Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

It's not quite true, is it bagels? Rudy had no criminal record as of the the time of the murder, unlike Amanda and Raff. There is zero evidence he was a 'drug dealer' or a burglar. He was later charged with being in possession of stolen property. At the nursery he was trespassing, a civil offence not a criminal one, ordinarily.

Rudy, like Raff and Amanda, exhibits numerous sociopathic tendencies, which means, yes, he has a propensity to casually lie, is reckless and irresponsible, is for sure light-fingered when given the opportunity and shows an immature need for instant gratitfication, with little appreciation of the consequences.

It is also untrue that 'Rudy was a random criminal who did not know Amanda'. As you know very well they met socially several times and according to Rudy, said, 'Hello' in the street. He also claimed Amanda gave him the glad eye when they were all together smoking dope with the boys downstairs.

It is also rubbish that Mignini provided Rudy with any legal advice whatsoever.

Amanda and Raff also left incriminating evidence all over the crime scene.

The idea Raff's near full DNA profile on the bra clasp was transferred from a cigarette butt would be laughed out of any non-corrupt court.

We do know that if Robert Morse, who has been fanatically active in promoting innocence fraud for Amanda, is involved in the documentary - and we note he has been ordered to delete dozens of his extreme tweets in support of her - then we can be certain the documentary is far from 'unbiased'.

A civil offense lol.

Anyway the point is the prosecution actively took steps to prevent Rudy from testifying about the night of the murder. In their weasel move to get him into the students courtroom to read his letter which somehow didn't count as testimony they made sure to strongly object to any questioning of Rudy from the defense and whisk him off the stand as quickly as possible.

He should have been the star witness. After all, being such great friends with Amanda and Raffaele and being together all night for the rape party he should have been able to produce all sorts of evidence and a convincing story to go with it. Instead they decided to keep him silent and went for the undated unmatched blood negative luminol stains. We know how well that worked out for them

 

[Stacyhs]

It's in the Pratillo transcripts. Nina Burleigh the PR/Advocate for Amanda also mentions it. Rudy himself says he paid some guy €50 for the info. (Unlikely as backpacker hostels are only about €12 per night in most cities.

Please get up to speed, instead of relying on Marriott PR manual page 9 crib sheet of innoscenti factoids.

Lots of people have gold watches. Rudy failed to steal Filomena's gold jewellery, so your theory falls a little flat. He also ignored at least three laptops at the cottage, so it's niether here nor there the lawyers' laptops were stolen. You have already been told the lawyers themselves believed it to be an inside job, a thief looking for legal data, the burglar alarm disabled, and with more than one person to cart off the goods.

Conjecture is a complete waste of time.

It doesn't make Rudy's accomplices any more or less innocent of the heinous crimes of 2 Nov 2007.

Then present the quotes from the Pratillo transcript and Burleigh. Saying "it's in the Pratillo transcripts" and Nina Burleigh "mentions it" proves nothing. You have claimed I've said things I've never said on multiple occasions, including another one which I will address momentarily, so it's understandable that your unsupported claims are not just accepted. As I said earlier, if you do not provide these, then I can only assume your claim that "It is a fact that one of the staff there had given him access to the nursery and she was sacked because of it," it false.

Producing Guede's claim that he "bought the info" is ridiculous. Provide the quotes from Pratillo and Burleigh.

"Lots of people have gold watches." True. But lots of men aren't found with a woman's gold watch in their backpacks who live next door to a woman who had one stolen a week before who also got caught red-handed after breaking into an apartment and threatening the occupant with a knife and stealing credit cards and cash. Are you now going to suggest "lots of people have kitchen knives" to explain Guede having the stolen knife from the school kitchen in his backpack?

Guede didn't "ignore" anything in the cottage. He was interrupted before he could stuff his backpack by Meredith coming home. After he brutally murdered her, he had bigger problems to deal with than stealing a few things that would connect him to the murder. That's why he ditched the phones. He couldn't sell them and he knew it.

As for the lawyers, I just read the testimony of both of them and neither mentions anything about thinking it was an "inside job". In fact, only 3 things were stolen which did not require "more than one person to cart off the goods".
Once again, quote and cite where the lawyers claimed they thought it was an "inside job". If you do not, we'll toss your claim into the "arsefact" pile with the others.

