Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

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

Hm. Interesting, I guess.

Did you hear that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted?
 
Grinder said:
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.
Click to expand...


Hi Grinder,
I'll keep this in mind as I debate...
So you believe Rudy's story though,
that it was Alex's fault they both couldn't get in to The Club 1 night,
right?

Recently I made mention,
again, of a Mom from New Zealand whose son was also in Perugia
at the time of Meredith's rape and murder? He told Mom's some things about Rudy Guede.

Well,
looking around for something else,
(happens often, hahaha)
I found some info and maybe folks might give her story a little more credibility,
for she did bring this up waaay back late 2007/early 2008 I seem to recall.

I doubt that Rudy was reading CD's blog at the time, nor FS's Perugia Shock either,
so he wouldn't know of any New Zealander that had talked with his Mom about Meredith, and he, "poor Rudy".

Rudy states this in his March 26, '07 Deposition with PM Mignini:
Shamrock’s is near the Etruscan Arch, so that evening with my friends, seeing as it was the final between England and South Africa, with friends who were Philip, Alex, [not heard] Frederic and that day the brother of Alex and a friend of his came from New Zealand and we went to see it, because we had already planned it, anyway we had booked to go to Shamrock’s and to see the match and while we were there watching this match we didn’t realize it but a group of English guys came, a group of English guys who had also booked to see the match and they sat behind us, basically we were in the front row and they were behind and then Meredith arrived, I waved to her, Alex too because they know her anyway and then I was at the back watching the match all together and basically there was some banter but like between young guys because we, me, Alex and the others, were pulling for South Africa and behind us there were those who were pulling for England.

* * *

It seems like,
from what I posted the other day,
that the New Zealand friend of Alex's brother knew
some of what Rudy Guede was about.

For some reason I bet that Alex could give plenty of info on Rudy Guede,
his life style, work situation, dating life(*), nightclub antics, and cell phone/texting info.

I'm surprised Nina, Candace, Frank,
or any one else interested in Rudy Guede's "appointment" with Meredith
has not really sat down and interviewed Alex Crudo...
My 2¢ only,
RW


(*) - Remember that "poor Rudy" spent some of his hard earned $$$,
(not for condoms to slip into his back pocket in case the need arose while on that date with Meredith),
but to feed himself?

Well,
re-reading Rudy's GPD yesterday,
I once again wondered about his last date before Meredith that he wrote about.
poor Rudy said:
Before my meeting with Meredith, I went to the town center. I walked around, to see where to eat. Then I decided to eat at the Kebap, so I went toward the one that’s next to “La Tana dell’Orso.” I met Philip there, an Austrian friend who was speaking with a girl and he directed me to the Kebap and I ordered something to eat. I waited a bit because in front of me there were two girls who were ordering. Then I ate and went towards Philip, who was still talking.

With Philip I talked at length, then we agreed to meet later at Alex’s place.
I told Philip I had to go meet someone, and he jokingly asked me if it was a guy or a girl.

I pointed out it was a girl,
because he was referring to an awful one night stand
that happened to me a few days before,
regarding a “guy.”
Click to expand...


I hope Rudy brought condoms for that date!
Better safe than sorry,
right?
:D
 
Last edited:
Doing a bit of research based on what Machiavelli wrote and it looks like at least some rapes committed during a burglary are done by a pair of individuals.

I did a Google search for "burglars rape woman in her home"
 
Bill Williams said:
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?
Click to expand...

The balcony is *not* close to any street lamp (the closest street lamp is 22-23 meters away). And it is not close to a street (the closest point from which it is visible is 35 meters away; but it's a road where nobody walks, only cars may drive there, and their lights point elsewhere).

Filomena's window is instead much closer, it is illuminated by multiple closer lamps, including some parking lot lamplights, and it is there on the side where people walk.

It is also a second store window: that alone means that would become not only effort taking, but also itself a way of entry that looks suspicious because of its nature. Think instead how natural it is for people to see other human shilouettes on balconies: people don't become suspicious when they see someone on a balcony, burglars can easilly go unnoticed, this is also why burglars chose them.

The objection about age and statistics by acbytesla is also pointless: statistics show that burglars always chose the easiest way in, but also that almost all burglaries are committed either from a ground level point of entry or (in about 30% of cases) entering from a balcony or from a surface that serves the same purpose just below the window. But statistics also show that most burglars are very young, at least in Italy, maybe the most of them is under 20. So also "very young" burglars choose the easiest way in.
In fact in Italy, another curious statistic is that the majority of house burglaries where the burglar is arrested, is committed by girls.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
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.
Click to expand...

He also believes that Rudy is the kilker.
 
Bill Williams said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already knew, very well. See upthread.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone that watches this video can see that the climb is extremely easy. The climber, who has a similar build to Rudy's, takes about five seconds to get to Filomena's window. It makes no difference if the shutters are open or closed. The nail that is half way up the wall (which the prosecution said would have to be used) is totally ignored by the climber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs
 
Machiavelli said:
The balcony is *not* close to any street lamp (the closest street lamp is 22-23 meters away). And it is not close to a street (the closest point from which it is visible is 35 meters away; but it's a road where nobody walks, only cars may drive there, and their lights point elsewhere).

Filomena's window is instead much closer, it is illuminated by multiple closer lamps, including some parking lot lamplights, and it is there on the side where people walk.

It is also a second store window: that alone means that would become not only effort taking, but also itself a way of entry that looks suspicious because of its nature.
Click to expand...

A'hem.



The balcony is on the same floor as Filomena's room. Just what is it that you are trying to prove? The space under Filomena's window is completely hidden from the street, lights or no lights. A reasonably athletic person would be up and in before you could read this sentence. Well, okay, also this sentence. And, ok, maybe this sentence too.
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
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
:D
Click to expand...

Guede didn't do any burglary at the cottage at all.
 
Machiavelli said:
Did you also hear that definitive judicial findings, by now, are that Guede was not holding the murder weapon?
Click to expand...

That's not definitive in Knox/Sollecitos trial. Who cares what some other court said in some other guys trial, based on some stipulated set if evidence.
 
zotz said:
Anyone that watches this video can see that the climb is extremely easy. The climber, who has a similar build to Rudy's, takes about five seconds to get to Filomena's window. It makes no difference if the shutters are open or closed. The nail that is half way up the wall (which the prosecution said would have to be used) is totally ignored by the climber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs
Click to expand...

But noooooooo Machiavelli insists that he had to take the easier route. I would have had to certainly. But to insist that this very athletic man would have is totally lacking in credibility. These are the kind of arguments that solidified my belief in the innocent position. There is no need to argue a point that is unwinnable. But the argument for guilt is so weak Machiavelli cannot concede anything.
 
Bill Williams said:
A'hem.

The balcony is on the same floor as Filomena's room. Just what is it that you are trying to prove? The space under Filomena's window is completely hidden from the street, lights or no lights. A reasonably athletic person would be up and in before you could read this sentence. Well, okay, also this sentence. And, ok, maybe this sentence too.
Click to expand...

The question might be what are you trying to prove, through that photo.
At best, the photo could emphasize how far the balcony is from that street lamp, how small it appears from the road, and how out of line from the direction of car lights.

The space under Filomena's window is not Filomena's window.
Filomena's window is the entry point, and it is, as you can see, completely exposed.
The climber would have to climbe twice, by the way, the first time to open the external shutters, then he would have to walk up at the level of the garden by the fence to throw the rock - because you don't think he would throw the rock from the pit below, do you? And, don't forget the small detail that the window has inner shutters too, that were closed, so that the window still appeared closed after the alleged burglar would have opened the outer shutters.
At that point, the internal shutters would look as if they were locked.
But your theory is that the burglar anyway likes that window so much that he "tries" anyway.
Let's point out also that if you think the space below the window is actually so good for a burglar, you should also note that, on that premise, the best window should have been Knox's window. Because it less close to the road. less visible and even easier to climb, and in addition to that, it was open.

But the point is, anyway, that it is not true that climbing from a window in plain sight has zero risk for a burglar, even if it were 30 seconds. Because in 30 seconds a person can pop out from the corner or from the parking area.
Anyway, there is no reason for a burglar to take such risk, even for 30 seconds.
There is also no reason for a burglar to even take physical risks, such as sticking their arm through a guillotine shaped glass while balancing on tip of toes on an iron bar, or not removing the glass shards from the window sill before putting his hands and feet on them.

And also, it is not true that "young" burglars just don't ponder the point of entry because everything may be "physically easy", in reality most burglars are very young and they all make logical choices aimed at not taking risks. They do care a lot in fact, even about avoiding minimal risks. They chose the easiest and safest way in regularly, and they do not make unnecessary efforts nor take unnecessary risks.
I point out again that is right one of the main pro-Knox lobbysts, Douglas, who points out that illogical point of entry is always an indicator, always a "red flag" of staging.
And yet, this is far from being the only red flag of staging: there are many of them, there's a whole list of "red flags" enugh for a SuperGiant Alpine slalom, I just listed them upthread.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
But noooooooo Machiavelli insists that he had to take the easier route. I would have had to certainly. But to insist that this very athletic man would have is totally lacking in credibility. These are the kind of arguments that solidified my belief in the innocent position. There is no need to argue a point that is unwinnable. But the argument for guilt is so weak Machiavelli cannot concede anything.
Click to expand...

