Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
zotz said:
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.
Click to expand...

You dont think Italys best doctors of psychology couldnt "peel away the layers" to get to the truth?
 
Bill Williams said:
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.
Click to expand...

Filomena didn't remove any evidence of staging from the scene.
She didn't remove the soil the purported "burglar " brought in from the room, didn't place glass shards back on the window sill, didn't set the external shutters back in ajar position, didn't erase purported intruder's shoeprint from grass and earth belo, didn't add street lamps, didnt place the window on a second store, didn't remove a balcony and didn't pull the road near the window, didn't place an easy and safe entrance on a balcoly on the rear (which was there to be used by other intruders), did not make order again in her drawers, did not spend time scattering clothes picked from the cupboard in a clumsy attempt to make the room look searched, didn't put back her jewels on the table exactly where she had left them, didn't close drawers of other rooms and didn't put order in them; she also didn't "forget" to check her values as instead Amanda Knox says she did after she realized a "burglar" had broken in (she didn't check for her cash money); Filomena also didn't remove Guede's fingerprints and DNA from the room and didn't replace it with a Knox+Meredith mixture on a latent blood (luminol) stain, and didn't clear the small bathroom where alleged burglar would have washed his wounded hands from Guede's DNA, and didn't replace it with a Meredith+Knox mixture in the context of blood drops from Amanda Knox which were not there the previous evening, and about which Knox happened to lie about.
Also, Filomena didn't put two series of shoeprints and physical traces creating a series of dycothomies to form two sets that isentify two different modus operandi; didn't place a single trail of shoeprints in blood walking straight out without turning to lock the doo, without returning back and without walking into the bathroom; didn't remove trails of bare footprints going to and coming from the bathmat pritns in diluted blood, didn't place isolated luminol bare footprints identical to the bathmat prints in the corridoor and in Knox's room...
Is it sufficiently osmoticall for you?
 
Kauffer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Filomena's window is the most visible and exposed window (except for the 1st store windows of bathroom and Laura's room, at side of the street). It faces right the spot where people pass by (the area of parking entrance) and it is the closest to the parking lot and street area. It is also more distant from the ground and more visible than Knox's room window on the left.
 
Last edited:
analemma said:
LIES, LIES, LIES.
The cottage owner had to put Bars on the window where the break in occurred to prevent more burglaries.
" it's a fact." ITS A LIE.
Please provide documentation
It is still a lie, even if you(and the police) make up "Judicial truths"
Click to expand...

It's a fact.
A *fact*.

Two burglaries occurred at the cottage, one through the corridoor french window, the other from the kitchen window. Both throught the balcony.
*fact*
 
Bill Williams said:
(...)
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?
(...)
Click to expand...

Simply statistics show burglars take the easisest way in. This is the rule, this is what they do.
According to FBI profiler Douglass (who, ironically, has later decided to support a theory of Guede lone perpetrator) this is how true burglars operate. He called staging a burglary "very common" on domestic murders, even made a list of "red flags" indicating evidence staging and made several examples of them, red flags which all happen to be there in this case.
 
Bill Williams said:
Talk about shooting the messenger because you don't like the photos!!!

Machiavelli's response could have been shorter. "Be reasonable - see it my way." "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

The weaker Machiavelli's point the more he blames others.
Click to expand...

He forgot that a picture paints a thousand words. I look at those photos and read Mach's reply and all I hear is blah, blah, blah.
 
Machiavelli said:
Simply statistics show burglars take the easisest way in. This is the rule, this is what they do.
According to FBI profiler Douglass (who, ironically, has later decided to support a theory of Guede lone perpetrator) this is how true burglars operate. He called staging a burglary "very common" on domestic murders, even made a list of "red flags" indicating evidence staging and made several examples of them, red flags which all happen to be there in this case.
Click to expand...

But you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that for Rudy, it would still have been extremely easy. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? What difference would a marginally easier method of entry make to Rudy? Be honest Mach. The answer is none.
 
acbytesla said:
But you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that for Rudy, it would still have been extremely easy. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? What difference would a marginally easier method of entry make to Rudy? Be honest Mach. The answer is none.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the amusing dichotomy that Machiavelli has created by quoting John Douglas as an authority on staged break-ins. If Douglas is indeed such an authority, then Douglas' clear proclamation that this case did NOT feature a staged break-in ought to carry a lot of weight.

Unless, of course, Machiavelli thinks that Douglas prostituted his own principles, expertise, experience and reputation purely to give certain professional opinions regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher and the (non)-involvement of Knox or Sollecito. But I suspect that Mach will happily make such an accusation (file it alongside the "corrupt Hellmann paid off" and "Conti/Vecchiotti in league with the defence team" nonsense......)
 
acbytesla said:
But you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that for Rudy, it would still have been extremely easy. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? What difference would a marginally easier method of entry make to Rudy? Be honest Mach. The answer is none.
Click to expand...

No. The argument stands, intact. The logic argumentation is based on comparison. An illogocal point of entry is an indicator. It is illogical for anyone.
You don't use 500$ banknotes to light your fire or clean your windows. Nobody does. This is not because of the amount of their value: in fact, you also don't use 5$ banknotes. You simply don't throw away a value without a reason or a return, not even a small value; you don't take a risk, not even a small risk, unless you have a reason to do so. Even a lion doesn't run after a slighlty more difficult or more demanding game, would always chose the easy one and the less tiring action, unless he is just playing. The fact that the lion is strong and would make little difference to him is not an argument: nobody operates consciously against their own interst, not even a small interest. In any somehow professional context, it's so even for a burglar.
A theory that the burglar is an acrobat, a climbing enthusiast who liked to play and challenge his climbing ability, would make sense: one could try to apply it to the specific case (but would have burden of proof, and actually doesn't look too fit to Rudy & the cottage as target).
But the principle of diminishing returns does not make sense. Even an idea (not true, btw) that the difficulty is slightly smaller and the risk is small, does not explain and does not change the element. Illogical point of entry is always an indicator, also according to Douglas.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the amusing dichotomy that Machiavelli has created by quoting John Douglas as an authority on staged break-ins. If Douglas is indeed such an authority, then Douglas' clear proclamation that this case did NOT feature a staged break-in ought to carry a lot of weight.

Unless, of course, Machiavelli thinks that Douglas prostituted his own principles, expertise, experience and reputation purely to give certain professional opinions regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher and the (non)-involvement of Knox or Sollecito. But I suspect that Mach will happily make such an accusation (file it alongside the "corrupt Hellmann paid off" and "Conti/Vecchiotti in league with the defence team" nonsense......)
Click to expand...

I think it's a matter of fact that the "red flags" Douglas indicated in his manual are all there in this case. To that purpose he also made a series of examples from multiple cases that happen to have stunning analogy with evidence in this case.

It is also a fact that Dougles decided to take a public positon in favour of Knox, egregiously disregarding the principles he stated in his own handbook.
I am not the first one spotting a problem of personal credibility of Douglas; other profilers in fact already pointed out in some scientific articles that there were problems with Douglas' reliability, despite his expertise.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the amusing dichotomy that Machiavelli has created by quoting John Douglas as an authority on staged break-ins. If Douglas is indeed such an authority, then Douglas' clear proclamation that this case did NOT feature a staged break-in ought to carry a lot of weight.

Unless, of course, Machiavelli thinks that Douglas prostituted his own principles, expertise, experience and reputation purely to give certain professional opinions regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher and the (non)-involvement of Knox or Sollecito. But I suspect that Mach will happily make such an accusation (file it alongside the "corrupt Hellmann paid off" and "Conti/Vecchiotti in league with the defence team" nonsense......)
Click to expand...

This is where the guilters lose. Machiavelli is probably NOT wrong when he says that most burglaries use the easiest method of entry? I would agree with that! But that includes every burglar of every size, shape and physical condition. Rudy was strong nimble and able to dunk a basketball. What is difficult for one person can be very easy for another. Mach's glossing over this obvious fact belies any honest approach to the evidence.

Rudy would not struggle to select a method of entry, he would just do it.
 
Desert Fox said:
I think if there were bloody hand prints found at the time of the murder scene from Amanda, that would be pretty damning.
Click to expand...

I would want to know if such a handprint really is identical to Amanda's hand. I've seen the prosecution hire as a foorprint expert a salaried police fingerprint expert to swear that a foot smear on a thick absorbent bath mat is Raffaele's even though it does not fit, and pay that scientific police employee a $7,000 consulting fee for his work/testimony. I've seen Machiavelli assert that the bloody knife print on the victim's bed sheet fits a much larger knife. I've seen police computer experts damage four laptops. I've seen the scientific police's DNA scientist store a bra clasp in fluid, preventing it from being tested a second time which is the scientific standard for reproducibility. I could go on and on and on like this - no wonder I don't trust much of what the prosecution or their experts claim.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
This is where the guilters lose. Machiavelli is probably NOT wrong when he says that most burglaries use the easiest method of entry? I would agree with that! But that includes every burglar of every size, shape and physical condition. Rudy was strong nimble and able to dunk a basketball. What is difficult for one person can be very easy for another. Mach's glossing over this obvious fact belies any honest approach to the evidence.

