Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

This is a specious argument on two counts. Firstly, burglars check people are not in the property (clearly without the possibility of being right 100% of the time) and then they effect the entry. This line of argument that Rudy would have chosen the overlooked and much more difficult climb just on the very small chance that his initial check-out was wrong loses on the balance of probabilities that in doing so he risked being seen and risked breaking his neck. Secondly, why do you think a rock is necessary to break in via the balcony? This whole idea of tossing a rock up onto the balcony is just daft. If you were going to use a rock, which is not what most burglars do, you only need a small one, not the large one used to apparently chuck through the window from a couple of metres away at Filomena's window. Most burglars will use something like the tap hammer that was confiscated off Rudy previously or they will stick a jacketed elbow through the glass. Again, in opening the shutters to the balcony door, a burglar would have had an opportunity to look into the property and see if anyone was in. But tossing a rock up onto the balcony? Doesn't make any sense.

You appear to be something of a burglary aficionado. Still, Guede is his own man, with his own reasoning skills. The question is, is it reasonable to say that Guede could have gained access via Filomena's window? Was it really so arduous a choice that Guede would have had to contemplate his own mortality, as you suggest? You seem to compare entry into the cottage with mountain climbing strategies, are these true analogies? Could there be other considerations for the size of the rock, and so forth.

 

[SomeAlibi]

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.

Well, for accuracy, you could do the rock-throwing as it went through the right-hand window and that would need only one shutter open.

Filomena stated clearly the outer shutters were pulled to. It makes perfect sense since the window looks to the gate - anyone coming to the cottage would see straight in the window. Occupants, particularly young women, would be conscious of this. It was the case when I visited the cottage this year (picture taken from the gate)

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2135

 

[Withnail1969]

You appear to be something of a burglary aficionado. Still, Guede is his own man, with his own reasoning skills. The question is, is it reasonable to say that Guede could have gained access via Filomena's window? Was it really so arduous a choice that Guede would have had to contemplate his own mortality, as you suggest? You seem to compare entry into the cottage with mountain climbing strategies, are these true analogies? Could there be other considerations for the size of the rock, and so forth.

Apparently climbing into Filomena's window is like the North Face of the Eiger. The path is littered with the bodies of those who have tried and failed to ascend it. Only the bravest of climbers will attempt such a climb.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is interesting and I see they have filled in the rest and sent it over to the statement analysis guy. That's the one I have previously posted the link showing his qualifications in this area as stated by him (took an on-line class and read a book). Just amazing what the search for justification can justify, in my opinion.

Wait...so someone who posts on here can claim to be more qualified on deducing TOD then professional trained coroners on the back of having read a couple of papers and you're only too happy with that (only providing they are arguing innocence for Amanda of course), yet you're quite happy to tear into someone else who just happens to not be arguing for innocence and who has actually studied a subject and qualified in it after doing a training course in that specialisation?

Double standards much?

 

[Draca]

inspection of the window

It's not true that the Flying Squad did the same half-assed job investigating the break-in window as they did collecting evidence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. In this case they worked diligently and professionally documented their work.

Here is a photo of them looking at the ground below the window with flash lights. They took photos and even used rakes while looking for glass fragments:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here is a close up photo of the outside of the wall looking for scuff marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here they took a photo of potential scuff marks from shoes above the grated window:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176870585670754&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

And here is a close up photo of those marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here's a photo of the Flying Squad attempting to enter the window by various means in search of truth and justice:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Finally, here is a photo of them bagging the rock for DNA testing on Nov 2-3 in case the culprit didn't wear gloves.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Ooops on that last one. It's seems they didn't bag the rock until Dec. 18th. No harm, no foul. There wasn't any DNA on the rock anyway......

 

[Fulcanelli]

I saw an amazing PMF post that I'd summarise as "Nobody can look at a picture of Amanda Knox without feeling uncontrollable hatred. I blame her family, her PR company and the media. Without them we wouldn't be exposed to her picture so often so we wouldn't hate her so much".

It was absolutely breathtaking in its lack of self-reflection, or responsibility, or even simple recognition that not everyone goes into a Pavlovian hate trip at the trigger of Amanda Knox's face.

Since you neither quote said post nor link to it your slur is rather vacuous and meaningless other then to demonstrate your own hatred for something, some place or someone. I don't see the point.

 

[Withnail1969]

Since you neither quote said post nor link to it your slur is rather vacuous and meaningless other then to demonstrate your own hatred for something, some place or someone. I don't see the point.

I'm sure the post could be quoted if necessary. Anyone who reads that forum has seen plenty of abusive and hate-filled posts, such as, for example, some of your posts directed at 'thoughtful'. I can't repeat the words you said to her.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You appear to be something of a burglary aficionado. Still, Guede is his own man, with his own reasoning skills. The question is, is it reasonable to say that Guede could have gained access via Filomena's window? Was it really so arduous a choice that Guede would have had to contemplate his own mortality, as you suggest? You seem to compare entry into the cottage with mountain climbing strategies, are these true analogies? Could there be other considerations for the size of the rock, and so forth.

Burglary, theft and assault are the stock in trade for any criminal solicitors. I'm well into 3 figures for the number of burglary cases I've been involved with. I've spent more hours than I can tell in interview and, in the early days, in cells before the day's hearing and during the breaks with every sort of burglar from the frequent drugs-related cases to the career burglars who all have very specific do's and don't's in their MO's. The most well-off one I can think of specialised in stealing CPU's from computers in educational establishments. His brother, after conviction, said that he was making £100k a year tax free and this is early nineties. Unfortunately for him he got caught burglarising the college that the judge had attended. When the judge said "my alma mater" we all realised he was going down for a proper chunk and he absolutely did. So yes, burglary is, safe to say, something I know quite a lot about.

If we look at the picture of the solicitor during the reconstruction, I do think the climb, if possible is a pretty major pull-up with finger / hand strength. Do you not?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1454

 

[RoseMontague]

Wait...so someone who posts on here can claim to be more qualified on deducing TOD then professional trained coroners on the back of having read a couple of papers and you're only too happy with that (only providing they are arguing innocence for Amanda of course), yet you're quite happy to tear into someone else who just happens to not be arguing for innocence and who has actually studied a subject and qualified in it after doing a training course in that specialisation?

Double standards much?

One is backed by science in search of the truth, the other is voodoo in search of hoodoo. But you are welcome to defend statement analysis dude. I am not sure that strengthens your position, which was the point I was making.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You were the one who brought up imaginary crowbars, nobody else. Rudy's MO didn't include a crowbar. That doesn't mean he didn't break into the apartment or the other places he broke into. It does mean that he wouldn't be picking locked shutters with locked doors behind them as a point of entry.

What shutters were locked? Who ever said any shutters, aside from Filomena's (because she was going away for a few days) were even closed let alone locked?

 

[RoseMontague]

It's not true that the Flying Squad did the same half-assed job investigating the break-in window as they did collecting evidence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. In this case they worked diligently and professionally documented their work.

Here is a photo of them looking at the ground below the window with flash lights. They took photos and even used rakes while looking for glass fragments:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here is a close up photo of the outside of the wall looking for scuff marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here they took a photo of potential scuff marks from shoes above the grated window:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176870585670754&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

And here is a close up photo of those marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here's a photo of the Flying Squad attempting to enter the window by various means in search of truth and justice:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Finally, here is a photo of them bagging the rock for DNA testing on Nov 2-3 in case the culprit didn't wear gloves.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Ooops on that last one. It's seems they didn't bag the rock until Dec. 18th. No harm, no foul. There wasn't any DNA on the rock anyway......

LOL, good one.

 

[Withnail1969]

The most well-off one I can think of specialised in stealing CPU's from computers in educational establishments.

That seems bizarrely unlikely since CPU's in colleges etc are way below cutting-edge specs and it takes a considerable time to open up each computer case and extract each low-value CPU. Then you have to sell them somewhere.

What about stealing cigarettes or cash?

 

[katy_did]

No. Had this been so, the defence would had grounds to have appealed it to the High Court. The defence did not. They never challenged it on the grounds that it was made as an unsolicited statement. The grounds of their challenge of the 5:45 statement was simply that because a lawyer was not present it therefore could not be used as evidence against Amanda in court. On this, the High Court ruled for the defence. No court has ever ruled that the statement wasn't unsolicited and never have the defence claimed so (or made any appeal on that basis).

As with Platonov, I think you should review Machiavelli's definition of the legal term 'voluntary [or spontaneous] statement' (I think 'unsolicited' is a misleading translation, by the way; 'spontaneous', 'voluntary' and 'unsolicited' are not simply interchangeable terms. Though I understand why you chose 'unsolicited').

 

[Withnail1969]

What shutters were locked? Who ever said any shutters, aside from Filomena's (because she was going away for a few days) were even closed let alone locked?

I assume all shutters in the premises would have been locked except Filomena's because they couldn't be closed.

 

[SomeAlibi]

It's not true that the Flying Squad did the same half-assed job investigating the break-in window as they did collecting evidence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. In this case they worked diligently and professionally documented their work.

Here is a photo of them looking at the ground below the window with flash lights. They took photos and even used rakes while looking for glass fragments:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here is a close up photo of the outside of the wall looking for scuff marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here they took a photo of potential scuff marks from shoes above the grated window:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176870585670754&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

And here is a close up photo of those marks:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Here's a photo of the Flying Squad attempting to enter the window by various means in search of truth and justice:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Finally, here is a photo of them bagging the rock for DNA testing on Nov 2-3 in case the culprit didn't wear gloves.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176865565671256&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Ooops on that last one. It's seems they didn't bag the rock until Dec. 18th. No harm, no foul. There wasn't any DNA on the rock anyway......

You need to link the url not the facebook link or that is only visible to people in your friends list. Do "Copy Image URL" from right click if in Windows.

 

[katy_did]

This perspective is incorrect and possibly misleading. The author seems to under the impression (or at least via wording gives the reader the impression) that Amanda 'took the issue to the supreme court', as in Amanda's legal team caused the High Court to convene. This is not the case. The High Court hearings to review the case against all three of the suspects was 'automatic', a pre-ordained part of the process (just as the appeals are). All serious cases go through the same process...GIP...GUP...High Court and then pre-trial...trial...first appeal...second final appeal at the High Court. The defence are 'required to appear before all of these courts and provide arguments of defence for their client.

The statements Amanda made COULD be used as part of the police/prosecution 'investigation' against her and others, but NOT as evidence against Amanda (and in the case of 5:45 statement, not against anyone else either) in any of the courts. In other words, the legal value of the statements was deemed to be solely investigative rather then legal. The High Court deemed this as a legal error by the earlier court of the GIP as this court (under Judge Matteini) used the statements against Amanda as part of her ruling against her. However, the High Court also deemed that even though those statements could not be considered by a court as evidence against her, there was enough evidence against her to retain her suspect and arrest status, ongoing remand and should the prosecution at the end of their investigation file their case against her, proceed to pre-trial which would judge whether she should formally be charged (face trial).

With regard to Amanda's lawyers raising the issue in the Supreme Court, they were the ones to put forward the argument about both statements, were they not? Had the statements been used correctly they would have had no need to do so.

Otherwise, you're simply repeating arguments I've already made, that the statements could be used for investigative purposes but not against the suspect as evidence. You'd have seen that if you'd read my earlier exchange on the subject with shuttlt, for example.

 

[RoseMontague]

Since you neither quote said post nor link to it your slur is rather vacuous and meaningless other then to demonstrate your own hatred for something, some place or someone. I don't see the point.

You never answered my response requesting reinstatement to your invitation to "try PMF" and the reason for my banning remains a rather hateful word when I attempt to go to that website. Just exactly what does that word demonstrate?

 

[RoseMontague]

With regard to Amanda's lawyers raising the issue in the Supreme Court, they were the ones to put forward the argument about both statements, were they not? Had the statements been used correctly they would have had no need to do so.

Otherwise, you're simply repeating arguments I've already made, that the statements could be used for investigative purposes but not against the suspect as evidence. You'd have seen that if you'd read my earlier exchange on the subject with shuttlt, for example.

Amanda's lawyers are also making this a major point of dispute in her appeal.

 

[Katody Matrass]

If we look at the picture of the solicitor during the reconstruction, I do think the climb, if possible is a pretty major pull-up with finger / hand strength. Do you not?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1454

Nonsense. He would take another two steps up and then simply jump up and inside holding the wooden frame for support.

 

[christianahannah]

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?


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.

Do you know what is the November 7 memorial mentioned in the motivations? That was not part of her diary, correct (or was it)? Was it an additional statement by Amanda clarifying the events mentioned in the November 6 memorial? Do you know if it is available to read?