Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Romanelli's window is actually the most protected, because of the orientation of the cottage. The balcony is a very unguarded view indeed. You might as well light yourself up like a Christmas tree whilst wearing a tee shirt proclaiming, "I'm a burglar, come and arrest me", if you break in there.

Remember that Machiavelli adores Judge Nencini. Nencini dwelt on the logical-makeup of second-storey men differently. He opined that the reason why Rudy would not have gone in through the window, or himself done a judicially-generated fake-break-in was because of Rudy's assumed professionalism.

Acc. to Nencini this judicially-generated fake-break-in was something else; it was left in a manner which would have triggered the investigative memories of the PLE, screaming of Rudy's MO. I wonder what Machiavelli's impeccable logical mind would make of that?

Oh yes, no burglar of Rudy's calibre would have entered in any other way than the front door, lock or no lock. Nencini appreciates the skill and artistry that Guede brought to his profession.

Ok. I bow to Nencini's appreciation for Guede and his craft. Guede would never have allowed himself to be exposed on that deck.... illuminated by the streetlamp, exposed to the street. If spotted he had nowhere to go but wave at the witnesses.....

At Filomena's window, even as sheltered as it was, all Guede had to do if spotted was jump into the shadows below of the lower level, completely hidden from everything.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oops it was the "garden lamp" according to Mach that was off.

ETA - If the "garden lamp" was off it could have been turned off by Rudi or Amanda in the morning or even Filomena when she arrived but regardless it doesn't matter.

Did Mignini refund their money because of their adherence to his austerity program? C'mon Grinder, this conspiracy of Greek-economic-proportions is starting to crumble.

 

[Grinder]

Remember that Machiavelli adores Judge Nencini. Nencini dwelt on the logical-makeup of second-storey men differently. He opined that the reason why Rudy would not have gone in through the window, or himself done a judicially-generated fake-break-in was because of Rudy's assumed professionalism.

Acc. to Nencini this judicially-generated fake-break-in was something else; it was left in a manner which would have triggered the investigative memories of the PLE, screaming of Rudy's MO. I wonder what Machiavelli's impeccable logical mind would make of that?

Oh yes, no burglar of Rudy's calibre would have entered in any other way than the front door, lock or no lock. Nencini appreciates the skill and artistry that Guede brought to his profession.

Ok. I bow to Nencini's appreciation for Guede and his craft. Guede would never have allowed himself to be exposed on that deck.... illuminated by the streetlamp, exposed to the street. If spotted he had nowhere to go but wave at the witnesses.....

At Filomena's window, even as sheltered as it was, all Guede had to do if spotted was jump into the shadows below of the lower level, completely hidden from everything.

You misread Nencini. He doesn't say what you claim as the section you refer to is under the phrase "if the defense allegations are true."

 

[Bill Williams]

You misread Nencini. He doesn't say what you claim as the section you refer to is under the phrase "if the defense allegations are true."

I will reread. IIRC it was expressed in a more nuanced way.... but seriously, after the final acquittals I find myself dragging my feet in going after small points, esp. in motivation reports which have no standing any more. So forgive me if this one ends here - it could very well be as you say, and I'll stipulate so rather than try to argue.

Still - Machiavelli was trying to make an argument about what is a "logical" approach to entry points into the cottage. What would a "logical burglar do"? I did not know that one of the requirements of applying to be a burglar in Italy was mastery of Friedrich Hegel's, Wissenschaft der Logik.

 

[JREF2010]

Remember that Machiavelli adores Judge Nencini. Nencini dwelt on the logical-makeup of second-storey men differently. He opined that the reason why Rudy would not have gone in through the window, or himself done a judicially-generated fake-break-in was because of Rudy's assumed professionalism.

Acc. to Nencini this judicially-generated fake-break-in was something else; it was left in a manner which would have triggered the investigative memories of the PLE, screaming of Rudy's MO. I wonder what Machiavelli's impeccable logical mind would make of that?

Oh yes, no burglar of Rudy's calibre would have entered in any other way than the front door, lock or no lock. Nencini appreciates the skill and artistry that Guede brought to his profession.

