a fence.

 

[RoseMontague]

The preliminary courts (Matteini), Court of First Instance and Nencini found otherwise.

It's all very easy for someone sitting back in their armchair falsely claiming, "There's no evidence", as fact finding by courts of law, who have seen and heard the evidence, decreed there was.

It is strange to cite Nencini to make this point. In fact, both you and I HAVE seen as much of the evidence Nencini did. The only evidence in front of his court, really, were the three items decreed by the 2013 IC reversal of Hellmann's 2011 exonerations.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Other than those three things, Nencini did not see and hear the evidence - he joined the legions of people who just made stuff up, particularly about things they have not seen.

Matteini did a great job explaining how Patrick was involved complete with misinterpreted text messages, imaginative cell phone mumbo joumb, and a drunk witness claiming his bar was closed.

Massei was the one with the Masonic sacrificial rite theory and the large-bag large knife theory as well as the theory that Guede couldn't have removed Meredith's pants without help.

 

[Vixen]

1) If you go looking for your evidence in paperbacks or any media particularly from early in the case, then you are likely to come up short if you cannot cross reference claims made, with reputable, primary sources. The mythology in this case is astonishing.

2) Actually, we all have the same resources as each other - the difference is, most of us here know which ones are reliable and how to interrogate them.

There is no "Raff" fingerprint on the inside of the door.

OK, the source is as follows:

By now, Perugia investigators were also aware of another finding from Edgardo Giobbi of Rome's Serious Crime Squad. Apparently Giobbi had determined that a fingerprint found on the inside of Meredith's door matched Raffaele's, despite the fact that he had not gone into her room prior to when he followed police inside on the day her body was discovered. Also troubling was the footprint in blood found inside her room - it matched the size 42 Nike trainers Raffaele owned.
"Rudy Guede wears size 45," Giobbi said.
However, Giovanni Arcudi, an expert for the defence who planned to argue for Raffaele's release in the coming days countered with: "That footprint does not possess clear and definite characteristics."

p 124 - 125 Gary C King The Murder of Meredith Kercher 2010 (John Blake)

Is that an adequate citation?

 

[RoseMontague]

OK, the source is as follows:

p 124 - 125 Gary C King The Murder of Meredith Kercher 2010 (John Blake)

Is that an adequate citation?

The cite is fine, the truth of the claim is false. But you know that. Why not argue the facts of the case instead of stuff people have just made up?

 

[Vixen]

Here's one of your (many) leaps of logic:

You said that Amanda's lamp in Kercher's room is proof that she put it there and furthermore, proof that she was in the room on the night of the murder.

Do you see the problem?

Don't put words in my mouth. It was the fact finding trial which found the lamp a subject of interest, being as it was, wiped clean of all fingerprints.