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

[Briars]

This is how this story goes. The PGP throw out reason and intellectual honesty to come up with their predetermined bias that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Machiavelli and Crini now actually claiming that the knife stain matches the large kitchen knife. Not one scientist* in a thousand would agree with this absurdity.

*(not on the payroll. I've noticed with global warming that many will go against reality if the oil companies will pay them enough)

Briars insistence that no way would they break in through that window because it is too exposed is another. Massei's claim that Rudy would have had to go up and down 3 times is of course more of the same. Not only wouldn't it be necessary, but the idea that 3 up and downs is a deal breaker is absurd.

While I wouldn't agree with the conclusion, I just wish they would be more honest. No Curatolo and Nara are not credible and the climb is not prohibitive. But Amanda said she was there and they can't get past that.

At least that would be intellectually honest.[/
Honestly, how about using a little logic. The location was a poor choice visible and illuminated somewhat from the car park. Supernaut brings up another point the glass pieces were "soldiered "on the outside ledge. You imagine Guede took the time to carefully remove and line up the glass.Nonsense if you have ever replaced a broken window you would know that old paint makes the task of removing glass from the casement difficult. People often use pliers. The prosecution believe the shutters were shut when the rock was thrown from the inside, the pieces of glass stopped by the shutter fell in a line on the outer sill. It is for this reason than none fell to the ground under the window.

 

[LondonJohn]

Briars: please could you attempt to reformat your post(s) more legibly, using the "quote" tags as appropriate. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to even follow your arguments, let alone address them. Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

Honestly, how about using a little logic. The location was a poor choice visible and illuminated somewhat from the car park. Supernaut brings up another point the glass pieces were "soldiered "on the outside ledge. You imagine Guede took the time to carefully remove and line up the glass.Nonsense if you have ever replaced a broken window you would know that old paint makes the task of removing glass from the casement difficult. People often use pliers. The prosecution believe the shutters were shut when the rock was thrown from the inside, the pieces of glass stopped by the shutter fell in a line on the outer sill. It is for this reason than none fell to the ground under the window.

You can't be serious Briars. It matters little that it might be exposed to the world. It doesn't take that long for Rudy to climb up and through the window. Anyone passing by in a car is NEVER going to notice. Yes, if you are looking out the window and down at that precise moment. at the window, you could probably notice from a dozen apartments. The same goes for being on the upper parking lot. Even if you heard the glass break, there is the challenge of locating the sound and then determining that something is afoul. Rudy breaks the window, then waits a couple of minutes and then climbs up and in.

People don't notice what is happening ten feet in front of them. There is no problem climbing up and through that window at 9:00 PM on a cold November night without being noticed from a few hundred feet. NONE at all. And it is silly to suggest that it is.

 

[Briars]

You can't be serious Briars. It matters little that it might be exposed to the world. It doesn't take that long for Rudy to climb up and through the window. Anyone passing by in a car is NEVER going to notice. Yes, if you are looking out the window and down at the window, you could probably notice from a dozen apartments. But you would have to be doing that at that precise moment. The same goes for being on the upper parking lot. Even if you heard the glass break, there is the challenge of locating the sound and then determining that something is afoul. Rudy breaks the window, then waits a couple of minutes and then climbs up and in.

People don't notice what is happening ten feet in front of them. There is no problem climbing up and through that window at 9:00 PM on a cold November night without being noticed from a few hundred feet. NONE at all. And it is silly to suggest that it is.

You avoided the topic of how he managed to pick the glass out of the shutter casement. Old swollen shutters that had layers of paint making glass removal difficult. It's not just the climb but all the other activities that went with it. Activities that would take time and increased the likelihood of being spotted. Maybe he needed the light from the car park see what he was doing and that helped him to arrange the glass so neatly?

 

[acbytesla]

You avoided the topic of how he managed to pick the glass out of the shutter casement. Old swollen shutters that had layers of paint making glass removal difficult. It's not just the climb but all the other activities that went with it. Activities that would take time and increased the likelihood of being spotted. Maybe he needed the light from the car park see what he was doing and that helped him to arrange the glass so neatly?

How would you know? I've glazed lots of windows. If a window is broke, it is usually very easy to pull the glass out. But unless you are doing it on that particular window, there is no way to know. The paint on the surface of the window makes little difference. Old swollen windows that have gone through many seasons expanding and contracting with the heat and cold are very often the easiest kind of window to pull the glass out.

But as I said before, there is no way to know unless you were doing it on that particular window at that moment. You are just speculating.... Which is nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Honestly, how about using a little logic. The location was a poor choice visible and illuminated somewhat from the car park. Supernaut brings up another point the glass pieces were "soldiered "on the outside ledge. You imagine Guede took the time to carefully remove and line up the glass.Nonsense if you have ever replaced a broken window you would know that old paint makes the task of removing glass from the casement difficult. People often use pliers. The prosecution believe the shutters were shut when the rock was thrown from the inside, the pieces of glass stopped by the shutter fell in a line on the outer sill. It is for this reason than none fell to the ground under the window.

You mean as opposed to the deck which is fully exposed to the road and lit by a street lamp?

It's not a matter of using a "little logic".... it's a matter that the climb in is fully doable as Channel 5 demonstrated, and the area below the window is completely secluded.

Breaking in is ALWAYS risky business... but any experienced burglar, which Rudy was, would not have thought much about going in through Filomena's window, exactly as he did. He doesn't overthink it, he just does it. Posters here make it sound like a Harvard Ph.D. paper is needed before attempting it.... sheesh.

You also mention that the "prosecution believes". I am glad you put it that way. The current prosecution also believes that Raffaele's kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet outline of the real murder weapon. To me, this is a de facto admission that Crini has given up on using D.N.A. to convict AK and RS.

Then again, I suppose they can simply assert other things, without proving them either.

The prosecution in Italy seems to enjoy a privileged status, at least acc. to you. If they believe it, then it must be true.

 

[Briars]

You mean as opposed to the deck which is fully exposed to the road and lit by a street lamp?

It's not a matter of using a "little logic".... it's a matter that the climb in is fully doable as Channel 5 demonstrated, and the area below the window is completely secluded.

Breaking in is ALWAYS risky business... but any experienced burglar, which Rudy was, would not have thought much about going in through Filomena's window, exactly as he did. He doesn't overthink it, he just does it. Posters here make it sound like a Harvard Ph.D. paper is needed before attempting it.... sheesh.

You also mention that the "prosecution believes". I am glad you put it that way. The current prosecution also believes that Raffaele's kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet outline of the real murder weapon. To me, this is a de facto admission that Crini has given up on using D.N.A. to convict AK and RS.

Then again, I suppose they can simply assert other things, without proving them either.

The prosecution in Italy seems to enjoy a privileged status, at least acc. to you. If they believe it, then it must be true.

Have you ever replaced a broken pane of glass? Can you comment on the challenging factors of old paint that holds like glue and exposed swollen wood?

 

[Supernaut]

Honestly, how about using a little logic. The location was a poor choice visible and illuminated somewhat from the car park. Supernaut brings up another point the glass pieces were "soldiered "on the outside ledge. You imagine Guede took the time to carefully remove and line up the glass.Nonsense if you have ever replaced a broken window you would know that old paint makes the task of removing glass from the casement difficult. People often use pliers. The prosecution believe the shutters were shut when the rock was thrown from the inside, the pieces of glass stopped by the shutter fell in a line on the outer sill. It is for this reason than none fell to the ground under the window.

BTW, Briars, I meant to ask you something;

When you stated that;

"... No one has demonstrated how anyone could get in through the broken broken glass opening without leaving a fibre or speck of dirt anywhere",

I assumed you were being, erm, disingenuous, and attempting to maintain the pro-prosecution pretence that anything about the break-in is difficult or "unlikely".

I mean, it's pretty obvious that in most B&E's in which a pane of glass is broken, it's done in order to allow the intruder to reach in and open that window or door. Most people are aware of this.

Could it be that you actually believed what you wrote, and that you're simply not very bright?

Even if so, you're posting fairly prolifically on this thread, implying familiarity with the case, so it would be extraordinary if you weren't aware of such basic matters-of-fact (i.e. evidence).

 

[Briars]

How would you know? I've glazed lots of windows. If a window is broke, it is usually very easy to pull the glass out. But unless you are doing it on that particular window, there is no way to know. The paint on the surface of the window makes little difference. Old swollen windows that have gone through many seasons expanding and contracting with the heat and cold are very often the easiest kind of window to pull the glass out.

But as I said before, there is no way to know unless you were doing it on that particular window at that moment. You are just speculating.... Which is nonsense.

The glass stood like puzzle pieces lined up like a ruler or closed shutter stopped them You speculate that Guede had such and easy time and didn't encounter the usual problem of old paint.


Was he reaching up and yanking them out blindly before lining them up. Why so straight when he was lower and couldn't see?

 

[Briars]

BTW, Briars, I meant to ask you something;

When you stated that "... No one has demonstrated how anyone could get in through the broken broken glass opening without leaving a fibre or speck of dirt anywhere", I assumed you were being, erm, disingenuous, and attempting to maintain the pro-prosecution pretence that anything about the break-in is difficult or "unlikely".

I mean, it's pretty obvious that in most B&E's in which a pane of glass is broken, it's done in order to allow the intruder to reach in and open that window or door. Most people are aware of this.

Could it be that you actually believed what you wrote, and that you're simply not very bright?

Even if so, you're posting fairly prolifically on this thread, implying familiarity with the case, so it would be extraordinary if you weren't aware of such basic matters-of-fact (i.e. evidence).

Do most intruders worry that they haven't left a shred of outside debris in the room . Do they have to worry that the glass pattern of the break-in looks like an inside job? Have you not understood that while trying to recreate a typical break they look like amateur stagers? Are you bright?

 

[Supernaut]

The glass stood like puzzle pieces lined up like a ruler or closed shutter stopped them You speculate that Guede had such and easy time and didn't encounter the usual problem of old paint.


Was he reaching up and yanking them out blindly before lining them up. Why so straight when he was lower and couldn't see?

First off;

ACBT remarked that he's re-glazed windows before, and so have I, but you manifestly haven't; it's VERY easy to pull large glass shards out of old putty/paint.

And something else to be aware of is that in the break-in from which a laptop was found in Guede's possession, glass from the broken window used to gain entry was also carefully 'soldiered' on a handy surface - a desk by the window.

 

[Supernaut]

Do most intruders worry that they haven't left a shred of outside debris in the room . Do they have to worry that the glass pattern of the break-in looks like an inside job? Have you not understood that while trying to recreate a typical break they look like amateur stagers? Are you bright?

As I expected, this is almost impossible to parse/understand.

Try again?

 

[acbytesla]

The glass stood like puzzle pieces lined up like a ruler or closed shutter stopped them You speculate that Guede had such and easy time and didn't encounter the usual problem of old paint.


Was he reaching up and yanking them out blindly before lining them up. Why so straight when he was lower and couldn't see?

But then again, would Amanda and Raffaele have done that while "staging" the crime either? Of course not. Why would it have been ridiculous for Rudy and reasonable for Amanda and Raffaele

The answer is they wouldn't have either. In fact it is far more likely that Rudy did it subconsciously while standing on that grate while his face was inches from the sill.

 

[acbytesla]

Do most intruders worry that they haven't left a shred of outside debris in the room . Do they have to worry that the glass pattern of the break-in looks like an inside job? Have you not understood that while trying to recreate a typical break they look like amateur stagers? Are you bright?

How do you really know that there wasn't any glass below? Are there inch by inch photos of the area below? No. Tiny pieces of glass can easily go unnoticed in that environment. The area is grass and there is still no reason to think that 95 plus percentage of the glass falling into the room is strange. I've seen the work that Ron Hendry as well as channel 5 and both found nothing strange about the glass being inside the room.

 

[Briars]

First off;

ACBT remarked that he's re-glazed windows before, and so have I, but you manifestly haven't; it's VERY easy to pull large glass shards out of old putty/paint.

And something else to be aware of is that in the break-in from which a laptop was found in Guede's possession, glass from the broken window used to gain entry was also carefully 'soldiered' on a handy surface - a desk by the window.

Can you post a link to the glass "soldiered" at the lawyers thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Honestly, how about using a little logic. The location was a poor choice visible and illuminated somewhat from the car park. Supernaut brings up another point the glass pieces were "soldiered "on the outside ledge. You imagine Guede took the time to carefully remove and line up the glass.Nonsense if you have ever replaced a broken window you would know that old paint makes the task of removing glass from the casement difficult. People often use pliers. The prosecution believe the shutters were shut when the rock was thrown from the inside, the pieces of glass stopped by the shutter fell in a line on the outer sill. It is for this reason than none fell to the ground under the window.

Briars if the prosecution jumped off a cliff would you follow them?

If the nine pound rock was thrown from the inside the outside shutters would have flown open and glass would have been found outside which it wasn't. The PLE may have done a sloppy job looking for it but I accept that not a lot was out there. Do you have pictures of the damage done to the inside of the outside shutters?

If the rock was thrown from the inside with the window and shutters open the glass wouldn't have ended up on the sill but on the floor.

I use gloved hands to remove old glass.

My guess is that the glass on the sill was lined up when the shutters were pulled shut after entry.

 

[Supernaut]

Can you post a link to the glass "soldiered" at the lawyers thanks.

KMA - unless you start doing the same (making some sense and providing cites).

 

[acbytesla]

Can you post a link to the glass "soldiered" at the lawyers thanks.

Why? That wouldn't change your mind. Would it Briars? Again, why is it so strange for Rudy doing this and not for Amanda or Raffaele?

 

[Briars]

Briars: please could you attempt to reformat your post(s) more legibly, using the "quote" tags as appropriate. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to even follow your arguments, let alone address them. Thanks.

.
Feel free to ignore what you can't understand , no problem.

 

[Briars]

Briars: please could you attempt to reformat your post(s) more legibly, using the "quote" tags as appropriate. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to even follow your arguments, let alone address them. Thanks.

Why? That wouldn't change your mind. Would it Briars? Again, why is it so strange for Rudy doing this and not for Amanda or Raffaele?

I believe the glass pieces lineup because the rock was thrown from the inside with the shutter closed. The closed shutter stopped the glass in a line ,or soldiered on the sill if you will.The break in was staged to point away from entry through the front door.