Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

You proved it.



Sheesh, you doubt me and believe Tesla.

I do concede that Rudy probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist here and I jumped the gun expecting him to be locked away immediately.

Although I still wonder what crime you can prove if you catch someone illegally on the premise with the property's items in their possession, because the law doesn't say anything about actually having to commit theft:

"A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling."

Rudy Guede qualifies for the second part, but how do you prove intent? A confession seems unlikely but obviously would qualify. But what about circumstantial evidence? Burglary tools, already possessing stolen property from a previous burglary? I'm genuinely curious now about the law, not trying to argue a point

 

[Wattson]

They can wear boots, they don't do so invariably.
You have taken a hand alongside a thigh and continuing up far higher than any trouser leg as a stripe.
Another part of your "intellectual" case was switching the Postale Police arriving by foot

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/defense-cctv-presentation/
for the carabinieri, for which there is no such testimony.
I presume that was a genuine mistake on your part.

But so long as you are intellectually satisfied...

Is the person marching? The "arm" is in the same position in every photo.

 

[query grind]

Is the person marching? The "arm" is in the same position in every photo.

Who knows? But in the absence of testimony regarding Caribinieri wandering on foot around trying to find 7 via della Pergola. Then the footage is perfectly - indeed only - consistent with the police car turning out of via della Pergola and pulling over to look at a map and say "where the hell is the house?"

ETA: the whole discussion is pointless because we can time the arrival of the postal police to just after 12:34 and Knox's last short conversation with them using Filomena's phone.

I just thought it might be helpful if I pointed out where your reasoning was flawed.

 

[bagels]

Who knows? But in the absence of testimony regarding Caribinieri wandering on foot around trying to find 7 via della Pergola.

"The Carabinieri patrol called us at 13:35 [to say] that they had already arrived at the location because in fact they had found it by themselves, from up there they had seen some people, some movement, they got out of the car and found the house."

Try harder.

 

[query grind]

"The Carabinieri patrol called us at 13:35 [to say] that they had already arrived at the location because in fact they had found it by themselves, from up there they had seen some people, some movement, they got out of the car and found the house."

Try harder.

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[acbytesla]

I do concede that Rudy probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist here and I jumped the gun expecting him to be locked away immediately.

Although I still wonder what crime you can prove if you catch someone illegally on the premise with the property's items in their possession, because the law doesn't say anything about actually having to commit theft:

"A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling."

Rudy Guede qualifies for the second part, but how do you prove intent? A confession seems unlikely but obviously would qualify. But what about circumstantial evidence? Burglary tools, already possessing stolen property from a previous burglary? I'm genuinely curious now about the law, not trying to argue a point

He could have stole a 100,000 car and still been released on his own recognizance. It matters not one bit at this stage if it's obvious that you are guilty. They simply prioritize who they hold. Was the crime violent? How many and what types of priors does the suspect have? Will they appear for a hearing? They only have so many beds and they HAVE to have room for anyone violent.

 

[Bill Williams]

ETA: the whole discussion is pointless because we can time the arrival of the postal police to just after 12:34 and Knox's last short conversation with them using Filomena's phone.

So - where do you think Judge Massei erred in stating that the postal police arrived "just before 1 pm", with the heavy implication that it was after Raffaele had called 112?

 

[bagels]

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

It is the only testimony on the subject. It says they got out of the car, and then found the house. There is video of a carabinieri police officer out of the car walking towards the cottage where everyone would be gathered, followed by his partner driving up, consistent with finding the cottage on foot, then pulling up to park. It's cased closed.

 

[query grind]

So - where do you think Judge Massei erred in stating that the postal police arrived "just before 1 pm", with the heavy implication that it was after Raffaele had called 112?

I think Massei, as a local, knew the whole thing was a pigs breakfast. Nencini, as a Florentine, just correctly determined what the facts showed.

 

[bagels]

ETA: the whole discussion is pointless because we can time the arrival of the postal police to just after 12:34 and Knox's last short conversation with them using Filomena's phone.

This is something you've dreamed up I think. It's ok Vixen does it a lot too.

 

[query grind]

This is something you've dreamed up I think. It's ok Vixen does it a lot too.

Its really about empowering Knox to be that butt-kicking feminist she says she is.

 

[Grinder]

I do concede that Rudy probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist here and I jumped the gun expecting him to be locked away immediately.

Although I still wonder what crime you can prove if you catch someone illegally on the premise with the property's items in their possession, because the law doesn't say anything about actually having to commit theft:

"A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling."

