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

[Antony]

I don't actually expect him to concede this point Samson. That would mean he was intellectually honest. Something I have yet to see from the PGP.

Giving up on this fact makes the staging of the crime, more doubtful. And the staging of the crime is one of those points that they will never give in to even though it is obvious that the window was in fact not hard to climb up and through. It looks hard at first glance, but the bars on the window below makes it easy for a guy like Rudy, impossible for the average 30 35 year old with a few pounds on them. But a a skinny guy like Rudy who spends all day playing hoops, this would have been a piece of cake.

Their problem, is they need the burglary to be staged, but there really is no solid evidence that burglary was staged. The window IS EASY to climb. So like Machiavelli and Crini's absurd suggestion that the knife stain was "COMPATIBLE" with the big knife, even though that is ***** absurd, they will cling to the also ***** absurd claim that this was hard to climb. Just once I would like to read from one of those guys a little intellectual honesty. But I guess that is mutually exclusive of a guilter.

Very much so. We have Machiavelli asserting the break-in was staged, and pretty much admitting that it was not investigated because the staging was allegedly so obvious. And it must have been obvious because it was not investigated!

Of course there's evidence of staging - what? Do you mean you actually want to see it? What for? The police would never have decided so quickly that it was staged if it wasn't obvious, now would they?

 

[Supernaut]

I assume, since you're giving times in seconds, that it's a clip.

 

[Strozzi]

You are saying here Guede did not search the room and throw things about. You suggest he went straight to the bathroom. Amanda said the room was trashed. I understand you need to fit all the his necessary actions in before Meredith's return by nine.

Is there any indication that Rudy turned on the lights in Filomena's room? He might have moved through quickly in the dark. Perhaps stumbling into the table and knocking some items onto the floor before going into the sitting room. Possibly planning to come back to Filomena's room for a search after he checked out the main room and understood the general layout of the flat.

 

[Briars]

bill nothing will come of any charges against Mignini why are you asking?What do you think about your go to guy Frank for all things bad about Mignini? His own sister called police , it had nothing to do with the prosecutor. The blogger has O credibility and you rely on him to keep the fantasy going. What have you dug up on Crini?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Crini

What have you dug up on Crini?

I have a source who tells me he is a coprophile.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the bars get in the way

Look at again Supernaut right at 41 seconds. Right at the moment the POV changes from one camera to the other. You can see him grabbing on to the grate.

I agree with Supernaut. On the second go-around he does not use them, and the presence of the bars becomes a hindrance, not a help.

 

[Supernaut]

Odd.

There is, apparently, a clip on yootoob edited from the C5 doco broadcast a couple of months ago, which is being viewed by several people here.

it would appear that it omits the footage where the climber lowers himself back to shoulder-height with the window-ledge and then re-ascends, using only his fore-arms and hands on the ledge, NOT using the new bars on the window, and ends up sitting on the ledge.

Why would some-one post such an edit of this footage?

 

[Strozzi]

I have a source who tells me he is a coprophile.

Thank you for sharing, Halides1. How did I get this far in life without knowing that word???

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with Supernaut. On the second go-around he does not use them, and the presence of the bars becomes a hindrance, not a help.

I guess I'm not looking at the full documentary. I'm looking at the youtube short version.

 

[Bill Williams]

bill nothing will come of any charges against Mignini why are asking?What do you think about your go to guy Frank for all things bad about Mignini? His own sister called police , it had nothing to do with the prosecutor. The blogger has O credibility and you rely on him to keep the fantasy going. What have you dug up on Crini?

Back up Briars, back up a bit. Who said that anything "will come of the charges against Mignini"?

Please at least track the discussion. There was word on Nov 22 that Mingni was sent over for an abuse of office trial on Jan 15, 2014. Machiavelli denied this, saying that the Jan 15 thing was to be the preliminary, at which all the charges would be dropped - or words to that effect.

Then Oggi magazine reports that Jan 15 IS the trial date for abuse of office. Now you are bringing up Frank Sfarzo! What on earth does Frank Sfarzo have to do with the abuse of office charges against Mignini which relate back to the Monster of Florence case? If you didn't want to talk about that, just say so.

Once again, all you do is assert - that nothing with come of the charges against Mignini.... I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Why do you think Oggi reported otherwise?

Please at least track the conversation!

 

[acbytesla]

Thank you for sharing, Halides1. How did I get this far in life without knowing that word???

I could have gone a lifetime without knowing it. So, thanks a lot Chris....

 

[Supernaut]

I guess I'm not looking at the full documentary. I'm looking at the youtube short version.

There you go.

So let me re-iterate;

The guy DROPS BACK BELOW THE WINDOW LEDGE AFTER USING THE NEW BARS AS A HANDHOLD, AND THEN RE-ASCENDS WITHOUT USING THEM.

So now you know. OK?

 

[Bill Williams]

Briars - for your memory, here's what Oggi reported:

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.

Even Andrea Vogt suggests a verdict can come as early as that day. The use of the word "verdict" suggests that even Vogt believes that this is a trial....

 

[Briars]

Back up Briars, back up a bit. Who said that anything "will come of the charges against Mignini"?

Please at least track the discussion. There was word on Nov 22 that Mingni was sent over for an abuse of office trial on Jan 15, 2014. Machiavelli denied this, saying that the Jan 15 thing was to be the preliminary, at which all the charges would be dropped - or words to that effect.

Then Oggi magazine reports that Jan 15 IS the trial date for abuse of office. Now you are bringing up Frank Sfarzo! What on earth does Frank Sfarzo have to do with the abuse of office charges against Mignini which relate back to the Monster of Florence case? If you didn't want to talk about that, just say so.

Once again, all you do is assert - that nothing with come of the charges against Mignini.... I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Why do you think Oggi reported otherwise?

Please at least track the conversation!

Oggi is pretty well tabloid and Frank writes for them.

 

[toto]

Just rewatched it and the bars on the upper window are definitely a help.

The climber stands on the bottom of the lower window and reaches the upper window sill moves his feet to the top of the lower window and then pulls himself up using the upper window bars.

The biggest thing the video shows is that he can reach the sill from the bottom of the lower window. Assuming F lied about closing the shutters Rudy would be able to reach the sill easily and then would have needed to unlatch the window which might require some time and effort. With gloves on he would avoid cuts and if leather no much in the way of material left behind.

The climb and entry would not have been as easy as portrayed but clearly possible.

The link here shows exactly what the channel five programme put out. (I have just compared on my laptop with my sky plus recording which I still have!). I would have thought the key point was at the 1.11 moment when they describe the shutter problem and how it doesn't make a difference (they don't really highlight the bar problem but they do reference it as still being possible). The stuff that went on before is irrelevant (except as I say that it showed how easy it was to get to the lower window). We don't actually, unfortunately see the full process of the climber getting through the window for the obvious reason that he wouldn't have been allowed to! (and because of the bars). The C5 documentary would have done a favour by making sure the climber never used the bars on the top window as it was an unnecessary distraction.

 

[Supernaut]

So why does this clip exclude the recording of the climber's ability to end up sitting on the window ledge without using (in fact, despite) the new bars on the window?

Isn't that .....odd?

 

[Supernaut]

Unfortunately I recorded this (****) doco on a Sony HDD recorder (rather than on my PC), so it's locked-down copy-protected, and I can't upload the relevant footage.

 

[acbytesla]

There you go.

So let me re-iterate;

The guy DROPS BACK BELOW THE WINDOW LEDGE AFTER USING THE NEW BARS AS A HANDHOLD, AND THEN RE-ASCENDS WITHOUT USING THEM.

So now you know. OK?

This is fine Supernaut. I'm not trying to argue with you.

I have never doubted for a second that it would really be hard without the bars.

 

[Supernaut]

This is fine Supernaut. I'm not trying to argue with you.
I have never doubted for a second that it would really be hard without the bars.

I'm not here to "argue".

I just want the truth.

I assume (I hope) that better minds than mine might bequeath it to me.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't actually expect him to concede this point Samson. That would mean he was intellectually honest. Something I have yet to see from the PGP.

Giving up on this fact makes the staging of the crime, more doubtful. And the staging of the crime is one of those points that they will never give in to even though it is obvious that the window was in fact not hard to climb up and through. It looks hard at first glance, but the bars on the window below makes it easy for a guy like Rudy, impossible for the average 30 35 year old with a few pounds on them. But a a skinny guy like Rudy who spends all day playing hoops, this would have been a piece of cake.

I am 56, in good physical condition but by no means an athlete, and I have accomplished climbing feats more prodigious than that window in the past 6 months.