Ok. I bow to Nencini's appreciation for Guede and his craft. Guede would never have allowed himself to be exposed on that deck.... illuminated by the streetlamp, exposed to the street. If spotted he had nowhere to go but wave at the witnesses.....

At Filomena's window, even as sheltered as it was, all Guede had to do if spotted was jump into the shadows below of the lower level, completely hidden from everything.

Its so frustrating Rudy has all these answers and is merely holding out.

I dont study burglars, but I have seen witnesses and heard from police its extremely common the burglar is someone you "invited" to your home.
Whether its a friend of a friend, someone you met playing basketball, a carpet cleaning worker, a lawn care person. (often the felons, with no formal education or skill, who can get these labor type jobs that have no background checks) are the same you invite into your home to shampoo your carpet.

Breaking into a place you have been before gives a burglar some edge in knowledge and confidence in his theft/B&E.

Rudy is holding onto the date alibi and consensual sex, for now. He came in through the front door with Meredith. He was on the toilet pooping when the murder happened. He fled out the front door he claims, the murderer fled just before Rudy fled.

Maybe if the Italian Court system offers him a PHD for free and maybe a Ferrari he'll tell the truth?

 

[zotz]

Its so frustrating Rudy has all these answers and is merely holding out.

I dont study burglars, but I have seen witnesses and heard from police its extremely common the burglar is someone you "invited" to your home.
Whether its a friend of a friend, someone you met playing basketball, a carpet cleaning worker, a lawn care person. (often the felons, with no formal education or skill, who can get these labor type jobs that have no background checks) are the same you invite into your home to shampoo your carpet.

Breaking into a place you have been before gives a burglar some edge in knowledge and confidence in his theft/B&E.

Rudy is holding onto the date alibi and consensual sex, for now. He came in through the front door with Meredith. He was on the toilet pooping when the murder happened. He fled out the front door he claims, the murderer fled just before Rudy fled.

Maybe if the Italian Court system offers him a PHD for free and maybe a Ferrari he'll tell the truth?

It is through lying that Rudy got his sentence reduced. He must play the role of the basically good but weak victim of circumstance. Being an African immigrant is helpful because many liberal Europeans feel guilt about not doing enough to help the poor people clamoring to get into Europe. The way Mach, Mignini, and other guilters play the race card is a direct use of these feelings of guilt. Plus there will always be some people that will believe him and those are the only ones that he will be able to rely on when he is released. He gains nothing by telling the truth. He was probably highly intoxicated at the time of the murder and it is possible he doesn't remember a lot of it.

You will never hear the truth from Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Its so frustrating Rudy has all these answers and is merely holding out.

I dont study burglars, but I have seen witnesses and heard from police its extremely common the burglar is someone you "invited" to your home.
Whether its a friend of a friend, someone you met playing basketball, a carpet cleaning worker, a lawn care person. (often the felons, with no formal education or skill, who can get these labor type jobs that have no background checks) are the same you invite into your home to shampoo your carpet.

Flashback for me - 3 1/2 years ago I asked a buddy of mine about Kermit's powerpoints, specifically the one where Kermit "proved" the impossibility of even getting up to, much less in Filomena's window. Kermit made the same point Mach made in this thread about the more logical entry point being the deck on the other side of the building.

What I didn't have then were those pics, as posted above. Also the Channel 5 reconstruction of Rudy's entry had not been done either. However, all of that stuff confirms what my buddy said. (He worked through our local courthouse assisting police in stuff.)

First thing he said about Kermit's powerpoints was that Kermit was completely overthinking this. With nothing other than Kermit's stuff before him, he said that the break-in was doable and that obviously whoever Kermit was had no experience as a second storey man.

In relation to the "more logical entry from the balcony", even without knowing the orientation to the street (not as advertised by Kermit!), if the climb through Filomena's had a 98% probability of success, why would a burglar opt for a 99% other option?

By the time either Kermit or I had typed 30 characters in our respective rebuttals to each other, someone like Rudy would be up and in and already on the toilet. Rudy would not have gone through a burglar's flow-chart of probabilities, he simply would have done it.

