Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Well, the thing is, Vixen, the "local sources" aren't Riccardo Stagliano. He is the author of the article, not the source of the claim that "the direction of the reconstruction of this nasty story, very professional and entrusted to a proven spin doctor, whose fees according to local sources are about $ 100,000 a year. David Marriott is the journalists tamer that has been managing the family’s relations with the press for two years. "

Are you so obtuse you can't differentiate between the author and the unnamed "local sources"?

At least we agree on Trump.

You really don't know that trained qualified journalists for respectable broadsheets always check their facts? It's drilled into them.

Even were Riccardo Stagliano to name his source, you would still be going, 'oh I'm so suspicious; it must be a disgruntled employee. I want even more proof.'

IOW you like to bicker just for the sake of bickering. You don't genuinely believe Riccardo Stagliano is a liar.

 

[LondonJohn]

How is AFFIRMING that I could throw that rock from the car park "bottling out"?

I genuinely wish that there was someone making a pro-guilt argument on these pages from a position of intellectual honesty and reliable sourcing of evidence. I welcome having my position challenged, but not in a way that employs made-up "facts" and extreme intellectual dishonesty. Shame.

 

[LondonJohn]

You really don't know that trained qualified journalists for respectable broadsheets always check their facts? It's drilled into them.

Even were Riccardo Stagliano to name his source, you would still be going, 'oh I'm so suspicious; it must be a disgruntled employee. I want even more proof.'

IOW you like to bicker just for the sake of bickering. You don't genuinely believe Riccardo Stagliano is a liar.

Where is the proof of what Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott (and/or David Marriott)?

I am coming to the conclusion that you either cannot or will not supply such proof. Which is it?

 

[Stacyhs]

You claimed you could easily throw a boulder of the density of sandstone or limestone from a distance similar to that of the car park outside Filomena's window. Now you are bottling out. You are all front.


If you had read the article you yourself linked to, you would have been alerted to the following:
Did Shutters Block Rock?

"The two prosecutors in the case, Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, made a number of objections when they cross-questioned Pasquali, who admitted that he had not taken into account the fact that there were shutters on the outside of the original window.

Prosecution witnesses have testified that the shutters were partially closed on the morning after the murder, and Pasquali conceded that the closed shutters would have prevented a rock from the breaking the window from the outside.

"It does not take a technician," Pasquali said. "If the shutters were ajar then the rock couldn't fit through."

Think this one through. The witnesses testified they were partially closed the morning AFTER the murder. That does not mean they were closed when the rock ...excuse me..boulder was thrown through the window. Guede stood on the grate, opened the outer shutters, climbed back to the car park, tossed the rock..er..boulder through the window. He waited for any response. Seeing none, he climbs through the window and partially closes the shutters behind him hiding the broken window from passersby.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly. It's a fundamentally incorrect assertion that the only people who'd have any motive to stage a break-in would be keyholders to the cottage. So even if it was proven that the break-in was truly staged, this would in no way whatsoever either a) preclude Guede as the person who conducted the staging, or b) imply that a keyholder (=Knox) must have been involved in the staging.

Of course, this is all moot as you point out, since all of the evidence is entirely consistent with a real break-in, and in fact certain evidence is incompatible with a staging from the inside. And taken together with other factors, it's wholly reasonable to conclude that Guede entered the cottage by 1) climbing up to Romanelli's window and opening the unsecured right-hand exterior shutter, 2) dropping back down again, taking a rock, going to the car port area and throwing the rock through the right-hand window pane (which was not full exposed with the exterior shutter swung open), 3) climbing up again and reaching through the broken glass (to open the window with the latch, and entering Romanelli's room, and 4) closing the right-hand exterior shutter (which would be the left-hand exterior shutter as viewed from the inside), so as to hide the evidence of the broken window to anyone looking at the cottage from outside.

Time line: Rudy was there outside the cottage about 20:00 pm. Filomena's window is directly visible from the road outside by passing motorists and well lit. Nobody was home so Rudy went to get a kebab. He returned an hour later. The cctv captures a figure wearing the type of quilted jacket Rudy was captured wearing in Germany, following either Mez or Amanda into the cottage.

FACT: Sandstone or limestone is a very heavy material and would have produced a crash of enormous volume, alerting anyone inside the cottage, the neighbours and persons inside the car park.

Your claim Rudy shimmied up the wall THREE times is ludicrous in the extreme, when he only need to knock on the door.

Raff gives a clue in his letter to a newspaper when he relates (he thinks, sarcastically) he and Amanda were in bed in her room when the door bell rang and it was Rudy at the door (not named) 'wanting a ****'.

There you have it: from the horse's mouth.

 

[bagels]

There is zero trace of Rudy in the burglary room.

This excludes him from being in there? Fantastic! This mean your 5000 posts in this thread are going to disappear in a puff of logic since Amanda likewise left zero traces in the murder room!

If only Your posts are still here, and Rudy was still in the burglary room.

 

[Vixen]

Where is the proof of what Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott (and/or David Marriott)?

I am coming to the conclusion that you either cannot or will not supply such proof. Which is it?

I said Curt Knox invested in a PR company. = Hired. = a debt obligation arises.

A binding business contract arises. Most professionals provide an engagement letter setting out terms and conditions and fees.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

I genuinely wish that there was someone making a pro-guilt argument on these pages from a position of intellectual honesty and reliable sourcing of evidence. I welcome having my position challenged, but not in a way that employs made-up "facts" and extreme intellectual dishonesty. Shame.

Same to you with brass knobs on.

 

[LondonJohn]

Time line: Rudy was there outside the cottage about 20:00 pm. Filomena's window is directly visible from the road outside by passing motorists and well lit. Nobody was home so Rudy went to get a kebab. He returned an hour later. The cctv captures a figure wearing the type of quilted jacket Rudy was captured wearing in Germany, following either Mez or Amanda into the cottage.

FACT: Sandstone or limestone is a very heavy material and would have produced a crash of enormous volume, alerting anyone inside the cottage, the neighbours and persons inside the car park.

Your claim Rudy shimmied up the wall THREE times is ludicrous in the extreme, when he only need to knock on the door.

Raff gives a clue in his letter to a newspaper when he relates (he thinks, sarcastically) he and Amanda were in bed in her room when the door bell rang and it was Rudy at the door (not named) 'wanting a ****'.

There you have it: from the horse's mouth.

Twice. Not three times. Jesus. Read posts before answering incorrectly.

 

[Vixen]

How is AFFIRMING that I could throw that rock from the car park "bottling out"?

Provide a simple video proving you can easily throw a sandstone/limestone boulder or brick weighing 10lbs accurately 13 feet through an 18" slot to penetrate the glass and shutter behind and without leaving any glass shards on the ground outside.

 

[Vixen]

Think this one through. The witnesses testified they were partially closed the morning AFTER the murder. That does not mean they were closed when the rock ...excuse me..boulder was thrown through the window. Guede stood on the grate, opened the outer shutters, climbed back to the car park, tossed the rock..er..boulder through the window. He waited for any response. Seeing none, he climbs through the window and partially closes the shutters behind him hiding the broken window from passersby.

Only problem is, he went away for a kebab and came back later. So he'd have to do the same old grey whistle test all over again.

 

[LondonJohn]

I said Curt Knox invested in a PR company. = Hired. = a debt obligation arises.

A binding business contract arises. Most professionals provide an engagement letter setting out terms and conditions and fees.

Clear now?

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that it's a deliberate attempt to misdirect.

I know very well how contracts etc work. That's exactly why I'm asking for a copy of such a contract or engagement letter or invoice as proof of exactly what Curt Knox paid GM/Marriott. Or a sworn statement from someone who was directly involved in the relationship and who knows how much money changed hands. Without that, you ain't got diddly squat to support your mendacious assertion that Curt Knox paid GM/Marriott $2m (or, indeed, anything anywhere close to that amount...).

Clear now? Show me the evidence. Or shut up. OK?

 

[Vixen]

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that it's a deliberate attempt to misdirect.

I know very well how contracts etc work. That's exactly why I'm asking for a copy of such a contract or engagement letter or invoice as proof of exactly what Curt Knox paid GM/Marriott. Or a sworn statement from someone who was directly involved in the relationship and who knows how much money changed hands. Without that, you ain't got diddly squat to support your mendacious assertion that Curt Knox paid GM/Marriott $2m (or, indeed, anything anywhere close to that amount...).

Clear now? Show me the evidence. Or shut up. OK?

Curt Knox himself was pictured by the press standing outside Gogerty-Marriott's offices, announcing their engagement.

Your demand to 'see an invoice' is risible.

 

[LondonJohn]

Only problem is, he went away for a kebab and came back later. So he'd have to do the same old grey whistle test all over again.

He broke the window twice, did he? Sheesh.

He came at around 7.30. He cased the cottage, and sussed out potential entry points. He decided to wait for a bit - probably influenced by the fact that it would not have reached full darkness in Perugia yet at that time of year, and potentially also by the presence of traffic and pedestrians in the vicinity. He would have reasoned - correctly - that in an hour's time, it would be fully dark and there would probably be fewer people out and about.

So he went off and had his kebab (I now chuckle at the glorious SA and his belief that the name of the restaurant Guede went to was "Kabob", when in fact, of course, that was merely the name of the product they sold ). He returned to the cottage at around 8.30pm, had another look around, and satisfied himself that everything was quiet and that it was a near-certainty that there was nobody at home. Having selected Romanelli's window, he climbed up and opened the unsecured exterior shutter(s), threw the rock from the car port area, probably retreated into the shadows for a number of seconds to check that nobody inside or outside the cottage had been alerted by the sound of the window breaking, then quickly climbed back up to the sill of Romanelli's window, entered by reaching in and unlatching the casement, and closed the exterior shutter(s) behind him.

Easy.

 

[Stacyhs]

You really don't know that trained qualified journalists for respectable broadsheets always check their facts? It's drilled into them.Even were Riccardo Stagliano to name his source, you would still be going, 'oh I'm so suspicious; it must be a disgruntled employee. I want even more proof.'

IOW you like to bicker just for the sake of bickering. You don't genuinely believe Riccardo Stagliano is a liar.

Unless a source is named and the information verified, it is simply hearsay. It doesn't mean Stagliano was lying nor have I ever said he was. It could mean his source was simply wrong.

How many "sources close to the investigation" gave misinformation to the media? For example, Richard Owen (a trained qualified journalist) reported in the UK Times (a respected newspaper) that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. Yet they had not. Did he check to be sure this was true? Apparently not. How about Owen's report that police had found the washing machine running? Once again, was this true? Nope. No police ever testified they found the washing machine running.

If you want to describe my calling you out on your "misinformation" and putting false words in my mouth "bickering", then be my guest. Others here can make up their own minds about whether it's "bickering" or not.

 

[Vixen]

He broke the window twice, did he? Sheesh.

He came at around 7.30. He cased the cottage, and sussed out potential entry points. He decided to wait for a bit - probably influenced by the fact that it would not have reached full darkness in Perugia yet at that time of year, and potentially also by the presence of traffic and pedestrians in the vicinity. He would have reasoned - correctly - that in an hour's time, it would be fully dark and there would probably be fewer people out and about.

So he went off and had his kebab (I now chuckle at the glorious SA and his belief that the name of the restaurant Guede went to was "Kabob", when in fact, of course, that was merely the name of the product they sold ). He returned to the cottage at around 8.30pm, had another look around, and satisfied himself that everything was quiet and that it was a near-certainty that there was nobody at home. Having selected Romanelli's window, he climbed up and opened the unsecured exterior shutter(s), threw the rock from the car port area, probably retreated into the shadows for a number of seconds to check that nobody inside or outside the cottage had been alerted by the sound of the window breaking, then quickly climbed back up to the sill of Romanelli's window, entered by reaching in and unlatching the casement, and closed the exterior shutter(s) behind him.

Easy.

Blimey. Are you sure it wasn't you? <g d r>

 

[LondonJohn]

Curt Knox himself was pictured by the press standing outside Gogerty-Marriott's offices, announcing their engagement.

Your demand to 'see an invoice' is risible.

Fricking hell. For the last time:

You assert that Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott (and/or David Marriott personally) some $2 million in fees.

Is it correct that you (still) make this assertion? Yes or no.

If "no", then we say no more about it.

If "yes", then what is your evidence that Curt Knox paid some $2 million to GM/Marriott?

I am not talking about whether or not Curt Knox engaged the services of Gogerty Marriott or David Marriott. My issue is (and has always been, and I've been crystal clear) about how and from where you obtain the figure of "$2 million" which you claim was paid by Curt Knox to GM/Marriott.

Or do you now disavow the claim that Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott/David Marriott something in the region of $2 million?

 

[Vixen]

Unless a source is named and the information verified, it is simply hearsay. It doesn't mean Stagliano was lying nor have I ever said he was. It could mean his source was simply wrong.

How many "sources close to the investigation" gave misinformation to the media? For example, Richard Owen (a trained qualified journalist) reported in the UK Times (a respected newspaper) that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. Yet they had not. Did he check to be sure this was true? Apparently not. How about Owen's report that police had found the washing machine running? Once again, was this true? Nope. No police ever testified they found the washing machine running.

If you want to describe my calling you out on your "misinformation" and putting false words in my mouth "bickering", then be my guest. Others here can make up their own minds about whether it's "bickering" or not.

Filomena testified under oath the washing machine was still warm when she arrived home.

It is common knowledge Curt Knox hired a PR agency so the person being incorrigible and unreasonable in demanding 'proof', is you.

 

[Stacyhs]

Provide a simple video proving you can easily throw a sandstone/limestone boulder or brick weighing 10lbs accurately 13 feet through an 18" slot to penetrate the glass and shutter behind and without leaving any glass shards on the ground outside.

And you accuse me of bickering? LOL It doesn't really matter whether a 60-something yr. old woman could or not. It's whether Guede could. Or do you think he was incapable of doing that? Obviously it's possible as Pasquali's video clearly showed.

 

[Vixen]

Fricking hell. For the last time:

You assert that Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott (and/or David Marriott personally) some $2 million in fees.

Is it correct that you (still) make this assertion? Yes or no.

If "no", then we say no more about it.

If "yes", then what is your evidence that Curt Knox paid some $2 million to GM/Marriott?

I am not talking about whether or not Curt Knox engaged the services of Gogerty Marriott or David Marriott. My issue is (and has always been, and I've been crystal clear) about how and from where you obtain the figure of "$2 million" which you claim was paid by Curt Knox to GM/Marriott.

Or do you now disavow the claim that Curt Knox paid Gogerty Marriott/David Marriott something in the region of $2 million?

Stop deliberately twisting my words. I said Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott and then David Marriott to the tune of $2m. You are dissembling when you claim I said he paid them off. A debt has been created which is legally binding and it matters not a whit whether Curt Knox has paid Marriott in full or not.