Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[DrTesla]

First, why did not the prosecution bring this up. Second, how does one use a lamp to clean-up two sets of forensics and leave a third?

It's very hard to take you seriously when this sort of stuff is posted.

Knox isn't a bright girl as her written statement clearly demonstrates so looking for logic in everything she did is silly.

it's probable their cleanup effort was interrupted by the unexpected arrival of the postal police. they had some real bad luck in that regard b/c they threw the phones into some woods in what they thought was an isolated area but a gardner happened to hear them ringing the next morning.

the prosecution did bring up the lamp, have you read the trial transcript? they asked her about it and she said she didn't notice it was removed from her room. you can say the massei report didn't talk about it but those reports don't cover every single bit of evidence put forth to the jury. you have no explanation for the lamp being in the room, or why Guede would have put it in there prior to the murder. the simple explanation is knox used her lamp in a clean up effort after the murder.

 

[DrTesla]

It's not about Knox. It's about Meredith. It's about who killed her. And the only set of forensics in Rudy Guede's. Too bad Rudy didn't have a magic lamp.

rudy doesn't have a magic lamp but he appears to have wings and flew into that window. then stopped and had a dump on the toilet before proceeding to butcher the victim. all without her hearing him before. kind of amazing, almost supernatural event.

 

[DrTesla]

I like how Knox doesn't know anything that she did the night of the murder. It's perhaps I did this, perhaps I did that, who really knows? It's all so confusing? LOL

who is this confused, ever? how does this girl even take care of herself. how is she allowed to drive?

 

[Grinder]

It has been speculated for years that breaking the window later would have been a dangerous thing to do because what if someone heard it. This argument is used by both sides at various times.

It seems pretty clear since neither ear witness called the police at the time, it is highly unlikely that anyone would care about the sound of breaking glass (loved that song).

 

[Kestrel]

both Knox and her "boyfriend" were abusing drugs and you take their word as the word of Jesus despite the obvious fact both of them have lied constantly throughtout this trial.

I don't have to take their word on anything. The evidence shows that Meredith died shortly after arriving home on that fateful night. At a time when Amanda and Raffaele were a half kilometer away at Raffaele's home.

Understanding that also gets around some other major problems with the prosecution theory. Two young lovers who only met six days earlier and have no history of violence unexpectedly find that they have the night free. Why would they decide to kill someone instead of spending a quiet evening together? Why would they recruit a third party to help that one of them barely knew and the other had never met? Why would marijuana drive them to homicide instead of just giving them the munchies and giggles?

 

[DrTesla]

Here is something I saw on Andrea Vogt's website pertaining to Knox:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/?front_featured=factcheck-waiting-to-be-heard

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 4. Do not copy and paste large blocks of text. You now have sufficient posts to post links.

 

[DrTesla]

You, sir, obviously have a God-given talent.

And you've used it to become a veritable Paganini of trolling.

Assuming you're not using voice-recog, I have a vision of a physically and personally unattractive, TV-tanned nobody hammering away at a PC keyboard as if his life depended on it.

Congratulations.

even an ugly man can swerve into the truth sometimes.

knox is clearly guilty and using humor is a way to cut through all the spin her apologists put out there.

 

[DrTesla]

I don't have to take their word on anything. The evidence shows that Meredith died shortly after arriving home on that fateful night. At a time when Amanda and Raffaele were a half kilometer away at Raffaele's home.

Understanding that also gets around some other major problems with the prosecution theory. Two young lovers who only met six days earlier and have no history of violence unexpectedly find that they have the night free. Why would they decide to kill someone instead of spending a quiet evening together? Why would they recruit a third party to help that one of them barely knew and the other had never met? Why would marijuana drive them to homicide instead of just giving them the munchies and giggles?

why were screams heard by two different witnesses who lived near the cottage a hour or two after you claim the victim was dead? Just somebody else screaming out like they were being stabbed on the same night Meridith was killed?

rudy had no history of violence or rape and yet you have no problem with him being guilty. even serial killers had to start with the first murder, so your logic is absurd, almost child like. it's a non-point.

why do any murders take place? I would think a quiet evening together with your lover would always beat out murdering somebody yet people are murdered ever day. there obviously were tensions b/t the two girls, they were not friends despite what Knox apologists say. they did not hang out socially. only Knox can tell us her exact motive but she was at the cottage that night and she has no alibi. that's a problem when your roommate is murdered.

nobody ever said the weed drove them to murder. it may have been a factor, and they may have been drinking or doing harder drugs like cocaine, but nobody ever said drugs CAUSED them to murder. it's not even known if their original intent was to kill her, the Massie court thought the original intent was to force her to have sex with Rudy and then the violence spiraled out of control. I think meridith's scream probably encouraged knox to stick the knife in her neck to shut her up. they probably thought that meridith would just submit to the rape b/c that's how it goes in raff's porn movies he was so fond of. they knew rudy better than you guys want to admit, he was friends with the guys who lived downstairs, and the victim dated one of those guys.

 

[Mary_H]

this is the funniest part of her declaration:

3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

I love how she capalizes REAL. then she acknowledges that determing who the REAL murderer is "particularly important". you think so, Amanda? Hah! but then her reason for that doesn't seem to be justice or making sure this person doesn't kill again, but really so her false accusation of her boss who she knows is innocent doesn't condemn him.

this is the woman that people on here want to go to bat for. lol

You forgot to put [sic] after "capalizes," Professor.

***************​

Speaking of Andrea Vogt, everybody, she announces that Mignini has filed his first complaint against Amanda's book:

Perugia Prosecutor Files Complaint After Knox Memoir Passages Appear in Italy

"[He feels] compelled to defend his professional reputation..."

http://thefreelancedesk.com/?p=1153

 

[Supernaut]

Mignini's "professional reputation"? I wonder about his "private reputation".

 

[DrTesla]

Mignini has a good reputation, even Knox's own lawyers have said her PR team's attacks on him are stupid.

attacking the prosecuter is what you do when you don't have a defense. but he's not even involved in the Knox case anymore, another guy is going to prosecute her in the appeals trial so it's curious they keep attacking Mignini.

 

[Bill Williams]

rudy doesn't have a magic lamp but he appears to have wings and flew into that window. then stopped and had a dump on the toilet before proceeding to butcher the victim. all without her hearing him before. kind of amazing, almost supernatural event.

These exaggerations are simply not helpful. Standing on the top grate of the window below, Rudy is already at Shoulder height. Te repeat, Massei himself said the climb was eminently doable, but (wrongly) concluded that Rudy didn't of it because he wouldn't have climbed up three times.

I think you need to explain how that lamp is useful for accomplishing what people say was accomplished in the murder room. Just how does one remove one's own DNA completely using a lamp?

 

[DrTesla]

These exaggerations are simply not helpful. Standing on the top grate of the window below, Rudy is already at Shoulder height. Te repeat, Massei himself said the climb was eminently doable, but (wrongly) concluded that Rudy didn't of it because he wouldn't have climbed up three times.

I think you need to explain how that lamp is useful for accomplishing what people say was accomplished in the murder room. Just how does one remove one's own DNA completely using a lamp?

massei said the climb to that window would be illogical and that there was absolutely no evidence that rudy came in that way, yet you cite Massei to support your theory. I find that hilarious.

the purpose of a lamp is to provide light. Knox used the lamp to search for her and her "boyfriend" traces on the bedroom floor. this isn't complicated.

 

[Supernaut]

ok, Obama isn't a liberal. knox is innocent. etc.

O-baaaaa-ma is a stooge and a professional liar, as is Limbaugh.

Self-serving, shallow excuses for human-beings, imposters who are paid well for their transparent play-acting.

But Amanda Knox is innocent in every sense of the word.

 

[DrTesla]

how did the lamp end up in the victim's bedroom on the floor? who put it there and why, if not Knox and not for a clean up effort? foas sneer at me when I bring up the lamp but they never explain how it got there and who put it there. if there was less evidence against Knox, that lamp would be the lynchpin of the case against her so to dismiss it strikes me as not serious.

 

[DrTesla]

O-baaaaa-ma is a stooge and a professional liar, as is Limbaugh.

Self-serving, shallow excuses for human-beings, imposters who are paid well for their transparent play-acting.

But Amanda Knox is innocent in every sense of the word.

I would think there are a lot of people out there that have a better case for wrongful conviction than Knox. she's a convicted liar who received jail time for it, her slander and false accusation of her boss. she ruined that guy's business too.

 

[Dan O.]

Does anyone have a clean image of Rudy's shoe suitable for matching to the prints? I'm putting together a photo composite and want to add the shoes in the proper locations and orientations.

 

[Bill Williams]

massei said the climb to that window would be illogical and that there was absolutely no evidence that rudy came in that way, yet you cite Massei to support your theory. I find that hilarious.

the purpose of a lamp is to provide light. Knox used the lamp to search for her and her "boyfriend" traces on the bedroom floor. this isn't complicated.

By sight, how does one recognize one's own DNA or fingerprints? This sounds ridiculous.

Massei did not say the climb itself was illogical, Massei claimed (wrongly) that it was illogical for someone to climb up to the window three times.

the climber would then have had to
climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open
the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the
point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to
accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it
against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus
shattered).
He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the
second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his
knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have
been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach
up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since
otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary
to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice
underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and
taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two
favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and 50
behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing
by on the street or actually coming into the house.

Massei claimed the scenario he set up was unlikely. What forensic evidence did Massei use to come to this? None.

The point of my including it in the eleven point list, is that Massei says it is doable.

I trust you will keep me from claiming too much with this assertion - but the whole reason for saying that the claim was unlikely (not impossible or illogical) was because of the effort to get all the shutters open, with no guarantee that they were not locked in the first place.

Even the locking of the windows should not be a problem, but then again no one checked it out.

So one needs to concede that the climb is doable - not by spiderman, but but an experienced second storey person.

I trust you will keep me on the straight and narrow if I claim that Massei said more than he said. But on the face of it, he ruled factual that the climb was doable. That's all I am saying.

 

[DrTesla]

By sight, how does one recognize one's own DNA or fingerprints? This sounds ridiculous.

Massei did not say the climb itself was illogical, Massei claimed (wrongly) that it was illogical for someone to climb up to the window three times.



Massei claimed the scenario he set up was unlikely. What forensic evidence did Massei use to come to this? None.

The point of my including it in the eleven point list, is that Massei says it is doable.

I trust you will keep me from claiming too much with this assertion - but the whole reason for saying that the claim was unlikely (not impossible or illogical) was because of the effort to get all the shutters open, with no guarantee that they were not locked in the first place.

Even the locking of the windows should not be a problem, but then again no one checked it out.

So one needs to concede that the climb is doable - not by spiderman, but but an experienced second storey person.

I trust you will keep me on the straight and narrow if I claim that Massei said more than he said. But on the face of it, he ruled factual that the climb was doable. That's all I am saying.

Massei said it made no sense for Rudy to go through that window and gave numerous reasons for it, not just the fact it would take a lot of effort and he would have to go up at least twice. he talked aabout it's visiblitiy from the road.

but you keep talking about it is doable but the reality is there was no evidence it was done. do you deny there was zero evidence on the exterior of the house of a breakin? No grass was trampled outside, no scuff marks on the house. No evidence of Rudy being in that room, none of his DNA, no debris from the garden on the floor?

to continue to argue it's doable despite the logic that suggests he would have used another entry point and the fact there was no evidence that it was done is proof that you are a zealot on this case. no burglar is going to enter a house from a point with more visiblitiy than others and one that is the biggest hassle for him. and there's no evidence he did. I can't believe you want to m ake this your focus in defending Knox.

 

[Kaosium]

In the united states, black people tend to be very wary of the police given our history of slavery and segregation and discrimination. I c an't see a black man chosing to scale up the side of the house to the highest window, not once, but at least twice and then having to deal with the shutters to gain access. he's going to pick a lower access point so he can get in as quickly as possible without being seen, at least in the states. given the fact rudy is not very tall, and the picture of the guy on the defense who tried it shows a very tall man and it still looks difficult, there's just no way. plus there is no evidence he went in that way. knox supporters make a big deal about none of her dna in the bedroom, but they seem ok with absolutely on dna from guide in the fiol's room, and no other trace of him being there as well. I find that hilarious, and probably racist in one degree or another.

Rudy was listed as 5'10" (plus maybe a half inch) on an official Italian document, I think it may have been a driver's license. He was definitely an athlete.

Filomena's room did not have a violent encounter with blood and mess everywhere and there was no reason to sweep it down particularly well being as the police thought the break-in staged from the very beginning. Interestingly enough they did find some hairs and such near that window, but Stefanoni didn't go to the trouble of doing much in the way of trying to identify it, unlike the trouble taken with the curious knife and the bra clasp, both of which on the face of it would be of dubious evidential quality.