Rudy Guede qualifies for the second part, but how do you prove intent? A confession seems unlikely but obviously would qualify. But what about circumstantial evidence? Burglary tools, already possessing stolen property from a previous burglary? I'm genuinely curious now about the law, not trying to argue a point

Well first of all note the definition doesn't apply to dwellings and vehicles.

Intent could be proven by others testifying he was going there to steal. It wouldn't be hearsay btw.

Carrying stolen items to another location would seem pretty strong evidence if the burglary had just happened so no time to acquire them on the street.

While I was sure of the previous issues with arrest, I don't know exactly what would suffice for conviction. If one were caught in a place with equipment to burgle and sacks to carry away items partially full, I'm pretty sure a conviction would result.

 

[Grinder]

"The Carabinieri patrol called us at 13:35 [to say] that they had already arrived at the location because in fact they had found it by themselves, from up there they had seen some people, some movement, they got out of the car and found the house."

Try harder.

Since the PP said no calls were made after they arrived, how can this be an issue. IIRC Raf made two calls to 112 and in the second he called out to Amanda for the address which the PP would have had to hear.

The entire timing of the calls is a red herring.

 

[bagels]

Since the PP said no calls were made after they arrived, how can this be an issue. IIRC Raf made two calls to 112 and in the second he called out to Amanda for the address which the PP would have had to hear.

The entire timing of the calls is a red herring.

The 112 call timing is a microcosm of the entire case. Many PGP believe it with an unyielding conviction despite the only thing supporting it being the testimony of a police officer that was proven to have lied on at least one other issue and despite the fact that it's not critical to the case - and despite the fact that it makes no sense that Amanda and Raff caught off guard by the arrival of the postal police would even think they could magically get away with calling the police later vs just saying "oh we were just about to call you."

But it's the hill many are prepared to die on.

 

[Grinder]

The 112 call timing is a microcosm of the entire case. Many PGP believe it with an unyielding conviction despite the only thing supporting it being the testimony of a police officer that was proven to have lied on at least one other issue and despite the fact that it's not critical to the case - and despite the fact that it makes no sense that Amanda and Raff caught off guard by the arrival of the postal police would even think they could magically get away with calling the police later vs just saying "oh we were just about to call you."

But it's the hill many are prepared to die on.

Before you give Tesla credit - you are agreeing it is a red herring

 

[acbytesla]

Since the PP said no calls were made after they arrived, how can this be an issue. IIRC Raf made two calls to 112 and in the second he called out to Amanda for the address which the PP would have had to hear.

The entire timing of the calls is a red herring.

Hellman agreed with you Grinder. The time meant nothing as they had already been raising the alarm, so he mentioned it only in passing.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder's point should be taken tongue-in-cheek, as a tit-for-tat in the continual.....

...... hearsay scandal-mongering you have been about since joining this thread in April 2015. Beginning with the stupid claim about Judge Heavey (you said he was sacked) that you apologized for, all the way to just about every other factoid you've pulled out of thin air.....

...... "hearsay scandal-mongering" seems to be all you have.

Those readers who want the story behind (elected) Judge Heavey can update themselves here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/prominent_seattle_sock_puppet_michael_heavey/

...And here: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/judge_heaveys_open_letter_to_italy/

If anyone is coming out with soundbites, it's not me.

You brought up Judge Heavey - not me - as someone in Seattle who had nothing but glowing praise for Amanda.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Massei, as a local, knew the whole thing was a pigs breakfast. Nencini, as a Florentine, just correctly determined what the facts showed.

I was looking for specifics. Ok, so you have none. No big.

It's clear the postals arrived just before 1 pm. But the whole issue is overblown anyway, other than that it shows a willingness for the postals to lie.

 

[Vixen]

So - where do you think Judge Massei erred in stating that the postal police arrived "just before 1 pm", with the heavy implication that it was after Raffaele had called 112?

As you have been told, this was a case of Massei bending over backwards for the kids. It was a case of whether or not the call was before or after was quite irrelevant to the verdict (=Guilty). By conceding minor issues to the defense, it was one less thing they could latch onto in an appeal.

Plus, he probably figured he might need Papa Raff's delicate surgery one day.

 

[bagels]

As you have been told, this was a case of Massei bending over backwards for the kids. It was a case of whether or not the call was before or after was quite irrelevant to the verdict (=Guilty). By conceding minor issues to the defense, it was one less thing they could latch onto in an appeal.

Plus, he probably figured he might need Papa Raff's delicate surgery one day.

The kids must really look up to uncle Massei