Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

.
Sorry, I don't understand (seriously).

Tell me, according to your theory, as Rudy washed the uppers of his Nike Outbreak's under the tap/faucet, in addition to seeing the blood on the uppers, was there visible blood on the soles?

((if this scene ever happened, I would think that there would still be abundant blood on his soles from that needed to make all the visible Nike prints .... althought to give you a way out, maybe he wiped his feet extra hard somewhere, and all the blood scraped clean before he took off his shoes to wash only the uppers, and that way he never noticed that there was blood on the soles))

If there was dried blood on the soles, then moistening it would likely render the shoes capable of making more bloody footprints.

 

[Kermit]

I'm convinced

Maybe Kermit would like to provide his version?

.
I think that Judge Massei wrote a pretty solid report, and I wouldn't presume that I could second guess him.

I'm not saying that either the prosecution or the judges have the puzzle of all the evidence 100% in place. However, it requires a giant leap of faith to believe the Lone Wolf scenario offered as an alternative by FOAKers and The Entourage in general.

 

[Kermit]

If there was dried blood on the soles, then moistening it would likely render the shoes capable of making more bloody footprints.

.
But at the moment and location when they were most moist (in the bathroom just after closing the tap/faucet), there are no Nike prints.

Maybe he did the Bathmat Boogie, like Amanda did the next day after showering.

 

[RoseMontague]

We have yet to see any sensible theory by the guilters explaining the footprints. This is a touchy subject because there are no traces of any cleanup. Maybe Kermit would like to provide his version?

Kermit seems content to take pot shots at our theories, of course the defense does not have to prove their theory, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. What is the prosecution version, cleanup or not, very confusing?

 

[Withnail1969]

.
But at the moment and location when they were most moist (in the bathroom just after closing the tap/faucet), there are no Nike prints.

Maybe he did the Bathmat Boogie, like Amanda did the next day after showering.

we don't know when he put them back on.

 

[RoseMontague]

.
But at the moment and location when they were most moist (in the bathroom just after closing the tap/faucet), there are no Nike prints.

Maybe he did the Bathmat Boogie, like Amanda did the next day after showering.

Or he wiped his feet off with a towel prior to leaving the bathroom and didn't put his shoes back on until he sat down again on the end of the bed. I like to sit down when I take off or put on my shoes but that is just me.

 

[Dan O.]

There were marks on the wall he scaled consistent with scuffing and a nail being dislodged showing fresh brickwork, as can be clearly seen in photographs taken the day after the murder.

If there were any ILE photos taken of the wall I am not aware of them. The best photo I've seen is the one with the lawyer. The lawyer could not have been on the case until after the arrest several days later. Then the crime scene was sealed (except for the unauthorized entry) until mid December.

In that case, he wouldn't have taken the phone and keys, either.

So who did take them?

Welcome to the debate @JREf Tom.

There is the fact that the phones were taken and later discarded. Can you supply an answer for why they were taken? Why would that reason apply to one set of suspects and not another?

What broken nail from the wall?

There was a nail IN the wall, but it wasn't broken, not even BENT!

Quite a trick to scale a wall and totally miss the nail.

Have you remapped the photo of the wall to give a straight on view? It's much easier that way to see where someone would step and where they wouldn't.

 

[RoseMontague]

.
I think that Judge Massei wrote a pretty solid report, and I wouldn't presume that I could second guess him.

I'm not saying that either the prosecution or the judges have the puzzle of all the evidence 100% in place. However, it requires a giant leap of faith to believe the Lone Wolf scenario offered as an alternative by FOAKers and The Entourage in general.

The many leaps of faith are on the part of Massei as pointed out in Raffaele's appeal.

 

[Kermit]

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, o no, I guess I'll just ignore it

Kermit seems content to take pot shots at our theories, of course the defense does not have to prove their theory, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

.
If you see someone in the street with his underwear on the outside and a beach towel tied around his neck pretending to be Superman, do you just walk by and look the other way?

=========================

As for the prosecution proving their theory, they have done so where it counts in the court of law, and the three suspects have been found guilty.

They now have a new (appeal) trial with different judicial faces. Mignini is history. I think that Amanda's and Raffaele's defence teams should focus on their clients and not any wild theories of Rudy dancing ballet on the bathmat.

In any case, if posters like Kevin really think that they're on to something, I would definitely and seriously suggest that they get in contact with Amanda's, Raffaele's or Rudy's Italian legal defence teams.

 

[RoseMontague]

If there were any ILE photos taken of the wall I am not aware of them. The best photo I've seen is the one with the lawyer. The lawyer could not have been on the case until after the arrest several days later. Then the crime scene was sealed (except for the unauthorized entry) until mid December.






Welcome to the debate @JREf Tom.

There is the fact that the phones were taken and later discarded. Can you supply an answer for why they were taken? Why would that reason apply to one set of suspects and not another?





Have you remapped the photo of the wall to give a straight on view? It's much easier that way to see where someone would step and where they wouldn't.

There exists different angle if I recall that still shows both the nail and the missing nail. I will try to locate it when I get a chance, it may be tonight. If someone else has a better view in the meantime?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is not the one that I recall but you can still make out where the nail is as well as the missing nail hole. The scuff mark on top of the lower window ledge is also pointed out. If that was made with his right foot the left could have dislodged the missing nail as he moved up to the top window.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh80.jpg

 

[RoseMontague]

.
They now have a new (appeal) trial with different judicial faces. Mignini is history. I think that Amanda's and Raffaele's defence teams should focus on their clients and not any wild theories of Rudy dancing ballet on the bathmat.

I thought you were the one to propose that theory?

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think there needs to be more 'conspirators' than Mignini to perpetuate this fiasco, a vengeful man with a reputation for going after anyone who stands in the way of his 'investigations.' Politicians, journalists, even former police chiefs. I can't see why anyone would be that interested in drawing his ire, thus he probably gets away with more than he should, evidenced by some of the more curious decisions of the court.

Also, at the outset it might looked like he had a real case. On the superficial level he defamed the suspects thoroughly, causing suspicions everywhere even if it was bogus information like the bleach receipt, as well as claiming DNA evidence tying them to the scene, which sounds damning until it is put in context and the 'quality' of it exposed. I think the creation of the character 'Foxy Knoxy' caused people to be willing to suspend disbelief and start thinking about what was possible instead of what was probable.

I think perhaps that is a weakness of the system, "who watches the Watchmen?" What happens when someone with that kind of power and latitude goes off the reservation? I think in this case we found out.

This means, your position is that all other judges and prosecutors are idiots, and scared puppets with no power, you think the system leaves them powerless, and that Manuela Comodi is Mignini's lap dog. You may also think that judges in Perugia are used to set their opinions on reading British tablodis.

 

[Kermit]

I thought you were the one to propose that theory?

.
No, the Rudolf Nureyev Theory is Charlie's.

If you look at other images of the bathmat, it requires stretching and twisting to place the visible bathmat footprint and at the same time have Rudy washing the shoe.

 

[RoseMontague]

From Raffaele's appeal:

Naturally, in all judgments the exposition of the facts is an essential part of the provision. However, when one is faced with an in-depth illustration of hearings and witness testimonies (quotes which in this case are partial or inaccurate), whilst the space dedicated to the reasoning that guided the Judges to accept one theory rather than another is almost non-existent, this signifies that the judgment has not fulfilled its duty to explain its reasoning.
The imbalance between the exposition of evidence and reasoning requires that the provision be reprimanded because, alongside the extremely long summary of the trial, the enunciation of the choice to embrace one theory [rather than another] translates into a sort of act of faith in one of the various hypotheses under consideration.
To this it must be added that, in the rare portions of the provision in which the sentencing report gives credit to a hypothesis, it displays a second defect: the contested judgment proposes a reversal of logical procedure in its evaluation of the criminal responsibility of the accused.

I believe the appeal court will see the leaps of faith taken by the first court and rule in Amanda's and Raffaele's favor.

 

[Withnail1969]

I thought you were the one to propose that theory?

Was that the theory where Rudy couldn't put a foot on the bathmat without being a contortionist or something like that?

It's astonishing how most ordinary people cope with tasks like rinsing dirt off their tennis shoes given the exceptional skillset needed.

 

[RoseMontague]

.
No, the Rudolf Nureyev Theory is Charlie's.

If you look at other images of the bathmat, it requires stretching and twisting to place the visible bathmat footprint and at the same time have Rudy washing the shoe.

It would just be a guess that the print was made at the same time he is washing his shoes. That may be Charlie's theory but I don't see doing one thing while standing a certain way while doing another is required in any theory.

 

[Justinian2]

Or, he's a champion of justice. Depending on how you look at it.

I've seen fat, bald men that look like him in clothing optional places. It's likely he's no champion.

If Frued were around, he might comment on Mag's motivation to persecute pretty young women.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

______________________

But this sounds somewhat impausible Charlie, if---as it seems---you hold to the LONEWOLF/ Interrupted Burglary theory. There would have been scant motive for Rudy to have broken into the cottage to steal. On the contrary, plenty of reason for him not to have attempted it. Aside from the danger and difficulty in scaling the 12 foot high wall below Filomena's window, he should have known that there would be little worth stealing other than the usual electrical gadgetry owned by youngsters,...ipods, laptop computers, and cell phones. (Even Luciano Aviello's story of his brother's attempt to steal valuables at the cottage contains the plausible element of mistaken address.) But if Rudy had thought that the girls were absent, he should have expected their ipods and cell phones to have been absent too, on the person of their owners. And as he learned at the Milan nursery school, laptops are easily traceable, and so hazardous to steal.

So why would he bother to break in? Why not burglarize some place with more prospect of finding cash and valuable jewelry? And even if caught---elsewhere---he wouldn't be saddled with the dishonor of stealing from his acquaintances. (Or did he wish to steal the girls' underwear?)

Rent was due after the weekend, so Rudy may well have expected that the house would contain cash intended for that purpose. Rudy also had no obvious means of support and had just been released by the police after his last effort at crime netted him nothing, so it's possible he was hard up and in dire need of some cash which inclined him to strike at a risky target close to home.

I'm sure we've discussed this before. Still, if the mole hasn't been whacked down in the last twenty pages or so I've learned to expect that someone or other will pop it up again.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

.
Of course, I understand your logic:

All the things that Rudy had stuffed into his burglars' backpack before the attack, he took out and put into their place again after the attack (about the time - according to Charlie Wilkes - that he took off his shoes to wash the blood from the soles, them promptly got them bloody again and ran out of the house leaving his additional bloody shoeprints on the floor of the living room).

You're right, that's a good way of eliminating any links between himself and the crime.

What evidence is there that Rudy ever stuffed anything into his burglar's backpack? This sounds like something you just made up.

That's another common argumentative tactic of the pro-guilt side, I've noticed. They get into a lather of incredulity over trivialities they could explain themselves with a moment's thought, and if that doesn't work they make something up.