Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

What trace would you expect to find? Who would not wear gloves to climb through a window where the glass has been broken? Rudy is not inexperienced in this matter. A ski mask is also a standard accessory for the well dressed burglar that reduces visibility, protects ones identity and reduces the chance of leaving hair behind.

Rudy had no history of wearing ski masks. Amanda did though

 

[Fulcanelli]

Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.

It is anti-social, not sociopathic.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They were with each other. That is what they said prior to 5 November 2007, and what they are saying now. I surmise that I have counted fewer lies than you have.

you're quite right, they were with each other...at the cottage. We all knew that already.

 

[Fulcanelli]

One of the piles of cloths was under the broken window. If this is the pile that had glass on top it would be unsurprising since more glass could have fallen out of the window after Rudy ransacked the room.

What a shower of glass fragments just 'fell out of the window' onto all Filomenas clothes and all over her laptop?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The simple explanation is that the external shutter was open when the rock was thrown through the window. The Mignini report says that Filomena wasn't sure she had closed the shutters when she left the cottage. Even if she had, the latch didn't engage properly. The shutters could be easily opened from the outside.

What 'Mignini report'???

 

[Fulcanelli]

@halides: Regarding the location of the laptop and FR's testimony, I will defer to the court, firstly, and Fulcanelli's anticipated explanation, next.

Filomena found it on the floor of her room and it had glass all over it. In contrast, Amanda wrote in her email home the laptop was on Filomena's desk.

 

[Fulcanelli]

8) Fulcanelli: Side topic; You've noted that the Italian justice system has no plea bargaining system. Does it have any compensating features for cases wherein the only admissible/credible/significant evidence against a suspect would be the testimony of a co-conspirator?

No. But it probably wouldn't secure a conviction in any case. One needs evidence to convict someone, not simply only the say so of one individual and a criminal to boot.

 

[Fulcanelli]

1- Again, was blood spilled. Did Guede lunge at Tramontano, choke him until his hyoid bone fractured, and finally push his knife through Tramontano's throat and left him to bleed in agony? Did he ever go to prison for his unspectacular transgressions?

None of those things. Judge Micheli threw Tramontano and his testimy out of court, since he judged that he'd just made it all up.

 

[quadraginta]

Since when is breaking and entering evidence of being a sociopath?

Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.

Cute semantic one-upmanship aside, I think it is fair to say that when contempating the term "sociopath" most people don't think of garden variety B & E. I suspect that most psych professionals wouldn't either.

If anyone involved in this case has exhibited the sort of total disconnect with the welfare of other people usually associated with a sociopath it is Amanda Knox.

 

[stilicho]

Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.

Now that's interesting.

Which begets which?

 

[stilicho]

None of those things. Judge Micheli threw Tramontano and his testimy out of court, since he judged that he'd just made it all up.

Better offer a cite. We all know Kestrel is a stickler for the truth.

 

[piktor]

Seek the truth

None of those things. Judge Micheli threw Tramontano and his testimy out of court, since he judged that he'd just made it all up.

Kestrel has no problem citing events that never happened but gets holy and mighty probing other's arguments and demands proof of evidence. We all have our arguments for or against guilt of the accused and this is what's interesting in this forum.

Fiona wrote yesterday that one individual will not convince another here because we are all set in our convictions. I agree.

I have not found any arguments here that make me doubt the three are guilty as charged.

Halides1 presents scientific arguments and he is the only opinionator that has made me discard the knife and clasp as unreliable, therefore on these two evidences I agree with the defence.

Fulcanelli is the best informed about precise details of the trial and sometimes he does make a mistake here and there but who doesn't.

stilicho and BobTheDonkey I agree with most because they point to simple logic lapses in other's arguments.

I will not name all other participants here because I will leave out several other that I should also have mentioned and did not.

We have all contributed to affirm acceptance of the verdicts or opposition to them. That is what brings light to this subject.

Most of us here are neither specialized scientists like Halides1 or are as up to date as Fulcanelli is, but each voice has a valid and intelligent point of view that is much appreciated.

As I have said before, the judges are privy to direct information and are able to cross examine witnesses and experts to find clarity and truth.

The defence has had months to demolish the prosecution's preposterous tower of babble but did not, could not.

The Knox/Sollecito Sentenza will be a very interesting read with the caveat that some details at the crime scene will be left out of the report on wishes of the victim's family.

 

[piktor]

If anyone involved in this case has exhibited the sort of total disconnect with the welfare of other people usually associated with a sociopath it is Amanda Knox.

I'm no psychology professional but Knox is the poster child for "character evidence" pointing to guilt. If anyone recalls Ted Bundy's trial, it was all about him. He was the center of attention and the camera loved him.

Knox reminds me of Bundy's charisma and pretension that all this was not a big deal. When Bongiorno uttered "Seattle's Amelie" to spotlight Knox's obfuscations and innocent forgetfulness, that is, I must say, ironclad proof the defence has no defence. When Knox's other lawyer said the Perugia female Flying Squad "had it in" for Knox, we have expedite confirmation, again, of a defenceless defence.

I must add Sollecito chose to shut up and offer a laconic "I remeber nothing" (from the night of Nov. 1). He is as callous and as cold as Knox. Maybe more so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Better offer a cite. We all know Kestrel is a stickler for the truth.

Oh, that's easy...the Micheli Report.

 

[Kestrel]

What 'Mignini report'???

Sorry, meant to say Micheli Report.

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sorry, meant to say Micheli Report.

What he's saying Kestrel, is that the shutters were 'closed over', not closed fully **** since they would no longer do so due to the swelling of the wood.

Moreover, if you go on to read his report further instead of merely cherry picking, you will also see exactly why he concludes that not only did someone not enter via the window and it was broken as a staging, but it was broken from the inside and the damage to the shutters shows this, not only the positioning of glass on top of Filomena's clothing, laptop and lack of any sort of forensic evidence of Rudy in the room.

 

[Dan O.]

What he's saying Kestrel, is that the shutters were 'closed over', not closed fully **** since they would no longer do so due to the swelling of the wood.

Moreover, if you go on to read his report further instead of merely cherry picking, you will also see exactly why he concludes that not only did someone not enter via the window and it was broken as a staging, but it was broken from the inside and the damage to the shutters shows this, not only the positioning of glass on top of Filomena's clothing, laptop and lack of any sort of forensic evidence of Rudy in the room.

You should read that report yourself instead of relying on the conclusions from PMF. I already posted the excerpt in an earlier post:

statement from the Michili report

along with a link to the photographic evidence of the 2 cm irregular scratch with imbedded glass fragments described by Michili which supports the rock being thrown from the outside.

 

[Kestrel]

What he's saying Kestrel, is that the shutters were 'closed over', not closed fully **** since they would no longer do so due to the swelling of the wood.

Moreover, if you go on to read his report further instead of merely cherry picking, you will also see exactly why he concludes that not only did someone not enter via the window and it was broken as a staging, but it was broken from the inside and the damage to the shutters shows this, not only the positioning of glass on top of Filomena's clothing, laptop and lack of any sort of forensic evidence of Rudy in the room.

As I said earlier, the Micheli Report noted that photographs of this spot did not show the glass that Filomena remembered.

The R. (Filomena) in one of the records containing her statements, remember that the glass window above the clothes were thrown on the ground, which confirms that the glass was broken after the activation of who fumbled into the room, even if the minutes and photographs of this particular spot is apparently not, it is significant to record what was the perception of the girl.

In the strange world of the Italian judicial system, the perception of a witness trumps photographs.

If "minutes" refers to the investigator's description of the scene, he also dismisses that evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You should read that report yourself instead of relying on the conclusions from PMF. I already posted the excerpt in an earlier post: along with a link to the photographic evidence of the 2 cm irregular scratch with imbedded glass fragments described by Michili which supports the rock being thrown from the outside.

I think you've read it wrong Dan o. You and google translations don't go together.

I also refer you to the following series of articles on TJMK 'Understanding Micheli'. I think you can use all the help in understanding him you can get.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As I said earlier, the Micheli Report noted that photographs of this spot did not show the glass that Filomena remembered.

It doesn't have to, since they weren't close ups, not when you have testimony from two eye witnesses verifying it. Neither did either Amanda or Raffaele ever challenge the statement by the Postal Police when they testified that that they pointed out to Raffaele and Amanda the break-in was obviously faked by pointing out the glass on top of the clothing to them. Moreover, Mignini and Comodi presented photos in the main trial that showed glass on the clothing.

In the strange world of the Italian judicial system, the perception of a witness trumps photographs.

Multiple witnesses and see above.