Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Here are three stills from the Channel 5 documentary, showing the position any climber would be in to get in-through Filomena's window.


This above shows the climber on the **bottom** bar of the window below.


This above shows the climber on the top bar, having to crouch down for easy manipulation of the shutters.


This one shows easy extraction of any broken glass. He's on the top bar of the window below.

 

[Vixen]

Battling photos:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]
This is the climber on Channel 5 - before the climb - on the top bar of the window below, poised to hop up on to the sill.

He did not need a foothold.

How would a burglar know? You can't be serious. Rudy had been at the boys flat downstairs. Why make up such absurdities?

"Before the climb" he was ready perched on the top of the bottom window?

Any real burglar would first need to get down there and somehow climb up- no camera crews to help give him a hand or catch him if he falls. I believe you said Rudy had to smash the window first with the biggest baddest boulder he could find, to test whether anyone was home, and then hide behind the bush to see if anyone stands up and salutes the flag, as it were.

Suppose he was in that tiny yard and someone was home? He'd be nicked for sure!

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe I will leave it to Bill (or anyone else who wants to) to point out just how ridiculous and partisan that Mail article was. I'm thinking about things like

a) when it was written (before the Massei trial even started, when the prosecution were leaking partisan incriminating material to the compliant media left right and centre);

b) the primary conduit for the information, and the sources that the Mail were keen to keep onside (the prosecution and police);

c) the grand folly exhibited by Wilson in his inept reading of the situation (even though things were obviously put to him in a biassed manner, it was still incumbent on him to take a dispassionate view);

d) the fact that Wilson hold zero qualifications in clinical psychiatry or psychotherapy (making him therefore entirely unqualified to pronounce on Knox's mental health, let alone make diagnoses of certain disorders);

e) the outrageous misrepresentations in the article (including, for, example, the part where the article states "Bizarrely, she also lists all her lovers and attempts to assess whether each could have infected her with HIV", when it's now well known that the list was written at the active behest of the prison doctors, who had asked her to remember all of her sexual partners);

f) the fact that Wilson - like other "criminologists" before him such as David Cantor and Paul Britton - has become seduced and tainted by the attraction of media appearances and book authorships (Wilson, for example, stated unequivocally several years ago that it would be wrong - and in practice impossible - to "rank" the UK's worst killers in any order..... yet a new series is currently airing on Discovery UK, written and presented by (you guessed it) Prof David Wilson, on the subject of (you guessed it again) the ranking of the UK's worst killers. The man is now a certified media whore.)


Things like that......

 

[Vixen]

Here are three stills from the Channel 5 documentary, showing the position any climber would be in to get in-through Filomena's window.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397156510b9df2c7a.jpg[/qimg]
This above shows the climber on the **bottom** bar of the window below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397156510bc402256.jpg[/qimg]
This above shows the climber on the top bar, having to crouch down for easy manipulation of the shutters.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397156510bed3a68a.jpg[/qimg]
This one shows easy extraction of any broken glass. He's on the top bar of the window below.

In the police photo, neither of the windows had bars to facilitate a climber. The lower window would have been of smooth window pane.

 

[Planigale]

Let's get this into context. bagels and Grinder were arguing that since Rudy had burgled the second-floor lawyers office, then he must have burgled the cottage, grimly intent on scaling a 9 foot wall with no footholds. I said, by that logic you could also argue that as Amanda had definitely by her own account staged a burglary before, then she was conversant with the concept.

It is a fact that most criminals have a history of offences, and whilst the noise-ticket is indeed relatively minor in the scheme of things, cops thought it serious enough to fine her. Raff has drug possession in his records.

A studious RC college student who has a wild side and decides to go to Italy to lay every guy in sight, is a symptom of this underlying personality disorder. It means nothing outside this context, and is nothing to do with slut shaming. Johanna Dunnohy (sp??) was a normal middle-class home counties girl who at 15 suddenly started getting drunk on whisky, smashed windows in the classroom and ran away with fairground workers. She was a diagnosed psychopath.

A professor of criminal psychopathology, Colin Wilson (check this) brought out a tv series recently about psychopathic killers in British crime annals and he told the DAILY MAIL that having read Amanda's prison diary, he was convinced she had a sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder.

This would be the colin wilson with no training in psychology let alone forensic psychology and believed in telepathy and spirits? Who never held a university post in any scientific subject?

 

[Vixen]

This would be the colin wilson with no training in psychology let alone forensic psychology and believed in telepathy and spirits? Who never held a university post in any scientific subject?

His Illuminati trilogy was fun to read. I had a penfriend who lent me all his books. Left field.

We're speaking here of Dr David Wilson,criminologist specialising in serial killers.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe I will leave it to Bill (or anyone else who wants to) to point out just how ridiculous and partisan that Mail article was. I'm thinking about things like

a) when it was written (before the Massei trial even started, when the prosecution were leaking partisan incriminating material to the compliant media left right and centre);

b) the primary conduit for the information, and the sources that the Mail were keen to keep onside (the prosecution and police);

c) the grand folly exhibited by Wilson in his inept reading of the situation (even though things were obviously put to him in a biassed manner, it was still incumbent on him to take a dispassionate view);

d) the fact that Wilson hold zero qualifications in clinical psychiatry or psychotherapy (making him therefore entirely unqualified to pronounce on Knox's mental health, let alone make diagnoses of certain disorders);

e) the outrageous misrepresentations in the article (including, for, example, the part where the article states "Bizarrely, she also lists all her lovers and attempts to assess whether each could have infected her with HIV", when it's now well known that the list was written at the active behest of the prison doctors, who had asked her to remember all of her sexual partners);

f) the fact that Wilson - like other "criminologists" before him such as David Cantor and Paul Britton - has become seduced and tainted by the attraction of media appearances and book authorships (Wilson, for example, stated unequivocally several years ago that it would be wrong - and in practice impossible - to "rank" the UK's worst killers in any order..... yet a new series is currently airing on Discovery UK, written and presented by (you guessed it) Prof David Wilson, on the subject of (you guessed it again) the ranking of the UK's worst killers. The man is now a certified media whore.)


Things like that......

I hear the ethics argument.

 

[Desert Fox]

See the thing Vixen is that it does not matter if Amanda was the nicest person or the nastiest person, it is if the evidence shows that she committed the crime. All of the evidence indicates that neither she or Raffael were at the crime scene.

It is just like the case with Cameron Todd Willingham. In his case, he really seems to have been a nasty person at time and had beaten up his wife. At issue was the fact that the evidence did not support him murdering his children.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Before the climb" he was ready perched on the top of the bottom window?

Any real burglar would first need to get down there and somehow climb up- no camera crews to help give him a hand or catch him if he falls. I believe you said Rudy had to smash the window first with the biggest baddest boulder he could find, to test whether anyone was home, and then hide behind the bush to see if anyone stands up and salutes the flag, as it were.

Suppose he was in that tiny yard and someone was home? He'd be nicked for sure!

Never mind. There's enough here for some third party to decide.

 

[Desert Fox]

Never mind. There's enough here for some third party to decide.

All one has to show is that a reasonably athletic person can climb up to the window.

 

[Grinder]

The fact the subject of Amanda's very hilarious prank was apologised to, indicates the type of trauma he or she must have felt. A friend of mine had his room at Surrey Uni turned over and he freaked out. It turned out to be a prank, but it wasn't the slightest bit amusing to him. His impulse was to immediately trash the room of the prankster.

You are skilled at giving an answer to a different question than the one raised. It matters not a jot whether Amanda's April Fools joke was a prank or not. The point - but of course you already know - is that your idol Amanda hadn't staged a burglary, but rather just hid things.

Btw, I don't think her prank was funny.

 

[Grinder]

Let's get this into context. bagels and Grinder were arguing that since Rudy had burgled the second-floor lawyers office, then he must have burgled the cottage, grimly intent on scaling a 9 foot wall with no footholds. I said, by that logic you could also argue that as Amanda had definitely by her own account staged a burglary before, then she was conversant with the concept.

Hmmm, not sure where I said he definitely had done the lawyers' job but I did point out that a large stone was used in that burglary so unless the kids had done that job as well then a large rock at the cottage not so unusual.

It is a fact that most criminals have a history of offences, and whilst the noise-ticket is indeed relatively minor in the scheme of things, cops thought it serious enough to fine her. Raff has drug possession in his records.

And that same policeman thought it serious enough that he issued a parking ticket and jay walking ticket, oh my.

A studious RC college student who has a wild side and decides to go to Italy to lay every guy in sight, is a symptom of this underlying personality disorder. It means nothing outside this context, and is nothing to do with slut shaming. Johanna Dunnohy (sp??) was a normal middle-class home counties girl who at 15 suddenly started getting drunk on whisky, smashed windows in the classroom and ran away with fairground workers. She was a diagnosed psychopath.

Every guy in sight. Right. Not slut shaming. Right.

A professor of criminal psychopathology, Colin Wilson (check this) brought out a tv series recently about psychopathic killers in British crime annals and he told the DAILY MAIL that having read Amanda's prison diary, he was convinced she had a sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder.

A review of one of his books:

rated 1 of 5 stars
This book is not worth the time it took to read it.
There is plenty of gory detail, for fans of that sort of thing. But the book jumps from topic to topic with no perceptible logical structure. And the author makes sweeping generalization without a scrap of evidence to back them up. For example, he announces that political radicals have the same motivation for their actions as serial killers.
But worst of all are the errors in basic factual information. He states that Ted Bundy almost always drove ...more

 

[Grinder]

This is the climber on Channel 5 - before the climb - on the top bar of the window below, poised to hop up on to the sill.

He did not need a foothold.

How would a burglar know? You can't be serious. Rudy had been at the boys flat downstairs. Why make up such absurdities?

Bill he didn't step on the top bar to get up to the upper window. He had his feet on the lower window's bottom sill grabbed the top bar and from a crouch rose up to grab the top window's lower sill and then pulled himself up.

 

[Grinder]

In the police photo, neither of the windows had bars to facilitate a climber. The lower window would have been of smooth window pane.

The lower window was barred.

 

[bagels]

In the police photo, neither of the windows had bars to facilitate a climber. The lower window would have been of smooth window pane.

If you can't even acknowledge that the PIP scenarios are based on the available evidence and made in good faith then you will never have a reasonable discussion about this case.

If the lower window wasn't barred nobody would be arguing that the climb was particularly feasible (and Rudy would have broken in a different way, but I digress).

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill he didn't step on the top bar to get up to the upper window. He had his feet on the lower window's bottom sill grabbed the top bar and from a crouch rose up to grab the top window's lower sill and then pulled himself up.

You mean it was easier?

 

[Grinder]

You mean it was easier?

Yes. He could reach the sill with his feet on the bottom sill. The distance from the lower sill on the bottom window to the lower sill on the top window about 6 1/2 - 7 feet. I don't think it would be an easy climb as the "climbing enthusiast" did a move that isn't totally easy. But, I'm sure Rudi could have done it alone and certainly with an accomplice helping the climb.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. He could reach the sill with his feet on the bottom sill. The distance from the lower sill on the bottom window to the lower sill on the top window about 6 1/2 - 7 feet. I don't think it would be an easy climb as the "climbing enthusiast" did a move that isn't totally easy. But, I'm sure Rudi could have done it alone and certainly with an accomplice helping the climb.

I just knew you'd work in "the accomplice"! Good one!

 

[Grinder]

I just knew you'd work in "the accomplice"! Good one!

And to think I've resisted believing you are the seer of the group, but you knew that was coming.

Obviously someone could have been with Rudi and not entered the house. The PLE botched the case. If there had been footprints below the window, they did nothing to find them. There were unidentified prints and DNA in the cottage, so someone could have been there with Rudi. How was Rudi going to move all the loot? Was he going to steal a suitcase or just a pillowcase?

I've always thought that the defense insisted on the lone wolf theory to their own detriment. Maybe Rudi did it alone or maybe he had an outside or inside accomplice, but it wasn't or shouldn't have been the remit of the defense to figure that out. That is the duty of the state.

We all most all know that the prosecution didn't make anything resembling a BARD case against the kids. The PGP can't put together a time line that includes what they call the facts. They certainly can't put together a theory of the crime when confronted with elements such as the state of digestion or Curatolo seeing them from 9:27 until almost midnight.

Oh and Bill after your cross post someone (Zraush?) posted a summary of my position that was stunningly accurate. Give that poster a tip of the hat

 

[Desert Fox]

There appears to have been some kind of sexual assault involved in the crime. I would argue that is generally not consistent with a second person involved. I would also argue that Guede's bathroom activity is not consistent with a second person involved.

With a second person involved, unless they were screwed up in the head as well, the job would have been to grab whatever was worth something and basically get out of there.

Edit: In addition, there is no way that another could have been in that environment without leaving evidence such as bloody finger prints or shoe prints.