 

[Vixen]

Then present the quotes from the Pratillo transcript and Burleigh. Saying "it's in the Pratillo transcripts" and Nina Burleigh "mentions it" proves nothing. You have claimed I've said things I've never said on multiple occasions, including another one which I will address momentarily, so it's understandable that your unsupported claims are not just accepted. As I said earlier, if you do not provide these, then I can only assume your claim that "It is a fact that one of the staff there had given him access to the nursery and she was sacked because of it," it false.

Producing Guede's claim that he "bought the info" is ridiculous. Provide the quotes from Pratillo and Burleigh.

"Lots of people have gold watches." True. But lots of men aren't found with a woman's gold watch in their backpacks who live next door to a woman who had one stolen a week before who also got caught red-handed after breaking into an apartment and threatening the occupant with a knife and stealing credit cards and cash. Are you now going to suggest "lots of people have kitchen knives" to explain Guede having the stolen knife from the school kitchen in his backpack?

Guede didn't "ignore" anything in the cottage. He was interrupted before he could stuff his backpack by Meredith coming home. After he brutally murdered her, he had bigger problems to deal with than stealing a few things that would connect him to the murder. That's why he ditched the phones. He couldn't sell them and he knew it.

As for the lawyers, I just read the testimony of both of them and neither mentions anything about thinking it was an "inside job". In fact, only 3 things were stolen which did not require "more than one person to cart off the goods".
Once again, quote and cite where the lawyers claimed they thought it was an "inside job". If you do not, we'll toss your claim into the "arsefact" pile with the others.

You know nothing at all about the case and it's embarrassing that you issue kneejerk denials of something you know nothing about.

What do you mean Rudy was interrupted before he could put the laptops and jewellery into his backpack?

How does this fit in with the PIP cribsheet of factoids: 'Rudy was there from 19:45 to about 22:00.

He pottered about covering Mez with a duvet and carefully locking her door, having first rummaged through her bag for two phones, credit card and cash.

He then hung around to undress her body, move it, pose it, stage a burglary, clean up, put the washing machine on...and he didn't have time to nick anything.

He supposedly steals gold watches but left some nice gold jewellery behind. Rudy steals laptops, but left three behind.

Instead of trotting out inanities, throw out the worn out script and THINK. Find out the facts and then put forward a theory that makes sense.

ETA Re Maria del Prato, the Milan daycare nursery director:

Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged. Milan police did not just let him go, they checked his record with Perugia police (he had none and police knew little or nothing of him) and knew where he was for a possible later charge.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C823/

I note that fact Rudy had a key, which was given him by a member of staff, later sacked, is something the pro-Knox sites never mention.

 

[bagels]

You know nothing at all about the case and it's embarrassing that you issue kneejerk denials of something you know nothing about.

What do you mean Rudy was interrupted before he could put the laptops and jewellery into his backpack?

How does this fit in with the PIP cribsheet of factoids: 'Rudy was there from 19:45 to about 22:00.

He pottered about covering Mez with a duvet and carefully locking her door, having first rummaged through her bag for two phones, credit card and cash.

He then hung around to undress her body, move it, pose it, stage a burglary, clean up, put the washing machine on...and he didn't have time to nick anything.

He supposedly steals gold watches but left some nice gold jewellery behind. Rudy steals laptops, but left three behind.

Instead of trotting out inanities, throw out the worn out script and THINK. Find out the facts and then put forward a theory that makes sense.

Vixen are you incapable of understanding that every aspect of the crime the PGP consider "staged" or "posed" the PIP consider genuine result of the live action of the crime?

You think Amanda posed Meredith's body to look like a rape. We think it looked like a rape, because it really was a rape.


You think Filomena's room looks like a break-in because it was staged to look that way. We think it looked like a break-in because it really was one.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Stacyhs]

Feting tv, press and broadcasting costs money, as does 'product placement' (= 'Amanda is the victim [forget Mez]). Youtube is flooded with PR Amanda smearing of Mignini, police, courts, and even the Kercher family.

The fool Curt Knox believes this is better than a fair trial.

You claimed C. Knox "invested $2m in Gogerty-Marriott". You have failed to produce evidence of this. All you provide is information no one disputes; that he hired G-M. If you had evidence of $2m, you'd have provided it by now. Into the arsefacts pile it goes.

 

[Bill Williams]

You claimed C. Knox "invested $2m in Gogerty-Marriott". You have failed to produce evidence of this. All you provide is information no one disputes; that he hired G-M. If you had evidence of $2m, you'd have provided it by now. Into the arsefacts pile it goes.

Is anyone keeping track of Vixen's "out of thin air" factoids?

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda, a ticket from Seattle police and Raff for possession of drugs. Why, he even boasts about it in his 'memoirs'; how his cold calculating mind fooled the cops.

You quite sure any of that constitutes a "police record" in the normal definition of the term?

(Hint: none of it does)

 

[LondonJohn]

You mean Raff as Civil Rights Campaigner:




'Obviously'? What's obvious about it, and in which category does Raff place himself.

As we say in my neck of the woods, 'Hei, sit'.'

I don't think many people in the UK say that. But there you go.

 

[LondonJohn]

You claimed C. Knox "invested $2m in Gogerty-Marriott". You have failed to produce evidence of this. All you provide is information no one disputes; that he hired G-M. If you had evidence of $2m, you'd have provided it by now. Into the arsefacts pile it goes.

And Vixen seeks to "prove" her BS contention by conflating the Knox family's costs for legal defence (and as Vixen almost certainly doesn't understand - or refuses to understand in this instance perhaps - even "bargain basement" defence costs in a case such as this, with its inordinate length and the scope and scale of the trial process, can easily run well into six figures) with her mythical "$2 million" PR bill. I realise it suits Vixen's ends to console herself with the notion that the Knox family swayed this case by subverting the judicial process with a PR campaign whose costs and reach knew almost no bounds. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates that no such thing happened.

But then, who needs evidence when one has a zealous position to protect, and villains to cast in the pantomime......?

 

[Bill Williams]

And Vixen seeks to "prove" her BS contention by conflating the Knox family's costs for legal defence (and as Vixen almost certainly doesn't understand - or refuses to understand in this instance perhaps - even "bargain basement" defence costs in a case such as this, with its inordinate length and the scope and scale of the trial process, can easily run well into six figures) with her mythical "$2 million" PR bill. I realise it suits Vixen's ends to console herself with the notion that the Knox family swayed this case by subverting the judicial process with a PR campaign whose costs and reach knew almost no bounds. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates that no such thing happened.

But then, who needs evidence when one has a zealous position to protect, and villains to cast in the pantomime......?

Vixen's real gripe is that the two accused protested the accusations. Imagine spending all that money mounting a full and vigorous defence.

Obviously only a sociopath would dare to say in open court, "that's not true." I don't know how they can live with themselves for not just meekly agreeing with everything thrown at them.

The nerve.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please refer to the documented bank statements. All publically available.

I have (I presume you mean the statements that are publicly available?). Nowhere do they show Knox withdrawing €300 per day while in Perugia. Nor the same for Kercher. So I'm confused. Point me to the actual statements which prove your contention. Maybe there are publically available statements that are different from the publicly available ones......

(I'm assuming, incidentally, that you at the very least understand that making a number of €300 withdrawals on different days over a lengthier period of time (e.g. a €300 withdrawal on a Monday, followed by another €300 withdrawal the following Saturday, and another €300 withdrawal the following Friday) IN NO WAY equates to "withdrawing €300 per day". I imagine that a management accounting course at least tackles the subject of amortisation.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen's real gripe is that the two accused protested the accusations. Imagine spending all that money mounting a full and vigorous defence.

Obviously only a sociopath would dare to say in open court, "that's not true." I don't know how they can live with themselves for not just meekly agreeing with everything thrown at them.

The nerve.

Ah no. I think that in Vixen's view, the innocent never need to do or say anything more than "I didn't do it", and that the truth will set them free. I think in Vixen's view, the very act of mounting a paid defence is in and of itself indicative of guilt.

Oh dear.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah no. I think that in Vixen's view, the innocent never need to do or say anything more than "I didn't do it", and that the truth will set them free. I think in Vixen's view, the very act of mounting a paid defence is in and of itself indicative of guilt.

Oh dear.

In theory that is the Inquisatorial System. Everyone assumes the accused is guilty, and is honourable enough to admit when they are proven innocent. If not, then the honour of the prosecutor is at stake - proclaiming one's innocence is by definition defamation against the prosecutor!!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

In theory that is the Inquisatorial System. Everyone assumes the accused is guilty, and is honourable enough to admit when they are proven innocent. If not, then the honour of the prosecutor is at stake - proclaiming one's innocence is by definition defamation against the prosecutor!!!!

Exactly. If the Inquisitor General (read: PM) decides you committed the crime, then you committed the crime. The trial is little more than a rubber stamping of that "objective" conclusion.

And right there in a nutshell is why the inquisitorial system is so fundamentally unfit for purpose in a modern liberal democracy. And, at the same time, why the failure of the Italian judiciary to expel these notions from its criminal justice system since the mandated chance to adversarial justice resulted in so many manifestly improper and incorrect verdicts in the lower courts in the Knox/Sollecito trials.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then present the quotes from the Pratillo transcript and Burleigh. Saying "it's in the Pratillo transcripts" and Nina Burleigh "mentions it" proves nothing. You have claimed I've said things I've never said on multiple occasions, including another one which I will address momentarily, so it's understandable that your unsupported claims are not just accepted. As I said earlier, if you do not provide these, then I can only assume your claim that "It is a fact that one of the staff there had given him access to the nursery and she was sacked because of it," it false.

Producing Guede's claim that he "bought the info" is ridiculous. Provide the quotes from Pratillo and Burleigh.

"Lots of people have gold watches." True. But lots of men aren't found with a woman's gold watch in their backpacks who live next door to a woman who had one stolen a week before who also got caught red-handed after breaking into an apartment and threatening the occupant with a knife and stealing credit cards and cash. Are you now going to suggest "lots of people have kitchen knives" to explain Guede having the stolen knife from the school kitchen in his backpack?

Guede didn't "ignore" anything in the cottage. He was interrupted before he could stuff his backpack by Meredith coming home. After he brutally murdered her, he had bigger problems to deal with than stealing a few things that would connect him to the murder. That's why he ditched the phones. He couldn't sell them and he knew it.

As for the lawyers, I just read the testimony of both of them and neither mentions anything about thinking it was an "inside job". In fact, only 3 things were stolen which did not require "more than one person to cart off the goods".
Once again, quote and cite where the lawyers claimed they thought it was an "inside job". If you do not, we'll toss your claim into the "arsefact" pile with the others.

You know nothing at all about the case and it's embarrassing that you issue kneejerk denials of something you know nothing about.

What do you mean Rudy was interrupted before he could put the laptops and jewellery into his backpack?

How does this fit in with the PIP cribsheet of factoids: 'Rudy was there from 19:45 to about 22:00.

He pottered about covering Mez with a duvet and carefully locking her door, having first rummaged through her bag for two phones, credit card and cash.

He then hung around to undress her body, move it, pose it, stage a burglary, clean up, put the washing machine on...and he didn't have time to nick anything.

He supposedly steals gold watches but left some nice gold jewellery behind. Rudy steals laptops, but left three behind.

Instead of trotting out inanities, throw out the worn out script and THINK. Find out the facts and then put forward a theory that makes sense.

I know more about it than you do apparently as I've had to point out several of your mistakes. For example, that the "shower" was mentioned in her Nov 6 written statement and not her email home, that del Prato was accompanied by two grown men, that the gold watch was stolen the night Mandu-Diaz's home was burned down and not "several years earlier", etc.

What do I mean about Rudy being interrupted?

"'Rudy was there from 19:45 to about 22:00."

Um, no. The garage CCTV captures someone, possibly Guede, at 20:40, not 19:45. Even Guede says he left the kebab place about 8:30 and started walking back to Meredith's apartment. (2008 deposition). But you should know that since you know so much more about the case than I do.


He scanned the area to make sure no one was around and then broke in through Filomena's window. He rummaged around in her room seeing what was available but felt in no hurry in deciding what to steal before checking out the rest of the apartment. He said he had a drink from the refrigerator (deposition), which he probably did as he made sure he was accounting for any fingerprints/DNA found there. According to poor Rudy, he had to go to the bathroom because of some "bad kebabs", which interestingly would have given him diarrhea and not the solid stools photographed in the toilet. He also stated he had time to listen to 3 songs while on the toilet. This also suggests he felt in no hurry to steal and run quickly. Meredith came home just before 21:00 while he was in the bathroom, as supported by the unflushed toilet he didn't want her to hear. The attack happened immediately as supported by the phone evidence and the digestive tract finding. The (correct) timeline works just fine.

He didn't hang around to "undress her body, move it, pose it, stage a burglary, clean up, put the washing machine on" because 1) the break-in/burglary was not staged and happened before Meredith came home, 2) he didn't move or pose the body, 3) he didn't clean up anything, or 4) put the washing machine on.

Taking the time to search through the rest of the apartment after having just murdered Meredith was not exactly important to him. Getting away was. He had to look in her purse, leaving his DNA, because he needed her keys to get out so it was easy to grab her wallet and cell phones at the same time.

If you THINK, you'd see this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Is anyone keeping track of Vixen's "out of thin air" factoids?

The arsefacts pile is growing into a mountain.

 

[Vixen]

ETA Re Maria del Prato, the Milan daycare nursery director:

Quote:
Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged. Milan police did not just let him go, they checked his record with Perugia police (he had none and police knew little or nothing of him) and knew where he was for a possible later charge.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C823/

I note that fact Rudy had a key, which was given him by a member of staff, later sacked, is something the pro-Knox sites never mention.
__________________

 

[Vixen]

Vixen are you incapable of understanding that every aspect of the crime the PGP consider "staged" or "posed" the PIP consider genuine result of the live action of the crime?

You think Amanda posed Meredith's body to look like a rape. We think it looked like a rape, because it really was a rape.


You think Filomena's room looks like a break-in because it was staged to look that way. We think it looked like a break-in because it really was one.

Maybe this famous quote can help:

[qimg]http://statusmind.com/images/2015/04/Awesome-Quotes-57800-statusmind.com.jpg[/qimg]

Not one single (valid) court agrees with you. All of the courts uphold the burglary was staged, even Marasca.

Forensic pathologists agree Mez had her bra removed after death and several ditto re her jeans.

You may have noted that both Amanda and Raff mention Mez' jeans in (a) Amanda's email home and she talks of bumping hips and (b) Raff in his police statement.

These were written AFTER the murder, so Mez' jeans were at the forefront of their minds post-murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not one single (valid) court agrees with you. All of the courts uphold the burglary was staged, even Marasca.

Forensic pathologists agree Mez had her bra removed after death and several ditto re her jeans.

You may have noted that both Amanda and Raff mention Mez' jeans in (a) Amanda's email home and she talks of bumping hips and (b) Raff in his police statement.

These were written AFTER the murder, so Mez' jeans were at the forefront of their minds post-murder.

You are conflating what courts agreed with, with what they are bound by.

 

[Stacyhs]

You know nothing at all about the case and it's embarrassing that you issue kneejerk denials of something you know nothing about.

What do you mean Rudy was interrupted before he could put the laptops and jewellery into his backpack?

How does this fit in with the PIP cribsheet of factoids: 'Rudy was there from 19:45 to about 22:00.

He pottered about covering Mez with a duvet and carefully locking her door, having first rummaged through her bag for two phones, credit card and cash.

He then hung around to undress her body, move it, pose it, stage a burglary, clean up, put the washing machine on...and he didn't have time to nick anything.

He supposedly steals gold watches but left some nice gold jewellery behind. Rudy steals laptops, but left three behind.

Instead of trotting out inanities, throw out the worn out script and THINK. Find out the facts and then put forward a theory that makes sense.

ETA Re Maria del Prato, the Milan daycare nursery director:


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C823/

I note that fact Rudy had a key, which was given him by a member of staff, later sacked, is something the pro-Knox sites never mention.

"Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged." (TJMK)

LOL! This is straight from TJMK and it gives NO citation for this alleged concession nor does it even state anyone was "later sacked". Del Prado never made any such statement in her testimony. I'd hazard a guess that's why pro-Knox sites never mention it. Once again, unless you can provide a quote from del Prado and its citation, this will be consigned to the ever growing arsefact pile.