Rudy would not struggle to select a method of entry, he would just do it.
Click to expand...

Another way of thinking of it also is that he is making a mistake of arguing "all" when a better argument would be "most"
 
Machiavelli said:
No. The argument stands, intact. The logic argumentation is based on comparison. An illogocal point of entry is an indicator. It is illogical for anyone.
You don't use 500$ banknotes to light your fire or clean your windows. Nobody does. This is not because of the amount of their value: in fact, you also don't use 5$ banknotes. You simply don't throw away a value without a reason or a return, not even a small value; you don't take a risk, not even a small risk, unless you have a reason to do so. Even a lion doesn't run after a slighlty more difficult or more demanding game, would always chose the easy one and the less tiring action, unless he is just playing.
A theory that the burglar is an acrobat, a climbing enthusiast who liked to play and challenge his climbing ability, would make sense: one could try to apply it to the specific case (but would have burden of proof, and actually doesn't look too fit to Rudy & the cottage as target).
But the principle of diminishing returns does not make sense. Even an idea (not true, btw) that the difficulty is slightly smaller and the risk is small, does not explain and does not change the element. Illogical point of entry is always an indicator, according to Douglas.
Click to expand...


Your analogy is poor and dishonest. I spent today hiking and climbing rocks on the Oregon coast at Cape Arago. Unfortunately I'm older and overweight. My hiking companion was a thin athletic young man of about 22. I had to carefully select my route and was in constant fear of slipping and falling on to the rocks It was a difficult day for me. But not for my friend! My companion was quickly and easily scaling the most difficult route. And he thought NOTHING OF IT!
 
Strozzi said:
I would want to know if such a handprint really is identical to Amanda's hand. I've seen the prosecution hire as a foorprint expert a salaried police fingerprint expert to swear that a foot smear on a thick absorbent bath mat is Raffaele's even though it does not fit, and pay that scientific police employee a $7,000 consulting fee for his work/testimony. I've seen Machiavelli assert that the bloody knife print on the victim's bed sheet fits a much larger knife. I've seen police computer experts damage four laptops. I've seen the scientific police's DNA scientist store a bra clasp in fluid, preventing it from being tested a second time which is the scientific standard for reproducibility. I could go on and on and on like this - no wonder I don't trust much of what the prosecution or their experts claim.
Click to expand...

The bare footprint fits Sollecito, indeed. This is something I've found out myself, with no help from Rinaldi.
And above all, it does not fit Guede.

I've also discovered by my own analysis that there is just an incredible compatibility, a match between the outline marks of the of the sheet imprint and the kitchen knife. I was rather impressed myself about it.

The DNA scientist wrote, at the beginning of her report, that the biological tests will be "non-repeatable".
(a "second time" testing of an item is no scientific standard)

If you go on and on like this you will collect a series of falsehoods and you will make up a false narrative.
 
Strozzi said:
I would want to know if such a handprint really is identical to Amanda's hand. I've seen the prosecution hire as a foorprint expert a salaried police fingerprint expert to swear that a foot smear on a thick absorbent bath mat is Raffaele's even though it does not fit, and pay that scientific police employee a $7,000 consulting fee for his work/testimony. I've seen Machiavelli assert that the bloody knife print on the victim's bed sheet fits a much larger knife. I've seen police computer experts damage four laptops. I've seen the scientific police's DNA scientist store a bra clasp in fluid, preventing it from being tested a second time which is the scientific standard for reproducibility. I could go on and on and on like this - no wonder I don't trust much of what the prosecution or their experts claim.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the argument is verified by an independent examiner and it was not a partial like with that poor Seattle Lawyer.
 
Machiavelli said:
I don't shoot messengers, and above all I have nothing against the photos.

The photos just don't make your point.
Click to expand...

This is just silly Mach. They ABSOLUTELY DO. And your denying the fact makes both you and your argument seem absurd.
 
acbytesla said:
Your analogy is poor and dishonest. I spent today hiking and climbing rocks on the Oregon coast at Cape Arago. Unfortunately I'm older and overweight. My hiking companion was a thin athletic young man of about 22. I had to carefully select my route and was in constant fear of slipping and falling on to the rocks It was a difficult day for me. But not for my friend! My companion was quickly and easily scaling the most difficult route. And he thought NOTHING OF IT!
Click to expand...

You both were there for climbing. That was your purpose. You were playing, you were acting as climbing enthusiasts.

But, do burglars go there to climb? No, they are there to work. They are not climbing enthusiasts, they are burglars.
You cannot assume a burglar is a climbing enthusiast, that would take any pleasure in making an effort and taking risks, unless you have a proof of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom