Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi Machiavelli,
Too bad you think the break-in was staged after Meredith was raped and killed.

If Filomena's window had been broken open before Miss Kercher was murdered,
Nara would have had an easier time hearing The Scream...

Might have been easier for ol' Curatolo, buzzed on heroin
or even folks much closer to the cottage, who were outside near the CCTV's
to have heard it too...


I still can't get over Nara's testimony to The Massei Court
of hearing someone running in the dry leaves of Meredith's driveway!
Odd how with all those street lamps that you mention above to illuminate the area,
that no one spotted them running around then.

Odd too is that Nara can hear running in leaves,
but not the sound of glass shattering when Filomena's window was broken...

Odd too is that Nara said to The Massei Court
that she saw news stand posters at 11:00am "which talked about this girl"
on the same day Miss Kercher was discovered raped and murdered,
before Luca even broke down Meredith's door at around 1:00pm.
and they screamed a foot, a foot!!!


Machiavelli,
any opinions on any of this?

 

[RWVBWL]

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*

Dang,
don't tell me that Rudy tossed the rock from the edge of the carport
and climbed up from below by standing on the security bars
because he was tryin' to trick the investigators
that it wasn't he that broke in, again.

Lucky the cottage didn't have a chimney,
Rudy might have climbed up, into and down that,
and even died, like this dude did:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-inside-solicitors-chimney-died-minutes.html

 

[acbytesla]

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.

But easy is easy Mach. It is unlikely that it would have been significantly more difficult for Rudy, For me or you? Maybe, even probably. So for us we may have carefully chose the easiest method of entry. But this is a young athletic man who would NOT struggle with either entry method. It simply would not make a difference for him.

Your refusal to accept that makes you seem obstinate and unreasonable.

 

[Grinder]

Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? What difference would a marginally easier method of entry make to Rudy?

The law of diminishing (marginal) returns says that at some point adding more energy, effort, workers etc. to a task will produce smaller marginal (add on) production. My econ prof put it this way: At some point adding more people to weed the Quad while increasing overall production will lower production per worker.

A marginally easier method of entry would have afforded Rudi less exposure and risk of injury. There is no doubt that if I had to enter the cottage because the key was locked inside I'd go the balcony route.

Before Bill ("I don't concern myself with small stuff") or someone else chimes in, I'm not saying F's window was more visible or that Rudi should have used the balcony.

 

[acbytesla]

A logical point is something based on comparison.

What? The photos speak for themselves and they do it convincingly. Arguing with them is just silly.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Too bad you think the break-in was staged after Meredith was raped and killed.

If Filomena's window had been broken open before Miss Kercher was murdered,
Nara would have had an easier time hearing The Scream...

Don't forget about Antonella Monacchia.

Might have been easier for ol' Curatolo, buzzed on heroin
or even folks much closer to the cottage, who were outside near the CCTV's
to have heard it too...

Curatolo was on the other side however.
Witnesses (such as Monacchia) refer that sometimes they would hear noises from the cottage, those were noises coming from the balcony (where the french window is).

I still can't get over Nara's testimony to The Massei Court
of hearing someone running in the dry leaves of Meredith's driveway!
Odd how with all those street lamps that you mention above to illuminate the area,
that no one spotted them running around then.

Are you trying to make a point?

Odd too is that Nara can hear running in leaves,
but not the sound of glass shattering when Filomena's window was broken...

Nara heared the scream, as her bathroom window was open. Then, she says she stuck out from the windows and paid attention to what happened.

The smashing of window might have occurred 1 hour later, even 4 or 5 hours later as far as we know.

Odd too is that Nara said to The Massei Court
that she saw news stand posters at 11:00am "which talked about this girl"
on the same day Miss Kercher was discovered raped and murdered,
before Luca even broke down Meredith's door at around 1:00pm.
and they screamed a foot, a foot!!!

No, it's not odd at all.
It would be odd if Nara Capezzali heared anothr scream, thus assuming she was used to hear horrifying screams every other day.

Machiavelli,
any opinions on any of this?

My opinion is that you always forget of Antonella Monacchia.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't shoot messengers, and above all I have nothing against the photos.

The photos just don't make your point.

LOL!

Your line these days seems to be, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes."

You are entirely entitled to say that those photos don't show what they show.

 

[Bill Williams]

Before Bill ("I don't concern myself with small stuff") or someone else chimes in, I'm not saying F's window was more visible or that Rudi should have used the balcony.

That's not entirely what I said.... what I meant to say was that since the 27 March acquittals of the innocents.... ah, er, formerly provisionally-guilty I find myself dragging my feet to ferret out small points of detail, esp. from Nencini's report.

I'd go back and quote the exact wording, but I find myself dragging my feet on that too in this new climate.

 

[acbytesla]

The law of diminishing (marginal) returns says that at some point adding more energy, effort, workers etc. to a task will produce smaller marginal (add on) production. My econ prof put it this way: At some point adding more people to weed the Quad while increasing overall production will lower production per worker.

A marginally easier method of entry would have afforded Rudi less exposure and risk of injury. There is no doubt that if I had to enter the cottage because the key was locked inside I'd go the balcony route.

Before Bill ("I don't concern myself with small stuff") or someone else chimes in, I'm not saying F's window was more visible or that Rudi should have used the balcony.

But that is you and that in fact maybe me. But we're not athletic young men who do easily what would be difficult for us. As I was saying to Mach, I watched all day as my climbing companion scale vertical rockfaces in minutes even seconds whereas I would take 10 to 30 minutes taking much easier routes. Just because something is marginally easier does not mean that they have to care about the comparison.

 

[Machiavelli]

What? The photos speak for themselves and they do it convincingly. Arguing with them is just silly.

The photos just show that a balcony exists, that it is visible from 35 meters away if you look aside on a road where no one walks, or if you use 150mm camera lenses from 100 meters away on a city terrace. And that a human shilouette on the balcony wouldn't be suspicious.

You would need to look at photos showing you were passers by are, what they see around them and where they can look, and showing you how Filomena's window is just before their nose, 7 meters from the road and in plain illumination, and somoeone climbing in through that second store window -through that illogical and difficult point of entry - would be in plain sight and would appear extremely suspicious to any of the several posible passers by who walk around the parking entrance.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

How much time do they spend discerning this? If there is an easy way standing glaringly in front of them, do they spend the next 20 minutes in a cost-benefit analysis, gauging various wind-speeds on various sides of the building.... head down to the land-surveyors office to get detailed maps.....?

This is just silly, Mach. If a petty theft sees an easily accessible entry-point right in front of them, they take it. This must be silly season to try to argue anything else.

 

[Machiavelli]

How much time do they spend discerning this? If there is an easy way standing glaringly in front of them, do they spend the next 20 minutes in a cost-benefit analysis, gauging various wind-speeds on various sides of the building.... head down to the land-surveyors office to get detailed maps.....?

This is just silly, Mach. If a petty theft sees an easily accessible entry-point right in front of them, they take it. This must be silly season to try to argue anything else.

Facts show something different. Burglars chose the easiest way in and the safer (not just any entry point that is merely possible in rerum natura). They don't make unnecessary efforts and do't take unnecessary risks.
Whether you like it or not, even for Douglas this is the first rule to note and the first possible red flag to spot.

 

[Desert Fox]

But that is you and that in fact maybe me. But we're not athletic young men who do easily what would be difficult for us. As I was saying to Mach, I watched all day as my climbing companion scale vertical rockfaces in minutes even seconds whereas I would take 10 to 30 minutes taking much easier routes. Just because something is marginally easier does not mean that they have to care about the comparison.

As a kid, my understanding is that George Mallory used to like to climb brick and stone walls.

 

[Diocletus]

Facts show something different. Burglars chose the easiest way in and the safer (not just any entry point that is merely possible in rerum natura). They don't make unnecessary efforts and do't take unnecessary risks.

Not Rudy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Facts show something different. Burglars chose the easiest way in and the safer (not just any entry point that is merely possible in rerum natura). They don't make unnecessary efforts and do't take unnecessary risks.
Whether you like it or not, even for Douglas this is the first rule to note and the first possible red flag to spot.

I believe that you are committing the "Hasty Generalization" logical fallacy here, assuming that all people will do things one way.

 

[Bill Williams]

Facts show something different. Burglars chose the easiest way in and the safer (not just any entry point that is merely possible in rerum natura). They don't make unnecessary efforts and do't take unnecessary risks.
Whether you like it or not, even for Douglas this is the first rule to note and the first possible red flag to spot.

That highlighted part was exactly the point which is compelling. When **an** easy route into the cottage is staring Rudy Guede in the face, why would he expend extra effort to climb on to the balcony where he's exposed to the street, a balcony lit by a street lamp?

Ok, the "lit" part is covered by, "don't take unnecessary risks". So what is it, exactly you are arguing here? The expertly-analyzed, charts-graphs with satellite photos....... to squeeze the last .00001% of ease out of the scenario, or climb in through Filomena's window and head for the toilet?

 

[acbytesla]

As a kid, my understanding is that George Mallory used to like to climb brick and stone walls.

This is the dumbest most dishonest argument imaginable. Rudy's age and athleticism makes either method of entering very, very, very easy. It simply would not have made a difference to Rudy. Just as it would not have made a difference for Mallory, my climbing companion and a lot of young people.

 

[Machiavelli]

How much time do they spend discerning this? If there is an easy way standing glaringly in front of them, do they spend the next 20 minutes in a cost-benefit analysis, gauging various wind-speeds on various sides of the building.... head down to the land-surveyors office to get detailed maps.....?

This is just silly, Mach. If a petty theft sees an easily accessible entry-point right in front of them, they take it. This must be silly season to try to argue anything else.

Douglas' handbook does not limit its red flags to entry points. It addresses rules about the overall consistency of a crime.
He points out for example, that albeit confrontational burglars who kill are rare, they exist; however, when burglars kill they kill quickly, employing not more than the neccessary degree of violence and they would avoid spending time in the house.
This itself is a big point of inconsistency between the circumstances of Meredith murder and the behaviour pattern of a common burglar. There is no link between this type of murder and the behaviour of burglars. This inconsistency causes the murder itself to become something radically different from murders that are consequences of burglaries (etremely rare in Italy anyway) because there is no consequential link between committing a burglary and committing the type of violence that was perpetrated on Meredith. Even if it was Guede alone committing the crime, the dynamic of the crime wouldn't be that of a murder as a consequence of a burglary, because that kind of violence does not belong even to burglars who kill for fear of discovery; some other, unknown indipendent motive and some other causal dynamic about the "reasons" of the crime should be assumed, and speculated about.

 

[Bill Williams]

Douglas' handbook does not limit its red flags to entry points. It addresses rules about the overall consistency of a crime.
He points out for example, that albeit confrontational burglars who kill are rare, they exist; however, when burglars kill they kill quickly, employing not more than the neccessary degree of violence and they would avoid spending time in the house.
This itself is a big point of inconsistency between the circumstances of Meredith murder and the behaviour pattern of a common burglar. There is no link between this type of murder and the behaviour of burglars. This inconsistency causes the murder itself to become something radically different from murders that are consequences of burglaries (etremely rare in Italy anyway) because there is no consequential link between committing a burglary and committing the type of violence that was perpetrated on Meredith. Even if it was Guede alone committing the crime, the dynamic of the crime wouldn't be that of a murder as a consequence of a burglary, because that kind of violence does not belong even to burglars who kill for fear of discovery; some other, unknown indipendent motive and some other causal dynamic about the "reasons" of the crime should be assumed, and speculated about.

Ah, er, I hope you are sitting down for this. John Douglas, expert FBI profiler, believes AK and RS innocent. Completely, 100% innocent. Otherwise, all your quotes about him are interesting. But you should know his own conclusion after looking at this......

Back to silly season.

 

[zotz]

You dont think Italys best doctors of psychology couldnt "peel away the layers" to get to the truth?

I am very skeptical about that. If it was against Rudy's self-interest then he would refuse treatment or he would try to dissemble. As long as there are others to blame then he will do that. I think he is a sociopath who will use anyone to help him get free. I remember how Kenneth Bianchi fooled more than one psychiatrist into believing that he had Dissociative Identity Disorder. I really have never heard of a psychiatrist getting an unwilling criminal to admit the truth. I won't say that it could never happen but I have never heard of that. If Rudy was weak enough to let his guard down and admit the truth then maybe but the chances are slim.