The key - and it was something John Douglas wrote about that I only read later - the key is not to do our own "logical" analysis. This guy, as well as John Douglas, knew the perps. Douglas made a reputation inventing profiling by going to the imprisoned-perps themselves and asking them how they did it, what they looked for, etc.

It provided valuable shortcuts to what is really real in these perps' lives, what really goes through their minds - rather than reduce it like Machiavelli does to some university course on burglary-logic, and what perps SHOULD do if they would only adhere to Hegel's dialectics.

My buddy knew what actual second-storey people actually did. Mainly the purpose is to support a drug habit.

But no one who actually breaks in goes through Machiavelli's thought process before-hand. This is not the Pink Panther or the tunnelling 2 km under a Mexican prison cell by members of a Cartel; two years of planning, taking account of the Doppler effect on GPS units to guarantee you get under the boss's shower stall so he'll be hidden from the CCTV camera as he descends into the tunnel below.....

This is petty-opportunistic-theft with a well known pattern. Oh, by the way, if the petty theft goes south and descends into murder, the perp flees.

In the time I typed this, Rudy would have been up and in the cottage and on the toilet with his MP3 player. Machiavelli would have this be a graduate level course in dialectics.

 

[Grinder]

I will reread. IIRC it was expressed in a more nuanced way.... but seriously, after the final acquittals I find myself dragging my feet in going after small points, esp. in motivation reports which have no standing any more. So forgive me if this one ends here - it could very well be as you say, and I'll stipulate so rather than try to argue.

Still - Machiavelli was trying to make an argument about what is a "logical" approach to entry points into the cottage. What would a "logical burglar do"? I did not know that one of the requirements of applying to be a burglar in Italy was mastery of Friedrich Hegel's, Wissenschaft der Logik.

Could have fooled me.

 

[Bill Williams]

Could have fooled me.

Every once in a while I wonder if someone else has hijacked the "Grinder" account.

Not this time, though. I thought, "Yep, that's Grinder!"

 

[Grinder]

Btw - RW - According to CT's fable he had Rudi thrown out of Merlin not Domus. Interesting that Pisco AFAIK has never corroborated CT's account. The PG wiki makes the case that no one has corroborated any aspect but then that's the PG wiki.

One would think that Nina would have asked Pisco about the incident with Rudi.

AFAIK Rudi went to Merlin after CT's event and before the murder. I think even on Halloween.

 

[Desert Fox]

Flashback for me - 3 1/2 years ago I asked a buddy of mine about Kermit's powerpoints, specifically the one where Kermit "proved" the impossibility of even getting up to, much less in Filomena's window. Kermit made the same point Mach made in this thread about the more logical entry point being the deck on the other side of the building.

What I didn't have then were those pics, as posted above. Also the Channel 5 reconstruction of Rudy's entry had not been done either. However, all of that stuff confirms what my buddy said. (He worked through our local courthouse assisting police in stuff.)

First thing he said about Kermit's powerpoints was that Kermit was completely overthinking this. With nothing other than Kermit's stuff before him, he said that the break-in was doable and that obviously whoever Kermit was had no experience as a second storey man.

In relation to the "more logical entry from the balcony", even without knowing the orientation to the street (not as advertised by Kermit!), if the climb through Filomena's had a 98% probability of success, why would a burglar opt for a 99% other option?

By the time either Kermit or I had typed 30 characters in our respective rebuttals to each other, someone like Rudy would be up and in and already on the toilet. Rudy would not have gone through a burglar's flow-chart of probabilities, he simply would have done it.

The key - and it was something John Douglas wrote about that I only read later - the key is not to do our own "logical" analysis. This guy, as well as John Douglas, knew the perps. Douglas made a reputation inventing profiling by going to the imprisoned-perps themselves and asking them how they did it, what they looked for, etc.

It provided valuable shortcuts to what is really real in these perps' lives, what really goes through their minds - rather than reduce it like Machiavelli does to some university course on burglary-logic, and what perps SHOULD do if they would only adhere to Hegel's dialectics.

My buddy knew what actual second-storey people actually did. Mainly the purpose is to support a drug habit.

