Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Who cares? A civil judge would care a lot.

No a civil judge wouldnt care. Who is pursuing a civil case? The Kerchers are the only people with standing and they already lost their case and their lawyer said it was over.

So no, a civil judge wouldn't care.

 

[RWVBWL]

In Real Life...

Don't forget about Antonella Monacchia.

I'll get back to you on this, ok?


Question:
Did Antonella Monacchia immediately come forward after Meredith's rape and murder to report her information to police,
like Gian Luca Marini did on Nov. 2nd?

Odd how Toto didn't tell the cops anything on Nov. 2nd, nor Nara.
She didn't even tell them about those posters she saw at the newspaper rack
before the Postal Police had even arrived at Filomena's pad.


Did Antonella Monacchia come forward the next day, Nov. 3rd?
Alice Puleo, Marco Massaccesi, and Emanuela Pistarelli did.

And Mauro Palmieri came forward on Nov. 4th.
Did Antonella Monacchia?

I just found this a moment ago:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2008-11-08-Witness-deposition-Monacchia.pdf

I'm trying to find the date when she gave her info to the police.
Please do not tell me that Antonella Monacchia came forward over a year later?

* * *

Machiavelli,
Allow me to share a personal family experience that is going on right now.

1 of my lil' sisters and her husband bought their 1st new condominium in May and moved in June 1st. A month later, starting early July, she started getting her large GMC truck tires flattened. The perp hit up her husbands truck also, flattening 2 tires. Friends helped, loaned infrared video camera. They bought new tires. The dude hit again. Caught on vid, but he's wearing a dark hat, dark full face mask, clear glasses, dark clothing and gloves. Always hits from 2:30 to 3:30/4:00am. Did it 4 times in July. The 4th time, my brother-in-law had put a infrared CCTV camera underneath the truck, it captured the dude well, sooo close.

Cops took all the info, vids, couldn't do nothing, it's not a violent crime, nor rape, and the perp has gloves on, a full face ski-type mask. Gotta catch him "in the act", so to say. My sis thinks it's the guy above her, he came downstairs, knocked on the door, made a threat, just days after she moved in, sayin' he "could make life difficult", because, I guess, ya know, he's older and doesn't like young kids living there.

The last 3 nights of this week,
I did overnight surveillance, up all night, hiding in the bushes across the street, cameras ready, cell phone ready to call for help and the police. I'm all in dark, with a beanie on. The detective said this was cool...


He struck again this morning,
coming from a new, different direction than the last 2 times, as we'd seen on CCTV. He went jogging by me at 4:33am, I believe he was scoping out the scene, the prick! I quietly followed on foot, lost him 1/3rd of a block away. I did noyt call the cops yet, as I wasn't sure it was him, yet, and he was not creeping around nor underneath her truck, so no crime was committed, he coulda been just some odd ball jogger that neaded to go on a early mornin' run before work, ok?

He came back, on the other side of the street, minutes later. I did not him.
Nor did I see him crawl under my sister's raised truck, nor see him puncture all 4 of her new, week old knobby tires. Barley missed him!!!

But I did see him sneaking away, now 2 cars lengths away from her truck, crouched down, walking swiftly in the street alongside all the other parked cars, hiding from the CCTV's that are at the building and those that my sis has on her balcony, easily seen pointed downward for the last 3 weeks, in plain view of anyone on the sidewalk.

I followed, but had left my cell phone in my truck, to where I had moved,
because I was gonna bail as the time was well past when he usually struck.
Couldn't call for help!

I was only a few seconds off from nailing him underneath her car!!!

I followed to see if he lived in the building, he bolted, I lost in the dark before I saw him enter the residences him, but my sister saw him about 10 minutes later, inside their building, as she waited down from his 3rd floor doorway for the cops to arrive, trying to sneak back into his apartment, wearing the same outfit that he always does, and that he did so once again this morning. he saw her, started to creep away with out making noise she followed, and finally yelled Hey stop! He ran fast down the hallway, escaping gettin' into his own pad!! He's there, last I heard, as you can't watch all day and the cops didn't get him then.

Gosh,
I sooo wanna share a CCTV screengarb pic
from this morning from underneath my sisters truck from pre-dawn this morning with you folks here on the ISF, the dude has the icepick in hand, it's bright, due to infrared, and you can see his eyes, nose and even mouth good this time, because his face mask slipped down quite a bit as he crawled under and around down there puncturing 4 new tires. He's gonna get busted.


Guess what, Machiavelli?
Many of the Homeowners Association are talking of this, some who also live near this guy have even had problems with their cars too. The complex managers know of these crimes, the cops do, people are talking of this, I talked to the cops today, + then later on got pulled over immediately this afternoon around 3:00pm because I was wearing the same style of hat, a fisherman/Gilligan kind as I drove away from where I spent my daylight hours watching his truck in the underground parking structure to try and photograph his face with a 100-400mm lens from a distance in daylight.Cops let me go real quick when we, ah, started discussing the details of the crime spree that this guy was on. They liked the help, they just don't want me, my sis or her husband gettin' stabbed with an icepick...

This is a big deal in their local community.
My sis and her husband have now had 16 tires flattened by icepick since July.
Over $5,000.00 in losses. And he keyed, err scratched both paint jobs too...

In real life,
nobody who saw or has heard anything in this serious vandalism crime spree
would be coming forth many months or even 1 year from now to say,
hey I saw, err heard something.

It's been a long night, mornin' and day.
I need to get drunk, like that Pro-Guilter did in Las Vegas recently...

Maciavelli,
you want me to believe some stories from folks who come forward many months later in a horrible, tragic rape + murder case, after the supposed perps are already in prison and not a threat to them coming forward anymore?



ETA:
This was a long post, please don't quote it.
But with that said, I just talked with my sis.
She said something that bothers me.
He's tryin' to kill me.

Her truck tires are big, they do not deflate immediately, like say in 1, 2 or 3 hours.
If she gets on the freeway and has a huge tire like those blowout and she crashes,
well you, and I do too, get the drift.

As I've spent a lotta time staring in the blackness the last 3 night,
so I've had plenty of time for thoughts about this case we discuss.
Hard to believe that some folks just do not get it,
right?

 

[Machiavelli]

No a civil judge wouldnt care. Who is pursuing a civil case? The Kerchers are the only people with standing and they already lost their case and their lawyer said it was over.

So no, a civil judge wouldn't care.

So you didn't understand.

The Kerchers did not lose their civil case. Whether they decide to pursue a civil action is a question. If they pursue it, they will win it.

Not only that. In fact many cases are still possible. Not just by the Kerchers, and not only against Knox and Sollecito.

It's not over.

You really don't understand it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Guede didn't do any burglary at the cottage at all.

Gosh,
I'm losin' it,
my old brain is sooo tired,
all I see is black, black, black darkness as I waited for that prick to show up,
- err, I think that I need some rest!

I thought that it was Rudy Guede's DNA or was that his bloody fingerprints,
on Meredith's empty purse laying on her bed?

Are you saying that he never touched her purse?
Who stole Meredith's cash, her credit cards, her phones?

Amanda and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] did not,
at least as far as I can tell after your recent verdict of the ISC,
right?

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

No, it never occurred to me. I think they do take logical choices. I actually think even cats and basically all animals take choices following patterns of predictable criteria (therefore, they make logical choices).
Human actions are like steps, they always follow some thread, even when they appear confused; there is always some thread in human behaviour.

But in fact it is not that I think so about red flags and staging, and things such as logical point of entry. Even Douglas thinks so.
It is reality that says so. Numbers say so.
But even just common sense may just tell anyone about an indicator or a red flag.
And here there is a thread of red flags.

 

[zotz]

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?

I think Mach must be a lawyer and he is using us to practice on. It may even be true that he doesn't even believe the things he is saying. Argument is a sport to these people and he thinks he is honing his debating skills. Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Remember the scene where a knight gets his arms and legs cut off but he still refuses to surrender? That's Machiavelli. there is a famous line when the knight fighting him says,

"What are you going to do...bleed on me?" Mach is here to bleed on us...
along with the vomit, piss and s***. But speaking for myself, I think he is funny. I hope that he is just practicing because if he is serious then I fear that he is totally

 

[Machiavelli]

Gosh,
I'm losin' it,
my old brain is sooo tired,
all I see is black, black, black darkness as I waited for that prick to show up,
- err, I think that I need some rest!

I thought that it was Rudy Guede's DNA or was that his bloody fingerprints,
on Meredith's empty purse laying on her bed?

Are you saying that he never touched her purse?
Who stole Meredith's cash, her credit cards, her phones?

Amanda and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] did not,
at least as far as I can tell after your recent verdict of the ISC,
right?

Yes, I'm saying he did not commit any burglary at the cottage.

Le'ts point out there is zero evidence he ever broke into the cottage, and let's recall he was also acquitted of the charge of theft.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I have already shown your reasoning is plain wrong. Reality disproves you. The illogical point of entry is an indicator. The indicator exists, and what rational people have to do is accept it. You only object with a belief. But the element exists in reality, illogical point of entry is something objective, no matter what you believe or imagine Guede would do, what you have to do is to note an objective fact.

