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

[Machiavelli]

3) As for the interrogation - Machiavelli has already floated the theory, based on his extensive clinical experience in sleep issues, to declare that Knox was rested and ready to go, apparently immune to sleep deprivation. I have Machiavelli's statement to that effect saved, just in case he wishes to come back to JREF or IIP. She was, acc. to Machiavelli, in fighting trim at 11:30 m Nov 5 to hoodwink seasoned investigators; who as a result are either stupid or not very seasoned.

No, my 'theory' is not based on my extensive clinical experience in sleep issues; it is based above all on what Amanda Knox wrote herself and on testimonies (including her own).
However I think I am, to some extent, an expert in sleep issues. Not because of professional studies, but first of all because I used to suffer of sleep issues. When you are a patient, you become an expert. I think I am an expert about sleep deprivation, it's 02.47 now here.
I'm not the only one with strange sleep patters in my familiy. I have a younger sister who had the most spectatular symptoms of sleep anomalies, sleepwalkings and parasomnia; she was an extremely intereting study case, she was observed by researchers from a sleep-study center.
My relatives are also all doctors; my mother used to be an anesthesiologist university professor, she worked at the Cleveland Clinics in the US; without having chosen so, I happen to know a lot about toxicology, drugs and sleep. I never went to a doctor except for sleep, always been healthy, but when I was a child I had more medicaments in my home than in Michael Jacskon's.
In my life, then working in theatre, I learnt about hypnosys techniques, trance, body language, things of the kind. I think I may tell your "sleep deprivation" from the color of your skin, face, eyes movements, fine hand movements and many other things.
But sleep deprivation has nothing to do with Knox's action such as the hand written note, not even on the cognitive side. She was never confused, she was ambiguous, double-talking, not confuse. All what she did tells about her being lucid, awake and in control.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - do you care to discuss your own credentials to be able to discuss sleep issues and stress, particularly sleep deprivation issues? What are your credentials to say what you said about Amanda Knox purposely avoiding sleep in the days leading to interrogation?

But welcome back.

I do hope you are the one prosecuting this case in Florence. Your scenarios on the other issues are laughable. Tahe the break-in for instance.....

- The break in was staged, but this – to me – does not depend on the glass on top of clothes. It depends, firstly, on the inherent illogicality of the point of entry. Simply statistics show that all burglars chose the easiest way in, and there was another very easy way in. Moreover, physical evidence shows there was no rummaging of drawers, and all burglars look search into drawers first, they take money from Amanda's room too, they do not lose time tossing cumbersome useless things from a cupboard. And very important, whenever someone climbs in from a garden, you find soil, obvious dirty prints. The glass shards on the sill are also untouched, hence nobody balanced or crawled on that sill. There is no DNA nor fingerprints in the room. Shutters were half closed. The trail of bloody prints walk straight out (he didn't turn to lock the door; neiher he took care of washing himself). There is mixed DNA of Knox/Meredith on the only luminol spot in the room. And actually you know all the rest.

What, exactly is that other way in? If you mean the balcony, that is completely exposed to the road as it winds around, and is lit by a street-light. Unlike the entry in through Filomena's window there is no place to go if on the balcony and one is spotted.

If one is already standing at shoulder height at Fliomena's window by standing on the grate on the widow below, all one has to do is jump down and one is secure in the dark behind a retaining wall.

I suggest you keep your day job, because you do not have the instincts of a burglar.

Unless you meant that the easiest way was to go in the front door, which was locked, thus necessitating the rather easy entry through Filomena's window. This is not even arguable - even Massei concedes it is relatively easy - all Massei says about it is that no one would go up three times. Why?

But I am waiting to hear your credentials for saying what you said about sleep issues. My bet is that you'll not answer.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, my 'theory' is not based on my extensive clinical experience in sleep issues; it is based above all on what Amanda Knox wrote herself and on testimonies (including her own).
However I think I am, to some extent, an expert in sleep issues. Not because of professional studies, but first of all because I used to suffer of sleep issues. When you are a patient, you become an expert. I think I am an expert about sleep deprivation, it's 02.47 now here.
I'm not the only one with strange sleep patters in my familiy. I have a younger sister who had the most spectatular symptoms of sleep anomalies, sleepwalkings and parasomnia; she was an extremely intereting study case, she was observed by researchers from a sleep-study center.
My relatives are also all doctors; my mother used to be an anesthesiologist university professor, she worked at the Cleveland Clinics in the US; without having chosen so, I happen to know a lot about toxicology, drugs and sleep. I never went to a doctor except for sleep, always been healthy, but when I was a child I had more medicaments in my home than in Michael Jacskon's.
In my life, then working in theatre, I learnt about hypnosys techniques, trance, body language, things of the kind. I think I may tell your "sleep deprivation" from the color of your skin, face, eyes movements, fine hand movements and many other things.
But sleep deprivation has nothing to do with Knox's action such as the hand written note, not even on the cognitive side. She was never confused, she was ambiguous, double-talking, not confuse. All what she did tells about her being lucid, awake and in control.

I am relieved that you have no clinical experience in sleep issues. I am also somewhat sympathetic to you in your own struggles with regard to the subject. I do hope you and your family are able to get some competent care to remedy this.

(Please also be careful in providing autobiographical detail here. This is a public forum.)

However, your writings on this about Amanda Knox are simply bogus. To think that she was lucid and in control simply defies belief. It shows the extent of your confirmation bias.

My hope is that the Florence prosecutor takes what you say into a courtroom. No competent judge would believe it.

 

[Machiavelli]

What, exactly is that other way in? If you mean the balcony, that is completely exposed to the road as it winds around, and is lit by a street-light. Unlike the entry in through Filomena's window there is no place to go if on the balcony and one is spotted.

You see, I agree that it is useless to discuss between us. If you don't know what you talk about and you deny the most obvious reality.
The balcony is hidden, Filomena's window is exposed. All true burglaries were through the balcony. It's all obvious. It's before your eyes. If you are there you can't have doubts; I consider your claim as self-evident delusion. Unless you see reality, there is not much to say.

 

[Machiavelli]

However, your writings on this about Amanda Knox are simply bogus. To think that she was lucid and in control simply defies belief. It shows the extent of your confirmation bias.

Her control and her lucidity, those in her hand written memoir, is precisely what I noticed first, and found most striking, on the first time when I first heard about the case in 2007.

 

[Grinder]

A third witness, Maria Dramis, who lived in the area testified that on the same night she heard the sound of running footsteps under her window, a sound that woke her up around 11 p.m. This was not an unusual occurrence, but it struck her in light of what she found out the next morning about the death of Kercher just down the road.

A peculiarity about the testimony of the Monacchia (and) Dramis is that they did not report what they had heard to investigators until over a year after the fact. When they finally did explain what they heard, it was only after prompting from a journalist who accompanied them to the police station

It would seem they heard what they heard when the tow truck and car were parked outside the cottage.

For we Americans that don't understand the technical aspects of Italian law that experts there must be informed of would think that if Amanda and Raf were in the park at this time and the people from Rome and the tow truck driver were outside the cottage that something is rotten in Perugia.

In would seem that witnesses for the prosecution only need to remember what is good for the prosecution no matter how late they come forward and their testimony can be changed to fit other known facts.

Dramis comes forward a year later and says she heard feet running under her window and the court even allows this?

None of these so-called witnesses would be considered if they were pro Amanda and Raf and none of this testimony would be allowed in most courts in civilized countries.

The foot print has no trail from Raf or Guede.

 

[Grinder]

You see, I agree that it is useless to discuss between us. If you don't know what you talk about and you deny the most obvious reality.
The balcony is hidden, Filomena's window is exposed. All true burglaries were through the balcony. It's all obvious. It's before your eyes. If you are there you can't have doubts; I consider your claim as self-evident delusion. Unless you see reality, there is not much to say.

Why then didn't they stage the burglary using the balcony if it is completely obvious?

Do you find it odd they would use the same MO as Rudi?

When do imagine they let themselves and Rudi in the cottage?

When do you think Meredith was attacked?

Do you believe she made the calls after 9 pm?

 

[Grinder]

Her control and her lucidity, those in her hand written memoir, is precisely what I noticed first, and found most striking, on the first time when I first heard about the case in 2007.

Perhaps that's because you don't talk English so good?

At what time did she write the notes?

 

[Bill Williams]

Her control and her lucidity, those in her hand written memoir, is precisely what I noticed first, and found most striking, on the first time when I first heard about the case in 2007.

I am not disputing what you did or did not notice. But that you would pass this off as "expert" even at the lay level you claim is laughable. I'd advise you to drop the subject - there is no real expert alive who would draw the conclusions you claim with detailed clinical investigation. It makes you look confirmation biased in the extreme.

In lieu of withdrawing your ridiculous analysis I'd advise you just drop it.

 

[Bill Williams]

You see, I agree that it is useless to discuss between us. If you don't know what you talk about and you deny the most obvious reality.
The balcony is hidden, Filomena's window is exposed. All true burglaries were through the balcony. It's all obvious. It's before your eyes. If you are there you can't have doubts; I consider your claim as self-evident delusion. Unless you see reality, there is not much to say.

Yes, I know that you have said this before. Then RoseM posted the pictures that showed the balcony extremely exposed from the road, and with a street light in the foreground. You said way back then that the street light was not a street light.

The pic I could find with just a quick search is this one.... enjoy!

http://imageshack.us/a/img716/5660/balconyv.jpg

Perhaps if RoseM is around, she can repost.... if I am not mistaken, I believe the light post for the streetlamp can be seen leaning against the wall on the left of the road.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You see, I agree that it is useless to discuss between us. If you don't know what you talk about and you deny the most obvious reality.
The balcony is hidden, Filomena's window is exposed. All true burglaries were through the balcony. It's all obvious. It's before your eyes. If you are there you can't have doubts; I consider your claim as self-evident delusion. Unless you see reality, there is not much to say.

I have to agree with Machiavelli on this one, the cottage was broken into twice after the murder and both times it was on the balcony and through the kitchen window. It may have been the same burglar both times or it could have been 2different ones, it doesn't matter, by climbing up on the balcony you don't look like a burglar, but you definitely would climbing up thru Filomena's window.

 

[Machiavelli]

For we Americans that don't understand the technical aspects of Italian law that experts there must be informed of would think that if Amanda and Raf were in the park at this time and the people from Rome and the tow truck driver were outside the cottage that something is rotten in Perugia.

There is a bit of simplification here. You assume two things: that the car and tow truck people would necessarily hear the scream (but they were actually on the other side of the cottage, west of the building and downhill; and the family mostly remained locked in a car).
And you also assume that the scream occurred when they were actually there (but they come in the afternoon and stay all night; not to speak about how quick the tow truck was doing the job).

 

[MDDVS]

There is a bit of simplification here. You assume two things: that the car and tow truck people would necessarily hear the scream (but they were actually on the other side of the cottage, west of the building and downhill; and the family mostly remained locked in a car).
And you also assume that the scream occurred when they were actually there (but they come in the afternoon and stay all night; not to speak about how quick the tow truck was doing the job).

Where's the proof tying the scream to the murder?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I know that you have said this before. Then RoseM posted the pictures that showed the balcony extremely exposed from the road, and with a street light in the foreground. You said way back then that the street light was not a street light.

The pic I could find with just a quick search is this one.... enjoy!

http://imageshack.us/a/img716/5660/balconyv.jpg

Perhaps if RoseM is around, she can repost.... if I am not mistaken, I believe the light post for the streetlamp can be seen leaning against the wall on the left of the road.

Yes, and all of you ignored the photos that I posted in response, not pictures taken with telephoto from 150 meters like Rose (I can post a picture of Mars where you can see the ice on the top of Mt. Olympus; photography can do that, but can you actually see it when you have a walk at night?), I mean those that show the true scene, the actual distances and sights. And also you can assess the distance from lamp lights, the trees in between, the distance from the road and from the parking area and terraces.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli and Sherlock. Here's also pictures of how obscure Filomena's window is from the road.

Remember, Machiavelli's reasoning is based on which is more likely to be broken into.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X8ULdvAEimQ/UUO2y6Hn1GI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/ppNoDNXvQJ0/s1600/Via+03.jpg

These pics show clearly where a burglar would go in the unlikely event of being spotted... just jump down...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_gawNRkwQfoX5QjsDG9P2-ZNhA351njE8RblqVwO3ASp5fWZTJKQhyIo

http://p4.focus.de/img/gen/x/0/HBx0TVTV_Pxgen_r_Ax354.jpg

This is the one that shows the street lamp which (perhaps!) illuminates the balcony.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8432/7529675394_81590bfa44_m.jpg

So go for it, SH and Mach. Take these pics to court....

 

[yimyammer]

The prosecution doesn't claim that the video or photos show evidence of staging. They claim that both the video (which was shot first) and the photos were taken after the crime scene had been altered in a way that removed the evidence of staging, i.e., glass on top of disturbed objects.

And they claim that the ground outside was free of glass shards, so the window had to have been broken with the outside shutters closed. But, they have no photos of this area.

So, the claim of staging requires us to accept verbal testimony about small details that didn't seem important enough at the time to record with photos.

We are also required to believe that, with the outside shutters closed, Amanda or Raffaele pitched a rock through the window such that it chipped the inside shutter the same as if it had been thrown from outside.

Then they opened the outside shutters, and they carefully rearranged the glass shards. They distributed them so the larger ones were closer to the window, and the smaller ones formed a spray pattern that reached as far as the nightstand 10 feet away, just as if the window had been broken by a rock pitched from the berm on the other side of the retaining wall.

If you believe all that, it was clearly a staged break-in.

At another forum I read and follow a thread on this subject occasionally, the majority of the posters find the notion that the window break in was not staged to be absolutely ludicrous.

I find this astounding and it really leaves me speechless as to what one can possibly say to someone who believes the window could have only been accessed from the outside via levitation and that the dent on the interior shutter is meaningless.

In many cases other cases I've followed, staged crime scenes are obvious because the window was broken from the inside causing the glass to land on the outside of the property in question. Yet, in this case, logic is turned on its head and apparently the "fact" that no glass was found on the outside now becomes evidence that it was staged?!?!?!?

You know that if lots of glass had been found on the outside, they would be using the fact that glass was found on the outside as proof of a staged break-in.

Its literally like Monty Pythons how to know if some one is a witch test.

No matter what the evidence shows, the conclusion is always guilt.

For the life of me, I can't understand their reasoning or the incessant need to find these two guilty.

I'm fine either way as I would just like to see justice served but based on sound logic and reliable evidence, but that makes me a shill, retard, etc in some PGP's eyes.

This case is truly confounding to me

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, and all of you ignored the photos that I posted in response, not pictures taken with telephoto from 150 meters like Rose (I can post a picture of Mars where you can see the ice on the top of Mt. Olympus; photography can do that, but can you actually see it when you have a walk at night?), I mean those that show the true scene, the actual distances and sights. And also you can assess the distance from lamp lights, the trees in between, the distance from the road and from the parking area and terraces.

This really is not an argument between you and me, Mach. I am hoping all photos are brought to court, so that the Judge/panel can decide. Go for it.

 

[Briars]

I have to agree with Machiavelli on this one, the cottage was broken into twice after the murder and both times it was on the balcony and through the kitchen window. It may have been the same burglar both times or it could have been 2different ones, it doesn't matter, by climbing up on the balcony you don't look like a burglar, but you definitely would climbing up thru Filomena's window.

It has occurred to me that Filomena's room was chosen because she was due to return home the following day and would make the terrible discovery as planned. Laura and the boys were gone for the weekend.

 

[Bill Williams]

It has occurred to me that Filomena's room was chosen because she was due to return home the following day and would make the terrible discovery as planned. Laura and the boys were gone for the weekend.

Brilliant Briars. This is what happens when you do not have a comprehensive theory of the crime.

It was Amanda Knox herself who summoned Filomena to the scene!!!!! Why would Knox, after allegedly staging a break-in and counting on Filomena to innocently find it, why would Knox start alerting everyone in the universe, incl. Filomena?

Wow. I'm convinced.

 

[Dan O.]

- It’s correct to say my finding is the bathmat print matches Sollecito but not Guede.
In addition to this, also the dynamic and other aspects can be logically consistent only with Sollecito and not with Guede (there is no consistent scenario for Guede leaving that isolated print).

I call Machiavelli a bald liar on this point. I laid out a complete scenario for how that print could be created by Rudy Guede tied directly to multiple points of evidence including statements by Rudy himself. For Machiavelli to completely ignore this shows how disingenuous he is.