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

[DrTesla]

I'm trying to lead a horse to water here.

Look, why don't you go back to this post and have a look at the photo for a bit.

Now imagine that this is a photo of the window we are all talking about, viewed from inside the house. Imagine that the flat area outside the window at about the same height as the floor, which the cars are parked on, is representative of the kind of place someone like Rudy might throw a rock from.

Does this lead you to revise your opinion about what angle someone like Rudy might have thrown a rock, how far they might have needed to throw it, and how plausible it is that they chose to do so?

that's an interesting picture but how do we know the angle of the camera that took it, b/c i got the feeling that it's severely pointed down and maybe to the left some as well, b/c this picture doesn't seem to match the ones of the exterior of the building, which is what we need to look at to be sure.

do you know the specific address of the House of Horrors? i shall like to view this cottage on Google Maps to get my bearings if possible.

another thing we need to establish is how far out do the external shutters swing out...can they be pushed all the way adjacent to the exterior wall. b/c if it not, if there is a limit to how far they swing out, say to a point perpendical to the wall, than the rock must have been thrown from a point almost directly in front of the window, I would think, or it would be blocked by the shutters, which probably would rule out this parking lot at higher elevation b/c I think it is a good bit over the right as you look toward the high window from the outside. Also it just doesn't seem like rudy is going to a hoist a very large rock from a parking lot adjacent to the road at this house unless he has a wish to be seen and go to jail.

 

[DrTesla]

A Prosecutor's job is to win convictions. No Prosecutor anywhere in the world is going to gear their questions towards helping a suspect prove their innocence.




How is anybody suppose to file a complaint when doing so is slander?

a prosecution's job is to prosecute the case to the best of his ablity, he has no control over what the jury decides. If he does many cases the law of averages is in his favor that will get convictions so getting conviction is not a requirement. it would seem at least some percentage of Mignini's questions would give Knox an opportunity to help establish her innocence if she gives a credible answer. it seems like if a questioned is designed to find guilt, then if you answer it in a way that it does not, then the question by default is also designed to determine your innocence.

your second question is slick but slander is not decided by the cops or the prosecuter, it is decided by a jury of your peers after a trial that looks at the evidence. if you were abused by the police then there should be evidence for it as it did take place, so if you file a complaint for slander you should win the day in court.

 

[snook1]

As time goes by, I'm more and more amazed by people, inlc Italian prosecutors, who believe that AK and RS are guilty of the murder of MK. I wasn't really posting here or on Injustice or anywhere else for that matter for a few months now, but I've been following the boards closely and its amazing how people still believe the two were involved.

To date, no one, absolutely no one ever came forward with a believeable scenario as to how Knox and Sollecito were involved. How is it possible to have three people killing one person during a sex game gone wrong (involving body fluids, chaos, blood, knife, stealing of phones, keys, undressing the victim) and only one of the the three leaving his traces inside the murder room? In the eyes of the guilters and prosecutors this might be a lame question, but hey, no one ever answered this one correctly.

This is all just so bizzare.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

that's an interesting picture but...

(Quote truncated for brevity).

I'll take it from that response that the answer to my question "Does this lead you to revise your opinion?" is "No".

Clear, visual evidence that the window could have been broken by a rock thrown in a short, mostly horizontal trajectory isn't enough to make you realise that the pro-guilt site you are pimping has been written by someone completely ignorant of the actual layout of the flat in question.

This is why we keep saying you are recycling talking points from 2008. This "Rudy couldn't have thrown a rock through the window, it's way too high!" business had some legs back when nobody had looked at the matter seriously yet and we were going on very limited reports in the English-speaking media.

However I think it is absolutely inescapable that anyone pushing this talking point in 2013 is wilfully ignorant of the facts of the case, to the extent that they simply aren't entitled to an opinion. If you're cutting and pasting talking points from such a source, then the blind are leading the blind.

 

[DrTesla]

(Quote truncated for brevity).

I'll take it from that response that the answer to my question "Does this lead you to revise your opinion?" is "No".

Clear, visual evidence that the window could have been broken by a rock thrown in a short, mostly horizontal trajectory isn't enough to make you realise that the pro-guilt site you are pimping has been written by someone completely ignorant of the actual layout of the flat in question.

This is why we keep saying you are recycling talking points from 2008. This "Rudy couldn't have thrown a rock through the window, it's way too high!" business had some legs back when nobody had looked at the matter seriously yet and we were going on very limited reports in the English-speaking media.

However I think it is absolutely inescapable that anyone pushing this talking point in 2013 is wilfully ignorant of the facts of the case, to the extent that they simply aren't entitled to an opinion. If you're cutting and pasting talking points from such a source, then the blind are leading the blind.

I've been humoring you guys on the rock thing b/c there is simply no evidence on the exterior of the house or inside the bedroom that Rudy came up through that window which again would have been the most illogical entry point for anybody to use for a break in, and he would have had to make that 13 ft climb twice, the first time to pry open the closed shutters.

you keep saying it's doable but there's no evidence he ever did, and if there's no evidence he did it then he didn't do it, at least as far as the truth goes in a court of law. We must establish everything that is proposed as a scenior with evidence. the closed shutters would have told him to try another access point, i would think

really for rudy to choose to hurl a large rock at this window from a parking lot near this main road, he would probably have to be on drugs by this time b/c most people don't like a hassle and most people don't want to go jail but you are arguing that for some rudy didn't mind a big hassle and didn't mind maximizing the opportunity to be seen, and heard, by witnesses by hurling a large rock and shattering a window all within sight of the road and neighbors.

 

[DrTesla]

As time goes by, I'm more and more amazed by people, inlc Italian prosecutors, who believe that AK and RS are guilty of the murder of MK. I wasn't really posting here or on Injustice or anywhere else for that matter for a few months now, but I've been following the boards closely and its amazing how people still believe the two were involved.

To date, no one, absolutely no one ever came forward with a believeable scenario as to how Knox and Sollecito were involved. How is it possible to have three people killing one person during a sex game gone wrong (involving body fluids, chaos, blood, knife, stealing of phones, keys, undressing the victim) and only one of the the three leaving his traces inside the murder room? In the eyes of the guilters and prosecutors this might be a lame question, but hey, no one ever answered this one correctly.

This is all just so bizzare.

it's a false choice, meant to benefit the two still accused.

their traces were found. raffe's dna on the bra clasp which was very strong match confirmed by two different dna tests, Knox's dna is on the bra clasp as well but smaller amount that can't be submitted in court I gather, raffe's bloody footprint on the mat in the bathroom (knox told a curious story about this mat) (i think that at least 12 of the measurements of this print was a 100 match for raffe), you had luminol exposed bloody prints in the house, both Amanda's and Knox's found b/t Knox's room and the departed's room. you had Knox's dna mixed with victim's blood/dna in 5 different spots in the house, including Filo's bedroom where the staged breakin took place and not a place where both Knox and Meredith should have been together while one or both were bleeding. there was also Knox's desklamp, her only light source, on the floor of the victim's locked bedroom which clearly points to Knox using it in a clean up effort.

You also had the victim's DNA found on the blade of a knife, a very very clean knife, in raffe's house that smelled of bleach and the housemaid testified that she was instructed not to use bleach but appears two bottles of bleach were found. Knox's DNA was found on the handle and not only that, it would found closer to the end of the knife in a location consistent with the handler stabbing somebody than using it for slicing up food while cooking/eating.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose

 

[DrTesla]

Friends have not been able to establish Amanda and Raffe's alibi with corroboratin evidence.

Friends have not been to establish that Rudy broke in through the window (meaning the burglarly was staged and somebody let him which must be Knox)

Friends have not been able to establish the lone wolf killer theory (and i believe the supreme court ruled that Rudy had accomplices in his verdict, or at least signed off on that theory....it doesn't seem like they could allow separate fast tract trials for one of the accused if the final verdict in both is not based on consistent logic b/c you can't split this case into two, it's all interralated.)

Friends have no answer for DNA on the knife or DNA on bra clasp that will fly in court. the idea that contamination happened in both, given they were found at different locations is doubly improbable and thus we can rule it as impossible.

Friends have no logical explanation for Amanda's lamp on the floor in the departed's bedroom.

Friends have no answer for why Knox stated she was in a panic about Meredith but her cell phone history with her calls to Meredith don't demonstrate that (such as how long she let the phone ring, choosing to only call one phone, not the other, etc, the time she made this calls vs what she claimed she did) and witness testimony by people at the cottage who saw Knox not caring much about this locked door even when it was broke down, even telling police the victim always locked her door.

Friends have no explanation for two first time events, one to include Knox calling mommy the night of the murder for first time whle in itlay, before the body was found, in a state of panic, a call Knox said in court she could not remember despite the fact she must have had a special motivation for it plus the fact her mom told her to hang up and call the police. how do you not remember your mom telling you to call the police, it's not like that happens every day. the other first time event was both Knox and raffe shutting off their phones that evening despite no history of that, and don't say it's b/c they wanted to have sex without being interreupted b/c they were having lots of sex that week and they didn't shut off the phones.....the likely reason is they were planning something bad and didn't want their phones to indicate where they were at the time.

 

[snook1]

Excuse me, what are you trying to do here? Are you trying to convince me they were involved? I've been following this case for four years now and since then, there was no one that could provide any probable scenario as to what has happened and how it happened with Knox being there.

Let's take the highly criticized Hellmann's appeal - the C/V report. Ring a bell? All of them were corrupted? All of them were paid? Give me a break. C/V clearly stated that both knife and clasp cannot be used against the two accused and you know that.

Your reasoning is so flawed, that even non English speakers, like me, can draw conclusions that you are nothing else than yet another guilter that is unwilling to look at the case from the objective point of view.

The case is simple, so very simple.

The prosecution's own expert witness couldn't rule out a single attacker(it's not the FOA job to prove anything). No one ever provided pictures of glass on top of the clothes. The TOD couldn't be establish precisely mostly due to the incompetence of the detectives, but Guede places himself on the scene right afer 9 which is consistent with contents in Meredith stomach. The lamp had no meaning, no DNA, no fingerprints, no one ever proved it was used for any kind of clean up - and no one ever testified in the court of law that in the murder room someone performed a clean up - if there was a clean up, then how is it possible that Guede's DNA is found in MULTIPLE places in that room - and to remind you - these places were Merdith's body, clothes, purse and his footprints were found on her floor, in her blood. Are you seriously suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were able to search for their own footprints/DNA and other traces and selectively remove them from the bloody crime scene while leaving Guede's? Remember, they're first time killers, most probably in panic and if to believe Mignini, high on hard drugs. Do you realize how incredibly stupid that sounds, not to mention completely unbelieveable?

The aprt about SC is another thing. You clearly do not know how it works and let's just wait and see what they will say in their motivation report out in a few weeks. Believe me, it will be a shocker to the guilters.

Next time, please, stick to the facts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've been humoring you guys on the rock thing b/c there is simply no evidence on the exterior of the house or inside the bedroom that Rudy came up through that window which again would have been the most illogical entry point for anybody to use for a break in, and he would have had to make that 13 ft climb twice, the first time to pry open the closed shutters.

you keep saying it's doable but there's no evidence he ever did, and if there's no evidence he did it then he didn't do it, at least as far as the truth goes in a court of law. We must establish everything that is proposed as a scenior with evidence. the closed shutters would have told him to try another access point, i would think

really for rudy to choose to hurl a large rock at this window from a parking lot near this main road, he would probably have to be on drugs by this time b/c most people don't like a hassle and most people don't want to go jail but you are arguing that for some rudy didn't mind a big hassle and didn't mind maximizing the opportunity to be seen, and heard, by witnesses by hurling a large rock and shattering a window all within sight of the road and neighbors.

How about we go again from the start, but this time you only cut and paste things from reliable sources instead of from dodgy web sites put up by people who are ignorant of fairly fundamental aspects of the case?

Because you can't actually know whether any of this stuff you are posting is true or false. It could be total rubbish for all you know. We've shown you more than once now the stuff you'e copying isn't remotely reliable.

Why not stick to posting things you know are true?

 

[DrTesla]

Excuse me, what are you trying to do here? Are you trying to convince me they were involved? I've been following this case for four years now and since then, there was no one that could provide any probable scenario as to what has happened and how it happened with Knox being there.

Let's take the highly criticized Hellmann's appeal - the C/V report. Ring a bell? All of them were corrupted? All of them were paid? Give me a break. C/V clearly stated that both knife and clasp cannot be used against the two accused and you know that.

Your reasoning is so flawed, that even non English speakers, like me, can draw conclusions that you are nothing else than yet another guilter that is unwilling to look at the case from the objective point of view.

The case is simple, so very simple.

The prosecution's own expert witness couldn't rule out a single attacker(it's not the FOA job to prove anything). No one ever provided pictures of glass on top of the clothes. The TOD couldn't be establish precisely mostly due to the incompetence of the detectives, but Guede places himself on the scene right afer 9 which is consistent with contents in Meredith stomach. The lamp had no meaning, no DNA, no fingerprints, no one ever proved it was used for any kind of clean up - and no one ever testified in the court of law that in the murder room someone performed a clean up - if there was a clean up, then how is it possible that Guede's DNA is found in MULTIPLE places in that room - and to remind you - these places were Merdith's body, clothes, purse and his footprints were found on her floor, in her blood. Are you seriously suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were able to search for their own footprints/DNA and other traces and selectively remove them from the bloody crime scene while leaving Guede's? Remember, they're first time killers, most probably in panic and if to believe Mignini, high on hard drugs. Do you realize how incredibly stupid that sounds, not to mention completely unbelieveable?

Your rambling about SC is another thing. You have clearly no idea how it works and let's just wait and see what they will say in their motivation report out in a few weeks. Believe me, it will be a shocker to the guilters.

Next time, please, do a better job or just quit trying, beacuse you're not better than any other biased guilter.

i'm not trying to convince you of anything. only the only open minded.

I just like being right and winning debates in general.

I never heard of a judge appointing "independent" DNA experts in a criminal case before. I'm no legal beagle but that seems to be shady b/c what is the criteria for selecting independence, that seems real subjective. I think both defense and prosecution should be able to appoint their own experts and both sides should be able to make their case in court in front of the jury. in this case, the experts essentially repeated what Knox defense lawyers claimed in the first trial, so even if they were not bought by the defense, it is the only argument, the defense argument, that they heard regarding the DNA evidence. so it's no surprise they voted the way they did. you guys would be screaming no fair if the "independent" DNA experts agreed with the prosecution's DNA expert in the first trial and you would be suggesting they were bought by Mignini so it's funny as heck you are trying to make me out as the paranoid conspiracy theory when your whole case for Knox centers on Mignini, Dr Stef, the police all in this criminal conspiracy to get Knox and the "boyfriend".

yeah, I thik it was pretty easy for Knox to dertermine which bloody footprints were theirs and which were rudy. rudy ran straight to the door while they stuck around a bit. the luminol exposed prints proves that they removed the prints but you keep sneering at the idea as though it is impossible which is really just a dumb strawman on your part. that I just knocked down.

here's your dumb logic, Rudy DNA in the bedroom = guilty rudy , Raffe's DNA on the bra clasp = rafffe innocent

you never ever get off prosecuting rudy is already guilty, everybody gets rudy is guilty, so why do you keep talking about rudy? I know why b/c you can't defend your precious Knox and Raffe against the evidence pointing to them. rudy rudy rudy. keep saying it but he's not on trial anymore.

 

[DrTesla]

How about we go again from the start, but this time you only cut and paste things from reliable sources instead of from dodgy web sites put up by people who are ignorant of fairly fundamental aspects of the case?

Because you can't actually know whether any of this stuff you are posting is true or false. It could be total rubbish for all you know. We've shown you more than once now the stuff you'e copying isn't remotely reliable.

Why not stick to posting things you know are true?

You've not posted one thing that contradicts, factually, the info on that website. it's true i'm not an expert on dna or forensics but his arguments make sense. you are feel to post things that prove his arguments are wrong, and people can decide for themselves. I've only seen you post that he's wrong but you strike me as being more of an advocate for Knox than really looking at the science and logic of the various aspects of this case. I mean, you guys were protesting the fact that Luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB, and I basically just let you hang yourself if that's what you want to do in the name of Knox. that should be easily confirmed elsewhere by anybody with an open mind about the science.

I did not pre-conclude that Knox is guilty and then try to retrofit the facts to meet that conclusion no matter how illogical. some of you guys clearly have done this in deciding Knox is innocent first and then trying to make the evidence work out in her favor no matter how silly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

from a link I previously posted, more about the rock

Ann Wise reported, "Pasquali said that he had re-created the same conditions that were found in Romanelli's room at the time of the break-in. Pasquali said he constructed a window of the same size, with the same paint and the same type of glass, and threw the rock through it into a room with the same characteristics as Romanelli's room. Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass." And, "One witness said his office window had been broken with a large rock, and a computer stolen. The computer and a cell phone were later found in the possession of Guede, who was also found with a switchblade."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence against Guede (as a mental exercise)

A rough and ready list, in approximate order of decreasing importance: bloody handprint, DNA, bloody shoeprint, admission of being there, fleeing to another country, previous history of unlawful entry, etc. Throw out every piece of DNA evidence in the entire case (if you think that the Rome lab is not up to scratch), and you still have Guede in the room. Throw out every piece of evidence in the entire case (if you like) except the bloody handprint, and I would still convict Guede, despite having a pretty high bar for what constitutes reasonable doubt. No single piece of evidence against Knox or Sollecito even comes close. The mixed DNA? Make me laugh.

 

[DrTesla]

A rough and ready list, in approximate order of decreasing importance: bloody handprint, DNA, bloody shoeprint, admission of being there, fleeing to another country, previous history of unlawful entry, etc. Throw out every piece of DNA evidence in the entire case (if you think that the Rome lab is not up to scratch), and you still have Guede in the room. Throw out every piece of evidence in the entire case (if you like) except the bloody handprint, and I would still convict Guede, despite having a pretty high bar for what constitutes reasonable doubt. No single piece of evidence against Knox or Sollecito even comes close. The mixed DNA? Make me laugh.

i guess it's good you aren't on the jury.

rudy is guilty. yet you continue to try rudy. only thing rudy has to do with this trial is did he come in through the window or did Knox let him in. Knox let him in b/c no evidence in the bedroom (none of that DNA of his you guys love to talk about for the victim's bedroom) or on exterior of the house that he climbed up twice. the other thing regarding Rudy is did he do it alone or with other people and the victim's body, the utter lack of defensive wounds, along with the different knives used points to multiple attackers. I don't see how the supreme court could validate the rudy gu-ede verdict with the caveat that he had two accomplices and then accept a verdict in the Knox trial in which he didn't have accomplices. the two trials do have to be a package deal b/c all three were accused of committing the crime together.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rep. 198, Rep. 199, and Sgt. Pasquali's demonstration. Have to leave now.

 

[snook1]

the other thing regarding Rudy is did he do it alone or with other people and the victim's body, the utter lack of defensive wounds, along with the different knives used points to multiple attackers

And yet, the prosecution's own witness COULDN'T RULE OUT that there was a single attacker. I'll deal with your other half truths later.

 

[DrTesla]

And yet, the prosecution's own witness COULDN'T RULE OUT that there was a single attacker. I'll deal with your other half truths later.

the defense expert said that typically in cases like this there would be multiple attackers given the lack of defensive wounds but that he didn't feel like he needed to address the lack of defensive wounds one way or another in this case. looks like somebody who doesn't want to tell a lie but so just refuses to address the point. I don't see how you can ignore the lack of defensive wounds if the idea is to ascertain if she was attacked by one person or several people.

 

[snook1]

the defense expert said that typically in cases like this there would be multiple attackers given the lack of defensive wounds but that he didn't feel like he needed to address the lack of defensive wounds one way or another in this case. looks like somebody who doesn't want to tell a lie but so just refuses to address the point. I don't see how you can ignore the lack of defensive wounds if the idea is to ascertain if she was attacked by one person or several people.

Still, the prosecution's own witness COULDN'T RULE OUT a single attacker. Doesn't matter what you say, it's in the transcripts. They could not rule out there was one person with Meredith and that one person could be the sole killer. There is no definitive opinion from the prosecution's expert that there multiple killers.

 

[DrTesla]

Still, the prosecution's own witness COULDN'T RULE OUT a single attacker. Doesn't matter what you say, it's in the transcripts. They could not rule out there was one person with Meredith and that one person could be the sole killer. There is no definitive opinion from the prosecution's expert that there multiple killers.

you are distorting something here. if you say there are multiple attackers, then you are saying there isn't a single attacker. you are ruling it out. the lack of defensive wounds and at least two knives being used means there are multiple attackers, or it doesn't. maybe the prosecution expert said it was possible but it would be in some way that he or she could not explain and thus it would be highly improbable. in the courtroom the jury should only be looking at the probable and not some mythical possibility that cannot be supported by anything else.

the massei jury clearly found that there were mulitiple attackers and they went into excruciating detail about why.

 

[Dan O.]

I've been humoring you guys on the rock thing

Then begone troll. i banish thee to my ignore list. There's no point in trying to converse with someone whose only arguments are cut from another web site and who lies about what evidence they know.