But no one who actually breaks in goes through Machiavelli's thought process before-hand. This is not the Pink Panther or the tunnelling 2 km under a Mexican prison cell by members of a Cartel; two years of planning, taking account of the Doppler effect on GPS units to guarantee you get under the boss's shower stall so he'll be hidden from the CCTV camera as he descends into the tunnel below.....

This is petty-opportunistic-theft with a well known pattern. Oh, by the way, if the petty theft goes south and descends into murder, the perp flees.

In the time I typed this, Rudy would have been up and in the cottage and on the toilet with his MP3 player. Machiavelli would have this be a graduate level course in dialectics.

Putting it in simpler terms, criminals are not always logical.

 

[Ken Dine]

Its so frustrating Rudy has all these answers and is merely holding out.

I dont study burglars, but I have seen witnesses and heard from police its extremely common the burglar is someone you "invited" to your home.
Whether its a friend of a friend, someone you met playing basketball, a carpet cleaning worker, a lawn care person. (often the felons, with no formal education or skill, who can get these labor type jobs that have no background checks) are the same you invite into your home to shampoo your carpet.

Breaking into a place you have been before gives a burglar some edge in knowledge and confidence in his theft/B&E.

Rudy is holding onto the date alibi and consensual sex, for now. He came in through the front door with Meredith. He was on the toilet pooping when the murder happened. He fled out the front door he claims, the murderer fled just before Rudy fled.

Maybe if the Italian Court system offers him a PHD for free and maybe a Ferrari he'll tell the truth?

Your comment rang a bell. Back about 15 years ago an elderly couple who had owned an Italian restaurant here in N. Hollywood were murdered by an illegal alien who had been working on the wood floors in their home, so he knew their home well. When the Mexican finally returned to rob them, he had repeatedly stabbed them to death.

Their restaurant is still there but boarded up, so every time I drive by I think of them:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/19/local/me-pulido19

 

[Bill Williams]

Putting it in simpler terms, criminals are not always logical.

 

[Ken Dine]

Flashback for me - 3 1/2 years ago I asked a buddy of mine about Kermit's powerpoints, specifically the one where Kermit "proved" the impossibility of even getting up to, much less in Filomena's window. Kermit made the same point Mach made in this thread about the more logical entry point being the deck on the other side of the building.

What I didn't have then were those pics, as posted above. Also the Channel 5 reconstruction of Rudy's entry had not been done either. However, all of that stuff confirms what my buddy said. (He worked through our local courthouse assisting police in stuff.)

First thing he said about Kermit's powerpoints was that Kermit was completely overthinking this. With nothing other than Kermit's stuff before him, he said that the break-in was doable and that obviously whoever Kermit was had no experience as a second storey man.

In relation to the "more logical entry from the balcony", even without knowing the orientation to the street (not as advertised by Kermit!), if the climb through Filomena's had a 98% probability of success, why would a burglar opt for a 99% other option?

By the time either Kermit or I had typed 30 characters in our respective rebuttals to each other, someone like Rudy would be up and in and already on the toilet. Rudy would not have gone through a burglar's flow-chart of probabilities, he simply would have done it.

The key - and it was something John Douglas wrote about that I only read later - the key is not to do our own "logical" analysis. This guy, as well as John Douglas, knew the perps. Douglas made a reputation inventing profiling by going to the imprisoned-perps themselves and asking them how they did it, what they looked for, etc.

It provided valuable shortcuts to what is really real in these perps' lives, what really goes through their minds - rather than reduce it like Machiavelli does to some university course on burglary-logic, and what perps SHOULD do if they would only adhere to Hegel's dialectics.

My buddy knew what actual second-storey people actually did. Mainly the purpose is to support a drug habit.

But no one who actually breaks in goes through Machiavelli's thought process before-hand. This is not the Pink Panther or the tunnelling 2 km under a Mexican prison cell by members of a Cartel; two years of planning, taking account of the Doppler effect on GPS units to guarantee you get under the boss's shower stall so he'll be hidden from the CCTV camera as he descends into the tunnel below.....