 

[zotz]

I have already shown your reasoning is plain wrong. Reality disproves you. The illogical point of entry is an indicator. The indicator exists, and what rational people have to do is accept it. You only object with a belief. But the element exists in reality, illogical point of entry is something objective, no matter what you believe or imagine Guede would do, what you have to do is to note an objective fact.

Rudy throws the rock and breaks the window. He waits in the dark. No one responds. No police show up. The house is empty. He checks to see that he is not being observed. He climbs up to Filomena's window (5 seconds), he opens the window and goes in (another 5 seconds). He checks to make sure that he was not observed and then closes the shutters (10 seconds). So, in 20 seconds Rudy is in the house and he is safe. Breaking the window was how he makes sure that he is alone.

Maybe Rudy is more logical than you are...

 

[Diocletus]

Who cares? A civil judge would care a lot.

Not happening.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who cares? A civil judge would care a lot.

Mach, this silly farce has come to an end. The Italian judiciary and the Italian and the world public has had enough. It's over. Any extraneous legal cases will magically disappear, because no one wants to hear any more of this BS. Best wishes, have a good night.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

I have first hand experience of this statement by Mach. being nonsense. My house was broken into from the first floor (in the USA it would be termed the second floor I think) window via an unimaginatively "impossible" climb up an outside column. There were much easier entry points from the ground floor. Apart from one footprint on the column (which the police failed to see) there was no physical evidence on the circular column left by the perpetrator.

The top right window was entered. The climb is absurdly difficult.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

No. Romanelli's window does not present a face towards the street. It is offset, whereas the balcony does face the street. Moreover, by dropping down to the ground beneath the parking area, Guede would have been practically invisible as he climbed up to the window. For the balcony, any burglar would have been in full view of oncoming traffic from that side of the cottage as well as the buildings across the road. They would have been bathed in headlights. The various different views of the cottage including the aerial views make the best access point very clear indeed. Also, using Romanelli's window provided Guede with a ready made instant means of escape should he have needed it. With the balcony he would have been trapped.

 

[Kauffer]

So you didn't understand.

The Kerchers did not lose their civil case. Whether they decide to pursue a civil action is a question. If they pursue it, they will win it.

Not only that. In fact many cases are still possible. Not just by the Kerchers, and not only against Knox and Sollecito.

It's not over.

You really don't understand it.

The matter is over. The Kercher's civil case is over. They cannot nor will they resurrect it.

 

[Mr Fied]

Did you also hear that definitive judicial findings, by now, are that Guede was not holding the murder weapon?

How would they know? They have never found the murder weapon.

So if something happens in court it is a judicial truth.

Therefore:

It is a judicial truth Stefanoni lied about the TMB tests proving negative for blood.

It is a judicial truth Stefanoni lied about the amount of DNA on the knife.

It is a judicial truth Nara doesn't know what time she thinks she heard a scream.

It is a judicial truth Rudy couldn't read the letter he wrote.

It is a judicial truth Michelle Battistelli lied about not entering the murder room.

It is a judicial truth Quintavelle changed his story in court.

It is a judicial truth the Italian court system has found Amanda and Raff not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Mr Fied]

Yes, I'm saying he did not commit any burglary at the cottage.

Le'ts point out there is zero evidence he ever broke into the cottage, and let's recall he was also acquitted of the charge of theft.[/QUOTE]

Evidence of who was found on Meredith's purse/handbag?

Another amazing judicial truth.

 

[Machiavelli]

Rudy throws the rock and breaks the window. He waits in the dark. No one responds. No police show up. The house is empty. He checks to see that he is not being observed. He climbs up to Filomena's window (5 seconds), he opens the window and goes in (another 5 seconds). He checks to make sure that he was not observed and then closes the shutters (10 seconds). So, in 20 seconds Rudy is in the house and he is safe. Breaking the window was how he makes sure that he is alone.

Maybe Rudy is more logical than you are...

Maybe. But your story doesn't present him with much logic. The point about choosing an illogical window stands. He has no reason for chiding that window for the job. The window also has inside shutter closed. And he does not close the outside shutters, one was ajar and the other slightly open, and there was no wind that night.
Despite your imagination that he would only take 5 seconds, there is no evidence that he had such climbing skills and likes mor that he liked the thrill of risk. The fact that one is 20 years old is not sufficient evidence since most burglars in Italy are that age and yet they avoid acrobatics and chose easiest and safe entry.

But yet thus is only one, only the first of the red flags, the circumstantial evidence of staging.
There is a picture with many other elements (no shoeprints, inconsistency with kind of violence, etc., the many that I listed).

 

[Machiavelli]

How would they know? They have never found the murder weapon.

So if something happens in court it is a judicial truth.

No, judicial truth is not "what happens in a courtroom", it's what is established by a court of law.

Therefore:

It is a judicial truth Stefanoni lied about the TMB tests proving negative for blood.

Beside the fact that those are not "Judy is truths".

No. It's a false allegation. A vicious lie on the part of the Knox supporters.
I have pointed out this just 2 0pages back upthread in a response to Panigsle.
Stefanoni never lied about the TMB tests.

It is a judicial truth Stefanoni lied about the amount of DNA on the knife.

This is also incorrect, and I've shown that too.
It is true that Stefanoni was asked about an opinion, an estimation, in terms of what magnitude she though the sample could be. It is true that her opinion cannot be verified. But also cannot be falsified.

It is a judicial truth Nara doesn't know what time she thinks she heard a scream.

It is true. But it is also true that she knows what noises she remembered. And it is also true that Antonella Monacchia remembers the time quite better.

It is a judicial truth Rudy couldn't read the letter he wrote.

It is absolutely false. This is a pro-Knix spin that only shows the dishonesty of their campaign.
Rudy was never asked to read out his letter.
A witness cannot be asked to do so.
He was only asked if it was his letter.
He was given two documents, one was the photocopy of his hand written letter, the other one was the printed transcription (the "content" if the letter). He pointed out that the photocopy of handwritten text was impossible to read, which prosecutor agreed to, but acknowledged that the letter is his, and there is actually no doubt he wrote it.

It is a judicial truth Michelle Battistelli lied about not entering the murder room.

No, it is not true, but even if true it would be irrelevant.
The true fact is only that there was one contradiction between the testimony of Battistelli and the testimony of Altieri.
The interesting pint us, however, that Altieri contradicts Knox's narrative too. If you believe Altieri tells the truth, you will have to conclude that Knox is a liar.

It is a judicial truth Quintavelle changed his story in court.

This is just false. It's another innocentisti invention.

It is a judicial truth the Italian court system has found Amanda and Raff not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It is more correct to say the SC annulled the trials. But the SC dies not make findings of facts. And still the SC set their decision under 530.2, which means the decision does not contain a judicial truth.

 

[Matthew Best]

The objection about age and statistics by acbytesla is also pointless: statistics show that burglars always chose the easiest way in,

This is a sceptics' board. So, let's see these statistics.

 

[Mr Fied]

No. It's a false allegation. A vicious lie on the part of the Knox supporters.
I have pointed out this just 2 0pages back upthread in a response to Panigsle.
Stefanoni never lied about the TMB tests.

Did Stefanoni withhold information about the TMB results?

This is also incorrect, and I've shown that too.
It is true that Stefanoni was asked about an opinion, an estimation, in terms of what magnitude she though the sample could be. It is true that her opinion cannot be verified. But also cannot be falsified.

As a scientist she made up information in a court of law. TRUE

It is true. But it is also true that she knows what noises she remembered. And it is also true that Antonella Monacchia remembers the time quite better.

What time did she hear a noise? What was the time of death? Was the noise proven to be from the crime?

None of these are known but we'll just enter it as judicial fact anyway.

It is absolutely false. This is a pro-Knix spin that only shows the dishonesty of their campaign.
Rudy was never asked to read out his letter.
A witness cannot be asked to do so.
He was only asked if it was his letter.
He was given two documents, one was the photocopy of his hand written letter, the other one was the printed transcription (the "content" if the letter). He pointed out that the photocopy of handwritten text was impossible to read, which prosecutor agreed to, but acknowledged that the letter is his, and there is actually no doubt he wrote it.

How can a letter from a "witness" be read in court, the witness not allowed to be cross examined, and the "evidence" entered as judicial fact?

No, it is not true, but even if true it would be irrelevant.
The true fact is only that there was one contradiction between the testimony of Battistelli and the testimony of Altieri.
The interesting pint us, however, that Altieri contradicts Knox's narrative too. If you believe Altieri tells the truth, you will have to conclude that Knox is a liar.

Amanda claims to have been at Raff's apartment. A drug addled "witness" who cannot get the facts of the night correct, says he saw her (even though if he did see her at the times he stated he has provided her with an alibi), this is called a judicial fact.

A policeman says he never entered the murder room. A witness, who was known to have been at the scene, says that he saw him enter the room. But we have to assume Amanda is a liar and this is not a judicial fact.

This is just false. It's another innocentisti invention.

Quintavelle changed his story from what he told the police to what he said in court. FACT.

It is more correct to say the SC annulled the trials. But the SC dies not make findings of facts. And still the SC set their decision under 530.2, which means the decision does not contain a judicial truth.

It is more correct to say that SC is the final court in the procedure and they have declared the accused not guilty.