Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

In the UK, patio doors have to comply to BS EN 12600 and BS EN 12150 safety standards which specify additional strength and non-shatter properties of the glass used in such doors.

Oh, and for a builder you certainly don't seem to understand much about the properties of double glazing:

http://www.doubleglazing4windows.co.uk/windowsecurity.html

"Double-glazed windows, especially ones manufactured to British Standard BS 7412, are widely used because they are difficult to break. When they do break, they create a lot of noise."

The reason, by the way, is simple physics: In a sealed double-glazed unit, the air in between the panes acts as both a wall of resistance and a damper - it means that it's actually rather difficult to break the outer pane, since the air barrier pushes back against any impact and also disperses the force of the impact.

Lastly, I'm suggesting that trees with no leaves on them are significantly easier to see through than trees in full foliage. However, your use of the words "desperate, very desperate" is quite telling.....

Whilst I could contest this on many levels, I won't bother since I'm wondering why you're going on and on about the balcony doors in any case? The two REAL break-ins that occurred (after the start of the trial) gained entry via the KITCHEN WINDOW, not the doors. The kitchen window is also on the balcony. The kitchen window is the safest and easiest point of entry.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

It's well-known in Perugia that Curatolo has mental problems - he's a 'simpleton', for want of a better word. He claimed to know that Amanda and Raffaele turned up at the basketball court at exactly 21:27 'because he has a watch', but when asked to show his watch in court, he didn't have one.

Don't try to wrap up your hate for Amanda with concern for the homeless.

Too bad, one of Italy's most famous lawyer, Ms. Giulia Bongiorno, did not realise this when cross-examinating Mr. Curatolo.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You make reference to a transcript - does this mean a recording exists of Amanda's interrogation?

Transcript. As in, typed up statement. In Italy the police (usually...although on come occasions it can be written) type up your statement while you're making it.

 

[SomeAlibi]

It's well-known in Perugia that Curatolo has mental problems - he's a 'simpleton', for want of a better word. He claimed to know that Amanda and Raffaele turned up at the basketball court at exactly 21:27 'because he has a watch', but when asked to show his watch in court, he didn't have one.

Don't try to wrap up your hate for Amanda with concern for the homeless.

I address your malicious statement: First, cite your source - complete rubbish. I've met him, you haven't, and he is nothing of the sort nor would he have been able to stand up to cross-examination if he was.

You are, apparently, fighting with right on your side. You should stop making up unsubstantiated statements if so. I note your comment on these boards that you come on the internet for a good fight and believe that a day is wasted if you haven't had one. Great mentality.

 

[Withnail1969]

Too bad, one of Italy's best lawyer, Ms. Giulia Bongiorno, did not realise this when cross-examinatiing Mr. Curatolo.

I heard the entire court realised it when they burst out laughing after his ridiculous claim to owning a watch was proved to be wrong. I assume it was Bongiorno who asked him to show if he had one.

 

[Katody Matrass]

His name is Mr Curatolo which you can do him the dignity of using rather than Toto. Homeless people are first and foremost people and they have enough on their plate without you belittling them. As it happens, he's actually a rather nice bloke who just comes across as someone who is entirely calm and centred. He looks you in the eye and has a calm and soft voice which comes across as considered and thoughtful. This is personal anecdote which you can decide that I'm making up if you like. However I'm not remotely surprised he was considered credible by the court. In this respect AK and RS were rather unlucky, if it had been someone with drug issues etc like Kokamani, it would have been easy to use prejudice against the homeless to dismiss him.

Fine, let's hope that dignity would expand to all the unfortunate souls involved in the case
What do you make from Mr Curatolo's clear recollection of disco buses?
And what about the actual question I asked? Do you think they ran to and fro to let Mr Curatolo notice them every time he raised eyes above his newspaper?

You're wrong about the diary - it is within the evidential bundle in the case. It was confiscated and then introduced into evidence, remember?

No problem, I know it was confiscated, but I don't remember it introduced into evidence. I remember it was leaked to the press, though.
I notice it was not used nor mentioned by Massei. Mignini didn't use it either during cross-examination. Maybe they failed to notice the opportunity.

 

[Withnail1969]

I address your malicious statement: First, cite your source - complete rubbish. I've met him, you haven't, and he is nothing of the sought nor would he have been able to stand up to cross-examination if he was.

You should have asked around Perugia a bit and talked to some people. I think it wouldn't have taken much to get the general view on Curatolo.

edit to add - he didn't stand up under cross examination - he doesn't have a watch which he claimed he did, and he made multiple errors until Mignini led him into saying what he wanted him to say, forgetting, of course, about the non-existent disco buses which will see his worthless testimony tossed out in the appeal.

 

[RWVBWL]

Cannabis and alcohol were blamed for the killing. The trouble is that Amanda definitely wasn't drunk or on drugs when she encountered the witness Popovic at 8:40 pm - she is reported to have been acting completely normally. After that, Amanda and Raff are supposed to have been standing around at the basketball court from 9:27 pm until after the disco buses departed taking the young people to the out of town discos. (Normally around 11:30)

2 problems there:

1) They are not reported to have been drinking, taking drugs or behaving oddly at the basketball court

2) The disco buses were not running that night.


The time of death was (wrongly) estimated to be about 11:30 pm, so Amanda and Raffaele would have needed to run into the cottage just after 11:30, high-five Rudy on the way in, and immediately kill Meredith. There's no time for any other scenario to take place.

And Withnail1969,
don't forget that Meredith, after coming home early since she was tired, instead of changing into something warm and comfy, such as her pajama's,
just decided to keep wearing the same clothes she had on all day for another 2 1/2 hours until Amanda and Raffaele finally came inside.

Maybe Meredith never changed out of her street clothes since, with Giacomo away for the weekend, she did invite Rudy Guede in for some consensual intimacy,
but Rudy, being a dummy, simply forgot the condoms as he has said, so Meredith never slipped into something a little more comfortable.

Hmmm, I wonder...
RWVBWL

 

[SomeAlibi]

Dupe

 

[SomeAlibi]

Have you been to Perugia, yes or no?

Have you talked to Mr Curatolo yourself, yes or no?

Presuming no, who told you this about Mr Curatolo?

On what basis do you claim this is a "general view"?

 

[Fulcanelli]

LondonJohn is right, the trees looked quite different in November:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d0756ec68859.jpg[/qimg]

You mentioned cherrypicking before, and that make me wonder whether the balcony view is really as obstructed from the road, as you would like us to think. Here's your carefully selected image:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg[/qimg]
But is it really the best view, as you wrote?
Let's "drive" Viale Sant'Antonio towards the cottage. When we're some 120 m from the cottage, it comes into view, dead ahead:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075d522fefb.jpg[/qimg]
Do we see a balcony? Let's keep on driving.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075dfb7a75b.jpg[/qimg]
The balcony fully visible, and we're still some 100 m from it.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075a23da96f.jpg[/qimg]
We're around 50 m from it now and the balcony in fact never went out of view.

Great photos. They demonstrate very well how how the kitchen window can't be seen from the road (blocked by the roof of the outhouse). In those shots, one can see 'most' of the balcony (although only for a fraction of a moment since the cars are moving), but not at night. At night that area isn't lit, being at the back of the house rather then the front areas which are close to the road and street lights.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it takes time

No, but they were mine which you seem to ignore to suit your 'argument'.

If your only response to my post is to try to imply that I don't know what LCN stands for then we can leave the matter there.

Nor have I asked for nor do I want a lesson [Dan O may be interested] in DNA analysis/definitions - as a layman in these matters I can find the opinions of professionals should I choose to do so.
I fail to see how having another layman in this field , one whose credibility I already have issues with, interpret them for me would add value.

platonov,

I teach a little bit about DNA forensics in one of my senior-level classes. That hardly qualifies as being a layman. When you research the matter further and understand what I am saying, please feel free to post again on this matter. i am happy to talk to you, so long as you give up your proclivity toward distorting my words.

 

[SomeAlibi]

And Withnail1969,
don't forget that Meredith, after coming home early since she was tired, instead of changing into something warm and comfy, such as her pajama's,
just decided to keep wearing the same clothes she had on all day for another 2 1/2 hours until Amanda and Raffaele finally came inside.

Maybe Meredith never changed out of her street clothes since, with Giacomo away for the weekend, she did invite Rudy Guede in for some consensual intimacy,
but Rudy, being a dummy, simply forgot the condoms as he has said, so Meredith never slipped into something a little more comfortable.

Hmmm, I wonder...
RWVBWL

Rudy's defence team couldn't find a single person who claimed Rudy was friendly with Meredith or had any sort of interaction with her. She left Sophie Lupton at just before 9pm without mentioning any meet up. The girl's dead, you don't have to besmirch her honour by making up stuff that has no foundation in evidence or testimony whatsoever and which has been thoroughly rejected by three levels of judicial proceedings in Italy. Have some dignity will you?

 

[Justinian2]

How does one carry an 8 lb. rock while climbing a wall, in your pocket?

You've got to see Machu Picchu sometime.
The Incas moved 180 ton rocks to the mountain tops and positioned them perfectly into rock terraces.

Geez, what problem is an 8 pound rock up one floor?
(probably in a backpack)

 

[Withnail1969]

Have you been to Perugia, yes or no?

Have you talked to Mr Curatolo yourself, yes or no?

Presuming no, who told you this about Mr Curatolo?

On what basis do you claim this is a "general view"?

I haven't been to Perugia.

I haven't spoken to Mr Curatolo.

I heard this information from Frank who seems to know Perugia better than anyone.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Where's your evidence Rudy broke into the lawyers office? And does it meet the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Let us know where you've set that bar by the way. We hear from you that in regard to Amanda and Raffaele, the lies, the false alibi, the DNA, the footprints, the witness testimony, the fake break-in, their connection to the victim, their behaviour just after the murder, the computer records, the phone records...all of this combined (individual pieces of evidence being disputed or not) does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt against them. Yet in the case of Rudy, a couple of stolen items in his back-pack does, to the point you are running about stating as an absolute fact that he did rob the lawyer's office? What's wrong with this picture?

Hi, Fulcanelli, we're not in court here
I don't have to prove he burglarized this or that. It's undeniable that he broke into the kindergarten. It's undeniable that he was in possession of items stolen in another burglary in Perugia, which links him to it very strongly. It was a second story entering with use of a rock, remember? He had some other items IIRC, (some woman's watches etc?) Tramontano links him to yet another burglary. There are clues strong enough.
It's simple common sense.

When we have an apparent burglary ending up in murder, with his traces all over the place and a second story window broken with a rock from the outside - we need a really strong evidence he didn't do it. Some vague "the kitchen window or the balcony would be easier" doesn't wash. You really need a hard proof it's impossible to do it via Filomena's window.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Great photos. They demonstrate very well how how the kitchen window can't be seen from the road (blocked by the roof of the outhouse). In those shots, one can see 'most' of the balcony (although only for a fraction of a moment since the cars are moving), but not at night. At night that area isn't lit, being at the back of the house rather then the front areas which are close to the road and street lights.

And no-one ever claimed you couldn't see the balcony from the road in daylight as they know. The point was that the climb is completely protected and it would have taken only seconds to move from the railings to being within the cover of the open shutters

 

[Withnail1969]

Rudy's defence team couldn't find a single person who claimed Rudy was friendly with Meredith or had any sort of interaction with her. She left Sophie Lupton at just before 9pm without mentioning any meet up. The girl's dead, you don't have to besmirch her honour by making up stuff that has no foundation in evidence or testimony whatsoever and which has been thoroughly rejected by three levels of judicial proceedings in Italy. Have some dignity will you?

I don't think Meredith would look twice at a creep like Rudy. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

If the shutters were in fact closed, it would be necessary to open at least 1 side before throwing the rock (unless you want to explore the possibility that Rudy picked up the shattered remains of the shutter and glued it back together before leaving).

It is only 1.1m from the corner of the house to the edge of the window. Another .35m for the width of one shutter. This is reachable from a point just below the porch in front of the planter using the planter or the edge of the house for support. The particular point happens to stand out as if the surface was abraded by stepping and pivoting on it.

I believe with the shutter wedged on the swollen wood, he would have had to reach the center of the window to get sufficient leverage to open the shutter. Trying to pull it open by one of the slats might break the slat first.


I haven't had a chance to review SomeAlibi's photos and videos yet. I hope they are a much higher resolution than what we've seen so far. I also hope he thought to take a tape to confirm the measurements.

It might be possible to open one shutter - the way you describe. But the rock-throwing and window-climbing could not possible be done from this place (the porch/the planter).
And as it has been stated so often, there is not a single trace neither on the ground, nor on the wall, nor on the window-sill,nor in the room, that proves that Rudy Guede entered the house on this way.

 

[RWVBWL]

Post mainly for Katody:
<snip>
Knox also perjured herself concerning drugs (at least under our legal systems - you're allowed to lie in the dock in Italy) when asked in testimony how many joints she had that night. She replied "one". See youtube video of her testimony. Yet, if that were the case, how can that possibly be reconciled against her diary (also evidence) where she writes: "I will never smoke marijuana again. When they free me I will go back to the United States, but I will come back to Italy to study. I’m not afraid of this country, it's part of me now. This is place I call home. And before all this happened I was so happy" . Elsewhere in her diary she wrote "That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend's house. I don't remember anything."

I find it very striking that both Knox and Sollecito both swear in absolute terms that they will never smoke marijuana again. I believe this is because of their regret about what happened that night. In Sollecito's case he blamed his poor memory of the evening because he smoked so much that night so it's understandable. In Knox's case, since she only smoked one joint before bed time (see youtube) why would she make such an absolute statement? Little 'tells' like this are important. I think it's pretty clear she lied under oath about having just one joint.

Post mainly for SomeAlibi,
Dude! 1 time 1 of the boyz rolled a fatty using 13 zig-zags, the biggest fatty we'd ever seen, or smoked!
I even filmed it, (still have it somewhere in a box!), usin' a Super 8 movie camera that we used to film us surfin' with all the time.
We were sooo blazed that we never did that again, nor did we commit any murders or 2nd story break-ins either...

But if we, meanin' the boyz and I,
did have the cops badgering us while we were stoned once again over the next few days because a housemate was stabbed to his death that same night,
and we were then arrested for a crime we did not commit, I bet ever single 1 of us would have also decided that we were never gonna blaze a fatty again...

I hope that you can understand what I'm throwin' out atcha, SomeAlibi!
Peace, RWVBWL