Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

I guess it's not surprising the PIP have only ever heard the 'well-known for breaking and entry' factoid. <sigh>

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Testimony-of-Maria-del-Prato.pdf



and



And those familiar with the case are aware a member of staff suspected by Ms del Prato was sacked.

Hilarious!

1) You made the claim up-thread that del Prato had given evidence to the effect that Guede had not broken into the premises because he had "probably" been given a key (to the premises) by someone - and that this "someone" was possibly a member of del Prato's own staff.

2) In "support" of this claim, you have posted here transcripts in which del Prato is discussing not the entry into the premises, but very specifically and solely the issue of the lockable cupboard inside the premises.

3) So the transcript you have provided in no way supports your original claim, which was specifically made in respect of Guede's method of entry to the premises, and whether or not he had a key to the premises. The transcript only discussed the key to the cupboard.

4) The transcript also reveals that the cupboard in question had been opened and stolen from in a previous burglary (i.e. previous to the Guede incident). This clearly opens the possibility that the person(s) responsible for the first theft (possibly some petty thieves or drug addicts in Milan, possibly Guede himself) retained the key and used it in the second break-in (the one in which Guede was implicated).

5) The transcript makes no reference whatsoever (nor any implication of any sort) to a member of del Prato's staff passing any sort of key - whether to the premises or to the cupboard - to Guede or to anyone else.


So, in fact, every single element of your original contention - that (in your own words):

"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"

...is either not borne out by this transcript or is actually flatly contradicted by this transcript. Brava!!!!

 

[Vixen]

From the Nencini sentencing report:

"Rudi Hermann Guede besides having a specific experience in intruding into others’ homes to commit theft (his precedents, remarked in multiple court documents, speak for themselves), knew perfectly the cottage” (page 73-74)

“Rudi Hermann Guede, surely expert in breaking and entering to commit theft” (page 74)

“Rudi Hermann Guede, skilled and shrewd thief”. (page 78).

But somehow, poor Rudy, really wasn't a thief and didn't really break into places he had no business being.

You keep telling me I have 'reading comprehension problems', yet you clearly either have not read Nencini properly, or you have deliberately quoted out of context.

Here is the context:

At this point it is possible to test the reconstruction of the events proposed by the defense teams, according to whom Rudy Hermann Guede, on the night of 1 November 2007, is said to have entered the cottage on Via della Pergola with the intention of carrying out a burglary] and,
surprised by poor Meredith, who returned home around 9:00 pm, decided to assault her in
order to rape her violently and, given the young woman’s reaction, would have ultimately
murdered her. This reconstruction is not objectively tenable based on the evidence. .....[.....]......

Rudy Hermann Guede, apart from having specific experience in entering the homes of others
with the intent to steal (his record, recalled in many trial records, is by itself [74] eloquent),
13
also knew the cottage under consideration, having been a guest of the young men who lived in
the basement flat. He knew its location and features.
[NB as submitted by the defence]

...[...]...From this
statement one must deduce that, from the defense’s reconstruction, the thief and murderer Rudy Hermann Guede broke in through the window and then, having committed the murder,
left by opening the front door using the inside knob. He did this on the presumption that the
metal security gate [to the front door] was open; otherwise, he would have been forced to leave
by the same route he had used to break in, in other words [back] through the window that faces
the cottage’s parking terrace, supported by a retaining wall of some type on the north side.
So Rudy Hermann Guede, certainly an expert at breaking and entering in order to commit burglary, according to specific previous instances, and wanting to break into the cottage on Via
della Pergola, which he knew well, having found the metal security gate for the front door
open, would never have entertained the idea of gaining access through the front door of the
residence.
[NB: STILL FOLLOWING THE DEFENCE LOGIC]

So once again we have a misrepresentation of the legal facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing in the court transcript you provided even remotely suggests Rudy was loaned a key by a staff member.

You're just making stuff up as you go along.

...and your last paragraph is supported how?

It's one thing dodging requests for supporting evidence. It's quite another to present supporting "evidence" (with a flourish) which actually fails to support one's claims and in part flatly contradicts one's claims, and to announce that the matter is effectively settled. That's pretty much a dictionary definition of chutzpah

 

[Vixen]

It's one thing dodging requests for supporting evidence. It's quite another to present supporting "evidence" (with a flourish) which actually fails to support one's claims and in part flatly contradicts one's claims, and to announce that the matter is effectively settled. That's pretty much a dictionary definition of chutzpah

You and Stacyhs either have a complete inability to follow cross-examination questioning or, more likely, you are keen to deliberately mislead people by demonising one of the defendants in an attempt to make the unwary reader consider the other two defendants deserving of beatification in comparison. And of course, having conned their way out of their rightful convictions, we can now expect the kids to follow Mother Teresa into the cannons of sainthood and martyrdom this time next year, perhaps.

We-ee-ell.

 

[LondonJohn]

You and Stacyhs either have a complete inabiltiy to follow cross-examination questioning or, more likely, you are keen to deliberately mislead people by demonising one of the defendants in an attempt to make the unwary reader consider the other two defendants deserving of beatification in comparison. And of course, having conned their way out of their rightful convictions, we can now expect the kids to follow Mother Teresa into the cannons of sainthood and martyrdom this time next year, perhaps.

We-ee-ell.

Did the transcript you provided discuss the key to a cupboard, or the key to the premises?

Let's start with that, shall we?

 

[Vixen]

1) Cite evidence that the judge "did not believe his story".

2) Only the convicting courts found either of them credible. Hellmann and Marasca did not find them credible at all.

Why did Quintavalle deny having seen Amanda within one week of the murder when shown a photo by Volturno? Why did he only come forward more than a year later after being prodded by the same reporter who found Nara Capezzali (who claimed she knew of the murder before it was even discovered). Why did the cashier say she had not seen Amanda that morning?

Oh, yes,...Curatolo, who had testified for the police in THREE previous murder trials, was a derelict heroin attack admittedly high the night of the murder, who changed the times he saw Knox and Sollecito, and claimed he was sure what night it was due to the people in costumes and getting on busses to the disco. Too bad that was the night before the murder.

Yep, TOTALLY credible!

Er, he wasn't called to give evidence...?

Both Curatalo and Quintavalle were cross-examined (Tarmontano was not).

Massei and Nencini preferred their account to that of the defence, and the convictions were confirmed.

 

[Vixen]

Did the transcript you provided discuss the key to a cupboard, or the key to the premises?

Let's start with that, shall we?

Read what it says about accessing the premises and come back to us. Watch del Prato's lips, 'None of the locks were damaged.'

 

[Vixen]

Um, no...it does not "leap out" at all. Let me guess, this is the employee she later fired that you have presented no evidence of actually happening at all?

Yes, Rudy helped himself. That's what 20 yr old unemployed and penniless yobs do. He "helped" himself to other people's property.

Rudy had more of a motive to kill Meredith than Amanda and Raffaele. She'd just caught him burglarizing her home. The prosecution couldn't come up with a credible, or even consistent, motive for Amanda or Raffaele.

The fact that del Prato had two grown men with her just might have had some effect on how Guede reacted, ya think? By the way, no one said Guede had a "vicious and uncontrollable temper". Rapist and murderers don't have to have bad tempers. Just thought I'd point that out.

But we know that Amanda does. She suffers the same boiling rage as her dad.

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, he wasn't called to give evidence...?

Both Curatalo and Quintavalle were cross-examined (Tarmontano was not).

Massei and Nencini preferred their account to that of the defence, and the convictions were confirmed.

How did a judge "not believe his story" if no judge ever heard his story in a courtroom?

And you still seem strangely oblivious to the fact that the Massei and Nencini courts were severely criticised by the Italian Supreme Court in the course of the SC's overturning and annulment of the Massei and Nencini verdicts. The convictions were definitively quashed.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 11

 

[LondonJohn]

But we know that Amanda does. She suffers the same boiling rage as her dad.

How do "we" know this? Evidence please. (And no circular references - e.g. "we know Knox had huge rages because she viciously stabbed poor Mez Kercher in the neck" - obviously.....)

 

[Vixen]

Hilarious!

1) You made the claim up-thread that del Prato had given evidence to the effect that Guede had not broken into the premises because he had "probably" been given a key (to the premises) by someone - and that this "someone" was possibly a member of del Prato's own staff.

2) In "support" of this claim, you have posted here transcripts in which del Prato is discussing not the entry into the premises, but very specifically and solely the issue of the lockable cupboard inside the premises.

3) So the transcript you have provided in no way supports your original claim, which was specifically made in respect of Guede's method of entry to the premises, and whether or not he had a key to the premises. The transcript only discussed the key to the cupboard.

4) The transcript also reveals that the cupboard in question had been opened and stolen from in a previous burglary (i.e. previous to the Guede incident). This clearly opens the possibility that the person(s) responsible for the first theft (possibly some petty thieves or drug addicts in Milan, possibly Guede himself) retained the key and used it in the second break-in (the one in which Guede was implicated).

5) The transcript makes no reference whatsoever (nor any implication of any sort) to a member of del Prato's staff passing any sort of key - whether to the premises or to the cupboard - to Guede or to anyone else.


So, in fact, every single element of your original contention - that (in your own words):

"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"

...is either not borne out by this transcript or is actually flatly contradicted by this transcript. Brava!!!!

Please read the following testimony carefully. At no stage does Ms del Prato assert that Rudy broke in.

DEFENSE – Avv. Rocchi – Do you know how he got into your nursery
school?
WITNESS – Well, at the time the entrance door was a little defective
and there was no gate and in fact later I had a gate installed for
safety, but at the time the door was a bit defective and it opened if
you kicked it, but this was only known by... us or those who worked in
the school knew.

 

[Vixen]

How do "we" know this? Evidence please. (And no circular references - e.g. "we know Knox had huge rages because she viciously stabbed poor Mez Kercher in the neck" - obviously.....)

Amanda was thrown out of a bar for tipping a drink over the DJ's head. Kind, gracious Mez came to her rescue and persuaded the bar owner not to ban the thug.

 

[LondonJohn]

Read what it says about accessing the premises and come back to us. Watch del Prato's lips, 'None of the locks were damaged.'

Who are "us"? And "none of the locks were damaged" says nothing whatsoever about keys or their custody, and in no way whatsoever does it equate to "Guede probably had a key", nor of course "Guede was probably given a key by a member of staff".

Try again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda was thrown out of a bar for tipping a drink over the DJ's head. Kind, gracious Mez came to her rescue and persuaded the bar owner not to ban the thug.

Are you engaging in deliberate self-parody here? This is priceless!!

(By the way, the victim's name was Meredith Kercher. Or Meredith. Or Kercher. Just so you don't make the same mistake again )

 

[Stacyhs]

You keep telling me I have 'reading comprehension problems', yet you clearly either have not read Nencini properly, or you have deliberately quoted out of context.

Here is the context:



So once again we have a misrepresentation of the legal facts.

Now watch how this is done; you are correct. I missed that it was the defense's position. See? When you are proved wrong, it's the adult thing to admit it instead of continuing to defend it.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that del Prato "conceded" that an employee gave Guede a key to the nursery school and that she later fired someone for it?

Is it your position that Guede never broke into anyone's place and committed theft?

 

[LondonJohn]

Please read the following testimony carefully. At no stage does Ms del Prato assert that Rudy broke in.

Holy smoke! YOU made the assertion that del Prato "conceded" that Guede had probably entered the premises using a key given to him by a member of her staff. Nothing whatsoever from the transcript snippets you've provided in "supporting evidence" supports your assertion in any way whatsoever.

The question is not whether or not del Prato "assert(ed) that Guede broke in". It's whether or not del Prato "conceded that Guede probably entered using a key given to him by a member of staff".

But keep digging. It's great to watch!

 

[Vixen]

Now watch how this is done; you are correct. I missed that it was the defense's position. See? When you are proved wrong, it's the adult thing to admit it instead of continuing to defend it.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that del Prato "conceded" that an employee gave Guede a key to the nursery school and that she later fired someone for it?

Is it your position that Guede never broke into anyone's place and committed theft?

There is no evidence Rudy broke into anybody's home and stole property.

It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Now watch how this is done; you are correct. I missed that it was the defense's position. See? When you are proved wrong, it's the adult thing to admit it instead of continuing to defend it.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that del Prato "conceded" that an employee gave Guede a key to the nursery school and that she later fired someone for it?

Is it your position that Guede never broke into anyone's place and committed theft?

I made the same mistake. My bad.

Maybe now Vixen can do the same with "acting osmotically." Go ahead. You'll feel better......

 

[Vixen]

Holy smoke! YOU made the assertion that del Prato "conceded" that Guede had probably entered the premises using a key given to him by a member of her staff. Nothing whatsoever from the transcript snippets you've provided in "supporting evidence" supports your assertion in any way whatsoever.

The question is not whether or not del Prato "assert(ed) that Guede broke in". It's whether or not del Prato "conceded that Guede probably entered using a key given to him by a member of staff".

But keep digging. It's great to watch!

Del Prato is NOT going to say that, as she hadn't investigated it at the time. If you know anything about cross examination, the barristers gave her every opportunity to complain that Rudy broke in, which they could not ask outright, as a leading question, and at no stage did she say so.

Have a practice making a closing submission from this.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no evidence Rudy broke into anybody's home and stole property.

It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence.

Where's the evidence that Guede was "let in" to the nursery?

(Hint: none of the transcript text you've yet provided indicates or even implies that Guede was "let in" to the nursery, nor that a member of staff was in any way responsible for assisting Guede in his entry - whether through opening a door for him or through passing him a key to the premises).