• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really, then it must be true, didn't she also say she pulled the outside shutters close as well?

In her second interview. The present wrapping was witnessed as well as her being in a hurry while no one witnessed the shutters being closed.

I think Mignini led her into that statement.

She also asked Amanda not to mention the pot smoking in the house.
 
In her second interview. The present wrapping was witnessed as well as her being in a hurry while no one witnessed the shutters being closed.

I think Mignini led her into that statement.

She also asked Amanda not to mention the pot smoking in the house.

Mignini asked her to lie and she did? Why?
 
Really, then it must be true, didn't she also say she pulled the outside shutters close as well?

Others have answered this already but it doesn't hurt to say it one more time - Filomena once said she closed them but later she recanted and said she doesn't remember doing it.
 
Others have answered this already but it doesn't hurt to say it one more time - Filomena once said she closed them but later she recanted and said she doesn't remember doing it.

Recanted, I haven't heard that one before, can you show me where this is stated?
 
Mignini asked her to lie and she did? Why?

Not what I said. The PLE had the staged break-in theory from very early on. Mignini has embraced it from the beginning and having the shutters closed would make that window less likely to be selected.

In good faith Mignini pursuing his theory could have led Filomena to be more sure that she had closed the shutters.

I remember the story evolving into being sure that she closed them. I don't think when hurrying along shutters that don't even work right would be a priority. JMO.
 
This is the point where the great detective Sherlock Holmes would show us the elementary evidence of how Rudy had entered the cottage that evening.

Unfortunately, all we have is an impostor using the name.
 
This is the point where the great detective Sherlock Holmes would show us the elementary evidence of how Rudy had entered the cottage that evening.

Unfortunately, all we have is an impostor using the name.

Dan O, you seem to have a problem with me for some reason, would it help if I apologized for owning you in every conversation we have ever had and offer to start over. All I want to do is discuss this murder, not argue it.
 
Really, then it must be true, didn't she also say she pulled the outside shutters close as well?

The guy in the Ch5 vid casually closed and opened the shutters while standing on the grate below.

Hence Filomena's testimony is completely moot.
 
The Micheli Report said:
Heard in person by the prosecutor about the state of his room the evening of November 1, R. suggested that there were certainly valuable items, including a laptop, a pair of sunglasses and some gold jewelry, stored in a drawer: a look superficial, it seemed that nothing was missing, except maybe some articles maquillage. As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. His memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but from your boyfriend had passed from there and reached the A. celebrating a birthday), but had then departed in a hurry because it was already late.

Doth this jog the detectives memory?
 
Last edited:
Dan O, you seem to have a problem with me for some reason, would it help if I apologized for owning you in every conversation we have ever had and offer to start over. All I want to do is discuss this murder, not argue it.

Talk about being unaware of your own limitations.
 
Dan O, you seem to have a problem with me for some reason, would it help if I apologized for owning you in every conversation we have ever had and offer to start over. All I want to do is discuss this murder, not argue it.


If by "owning" you mean bailing out whenever the evidence turned against you, yes you are quite right and your apology and start over will be accepted.

The simple path to discuss the case as opposed to arguing is to leave personal opinion out and dispel myth with evidence.
 
:)
If by "owning" you mean bailing out whenever the evidence turned against you, yes you are quite right and your apology and start over will be accepted.

The simple path to discuss the case as opposed to arguing is to leave personal opinion out and dispel myth with evidence.

:). I'll be nice. I was under the impression that there was 'no evidence' from a PIP perspective, this whole case is opinion and myth, take that away and you may as well close the thread.
 
More from the ditz Barbie:

Because this is a civil case, there is no legal reason to deny extradition if it is requested, but Knox’s lawyers would surely fight to keep her in the United States if she is ultimately convicted, perhaps trying to reach an agreement with Italy that she could serve any eventual sentence for the murder in an American jail.

That is embarrassing. It's a criminal trial.

But you can bet she will be a far more present entity in the coverage of this appellate trial than any of her previous cases because she can defend herself in the court of public opinion.

Her previous cases?
 
More from the ditz Barbie:

Because this is a civil case, there is no legal reason to deny extradition if it is requested, but Knox’s lawyers would surely fight to keep her in the United States if she is ultimately convicted, perhaps trying to reach an agreement with Italy that she could serve any eventual sentence for the murder in an American jail.

That is embarrassing. It's a criminal trial.

But you can bet she will be a far more present entity in the coverage of this appellate trial than any of her previous cases because she can defend herself in the court of public opinion.

Her previous cases?

Yes, I read that at PMF, the strange thing here though, now both sides, PIP and PGP, have no faith in her anymore, what happened?
 
Even if it wasn't closed all the way he wouldn't known it wasn't secured. If the shutters were shut no burglar would have picked that window. Also, no stager would have picked that window. The shutters were open, period.

It is not a short step no matter how often and for how long you maintain it. I think you are overstating his expertise and he would know if the latch had been jerry-rigged.
With all due respect Grinder, The shutters even latched do not present that much of an obstacle. Your assuming that Rudy has no tools like a small pinch bar, a screw driver with a long handle, even a slim jim for getting into a car could be used to unlatched some shutters. What's more, I'm sure the shutters that they could easily be ripped from their hinges.

I have no idea how professional Rudy is at breaking into homes. There is no way to make for us to make that judgement. That said, Rudy was lithe and strong. You simply cannot make the judgement that if the the shutters were closed a burglar wouldn't have still chosen that window as a point of entry.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I read that at PMF, the strange thing here though, now both sides, PIP and PGP, have no faith in her anymore, what happened?

PIP never liked her "reporting" as she was an early adopter of "Foxy Knoxy" and other pejorative descriptions. She did a bad job of reporting and along with CD was first to publish.

The PGP loved her until she started not being pure PG. They don't appreciate any questioning about guilt. It could also be that her lack of education makes it harder to criticize CD while supporting barbie.

The SBS Dateline show made her look like an alcohol fueled ditz.
 
No he could reach from the porch. That requires reaching the shutter edge not just the edge of the window frame. You're just wrong about that distance.

But he would have to because you are wrong about the reach to the window. If it was sooooo easy why didn't they have the climber just step over?

On that you are correct and he was able to get Filomena to remember that she had closed the shutters which in her hurry to get out of the cottage she didn't do.

It would be very difficult to spring up as the climber did if there were closed shutters. He springs up and grabs the bars because one can't just walk up the lower window grate easily.

It is not a short step no matter how often and for how long you maintain it. I think you are overstating his expertise and he would know if the latch had been jerry-rigged.

With all due respect Grinder, The shutters even latched do not present that much of an obstacle. Your assuming that Rudy has no tools like a small pinch bar, a screw driver with a long handle, even a slim jim for getting into a car could be used to unlatched some shutters. What's more, I sure that they could easily be ripped from their hinges.

I have no idea how professional Rudy is at breaking into homes. There is no way to make for us to make that judgement. That said, Rudy was lithe and strong. You simply cannot make the judgement that if the the shutters were closed a burglar wouldn't have still chosen that window as a point of entry.

Impossible to understand your post as formatted.

If you insist on calling me wrong please provide proof. Show a picture of someone reaching the closed shutter from the porch. The defense were at the cottage and could have shown how easy it would have been but didn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom