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

[davefoc]

Perhaps not from the car park.

vel.hor = const v {velocity of rock hitting window at apex of throw}
dist.hor = integral 0 to t ( vel.hor ) = v t

vel.vert = integral 0 to t ( g ) = g t {vertical velocity at release}
dist.vert = integral 0 to t ( vel.vert) = 1/2 g t^2


dist.hor^2/dist.vert = v^2 t^2 / (1/2 g t^2) = 2 v^2/g

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
​

This imposes a problem with tossing the rock from the car park in that it is impossible for the rock to strike the window at it’s apex. it is of course not absolutely necessary for the rock to be at the apex when it strikes the window but the horizontal velocity must be enough to carry it past the inner sill and if the rock is already on a downward trajectory at that point, this becomes more difficult.

It can also been seen that standing directly below the window doesn’t allow for there to be any horizontal velocity to the rock.

Standing on the ground 3 meters below the window and 2 meters away making a jump shot like a free throw with a release point at 2 meters above ground gives an impact velocity of:

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
= 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2 / (3 - 2) ) = ~2.25 m/s
​

From a point 1/2 m further back and 1/2 m up the slope to the car park area we get:

v = 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2.5 / (2.5 - 2) ) = ~3.5 m/s
​

I wasn't sure of the point of all this. I wasn't sure about how far the best throwing location from the car park was and I went looking but I didn't find an exact answer. The pictures make it look like maybe seven feet or so a distance that I guess more than half the under 70 male population in the world could easily throw a 9 pound rock with enough force to break a window and a distance that 100% of the male population as athletic as Guede could easily manage. As an experiment this 64 year old man picked up a 19 pound concrete block and threw it about 10 feet horizontally so that it landed on a hill at about the height that it left my hand. I think with a full out effort I could have managed more than 15 feet. I'd like to see the set up, but as I understand the relationship between the car park and the window I feel fairly comfortable that I could reliably break the window with a rock thrown from the car park.

I wonder if anybody did a careful search of the rock for signs of the paint that might have attached to it as it struck the white interior shutter where Hendry thinks it did. Hendry seems to discount the possibility that the rock hit the interior side of the exterior shutter but there is some damage there that he shows in the pictures in his article. If green pain could be found on the rock that would almost eliminate any possibility that the rock was thrown from the inside.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

 

[acbytesla]

The biggest truth is that the kids aren't killers. Whereas 911 being a false flag attack has very wide ramifications, whether there were multiple killers or only one doesn't.

The FOA and PIP have spent valuable energy trying to prove aspects of the case that didn't need to be proven to show the kids are innocent. Mentioning that other experts disagree with the multiple killer concept was fine, but in the end it doesn't matter.

The defense is not obligated nor is it their job to seek the truth certainly not to prove it. They need to show that the kids were not shown to have been part of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

Now we disagree somewhat. I think you ignore these prosecutorial assertions at one's peril. In an ideal and just world you would be right Grinder. But I don't think that is what we have in Italy.

Granted I sometimes think the prosecution is basically littering a freeway and challenging the defense to clean it all up. While I think it is imperative for the defense to argue that it isn't their responsibility to disprove every assertion the prosecution makes but to point out that the prosecution really hasn't proven any of their assertion.

Still, I think you disprove what you can and point out the absurdity of the prosecution's case. But I could be wrong...hell, we both could be wrong.

 

[Grinder]

Now we disagree somewhat. I think you ignore these prosecutorial assertions at one's peril. In an ideal and just world you would be right Grinder. But I don't think that is what we have in Italy.

Granted I sometimes think the prosecution is basically littering a freeway and challenging the defense to clean it all up. While I think it is imperative for the defense to argue that it isn't their responsibility to disprove every assertion the prosecution makes but to point out that the prosecution really hasn't proven any of their assertion.

Still, I think you disprove what you can and point out the absurdity of the prosecution's case. But I could be wrong...hell, we both could be wrong.

No we both aren't wrong .

The danger with your approach is that if you lose the argument, for example the multiple killer theory, then where are you? "The defense kept arguing that there was only one killer but we believe there were more than one, therefore their defense makes no sense, guilty" - Book of Grinder from the jury room.

As an aside saying we believe only one killer, fine. If there was a way to absolutely prove that there was only one killer then fine but that is nearly impossible to prove.

 

[Kaosium]

But regarding the Kercher case, I don't believe he was guilty of actual misconduct of any sort. I think he made numerous huge mistakes, but that's a different matter altogether.

I disagree, I believe there are definitely indications he is guilty of misconduct in this case, and just because he has not yet been held to account for it yet doesn't mean that it didn't occur. He holds a powerful position and is able to withhold or destroy evidence and as long as he continues to 'deny, deny, deny; lie, lie, lie' and keep the ones trying to bring him to justice on the defensive with attacks and misdirections while he games the system it may be that he can keep the torpid Italian court system at bay until he's retired, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty of abusing his office.

Lets start with his curious habit of filing charges/starting investigations on his detractors and/or opposing his prosecutions. He filed charges/initiated investigations on--at minimum--five Italian journalists in this case: the two from Telenorba, the two from Oggi as well as Franscesca Bene. He also filed charges/started investigations on five members of the Sollecito family and two of Amanda's parents for daring to defend their relatives/children, in the case of Amanda's parents for simply repeating what they'd been told from their own home to be published in a British publication.

At the same time ILE was seeding the media with claims of 'evidence' that Mignini must have known was entirely untrue or grossly misrepresented such as claims of having 'bleach receipts,' that there was a 'clear cut' video of Amanda entering the cottage, that the bathroom was covered in blood when Amanda showered (with pictures to 'prove' it taken by someone involved in the investigation) with no action from Mignini, showing a pattern of allowing false evidence claims from those subject to his authority but taking action against those questioning his investigation, not unlike what occurred in the Monster of Florence case.

Consider just who was actually responsible for any damage done to Patrick Lumumba. He is hauled out of his home on that 'confused' account which was most certainly retracted by the time he presents his case to Matteini due to Amanda's note to police on the seventh which he quoted from in the Massei court, if her note later on the sixth which cast serious doubt on it wasn't enough. However before Matteini there is no mention of any of that and curiously a 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed is produced which is damned odd considering it wasn't, and on the order of twenty people would soon line up to alibi him, including the Swiss professor whose alibi was not initially accepted even after the seven hour grilling he endured, though with the arrest of Rudy Guede in Germany Patrick was released, but the charges on him were not dropped until several months later.

In the meantime the fact that he was still 'under investigation' allowed his bar to continue to be closed as a 'crime scene' and of course, he was still subject to being wiretapped. I suspect that Patrick Lumumba's curious behavior and the bile and lies he's continuously spewed towards Amanda (he liked her just fine as of the day of the interrogation) in court and out may well be connected to the fact that with his bar closed his income was destroyed and with his phone records available to Mignini there is the possibility there might just be some proof of the rumors that Patrick is a bit of a horndog with the young ladies, something the mother of his child might be...non-plussed...to discover, or something else potentially embarrassing either personally or professionally.

Is coercing a witness misconduct in your eyes? Think of the advantages it offered Mignini in court and out. In court he had another voice of condemnation and another charge that could be used to indicate her guilt in the matter, now fully realized with the conviction confirmed and used in the court in Florence, not peripherally as before but as actual evidence of her being guilty of murder. Outside court his account of Amanda's behavior, fully at odds with her recollections on issues as to whether she was fired/demoted and whether she was flirting too much or not enough for his tastes as well the general character assassination of her being 'soulless' no doubt was convincing to some people regarding her being a nasty bit of goods who deserved punishment. Or as Alan Dershowitz opined, not worthy of sympathy or defense because of that 'accusation' which garners more credibility because Patrick Lumumba won't shut up about how Amanda is responsible for the 'ruining of his life' due to the two whole weeks he spent in jail despite the fact it was the police and prosecutor responsible for imprisoning him, refusing to release him long after he'd been extensively alibied and Amanda's statements had been catagorically retracted.

Considering Mignini's methods as revealed by his history of wiretapping in this case and before, is it really believable that he didn't do so with Patrick Lumumba? We know they checked the phone records as it was part of the evidence against him as per Mattenini. We also know that for some inexplicable reason his bar remained closed and the case against him wasn't officially dropped until months after they released him. We also know that those wiretapped conversations amongst the Sollecito family became public, if you'll recall that's how we heard some of Dr. Sollecitos intemperate statements such as how he felt after dealing with Monica Napoleoni (something to the effect of 'if he ran over her in a car he'd back up to make sure') and that Vanessa Sollecito said she was willing to break her finger to get leave to help her little brother.

I maintain that the statement Mignini was not guilty of misconduct in the case to be rather premature. An investigation of these and other indications would be required before I jumped to that conclusion as he had the motive, the means and the opportunity. Patrick being deprived of income and knowing Mignini had access to information that might well be highly embarrassing (and even destructive) personally is a better explanation for his conduct of selling lies to the tabloids and hiring a lawyer to punish Amanda for what the police and prosecution did to him than that he's simply incapable of understanding that Amanda never wanted him arrested and feels badly about it to this day.

Potent members of powerful institutions often can escape scrutiny for some time, however that's not any indication they're innocent, it's just yet another example of Lord Acton's axiom: 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

There's few positions nearer to being God on Earth than a prosecutor in Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmmmm OUR ? Can you elaborate who our is referring too in this post Mach ?

To us people discussing the point on forums, and extensively to all people discussing outside the court.

This means the point could be just a starting point for the defence to decide what questions to ask to Filomena.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The biggest truth is that the kids aren't killers. Whereas 911 being a false flag attack has very wide ramifications, whether there were multiple killers or only one doesn't.

The FOA and PIP have spent valuable energy trying to prove aspects of the case that didn't need to be proven to show the kids are innocent. Mentioning that other experts disagree with the multiple killer concept was fine, but in the end it doesn't matter.

The defense is not obligated nor is it their job to seek the truth certainly not to prove it. They need to show that the kids were not shown to have been part of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

That's how it should be, but that's not how it is under the rules laid out by the high court.

Look at the bra fastener as an example.

The court says the defense has to show a plausible means of contamination. Anyone can easily think of several, from inadvertent transfer on dirty gloves to deliberate tampering. The defense has video proof that the handling of the evidence was unacceptable under any published standard, and the crime scene had been hopelessly compromised by the time it was collected. But apparently that's not specific enough. In effect, the court is requiring the defense to prove something no one can ever prove, because it's too late for further investigation.

No one will ever devise an argument that convinces people who think that way. It's pointless to try. The thinking itself must be discredited, and the damage it causes must be contained.

IMO, the best way to discredit the thinking is to point out the truth of what happened, which the court simply ignores.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - is Oggi magazine a bunch of criminals too?

This from Oggi:

This coming 15th January Giuliano Mignini goes on trial in Turin, with the ex-commissioner of police Michele Giuttari, for a series of crimes among which one that sticks out is abuse of office during the inquest into the death of the Perugian doctor Francesco Narducci, linked to the Monster of Florence case. An inquest contained in a good 100 folders, lasting for years, with 22 people implicated among whom was a superintendant, a colonel in the police, several noted lawyers and the then arrested journalist Mario Spezi. They were all absolved by the Judge of First Instance and by the Supreme Court. For this investigation in 2010 Mignini and Giuttari at Florence were condemned to one year and four months and a year and six months imprisonment (respectively), then the Appeal Court annulled the conviction for reasons of territorial incompetence. Thus the trial was transferred to Turin.

Even Giuliano Mignini, when we asked him how he was going to defend himself, was a bit terse and cryptic: ‘ I have no comment to make. Talk to someone who knows the story’. We wanted to ask if he, a magistrate, would waive the limitation period provided for in the first months of 2014, but could not do so.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's very interesting Machiavelli - the problem you have is that the break-in was not staged. All the so-called "evidence" claimed to suggest it was, was made up by the police and the others after the fact, basically on the reasoning "the evidence in the flat doesn't match our narrative of the crime, therefore our culprits must have staged the crime scene to mislead the investigation."

Actually it's quite the contrary; the perception that the break in was staged preceeded all narrative about the crime. Actually it even preceeded the discovery of the body. Battistelli and Marzi suspected it was staged even before they discovered the murder.

Where are the photographs showing the pattern of glass fragments didn't result from the rock being thrown through the window?

Where are the photographs showing no glass on the ground outside?

Where are the photographs showing no glass under the clothes? Even if there were, where is the proof that the clothes were not on the floor before the murder?

I won't discuss the evidence of staging, because that would the opening of a further chapter of discussion and would take too long, so that in the end I won't be able to answer to anybody.

Very synthetically, I say the staging is evident because of a set of elements which occur all at the same time 1. the window is an illogical point of entry (you can deny this, but you won't change this); simply statistically, thieves chose the easiest or safest way in; 2. there is no soil in Filomena's room; 3. there is no grass in Filomena's room; 4. drawers were not searched; 5. the tossing of clothes from the wardrobe is nonsensical for a thief, that's no thief activity, first place is always drawers of all rooms; 6. no valuable item was taken; 7. money in Knox's room was not taken; 8. other rooms were not searched; 9. the window shutters were left closed by Filomena, albeit not locked; that further complicates the illogical entry, requires to climb twice, and then, subsequently, the shutters were found half open (they would be open if the thief entrerd thought there; they would be closed if the thief wanted to shut them: it makes no sense for a thief to leave one shutter half open, only a forgetful stager could do that); 10. the rock bowled on a paper bag ripping it, and the ripped paper below the rock has fallen on top of a cloth that allegedly would have been tossed there by the burglar; 11. the glass shards on the sill were not touched; any thief balancing there or holding there would tend to remove them or disturb them; 12. no DNA from epithelial cell found on the sill or on the window frame; 13. large crumble of white paint from the window inner shutter fallen on clothes strewn on the floor; 14. the rest of evidence pointing in the same direction (mixed DNA vitcim + Knox in Filomena's room on luminol stains), no glass outside, no footprints on soil/grass beneath, testimonies of police, lack of relation between burglary and the kind of murder (rape and extreme violence) etc.

Doesn't it occur to you that a broken window and traces in the murder room (not "discovered" 6 weeks later) belonging just to one person show exactly what they seem to show: a murder committed by a lone intruder?

Actually all evidence found shows multiple perpetrators.

It's no good claiming that the window was "illogical" for a burglar to choose - it was inconspicuous, in shadow, and an old single-pane window with a faulty shutter; it was also provably easy for a petty thief like Guede to climb up and get in very quickly. All the assertions that it was visible from the street, illuminated and impossible to climb are outright lies.

Their denial is an outright lie. The window was simply the worse possible choice for a burglar. This is also obvious by the way in that all real break ins occurred through the back windows on the balcony (extremely easy way in).

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - is Oggi magazine a bunch of criminals too?

(...)

Well, let's say they are the friends of Spezi.
Brindani, Sulas etc.

 

[acbytesla]

No we both aren't wrong .

The danger with your approach is that if you lose the argument, for example the multiple killer theory, then where are you? "The defense kept arguing that there was only one killer but we believe there were more than one, therefore their defense makes no sense, guilty" - Book of Grinder from the jury room.

As an aside saying we believe only one killer, fine. If there was a way to absolutely prove that there was only one killer then fine but that is nearly impossible to prove.

Well, you misunderstand me Grinder. I don't think you argue just that there was only one killer. I think you argue that while the evidence really points to only one killer. no one from the prosecution really has proven that there were multiple killers, But regardless whether there was one or 5 killers, there is little, actually no reason to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were Rudy's possible accomplices. They didn't know him. No calls, no texts, no emails, ever. No way to communicate with each other and they had little in common and really didn't travel in the same circles. Amanda as you had pointed out met Rudy for the first time two weeks before and barely said two sentences to each other. Raffaele who had lived in Perugia for a few years, was not proven that he ever even met Rudy despite living a few blocks from each other.

I think you point out that the multiple killer assertions is like everything about the prosecution's case is unproven. That it is just another silly and unproven assertion.

 

[Kaosium]

Why is this not the definitive word on this issue?

What is the argument here? Knox feigned concern by calling everybody that she could think of to ask about Kercher and after that, she asked Sollecito to call the police, but when the police get there she tells a lie about Kercher locking her door so the police will go away? And what was supposed to be her plan after that? Were she and Sollecito going to bury Kercher in the garden after the police left? One would have thought this strategy must have been a tad worrisome to Sollecito who allegedly has just committed a murder and his girl friend is having him call the police to investigate the murder they allegedly have just committed.

I think we need, devil's advocate Grinder to step forth and explain why this isn't a contender for craziest guilter theory yet. Is there the slightest element of logic in this theory? Maybe I haven't understood it?

It's merely the remnants of the corpse of the presumption the police and prosecution made that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the postal police got there, and the necessity of Mignini to rewrite the narrative because the honest version is indicative of innocence. Thus Amanda's comment merely offering information she thought was true (and was probably more accurate than Filomena's statement) is taken out of the context of everything else they did to raise the alarm and reinterpreted to mean she was trying to keep the murder from being discovered just yet (or whatever).

With the 'evidence' of Raffaele calling the Carabinieri after the postal police arrived being disproven, the rest of this narrative staggers about like a chicken with it's head cut off, spurting out evidence to the cogent of the irrationality or dishonesty of the man who proposed it.

 

[acbytesla]

Absolutely excellent analysis Kaosium on Mignini. Articulate and thorough.

 

[Machiavelli]

Whether you are absolutely correct or not, my point is that multiple attackers in and of itself means as close to nothing about the kids being involved as possible.

Rather than arguing the details of the autopsy I prefer to argue the foundation of the contention.

This case is filled with arguments against the kids that have no weight not because the basic fact may wrong, but because the conclusion that the fact implicates the kids isn't correct.

If the bath mat print did look more like Raf's than Rudy's that isn't enough, it must match Raf.

If the burglary was staged it must be proven that they staged it.

If there were more than one killer, they must prove that it was them.

If the luminol prints were left that night they must prove that it was Amanda's foot not just compatible.

The defense has spent too much time arguing against such things as multiple killers and not enough time at saying "so what if there were" it wasn't these two and you have no proof.

The problem is that this logical argument is incorrect from its foundation.

And this is why the defence - rightly so, from a defensive point of view - argued in attempt to actually reverse the findings on single points.

The evidence set must be assessed as a whole, after each piece has been weighted.

Each pice may be not certain, but if they are convergent and if their whole weight is serious enough when taken altogether, then you will have a conclusion beyond rasonable doubt.

These pieces of evidence are very serious. Evidence of multiple perpetrators for example is a very serious piece of evidence. If you assume multiple perpetrators, you need to locate their actions and traces on the murder scene, like why did they leave an isolated bloody print on a wet bathmat, what was the dynamic and motive, etc.

 

[Kaosium]

Their denial is an outright lie. The window was simply the worse possible choice for a burglar. This is also obvious by the way in that all real break ins occurred through the back windows on the balcony (extremely easy way in).

Compared to Meredith's window? Please! Take a look at it, that one would be tough to get into. Filomena's had the bars in the window below as a ladder and has now been proven by both a lawyer and an athletic young man as being a very simple and quick assent.

Filomena's window now having bars on it is proof that the owner of the building doesn't believe this nonsense.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's merely the remnants of the corpse of the presumption the police and prosecution made that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the postal police got there, and the necessity of Mignini to rewrite the narrative because the honest version is indicative of innocence. Thus Amanda's comment merely offering information she thought was true (and was probably more accurate than Filomena's statement) is taken out of the context of everything else they did to raise the alarm and reinterpreted to mean she was trying to keep the murder from being discovered just yet (or whatever). (...)

Amanda did not just "offer information", she also failed to express any urgency to enter Meredith's room.

This makes her version inconsistent, because it conflicts with her e-mail narrative, and because it conflicts with the element of having attempted to break down the door as AK and RS motivated it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Compared to Meredith's window? Please! Take a look at it, that one would be tough to get into. Filomena's had the bars in the window below as a ladder and has now been proven by both a lawyer and an athletic young man as being a very simple and quick assent.

Look, I did not even consider Meredith's window for obvious reasons; in fact the only possible worse choices were Meredith's window or the bathroom roof window, but I admit that I never even considered them as viable options for a burglar. If you are saying they are the only worse alternatives, then you are confirming what I'm sayng.

 

[Kaosium]

Absolutely excellent analysis Kaosium on Mignini. Articulate and thorough.

Thanks for the complement but it was neither, in part because it made me sick at heart to have to write it and because I could only cover two instances as it was too damn long already.

In writing it I was reminded me of a post I saw a while back, someone said something to the effect that they wouldn't have any problem with being prosecuted by Mignini. That would mean they wouldn't mind be thrown into solitary confinement on entirely specious evidence and absurd speculations while the police seeded the press with outright lies and distortions of the evidence and the prosecutor filed charges on their family and supporters while wiretapping them and leaking embarrassing excerpts from them. Then prosecuted the real perpetrator and failing to appeal the mitigations that could be, while appealing the guilty verdict mitigations against them on the basis of 'evidence' like Daily Mail articles.

That's even before you get to things like producing bogus evidence in court because they fought tooth and nail to prevent anyone from accessing the necessary information to contest it which ought to be a regular part of the disclosure process.

Just because Peter Quenell and his minions say something doesn't mean it's true, and the ones that are true generally are only part of the story or amount to non sequiturs. Just because Mignini has gotten away with it so far doesn't mean it's permissible conduct, it's just a better indication just how untouchable prosecutors in Italy are. For crissakes I read somewhere that a court accepted that there was a double body swap in the Narducci case, to some that means it must have happened, to others it's just another indication of just how easy it is to get nonsense confirmed by the Italian system!

 

[acbytesla]

I won't discuss the evidence of staging, because that would the opening of a further chapter of discussion and would take too long, so that in the end I won't be able to answer to anybody.

Very synthetically, I say the staging is evident because of a set of elements which occur all at the same time 1. the window is an illogical point of entry (you can deny this, but you won't change this); simply statistically, thieves chose the easiest or safest way in; 2. there is no soil in Filomena's room; 3. there is no grass in Filomena's room; 4. drawers were not searched; 5. the tossing of clothes from the wardrobe is nonsensical for a thief, that's no thief activity, first place is always drawers of all rooms; 6. no valuable item was taken; 7. money in Knox's room was not taken; 8. other rooms were not searched; 9. the window shutters were left closed by Filomena, albeit not locked; that further complicates the illogical entry, requires to climb twice, and then, subsequently, the shutters were found half open (they would be open if the thief entrerd thought there; they would be closed if the thief wanted to shut them: it makes no sense for a thief to leave one shutter half open, only a forgetful stager could do that); 10. the rock bowled on a paper bag ripping it, and the ripped paper below the rock has fallen on top of a cloth that allegedly would have been tossed there by the burglar; 11. the glass shards on the sill were not touched; any thief balancing there or holding there would tend to remove them or disturb them; 12. no DNA from epithelial cell found on the sill or on the window frame; 13. large crumble of white paint from the window inner shutter fallen on clothes strewn on the floor; 14. the rest of evidence pointing in the same direction (mixed DNA vitcim + Knox in Filomena's room on luminol stains), no glass outside, no footprints on soil/grass beneath, testimonies of police, lack of relation between burglary and the kind of murder (rape and extreme violence) etc.

LMAO. You make these blanket statement with no proof, no fact, just nonsense logic.

1. That window was an extremely easy entry point for someone like Rudy. Granted fat old guys like Mignni couldn't have done it, but it's clear that it would have been very very easy for Rudy. To think that he might use another point of entry because it might be slightly easier to enter is silly. Easy is easy. And if you saw the channel 5 documentary you would know that entering through that window was in fact very easy.
2. there is no soil in Meredith's room? This is the first time I have heard this assertion. How much soil do you think is necessary? People had walked through that room from outside the parking lot. Did the Scientific police collect all the soil on the floor and determine there was zero soil on the floor? I think you are as always making this up. Consider the following. Would there be any more or less transfer of soil and grass from outside if Amanda and Raffaele and Filomena had walked into Filomena's room from the parking lot than Rudy climbing the wall? The answer is no.
3. We actually don't know if there was any glass down below and actual recreations of window breaking show that a rock thrown from outside would result in most if not all the glass falling inwards.

I notice you point out that they didn't find any of Rudy's DNA on the window sill. And would there have been if Rudy was wearing gloves? The answer is no.

Actually all evidence found shows multiple perpetrators.

In fact experts like John Douglass who knows more about violent crimes than you and I will ever know...says it doesn't. Most of the experts on this case said it could have easily have been one person.

Their denial is an outright lie. The window was simply the worse possible choice for a burglar. This is also obvious by the way in that all real break ins occurred through the back windows on the balcony (extremely easy way in).

Another moronic and unproven assertion.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for the complement but it was neither, in part because it made me sick at heart to have to write it and because I could only cover two instances as it was too damn long already.

In writing it I was reminded me of a post I saw a while back, someone said something to the effect that they wouldn't have any problem with being prosecuted by Mignini. That would mean they wouldn't mind be thrown into solitary confinement on entirely specious evidence and absurd speculations while the police seeded the press with outright lies and distortions of the evidence and the prosecutor filed charges on their family and supporters while wiretapping them and leaking embarrassing excerpts from them. Then prosecuted the real perpetrator and failing to appeal the mitigations that could be, while appealing the guilty verdict mitigations against them on the basis of 'evidence' like Daily Mail articles.

That's even before you get to things like producing bogus evidence in court because they fought tooth and nail to prevent anyone from accessing the necessary information to contest it which ought to be a regular part of the disclosure process.

Just because Peter Quenell and his minions say something doesn't mean it's true, and the ones that are true generally are only part of the story or amount to non sequiturs. Just because Mignini has gotten away with it so far doesn't mean it's permissible conduct, it's just a better indication just how untouchable prosecutors in Italy are. For crissakes I read somewhere that a court accepted that there was a double body swap in the Narducci case, to some that means it must have happened, to others it's just another indication of just how easy it is to get nonsense confirmed by the Italian system!

Well it was articulate. Granted, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. You didn't even begin to address his crimes in the MOF case. But that is understandable. He has committed plenty in this case.

 

[Kaosium]

Amanda did not just "offer information", she also failed to express any urgency to enter Meredith's room.

This makes her version inconsistent, because it conflicts with her e-mail narrative, and because it conflicts with the element of having attempted to break down the door as AK and RS motivated it.

No, it isn't. It's a statement taken out of it's context that has been assigned a meaning inconsistant with that context. That's why it conflicts, because it has been formulated that way. That's not Amanda's fault, it the error of the ones who do that.

Did it have any effect whatsoever on the door being broken down? No, it did not nor is there any reason to think it would have. Even if Meredith did lock her door sometimes, it doesn't suggest that her door being locked with all the other indications Amanda and Raffaele brought to the attention of everyone is reason to not break down that door.