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

[RoseMontague]

Here's a tip for you Machiavelli.

It is in your interest to re-explain things. Here's why.

Because of the success of Amanda Knox's book in North America (NY Times bestsellers list, etc.) there is a renewed interest in this wrongful conviction/prosecution.

But please, let's not get bogged down in what each call it.

The point is that many people are newly checking the internet for further information on this case.

By you not commenting each time you are asked to explain, you are depriving these new people understanding the nuttier aspects of why Italian justice (through one wrongful prosecution, not the whole system per se).

For you just to say, "I've already answered this," does not give them information. Not many people scroll back or have the need to scroll back. They will make assessments of your sincerity based on what reads like arrogance.

For instance, you should be periodically repeating your belief in a Masonic conspiracy behind this whole thing, how the Masons are secretly supporting Amanda and Raffaele and actually paying off judges. You claim to know the actual amount Judge Hellmann was paid to acquit Sollecito and Knox. You should be repeating this, even if not asked, so that a new generation of inquirers can read for themselves the nuttier aspects of the wrongful prosecution.

While you are at it, you may wish to also periodically repeat your claim to being "almost an expert" on sleep and sleep deprivation issues, so that you can (so you claim) make expert-like comments on Knox's ability to withstand the exhaustions and stresses of police interrogation.

To me this sounds a lot like Mr. Mignini telling Knox (his own words) that he can act, "as if only a notary", instead of his role as Public Minister to trap Knox at interrogation.

Please take my advice. It just doesn't communicate anything to say, "I already told you." You use letters and your own theatre background to make clinical assessments of someone else's sleep patterns; and you don't take into account that they've just had a friend murdered. You should be repeating that, because people will not scroll back... (if they do, they'll find the REALLY nutty stuff!)

You see, it's not RandyN you are arguing with here... it is the 100s of people who read your comments without commenting, you just look at your posts and think to themselves, "he's a nut," and then go back to Knox's book.

Be a good chap and at least use this medium the way it is intended.

He should also explain his theory that Amanda was sexually aroused by Meridith, the Italian Supreme Court seems very interested in the sex game stuff. Maybe he can comment on his experience in the theater and how Amanda is a poor actress as well.

 

[anglolawyer]

He should also explain his theory that Amanda was sexually aroused by Meridith, the Italian Supreme Court seems very interested in the sex game stuff. Maybe he can comment on his experience in the theater and how Amanda is a poor actress as well.

And let's not forget the fish dinner (Machiavelli's hopelessly absurd stab - pun not intended - at accounting for the transport of the knife) nor the idea that many students prostitute themselves for drugs and Amanda was one probably of them as proved by someone having her number on their cell phone nor, finally, the admission that she was 'strongly suspected' but not a 'formal suspect' when the interrogation began and that despite being a strong suspect she was not informed of her rights nor provided with access to legal advice. Whatever the law of Italy says, the law applied by the ECHR says different.

 

[Bill Williams]

He should also explain his theory that Amanda was sexually aroused by Meridith, the Italian Supreme Court seems very interested in the sex game stuff. Maybe he can comment on his experience in the theater and how Amanda is a poor actress as well.

Thanks for this RoseM. Yes, people like Briars and Machiavelli should now detail how the sex-game-gone-wrong now dovetails with their comprehensive theory of the crime which explains all the evidence.... oooops, except in almost 6 years since this horrid crime, they've never attempted one. Good thing, too. The ISC would have thrown them for a loop, because even Mignini himself had abandoned that as a motive at the first trial. He went on to the "Amanda and Meredith were fighting" motive, before dropping that one, too. He ended up with essentially what Massei wrote in his motivations report: "They murdered for no reason really."

Sherlock Holmes is off the hook on that one because he believes that Rudy murdered alone or with an unknown other.

RoseM - You will not find Machiavelli saying much about the break-in - balcony or window - anymore. I could not find those pictures of the visibility of the cottage for a while..... and it was enough of a delay to get Machiavelli to claim that those pics, showing the visibility of the balcony from the road, were done with a telephoto lens or some such thing.

You see, this is where Maciavelli comes across as purposely distorting things in his favour. I eventually DID find the photos showing the visibility of the balcony, the street lamp, etc. He has not commented since.

Sherlock Holmes piped in about how subsequent break-ins were always from the balcony. Yet, for some strange reason the owner of the cottage now has bars over what used to be Filomena's window. I'm still scouring for that picture. Maybe they can make the claim three or four more times about how Filomena's window was not accessible.... and then YOU can post the pic with the bars on the window for added flair in showing their arguments for what they are.

It's a double-edged sword, this business Machiavelli has lapsed into. When caught out - the pics of the balcony vs. the pics of Filomena's window - when compared to his ludicrous claims ("I will not look at pictures taken through telephoto lenses", even when they are taken with normal cameras!) he now not only will completely ignore it, he will not be asking people to scroll back to read his claims.

The real tragedy here, is that the ISC seems to be thinking like Machiavelli these days.

 

[Grinder]

You should see the pics taken by SomeAlibi at this time of the year. They are posted at pmf. The leaves are not off the trees including the tree that obscures Filomena's window. The balcony is clearly visible from apartments and parking lot.

That doesn't matter. Nothing matters because the kids staged the burglary and that's all there is to it. Period.

Mach has now told us that Amanda left Raf's just after Popovic had stopped by and talked with her. On the way, she located Rudi and they together arrived at the cottage before Meredith. Then Amanda leaves and Raf comes later after meeting at the plaza?

Mach please fill out the timeline you started with this idea that Rudi and Amanda were there first.

Mach also says that they couldn't have used the balcony for staging because it would interfere with the shower and mop stories. Why did they need the shower and mop stories? Why didn't they just go to Gubbio?

The later break-ins through the balcony had no choice in that Filomena's window had been closed off. The cottage was sealed, remember?

First, because (they thought) that would have made the burglary 'too' obvious, making the rest of the staging/justification pattern impossible: no shower story would be possible, no mop carrying story, no locked door would make sense.
Second, because in that event they would need to ransack Amanda's room, or Meredith's or the rest of the house, not just Filomena's. The purpose of breaking the window was to having the staging confined within a limited portion of the house, little work and little danger.
Third, because Filomena's window would be difficult as a point of entry, but it's easier and quicker to break. To break the balcony window you have to actually climb on the balcony and throw a rock from there, you can't so easilly pretend to do that.

Now Mach I'd feel I need to point out that they could have just opened the balcony door and turned around and broken the window in the door or used a screwdriver to force the door open. To restate, why would you possibly think they would have to climb to the balcony from the outside? And if it was so obviously easy to do and out of sight why not do it? Why couldn't they open the balcony door and break it while open? (Of course that wouldn't be possible if they open out). If the balcony was not visible from the street, why would there be a problem? Why not just leave it unlocked as if someone had forgotten to lock it such as spaced out Amanda. "Oh no, I remember going out yesterday and I must have forgotten to lock it." Pretend quote alert. Btw, that would be what she said upon returning from Gubbio in the late afternoon.

The only answer is it doesn't work with your theory.

You also have them there from 21:00 until a 22:30 murder. What were they doing for one and half hours? What was Meredith doing? I thought the kids were in the plaza. How did the kids get back and forth without the people from Rome or tow driver noticing them?

Did Curatolo ever testify that they were not in the plaza at some precise times?

Why wouldn't Amanda want the death to be discovered as late as possible destroying all TOD calculation except stomach contents which we all know are worthless.

 

[Bill Williams]

And let's not forget the fish dinner (Machiavelli's hopelessly absurd stab - pun not intended - at accounting for the transport of the knife) nor the idea that many students prostitute themselves for drugs and Amanda was one probably of them as proved by someone having her number on their cell phone nor, finally, the admission that she was 'strongly suspected' but not a 'formal suspect' when the interrogation began and that despite being a strong suspect she was not informed of her rights nor provided with access to legal advice. Whatever the law of Italy says, the law applied by the ECHR says different.

Apologies for missing that one. I knew AngloLawyer would be lurking here with a well placed skewer or two.

I once accused Machiavelli of holding the view that, "Rudy was Knox's pimp." He quite rightfully corrected me with a posting that was as long as it was dull..... strangely dull given that it included speculations about sex amongst Perugian students and a grey-market drug trade. I apologized adroitly for that one.

I am sure Machiavelli will correct me again if I have this wrong. He never actually said that Guede was Knox's pimp. He took great offence to the claim being attached to him. What Machiavelli did say was that it was well known that students in Perugia traded sex for drugs, and that it was possible that this is how Knox and Guede came to know each other - even though there is no evidence they actually knew each other, save for two chance meetings in larger groups of students. But, hey, it's possible, said Machiavelli.

Then again, M. is going to have a hard time with Leila who had her own take on all this. Leila, with admitted ties to Lumumba and Rudy back in Perugia, actually defends Rudy on this point. She balks at calling Rudy a dealer.

What did she call him? "A facilitator"? Yes, I think that was it.

Oh yes, Machiavelli has a good word about Rudy, too. He feels sorry for Rudy would "might have sleep deprivation issues", too, like Knox. However, he has mercy for Rudy, because Rudy comes from "war torn Ivory Coast."

Sheesh..... after the scene from "Black Hawk Down" outside Amanda's going away party back in Seattle - you know, the one where she got a noise citation - you'd think that Knox would have Post Traumatic Stress syndrome just from that party!

Such is the world of Machiavelli.

Oh yes, just don't call Mignini's first motive attached to the crime a "Satanic rite." Machiavelli quite rightly corrects it to being a, "Day of the dead rite" theory which Mignini entertained, only to drop it when (acc. to Barbie Nadeau) Comodi threatened to quit as a prosecutor if Mignini went to court with that as the motive.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You should see the pics taken by SomeAlibi at this time of the year. They are posted at pmf. The leaves are not off the trees including the tree that obscures Filomena's window. The balcony is clearly visible from apartments and parking lot.

Rose, the balcony is clearly visible but the kitchen window on the balcony is not. You wouldn't think a burglary was in progress if you saw someone on that balcony or even climbing up to it, but you sure would at Filomena's window. Now, honestly, if you yourself were to try to break in, you've seen all the pictures, pick a window.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is such a stupid reply I'm really surprised that your keyboard didn't revolt when you typed it.

For those that just tuned in, Sherlock is claiming that luminol will produce a brighter reaction for blood that is too diluted to show up visually than it produces for blood that is easily visible. It's lucky that ILE over applied the luminol. The could have been blinded if they accidentally used a 10C solution.


Again, here it the photo that Sherlock cannot see due to his visual impairment.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7865[/qimg]

In this photo, you can see the dim arcs where the visible blood from Rudy's left shoe stepped and the brighter splotch that the prosecution is trying to claim is a bare footprint in blood that is too diluted to see.

Dan, I have no idea what you are talking about as usual, I really could care less about your invisible footprints, they do not go back into Meredith's room so they are useless. You do not know the reason why it was not brought up during the trial and you have no answer for that, I get it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rose, the balcony is clearly visible but the kitchen window on the balcony is not. You wouldn't think a burglary was in progress if you saw someone on that balcony or even climbing up to it, but you sure would at Filomena's window. Now, honestly, if you yourself were to try to break in, you've seen all the pictures, pick a window.

For what it's worth, SH, I took that very question to a friend when I first started posting about this. I've posted about this ad nauseum, apologies if I am nauseating you!

To an experienced second-story man, Filomena's window is a no-brainer. I can only repeat that your post above shows that you should not consider a career in the second-storey arts. Say all you want about what you or I or RoseM or RandyN would do....

.... the issue is what would Rudy do? For my money he first checked the front door, found it locked and then hurled a rock through Filomena's window. Unlike being on the balcony, if someone had been home inside, Rudy then had places to go in stealth. On the balcony, he did not. He had to be concerned about being seen from both inside and outside.

Apparently this IS rocket science. But someone like Rudy does not think it through, it is instinct. He knows what he can do....

The offer still stands, SH.... there's a house for sale on the street here. You are welcome to be my neighbour, I have nothing to fear from you!

 

[anglolawyer]

Rose, the balcony is clearly visible but the kitchen window on the balcony is not. You wouldn't think a burglary was in progress if you saw someone on that balcony or even climbing up to it, but you sure would at Filomena's window. Now, honestly, if you yourself were to try to break in, you've seen all the pictures, pick a window.

IANAB but I quite like the fact that F's window is round the front and I can easily leg it out of there if something goes wrong (say a light goes on and a blood curdling scream followed shortly thereafter by a siren) whereas to get round the back I have to negotiate the steps and put the house between myself and my escape route. Not so good.

The PGP/ILE have not proved the climb overly difficult (Micheli, no less, did not think so) which puts an end to the topic. All you've got is an unbent nail (not needed for the climb so irrelevant) no glass outside (lots of evidence missing to prove that one) and no dirt carried through into the house (evidence please of the state of the ground and the adhesive properties of any grass, leaves, mud as established by experiment under suitable conditions and not announced by someone calling himself Machiavelli on the internet).

Still, that's enough for Italy to deem it a settled fact, decided for all purposes against A & R whatever anybody says and leaving out of account the craziness of the whole scheme of placing the blame on Guede on 02 Nov but on Lumumba on 05 Nov due to fear of the consequences of placing the blame on Guede .

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks for this RoseM. Yes, people like Briars and Machiavelli should now detail how the sex-game-gone-wrong now dovetails with their comprehensive theory of the crime which explains all the evidence.... oooops, except in almost 6 years since this horrid crime, they've never attempted one. Good thing, too. The ISC would have thrown them for a loop, because even Mignini himself had abandoned that as a motive at the first trial. He went on to the "Amanda and Meredith were fighting" motive, before dropping that one, too. He ended up with essentially what Massei wrote in his motivations report: "They murdered for no reason really."

Sherlock Holmes is off the hook on that one because he believes that Rudy murdered alone or with an unknown other.

RoseM - You will not find Machiavelli saying much about the break-in - balcony or window - anymore. I could not find those pictures of the visibility of the cottage for a while..... and it was enough of a delay to get Machiavelli to claim that those pics, showing the visibility of the balcony from the road, were done with a telephoto lens or some such thing.

You see, this is where Maciavelli comes across as purposely distorting things in his favour. I eventually DID find the photos showing the visibility of the balcony, the street lamp, etc. He has not commented since.

Sherlock Holmes piped in about how subsequent break-ins were always from the balcony. Yet, for some strange reason the owner of the cottage now has bars over what used to be Filomena's window. I'm still scouring for that picture. Maybe they can make the claim three or four more times about how Filomena's window was not accessible.... and then YOU can post the pic with the bars on the window for added flair in showing their arguments for what they are.

It's a double-edged sword, this business Machiavelli has lapsed into. When caught out - the pics of the balcony vs. the pics of Filomena's window - when compared to his ludicrous claims ("I will not look at pictures taken through telephoto lenses", even when they are taken with normal cameras!) he now not only will completely ignore it, he will not be asking people to scroll back to read his claims.

The real tragedy here, is that the ISC seems to be thinking like Machiavelli these days.

Filomena's window had to be barred, it's a bit famous in those parts and I'm sure the owner still wants to rent out the room. Is the kitchen window barred as well? That would be a good question. I'm not positive, but if this murder had happened in Canada, I'm pretty sure the landlord would have been bright up on charges as well, especially for the way the front door locked.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

For what it's worth, SH, I took that very question to a friend when I first started posting about this. I've posted about this ad nauseum, apologies if I am nauseating you!

To an experienced second-story man, Filomena's window is a no-brainer. I can only repeat that your post above shows that you should not consider a career in the second-storey arts. Say all you want about what you or I or RoseM or RandyN would do....

.... the issue is what would Rudy do? For my money he first checked the front door, found it locked and then hurled a rock through Filomena's window. Unlike being on the balcony, if someone had been home inside, Rudy then had places to go in stealth. On the balcony, he did not. He had to be concerned about being seen from both inside and outside.

Apparently this IS rocket science. But someone like Rudy does not think it through, it is instinct. He knows what he can do....

The offer still stands, SH.... there's a house for sale on the street here. You are welcome to be my neighbour, I have nothing to fear from you!

Why wouldn't he just knock on the door, he knows people on both floors, the first door he comes to is upstairs, no one home, try the downstairs one around back, no one home, he is now standing right below the balcony with what amounts to a ladder right in front of him....... Bill, are you sure were no neighbours right now?

 

[Machiavelli]

Here's a tip for you Machiavelli.

It is in your interest to re-explain things. (...)

You are wasting a lot of words. In the lasts post I saw hundreds of words on the topic of my personal "interest".
That is off-topic and actually disingenuous. I only suggest you take care of your own arguments and correct them in light of reality, you commit yourself to learn - avoid repetitions: to avoid repeting mistakes and false knowledge, that's what learning is for.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Agreed, the negative TMB test, the lack of DNA, and the lack of a confirmatory test for blood should legitimately be stumbling blocks for the prosecution. On top of the that is the fact that the luminol was overapplied (leading to dilation of the image), and very few reference footprints were taken. The footprints should not be ascribed to anyone in particular.

And at the same time, you yourself are aware that they still could be blood, yet there are so many that believe because they tested negative, they definitely were not blood. Why not try to correct or educate those that have it wrong?

 

[Bill Williams]

Why wouldn't he just knock on the door, he knows people on both floors, the first door he comes to is upstairs, no one home, try the downstairs one around back, no one home, he is now standing right below the balcony with what amounts to a ladder right in front of him....... Bill, are you sure were no neighbours right now?

He probably did knock. But he's also planning a breakin to go get the rent money. Someone could be asleep, esp after the festivities of the dsy before. Indeed that is what brought Meredith home! The rock cannot be ignored he knows that.

And if we are neighbours I feel better already.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are wasting a lot of words. In the lasts post I saw hundreds of words on the topic of my personal "interest".
That is off-topic and actually disingenuous. I only suggest you take care of your own arguments and correct them in light of reality, you commit yourself to learn - avoid repetitions: to avoid repeting mistakes and false knowledge, that's what learning is for.

Suit yourself. In my view you have an interest in not reposting some of the nuttier stuff. But that may just be me.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, I have no idea what you are talking about as usual, I really could care less about your invisible footprints, they do not go back into Meredith's room so they are useless. You do not know the reason why it was not brought up during the trial and you have no answer for that, I get it.

There goes Sherlock with another stupid post that he thinks passes for argument. He's claiming ignorance and a willful desire to remain ignorant.

As for the bloody shoe print trail going back into Meredith's room, look at the progression of the trail.

 

[Grinder]

Sherlock is there a trail of Rudi's prints leading into Meredith's bedroom? According to you there is no such trail, yet we absolutely know he was in her bedroom; therefore it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rudi could enter without leaving a shoe print trail or any evidence that he walked towards the room. If he could do this once, it is absolutely proven he could do it more than once.

Where do you think that Rudi's last visible and last luminol prints are?

Why do you believe that once shoes have a substance on them, leaving a trail, those shoes will always leave a trail? Obviously you don't believe that, so you must believe that he could walk into her room a second or third time and there would be no proof of that.

The court may not have discussed this but they also didn't consider that she was just involved after the fact. If you wish to dispense with the real possibility that he returned on the basis that the court didn't discuss it, then you must give up your involvement argument based on the same thing.

If the ILE had charged her with accessory after the fact, I'm sure the point would be made that the shoe print in an awkward position to lock the door doesn't preclude that Rudi came back and locked it.

Can you prove he didn't come back? No.

 

[Skind]

Why wouldn't he just knock on the door, he knows people on both floors, the first door he comes to is upstairs, no one home, try the downstairs one around back, no one home, he is now standing right below the balcony with what amounts to a ladder right in front of him....... Bill, are you sure were no neighbours right now?

And if he went to see the boys first, then the girls last (why would he see the girls at all? He didn't 'know' them in the same way), he's a few feet from a unbarred, open shuttered window with what amounts to a ladder right below it.

And a place to pick up a rock from.
And a place to hide if someone turned out to be in.
And a place to hide if someone came to investigate the sounds of smashing glass.
And he's in a place that he has an excuse to be in if caught (hey! I came to see who smashed the window too!)
And he's in a place he can easily escape from.

None of this should have needed pointing out.

 

[NancyS]

It's one crazy assumption to assume that burglars are going to be smarter than people that stage a burglary - just google stupid burglars and you get thousands of examples of unwise decisions made during a burglary or robbery. Just check out this guy http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ed-after-using-plastic-bag-as-a-disguise.html

If I wanted to be as completely ridiculous as the above assumption, I could argue that as Amanda and Raffaele are both college educated, they would be less likely to make the less clever choice of Filomena's window over balcony - although I'm still not sure whether they are considered criminal masterminds or criminal boneheads (or does that depend on what best fits the guilty argument at the time)

I've always thought that if Amanda/Raffaele had been guilty the best way to cover their tracks would have been to come home that morning and find Meredith themselves - they could have used the excuse of checking if she was alive to cover themselves with blood and totally ruin the crime scene. It would have been far easier than all the staged burglary and selective DNA cleaning that they are accused of

I was also wondering if anyone was able to confirm what they had been wearing the day before - and if those clothes were ever tested? If these were clear, does an outfit change also need to be included in the timeline. Blood really does get everywhere, even the tiniest drop

 

[anglolawyer]

It's one crazy assumption to assume that burglars are going to be smarter than people that stage a burglary - just google stupid burglars and you get thousands of examples of unwise decisions made during a burglary or robbery. Just check out this guy http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ed-after-using-plastic-bag-as-a-disguise.html

If I wanted to be as completely ridiculous as the above assumption, I could argue that as Amanda and Raffaele are both college educated, they would be less likely to make the less clever choice of Filomena's window over balcony - although I'm still not sure whether they are considered criminal masterminds or criminal boneheads (or does that depend on what best fits the guilty argument at the time)

I've always thought that if Amanda/Raffaele had been guilty the best way to cover their tracks would have been to come home that morning and find Meredith themselves - they could have used the excuse of checking if she was alive to cover themselves with blood and totally ruin the crime scene. It would have been far easier than all the staged burglary and selective DNA cleaning that they are accused of

I was also wondering if anyone was able to confirm what they had been wearing the day before - and if those clothes were ever tested? If these were clear, does an outfit change also need to be included in the timeline. Blood really does get everywhere, even the tiniest drop

I have had the same thought. Rather than an obviously impossible clean up (deliberately leaving signs of Rudy, but then naming Lumumba so as not to implicate Rudy ) just get up to your arms in gore and rush outside freaking out and call the cops.

Also, was it smart to toss the phones without turning them both off? I mean as smart college kids, one of them technically savvy, would they not realise the phones had to be disabled? Like Hellman said (I think) just switch them off and leave them in the room or remove the batteries likewise. Don't toss them, necessitating the possibility of being seen in a funny place, and certainly don't alert the neighbourhood by calling them.

Like you say, Nancy, they were dumb, they were smart, they were dumb, etc etc