This is petty-opportunistic-theft with a well known pattern. Oh, by the way, if the petty theft goes south and descends into murder, the perp flees.

In the time I typed this, Rudy would have been up and in the cottage and on the toilet with his MP3 player. Machiavelli would have this be a graduate level course in dialectics.

On the practical level of an invented break-in scenario (as the police claimed Amanda had done), why would Amanda bother going into the garden to fetch a 9 lb rock to break Filomena's window, when all she had to do was walk over to the patio doors and unlatch them? Any of the roommates could have neglected to latch the patio doors, even Meredith.

If the patio was the most likely entry for a burglar (and I'm sure all 4 gals worried about a patio break-in), then why would Amanda contrive an unlikely staged breakin thru Filomena's window, which is an entry point that none of them had likely even worried about before?

 

[Bill Williams]

On the practical level of an invented break-in scenario (as the police claimed Amanda had done), why would Amanda bother going into the garden to fetch a 9 lb rock to break Filomena's window, when all she had to do was walk over to the patio doors and unlatch them? Any of the roommates could have neglected to latch the patio doors, even Meredith.

If the patio was the most likely entry for a burglar (and I'm sure all 4 gals worried about a patio break-in), then why would Amanda contrive an unlikely staged breakin thru Filomena's window, which is an entry point that none of them had likely even worried about before?

Exactly.

If Amanda Knox is supposed to have had a criminal sophistication to purposely and with malice aforethought pull the wool over seasoned, elite detectives on Nov 5/6.....

.... why was she suddenly a dummkopf in "staging" a break-in to look like it looked to the postal police - the only ones to see it in situ before Filomena was allowed to corrupt the scene (unawares)?

I wish Machiavelli would apply his logical analysis osmotically, that's all.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is through lying that Rudy got his sentence reduced. He must play the role of the basically good but weak victim of circumstance. Being an African immigrant is helpful because many liberal Europeans feel guilt about not doing enough to help the poor people clamoring to get into Europe. The way Mach, Mignini, and other guilters play the race card is a direct use of these feelings of guilt. Plus there will always be some people that will believe him and those are the only ones that he will be able to rely on when he is released. He gains nothing by telling the truth. He was probably highly intoxicated at the time of the murder and it is possible he doesn't remember a lot of it.

You will never hear the truth from Rudy.

I agree with all of this. But I would add another factor that I think might well be playing a big part. As well as the practicality of sentence severity, I believe it suits Guede at a very deep psychological level to be thought of - and to think of himself - as only a "reactive" bit-part player in the crime. I think he almost certainly believes that most people - and certainly most of those with authority over him, such as police, prosecutors, courts and prison officers (and probation workers upon his release) - are under the impression that "none of this was really his fault or his doing", and that he (at worst) merely got swept along in someone else's wicked acts.

This therefore allows Guede to wear the mask of "victim", which I believe is critically important to someone of his character (and I believe he is very probably a deeply disturbed sociopath with very low self-esteem and deep psychosexual issues). And I think that the "victim" tag is probably as important to Guede himself as it is to whether others also apply the "victim" tag to him: he can pretend to himself that he's really not a bad or evil person.

I wonder whether deep, prolonged, expert psychiatric therapy might eventually break down these walls and allow Guede to come clean properly - not just about the mechanics of the Kercher attack and murder, but also about his own motivations, desires, frustrations, anger and embarrassments (which are what drove the attack and murder). Unfortunately, I suspect that very few countries - not least Italy - would have the will and the resources to ensure that such treatment was even attempted. But without it, I am virtually certain that Guede will never reveal what really happened that night and why.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree with all of this. But I would add another factor that I think might well be playing a big part. As well as the practicality of sentence severity, I believe it suits Guede at a very deep psychological level to be thought of - and to think of himself - as only a "reactive" bit-part player in the crime. I think he almost certainly believes that most people - and certainly most of those with authority over him, such as police, prosecutors, courts and prison officers (and probation workers upon his release) - are under the impression that "none of this was really his fault or his doing", and that he (at worst) merely got swept along in someone else's wicked acts.

This therefore allows Guede to wear the mask of "victim", which I believe is critically important to someone of his character (and I believe he is very probably a deeply disturbed sociopath with very low self-esteem and deep psychosexual issues). And I think that the "victim" tag is probably as important to Guede himself as it is to whether others also apply the "victim" tag to him: he can pretend to himself that he's really not a bad or evil person.

I wonder whether deep, prolonged, expert psychiatric therapy might eventually break down these walls and allow Guede to come clean properly - not just about the mechanics of the Kercher attack and murder, but also about his own motivations, desires, frustrations, anger and embarrassments (which are what drove the attack and murder). Unfortunately, I suspect that very few countries - not least Italy - would have the will and the resources to ensure that such treatment was even attempted. But without it, I am virtually certain that Guede will never reveal what really happened that night and why.

Wasn't there testimony from Guede's cell mates and friends in prison that he admitted what he did, and was glad that Amanda and Raf were convicted and serving time?

Isn't that what one of those witnesses claimed they had a falling out over?

I do remember Guede being reported as taunting Amanda while in prison, with him supposedly saying something like, "come on Amanda, you know you were there".

That's from memory. I guess my question is, how does this square with a Rudy Guede who is in denial over his crimes? Do you recall anything similar? Does this fit neatly into your view as expressed here?

I definitely agree Rudy is a head case. But I think he knows what he did, and in the right company would probably spill the beans.

That's why when Rudy does get out, he will be a continuing threat to the authorities, just for having committed the crime by himself, and being able to prove it.

How crazy would it be if Rudy went back to Perugia, and climbed around in the ravine and retrieved the knife he ditched there in 2007? I'll bet its still there.

 

[zotz]

Wasn't there testimony from Guede's cell mates and friends in prison that he admitted what he did, and was glad that Amanda and Raf were convicted and serving time?

Isn't that what one of those witnesses claimed they had a falling out over?

I do remember Guede being reported as taunting Amanda while in prison, with him supposedly saying something like, "come on Amanda, you know you were there".

That's from memory. I guess my question is, how does this square with a Rudy Guede who is in denial over his crimes? Do you recall anything similar? Does this fit neatly into your view as expressed here?

I definitely agree Rudy is a head case. But I think he knows what he did, and in the right company would probably spill the beans.
That's why when Rudy does get out, he will be a continuing threat to the authorities, just for having committed the crime by himself, and being able to prove it.

How crazy would it be if Rudy went back to Perugia, and climbed around in the ravine and retrieved the knife he ditched there in 2007? I'll bet its still there.

I never knew that about Rudy's taunting. sources? I recall that he seemed unenthusiastic about blaming the others in court and Mignini even had to read the letter that Rudy supposedly wrote. The prison snitches do not seem credible to me because their story was so far out of line with Rudy's previous statements and it seemed very much in line with something that an angry inmate or inmates might do in retaliation or out of spite. LondonJohn is right. There is almost no chance that Rudy could ever admit the truth without expert psychiatric therapy.

 

[Machiavelli]

How far from the kids was Curatolo that dark night he watched them?

Didn't you say 30-50 meters? Was there a street lamp right next to them?

Why were the street lamps off? Same budget as the recording devices in the police station?

Knox and Sollecito are not "kids".

Curatolo was 35 meters distant.
He has nothing to do with the topic of staged burglary.
There was a street lamp about 15 meters from their alleged position, and there were lights on around the basketball court.
Anyway, if you think Curatolo could be mistaken because of distance and insufficient illumination, then you should be consistent and accept that the balcony was not visible. But this is especially compared to Filomena's window, illuminated by four street lamps, only 7 meters from the road, and facing the parking and the parking entrance.

 

[Machiavelli]

Remember that Machiavelli adores Judge Nencini. Nencini dwelt on the logical-makeup of second-storey men differently. He opined that the reason why Rudy would not have gone in through the window, or himself done a judicially-generated fake-break-in was because of Rudy's assumed professionalism.

You should speak for yourself.

To "adore" is a word too big for you to use it for crooked attempts to dispute, and also refrain from using my name in such hyperboles .