Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[query grind]

.... which is both a non sequitor as well as a strawman. I've never heard an innocentisti even raise that issue!

You use terms and are blissfully clueless as to what they mean. It is pointless having a conversation with someone with such a low level of literacy.

It is not a non sequitor because it was presented as example of why I don't feel the need to use strawman arguments: the arguments are already so idiotic they don't need to be misrepresented.
It is not a strawman argument because I faithfully and accurately represented the claims in the link put forward.

 

[bagels]

From Rudy's diary:

So I tried to speak to her and calm her down, saying that a girl shouldn't get upset or she'll get wrinkles, and she laughed. I told her to laugh because everything would eventually work out. It was enough to wait and speak to her (Amanda) and to the other girls, if they knew something. She calmed down and talked about the previous evening, the party, me, and her. We were more or less similar. From what I understood, her parents were separated and this had affected her teenage years. She was more or less like me, not much extroverted. I also had- in different ways- a perturbed childhood and adolescence, I told her, but one falls down and then gets up. She had something special. She asked me about my life, my parents. I told her I had many mothers and fathers and brothers/sisters, but none of these would be mine forever, and she understood that I had lived with many families, and I don't have true parents, and she told me it's better to have many, than have none.

We talked, and at this point, I told her that I needed to go to the bathroom.


Maybe the bathroom part came first (when she came home) and he tried to go out the front, but it was locked. And this lead to the confrontation where he tried to calm her down. Maybe Rudy took things too far and this escalated into a sexual assault.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

It was suggested earlier that the length of Rudi's presence at or near the cottage could be explained by him venturing downstairs after the murder. Is there any particular reason not to think so?

 

[bagels]

It was suggested earlier that the length of Rudi's presence at or near the cottage could be explained by him venturing downstairs after the murder. Is there any particular reason not to think so?

IIRC Dan O pointed out he would have needed a key from Meredith that she still had. So he would have had to taken the key, gone downstairs, then gone back upstairs and returned the key where he found it. Also most the downstairs was explainable by a bleeding cat and the cops themselves tearing the place up. It also wouldn't really add a significant amount of time to the crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

You use terms and are blissfully clueless as to what they mean. It is pointless having a conversation with someone with such a low level of literacy.

It is not a non sequitor because was it presented as example of why I don't feel the need to use strawman arguments.
It is not a strawman argument because I faithfully and accurately represented the claims the link put forward.

Fortunately there are little arrow keys so that the thread of conversation can be traced.

You say you don't "feel the need to use strawman arguments". Yet this declaration of need has nothing to do with the fact that you used them. Strawman arguments refer both to willful misrepresentation of, as well as exagerration about the opponents' argument. Both of which you did.

This began with your declaration that you want Knox to break her silence about what happened "on that night." Silence? Strawman right there. Knox has given a full accounting of what happened on that night. Yet you introduce the word "silence" as if it is generally agreed she'd remained silent about it.

Right there - misrepresenting something.

You just don't believe it. You think she's, "not telling us all she knows." You sound like the PLE the night of the interrogation who at its conclusion said, "She buckled and told us what we already knew."

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was suggested earlier that the length of Rudi's presence at or near the cottage could be explained by him venturing downstairs after the murder. Is there any particular reason not to think so?

There's no particular reason to think it, there's no particular reason not to think it.

It relates back to the main reason Marasca/Bruno acquitted without remand. The inept, myopic investigation and the amnesiac judicial renderings in the 7 years previous to March 2015 mean that evidence to establish such things are lost forever.

 

[bagels]

The PGP practically climbed over themselves to praise how charming and sympathetic Guede came across on TV. Machiavelli in particular sung his praises saying he was extremely personable, he speaks so effectively, etc.

I may now see the light. Guede almost conned his way out of being caught at a burglary.

 

[query grind]

Fortunately there are little arrow keys so that the thread of conversation can be traced.

You say you don't "feel the need to use strawman arguments". Yet this declaration of need has nothing to do with the fact that you used them. Strawman arguments refer both to willful misrepresentation of, as well as exagerration about the opponents' argument. Both of which you did.

This began with your declaration that you want Knox to break her silence about what happened "on that night." Silence? Strawman right there. Knox has given a full accounting of what happened on that night. Yet you introduce the word "silence" as if it is generally agreed she'd remained silent about it.

No that is not a strawman argument because I am clearly pointing out my rationale for posting. It is not to change your opinion, because I place no value on your opinion.

It does not misrepresent your views or of anyone else participating in this discussion in any way whatsoever.
It was a personal statement of my position: I believe Knox has not told all she knows of that night and she would be doing herself a great favor if she did.

 

[Vixen]

BECAUSE ALL OF HER PIZZA/APPLE CRUMBLE MEAL (INCLUDING RECOGNISABLE PIECES OF THE CONSTITUENT INGREDIENTS OF BOTH COURSES) WAS FOUND INSIDE HER STOMACH AT AUTOPSY.

(I know, I know, I couldn't help myself........)

You are wrong.

From the Massei Report (Public Domain):

"... oesophagus containing a fragment
apparently a piece of mushroom (page 46) ... stomach containing 500 cc alimentary
bolus, green brown in which were recognizable caseosis (mozzarella?) and vegetable
fibre ... empty duodenum, small intestine containing digested material in the last
loop ...‛

Mignini believes this mozarella was that served by Amanda, and we know Raff prepared a stir-fry of mushrooms and vegetables (and by his own account).

Quote (ibid): He stated that the emptying of the stomach occurs between a minimum of two
hours and a maximum of four hours after the meal is consumed (page 62,
transcripts) and also confirmed that the duodenum was empty (page 63). Answering
specific questions from the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, Dr. Lalli stated that death
116
had intervened two to three hours after eating (page 47), while reaffirming that the
emptying of the stomach generally occurs between two hours and a maximum of 4
hours after eating (page 62, hearing on April 3, 2009). He added, however, that the
digestive process is influenced by many factors like the type of meal, cold, stress,
physical conditions and so on, and that to his knowledge there were no reliable
studies that could establish "by how much the digestive process can be changed by
these factors"
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

There is no mention of undigested apple crumble and pizza in its entireity.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[Vixen]

The attack must have happened later. I can think of no other explanation. And neither can anyone else. The attack must start at ~21:30. The only alternative explanation is Rudy left and came back, or there was a second accomplice.

Of course it happened later.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC Dan O pointed out he would have needed a key from Meredith that she still had. So he would have had to taken the key, gone downstairs, then gone back upstairs and returned the key where he found it. Also most the downstairs was explainable by a bleeding cat and the cops themselves tearing the place up. It also wouldn't really add a significant amount of time to the crime.

If you wish to consider the downstairs scene and its alleged compatibility with a bleeding cat, be sure to read the witness statements of the boys from downstairs ("downstairs neighbors"); those statements including translations to English are at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

Also, there are images of the downstairs scene on video.

The alleged cat is alleged to have left a blood stain by a light switch (the police - VQA Giobbi - testified that the cat jumped, although this was not actually seen by them) and a rectangular blood stain on a bed (similar to the stain attributed to a knife handle, upstairs). Also of interest, there was a pillowcase with a blood stain on the floor that one of the downstairs boys stated had been left to dry on a clothesline; one could hypothesize that the cat had batted it down and rubbed its bleeding ear against it.

 

[Vixen]

I managed to find a post at IIP that sees the trouble caused by the missing 40 minutes. This is his theory:



This might work a bit better than anything I have so far proposed. It would also seem to corroborate Rudy's fantasy life that he was making out with Meredith on Halloween and had a date with her. The biggest problem is Meredith has to not immediately threaten to call the police which would escalate the situation into the attack right away. But it is an interesting idea.

It doesn't work. Rudy applied thee towels as tourniquets. This doesn't indicate someone in a state of confusion.

 

[bagels]

My final timeline (for now), based on my best truth™:

~20:45 Rudy breaks into the cottage to rob it, in the same manner and way he breaks into the law office. He casually makes himself at home, like at the nursery and law office, and takes a drink from the fridge.

~21:00 Rudy goes to use the toilet. Meredith arrives home. He quietly waits and listens to when she goes to the other side of the house, and then he attempts to leave out the front door. It's locked.

~21:05-21:35 Meredith confronts Rudy. At first she's angry but they do know each other and he uses his charm and relaxed manner to calm her down. He comes up with some story for being there and they chat for a time.

~21:35 Rudy's delusion carries him too far and he makes unwanted advances on Meredith. Or Meredith discovers the break-in and freaks out. She runs back to her room to get her keys or phone, Rudy follows her and attacks her.

~21:58 Rudy has finished the attack and cleaned himself up, he looks at her phone to make sure she didn't call anyone, accidentally pushing a couple buttons in the process.

~22:00+ he leaves out the back and quickly cancels a beeping incoming download as he's walking, which causes him to realize how hot these phones are so he dumps them.

 

[bagels]

If you wish to consider the downstairs scene and its alleged compatibility with a bleeding cat, be sure to read the witness statements of the boys from downstairs ("downstairs neighbors"); those statements including translations to English are at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

Also, there are images of the downstairs scene on video.

The alleged cat is alleged to have left a blood stain by a light switch (the police - VQA Giobbi - testified that the cat jumped, although this was not actually seen by them) and a rectangular blood stain on a bed (similar to the stain attributed to a knife handle, upstairs). Also of interest, there was a pillowcase with a blood stain on the floor that one of the downstairs boys stated had been left to dry on a clothesline; one could hypothesize that the cat had batted it down and rubbed its bleeding ear against it.

The two separate human DNA profiles in the cat's blood on the light switch would tend to corroborate the defense view that mixed profiles don't mean anything other than blood being on top of expected resident DNA already existing in the background.

 

[bagels]

It doesn't work. Rudy applied thee towels as tourniquets. This doesn't indicate someone in a state of confusion.

If he applied them to the person he just cut open, it would

 

[Vixen]

I don't use strawmen arguments. I don't think you know what a strawman argument actually is. It is when you purposefully misrepresent another person's claims in order to discredit it. Friends of Amanda do it all the time and it is quite irritating.

I don't bother misrepresenting Friends of Amanda arguments, they generally are so ridiculous that misrepresenting them might be in danger of improving them.

Take this one
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/cctv-images-of-white-car/

Friends of Amanda have taken a random car turning into the carpark and claimed this represents the drug-dealer car Guede says he saw. It is impossible to make this any more absurd than it already is. So why would I engage in a strawman tactic?

As far as Rudy Guede's movements. It is very simple. He turned up for his date with Meredith at 20:30, he went and got a kebab. He met someone at Piazza Grimana and arrived back at the apartment at 20:43. 8 minutes later Kercher turned up and spend the rest of his time with her talking about subjects such as her mother's problems with kidney disease etc.

Rudy went to the cottage in a drug dealing rendezvous with Amanda and Raff. No appointment was needed as Piazza Grimana was the meeting place for drug deals. Amanda and Kokomani had both been pinged earlier in the old town (after 18:00) and Rudy had enjoyed a kebab there, so there is a connection between them.

 

[Vixen]

It was suggested earlier that the length of Rudi's presence at or near the cottage could be explained by him venturing downstairs after the murder. Is there any particular reason not to think so?

If Rudy was a burglar it made more sense to burgle downstairs as, (a) the door is well concealed, with breakable glass, (c) all the boys, as Rudy knew them all, were Italian and certain to be away with their families for the religious holiday.

 

[Vixen]

IIRC Dan O pointed out he would have needed a key from Meredith that she still had. So he would have had to taken the key, gone downstairs, then gone back upstairs and returned the key where he found it. Also most the downstairs was explainable by a bleeding cat and the cops themselves tearing the place up. It also wouldn't really add a significant amount of time to the crime.

LOL He would need a key to get in downstairs, but needed to climb a 12'6" sheer wall to access the ground floor. Brilliant logic.

 

[Bill Williams]

No that is not a strawman argument because I am clearly pointing out my rationale for posting. It is not to change your opinion, because I place no value on your opinion.

It does not misrepresent your views or of anyone else participating in this discussion in any way whatsoever.
It was a personal statement of my position: I believe Knox has not told all she knows of that night and she would be doing herself a great favor if she did.

If you placed no value in my opinion you would not bother replying. Your rationale for posting is that you believe, "Knox has not told all she knows of that night".

She has. She's written books, she's spoken at conferences, she's been interviewed.

You would be better to be more honest..... "Knox has not told all query grind knows she knows of that night, that confirms query grind's views." As said, this is akin to the interrogation where the cops "knew" what happened, and "knew" that Knox could confirm it. They hit her and called her a liar when she actually told them what she knew which did not line-up with what they thought they knew.

The problem was - it did not fit what they already knew, until she buckled.

You merely want to repeat this. You already know what you think she'd be telling us, so it is silly to say, "Knox should tell us."

One of the things you think she should tell us is about her call to Rudy Guede. Just ignore for a minute there never was such a call. No prosecutor and no convicting judge said there was such a call.... no one except you.

So why does Knox need to tell us this? Why would her telling us this, "be doing herself a great favor" if she did?

You say you're not trying to convince anyone of anything. It sure sounds like you're trying to convince Knox of something!!!

The problem really is, your personal statement of your position doesn't stand scrutiny. Even the most basic. So your fall-back position is, "I don't care what you think."

So much for debate. One can only, then, wonder as Mike1711 has wondered - why are you posting at all? If the only thing that's important to you is what you think, and you're not trying to convince anyone.... why go public?

Why go public on a skeptics service - ISF? Where, presumably, skeptical, evidence-based principles will be brought forth to test what you believe?

I don't think you're telling us everything about why you are posting here.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy went to the cottage in a drug dealing rendezvous with Amanda and Raff. No appointment was needed as Piazza Grimana was the meeting place for drug deals. Amanda and Kokomani had both been pinged earlier in the old town (after 18:00) and Rudy had enjoyed a kebab there, so there is a connection between them.

..... and the record of communication between those three to arrange this is, what?