Most burglars in Italy are young, actually very young, and they choose the logical point of entry, the easiest and safer. Why don't you face this reality?
 
Machiavelli said:
The question might be what are you trying to prove, through that photo.
At best, the photo could emphasize how far the balcony is from that street lamp, how small it appears from the road, and how out of line from the direction of car lights.

The space under Filomena's window is not Filomena's window.
Filomena's window is the entry point, and it is, as you can see, completely exposed.
The climber would have to climbe twice, by the way, the first time to open the external shutters, then he would have to walk up at the level of the garden by the fence to throw the rock - because you don't think he would throw the rock from the pit below, do you? And, don't forget the small detail that the window has inner shutters too, that were closed, so that the window still appeared closed after the alleged burglar would have opened the outer shutters.
At that point, the internal shutters would look as if they were locked.
But your theory is that the burglar anyway likes that window so much that he "tries" anyway.
Let's point out also that if you think the space below the window is actually so good for a burglar, you should also note that, on that premise, the best window should have been Knox's window. Because it less close to the road. less visible and even easier to climb, and in addition to that, it was open.

But the point is, anyway, that it is not true that climbing from a window in plain sight has zero risk for a burglar, even if it were 30 seconds. Because in 30 secon a person can pop out from the corner or from the parking area.
Anyway, there is no reason for a burglar to take such risk.
There is also no reason for a burglar to even take physical risks, such as sticking their arm through a guillotine shaped glass while balancing on tip of toes on an iron bar, or not removing the glass shards from the window sill before putting his hands and feet on them.

And also, it is not true that "young" burglars just don't think because everything may be "physically easy", in reality most burglars are very young and they all make logical choices aimed at not taking risks. They chose the easiest and safest way in regularly, and they do not make unnecessary efforts nor take unnecessary risks.
Click to expand...


Just stop. Please just stop. You are just being silly.

It's night, it's dark, it's easy. Slam bam thank you mam. You spent more time writing this post than Rudy would have entering either way.
 
Machiavelli said:
Oh yes they are definitive. You bet they are.

And they will have legal consequences, I believe.
Click to expand...

Don't be dumb. What is even more definitive is that Rudy was convicted of murder and Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted. Nothing will EVER EVER EVER change that.
 
Machiavelli said:
The question might be what are you trying to prove, through that photo.
At best, the photo could emphasize how far the balcony is from that street lamp, how small it appears from the road, and how out of line from the direction of car lights.

The space under Filomena's window is not Filomena's window.
Filomena's window is the entry point, and it is, as you can see, completely exposed.
The climber would have to climbe twice, by the way, the first time to open the external shutters, then he would have to walk up at the level of the garden by the fence to throw the rock - because you don't think he would throw the rock from the pit below, do you? And, don't forget the small detail that the window has inner shutters too, that were closed, so that the window still appeared closed after the alleged burglar would have opened the outer shutters.
At that point, the internal shutters would look as if they were locked.
But your theory is that the burglar anyway likes that window so much that he "tries" anyway.
Let's point out also that if you think the space below the window is actually so good for a burglar, you should also note that, on that premise, the best window should have been Knox's window. Because it less close to the road. less visible and even easier to climb, and in addition to that, it was open.

But the point is, anyway, that it is not true that climbing from a window in plain sight has zero risk for a burglar, even if it were 30 seconds. Because in 30 seconds a person can pop out from the corner or from the parking area.
Anyway, there is no reason for a burglar to take such risk, even for 30 seconds.
There is also no reason for a burglar to even take physical risks, such as sticking their arm through a guillotine shaped glass while balancing on tip of toes on an iron bar, or not removing the glass shards from the window sill before putting his hands and feet on them.

And also, it is not true that "young" burglars just don't ponder the point of entry because everything may be "physically easy", in reality most burglars are very young and they all make logical choices aimed at not taking risks. They do care a lot in fact, even about avoiding minimal risks. They chose the easiest and safest way in regularly, and they do not make unnecessary efforts nor take unnecessary risks.
Click to expand...

Like implied upthread: all young burglars in Italy are required to read Hegel's Wissenschaft der Logik before being allowed to break in to places.

Did it ever occur to you that if they always made logical choices they would not be breaking in to places?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom