Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

Anyone who thinks that Guede's ruling influences the legal case against Knox or Sollecito either has no idea about jurisprudence or is deliberately misleading others.

What nonsense. The court in Guede's final appeal found that he committed the crime with others, and that he did not break into the cottage. If nothing else, that demolishes once and for all any legal standing which the "Lone Wolf" theory may have once had for Knox & Sollecito's appeal. You'll note the confirmation of my hypothesis in: a) the desparate introduction of mutually contradictory witness accounts (Guede was/wasn't there) at this late stage, and b) the lack of any susbstantive challenge to the prosecution theory of crime scene staging.

 

[Fuji]

Here, for Mignini's benefit, is a totally logical progession for a genuine break-in which leaves the window in the condition in which it was found. For brevity, I will assume that the burglar was named Guede:

1) Guede reaches up from grate on lower window and opens exterior shutters
2) Guede throws rock (either from below, or from raised driveway) through window
3) Guede climbs wall and perches on exterior window sill
4) Guede enlarges hole made by rock to a dimension where he can reach his hand through and unlatch window
5) Guede opens windows and enters Filomena's room
6) Guede turns back to window and closes in exterior shutters
7) Guede closes window

You forgot a prerequisite - "0) Guede stands on the ground underneath Filomena's room".

I'm guessing that's because you have no evidence to support such an assertion. That's okay - neither have Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys.

 

[LondonJohn]

What nonsense. The court in Guede's final appeal found that he committed the crime with others, and that he did not break into the cottage. If nothing else, that demolishes once and for all any legal standing which the "Lone Wolf" theory may have once had for Knox & Sollecito's appeal. You'll note the confirmation of my hypothesis in: a) the desparate introduction of mutually contradictory witness accounts (Guede was/wasn't there) at this late stage, and b) the lack of any susbstantive challenge to the prosecution theory of crime scene staging.

You don't understand the law, I'm afraid.

 

[Fuji]

Exactly what evidence do you think was important and not in the Judge's summary but was given in court?

I know this question was not directed at me, but if you'd be so kind as to allow me answer anyway:

Photographs, additional testimony, and/or other material evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window on the afternoon of 2 Nov 2007.

 

[Fuji]

You don't understand the law, I'm afraid.

Neither do you.

Wow - this contentless rebuttal thing is pretty easy! I should try it more often.

 

[Fuji]

Since these claims are easily falsifiable, yet no refutation has been made, I'll go with their validity.

An alternate logical inference might be that the prosecution sees no need to refute this "evidence", as they have already examined it and found its probative value to be nil.

 

[Fuji]

Some have argued that Knox might have had a nose bleed due to a blow inflicted during the murder struggle. But if that were the case, Knox would almost certainly have been showing visible bruising on her nose, or a black eye. Of course, she had neither.

More nonsense. Cite or retract.

 

[LondonJohn]

You forgot a prerequisite - "0) Guede stands on the ground underneath Filomena's room".

I'm guessing that's because you have no evidence to support such an assertion. That's okay - neither have Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys.

Umm I think you might have this back to front. It's not incumbent upon Knox's or Sollecito's lawyers to provide evidence that Guede stood on the ground underneath Filomena's window. It's actually up to the prosecutors to provide evidence that nobody (including Guede) had stood on that ground, as it is they who are asserting that the break-in was staged.

And.....ooooops! The prosecution signally failed to provide any worthwhile evidence to this effect. Indeed, any evidence that might have been there (e.g. pristine mud/grass) was almost certainly trampled over by the police officers who are captured on video taking cigarette breaks and making phone calls on that very spot. Another one to chalk up for the "crack" Perugia police team

 

[christianahannah]

(partial quote)...

I would also point out that even if the front door had been conventional (in the sense that it could be opened from the inside without the need for a key), it's still reasonable to construct a scenario in which Guede decides not to leave straight away, but to force himself on a girl whom he finds sexually attractive and who is alone with him in the cottage.

What Rudy did to Meredith (and whether he acted alone or with others) cannot be explained by his being sexually attracted to her and forcing himself on her. It was testified to in court and concluded in the motivations that Rudy had shown no prior interest in Meredith.

 

[Fuji]

Knox and Sollecito were wrongly found guilty in the first trial, based on false evidence, bogus and flawed testimony, and poor judicial reasoning. They will likely be acquitted in the first appeal, and set free.

Sure they will. You just keep telling yourself that. I'm already looking forward to quoting this passage back at you in a few months' time.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Let's apply your standard to Massei and the window. Massei made up a story about how the window was broken by someone within Filomena's room. No one ever tested this strange hypothesis by breaking a window in this manner. On the other hand, Sgt. Pasquali tested the hypothesis that the window was broken by someone's throwing a rock from outside. Why should we take Massei's conjecture seriously when he has no demonstration with which to support it?

No. I'm not changing subjects to suit your whims. I was discussing the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window. Do you have any detailed, close-up photos of that?

 

[Fuji]

Is this the witness who is supposed to be telling us that there were no tiny pieces of glass on the ground underneath the window? Because the only things this witness said she was looking for were: (i) marks and such on the wall, and (ii) the trampling of vegetation. She never says that she was even looking for tiny pieces of glass.

So who does say that they looked for tiny pieces of glass and didn't find them?

And somehow to you the purported existence of glass micro-shards is more significant than the established presence of untrampled vegetation, whose existence even you have acknowledged?

 

[LondonJohn]

More nonsense. Cite or retract.

You're suggesting that it's possible to get a blow to the face sufficiently strong to cause a nosebleed, and to have no subsequent bruising to any part of the face? Really?

 

[Fuji]

Because we have the video of it happening...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444c5509a2d3029.jpg[/qimg]

And am I seriously supposed to believe that that was the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window before the period of examination to which Ms. Brocci testified under oath?

 

[Chris C]

I know this question was not directed at me, but if you'd be so kind as to allow me answer anyway:

Photographs, additional testimony, and/or other material evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window on the afternoon of 2 Nov 2007.

They didn't take photographs of the ground beneath the window. Any additional testimony thats not in the Motivations would be testimony that basicly supports innocence. If you read the motivations and you personally feel there is enough evidence in it to support guilt thats your decision. However, if your looking for more evidence to help support your belief in guilt because your on the fence, then you are not going to find any. Thats whats called reasonable doubt.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure they will. You just keep telling yourself that. I'm already looking forward to quoting this passage back at you in a few months' time.

Please feel free to do so.

 

[Fuji]

You're suggesting that it's possible to get a blow to the face sufficiently strong to cause a nosebleed, and to have no subsequent bruising to any part of the face? Really?

Nice try at reversal of the burden of proof, there. YOU are the one making the claim ("almost certainly"), so back it up, big boy.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks christianahannah

It's hard to conceive the advantage defence saw in calling Aviello. I can only speculate that it's related to the intricacies of the justice system - maybe they counted on judge's refusal that would open more possibilities in case of further appealing, maybe the important thing is how and whether Aviello's claims were investigated.

I cannot see anything inappropriate with including Alessi and the other inmates confirming what Guede allegedly said. This information about Guede is important and leaving it out would be inexcusable for the court and negligent for the defence.

I agree. I think the defense has a responsibility to leave nothing unturned in representing their clients.

But did anything Rudy said about Amanda and Raffaele enter into the official court record? And it isn't as if the court has given credence to anything he has said in defending himself, more or less calling him a liar.

 

[LondonJohn]

Neither do you.

Wow - this contentless rebuttal thing is pretty easy! I should try it more often.

Ask SomeAlibi - I'm sure he'll tell you that you're wrong about the law in this case. Although he hasn't really put his head above the parapet much since Curatolo was thoroughly exposed and discredited in Hellmann's court. I wonder if it's possible to smell of heroin....

 

[Fuji]

BTW gorgeous - search for my contributions to this thread and its predecessors - rather more than your vacuous, hateful trolling.

Yes, I remember one of your earliest posts:

"I have to note that if Guede alone had been convicted of the murder, the Kerchers would have had to forget about any financial 'compensation' for Meredith’s death, but with that of two others from relatively affluent families......"

You are truly in a class of your own.