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

[Kaosium]

Massei on balance accepted that Raf called before the PP actually arrived. My read originally and now (this might have been influenced by reporting during the trial) is that there was no way to prove when the PP arrived exactly and that he gave the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

There is a way to prove it using the CCTV camera and cell phone records, which the defense did as you note below. It may not have gotten much play in the press being as it happened at the very end of the trial and was complex.

I in no way will concede that Massei 'debunked' the prosecution's contention. GB did all she could to debunk it.

As I said earlier the author of this 'debunk' likes to color descriptions brightly for his argument's benefit.

de·bunk (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

Eh, some of the things on Bill's list I would phrase 'Not even the convicting judge bought...[such and such prosecution contention]' as opposed to how Bill words it, but what Massei does to the prosecution contention regarding the calling of the Carabinieri is close enough to 'exposing the falseness of their claim' which would fit in the definition above.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

As I recall you weren't following the case at the beginning. It is well known that the Knox family hired Marriott within days of the arrest.

Harry Rag didn't start, as has been demonstrated by others, for over a year.

He was not part of the original gang on Steve Huff's comment board, but it wasn't a full year. I first encountered him on Candace Dempsey's blog in mid-2008. At that time he was all worked up about Kokomani, who had just surfaced in the media as an important new witness. He had high hopes for Kokomani.

 

[Bill Williams]

-

Of course you do, and yet you don't see Rudy's past burglaries as consistent with a non-staged break in. Ha ha ha.

You guys should really change the name of your website from "True Justice for Meredith Kercher" (TJMK) to "Gettin' That W(B)itch Amanda Knox" instead, 'cause that's what's really going on with you guys.

The day you guys seriously complain about Maresca projecting that death photo of Meredith during the last trial is the day I MIGHT begin believing that what you are doing is really about finding justice for Meredith, all you want to do is express your hate for Amanda and love for Rudy.

Please (I beg you) prove me wrong,

d

-

This is the whole thing, isn't it... Knox participates with others in an April Fools prank, and Machiavelli sees that as the Rosetta Stone for understanding a staged break-in...

But Rudy actually DOES these sorts of break-ins before, there's no evidence, really, of staging at the cottage and Channel 5 (UK) shows that the break-in was very much possible and probable, but Machiavelli would still let Rudy off.

And instead of proving anyone wrong, Machiavelli dusts off that, "it's compatible with" language.

the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.

It is actually a rather common motive.

It may be common, but this represents the fifth or sixth totally new motive for this case. And "may just be"? What ever happened to proof?

How many times does Italy get to prosecute someone before it's call quintuple jeopardy?

 

[codyjuneau]

I confirm Machiavelli(JREF)= Yummi(on PMF/TJMK), I am the one who wrote the comment.

I meant to describe the motive believed by Crini as he explained it. I agree with it.

I was trying to saying that the prank may be just constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation, it does not affect the motive, which is, realizing they had gone beyond a no return point, fear of the consequences of what they had done.
It is actually a rather common motive.

.
A rather common motive, yes. As we all know, every year on April Fool's day there are thousands of murders worldwide when pranks go beyond the no return point. As a matter fact, those TV shows that prank or punk people, are one of the leading causes of murder, right?

Do you think that maybe Rudy's history of carrying and threatening with knives, and of using a rock to break an upper floor window to gain entry so he could steal and make himself at home might just 'constitute a variant about the previous stages, the "genesis" of the situation'?

Maybe I will write a book. How about: 'The adventures of Crini the Pooh in Poohrugia'? Catchy eh? Can I have permission to quote you in the book, please, pretty please?
.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Of course you do, and yet you don't see Rudy's past burglaries as consistent with a non-staged break in. Ha ha ha. (...)

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.
It is not consistent with the evidence called luminol footprints. It is not consistent with the presence of two modus operandi on the murder scene. And so on.

I will not go at lenght to enumerate the evidence. I already proved you wrong, the evidence proves you wrong. You were just unable to see it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.
It is not consistent with the evidence called luminol footprints. It is not consistent with the presence of two modus operandi on the murder scene. And so on.

I will not go at lenght to enumerate the evidence. I already proved you wrong, the evidence proves you wrong. You were just unable to see it.

You have proved nothing, because you have not enumerated the evidence at all.

You simply make statements. You think people should believe you simply because you said it.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

But Rudy actually DOES these sorts of break-ins before, there's no evidence, really, of staging at the cottage and Channel 5 (UK) shows that the break-in was very much possible and probable, but Machiavelli would still let Rudy off.(...)

The climbing and entering throug that window was called physically 'possible' by Judge Micheli already, you don't need any video for that. (notice that I said climbing and entering, not 'break-in', because I wanted to specify that this would be only part of a break-in).

But from 'possible' to saying that it showed a break in was 'probable'.... there is an ocean in between.

Btw: it is unimportant, but there is not even evidence Rudy did burglaries.

 

[Kaosium]

Btw: it is unimportant, but there is not even evidence Rudy did burglaries.

Being caught in the school having stolen stuff from the lawyers office, the school itself and also having a woman's gold watch is evidence that Rudy did burglaries. Whether that is sufficient evidence is another thing entirely.

 

[Bill Williams]

The climbing and entering throug that window was called physically 'possible' by Judge Micheli already, you don't need any video for that. (notice that I said climbing and entering, not 'break-in', because I wanted to specify that this would be only part of a break-in).

But from 'possible' to saying that it showed a break in was 'probable'.... there is an ocean in between.

Btw: it is unimportant, but there is not even evidence Rudy did burglaries.

Once again simply stating erroneous propositions do not make them true.

You need to read Stilicho's analysis on PMF on how Rudy had a lawyer for those things - and yet you can claim he did mot commit burglaries.

You must have a strange definition of burglary.

 

[andreajo]

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.

Burglar is interrupted when Meredith arrives home unexpectedly. Burglar grabs Merideth to control her. Burglar has a knife. Burglar can't control Merideth with threats. Burglar ends up killing Meredith. Burglar gets excited from the close contact and adrenalin. Burglar sexually abuses the dying girl.

It's more credible than a prank gone wrong or an out of control household dispute.

It is not consistent with the evidence called luminol footprints.

I know that you are very fond of these footprints, but they don't tell you anything meaningful about the night of the murder.

It is not consistent with the presence of two modus operandi on the murder scene.

Eh?

And so on.

I will not go at lenght to enumerate the evidence. I already proved you wrong, the evidence proves you wrong. You were just unable to see it.

Prove. You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means!

 

[Bill Williams]

Being caught in the school having stolen stuff from the lawyers office, the school itself and also having a woman's gold watch is evidence that Rudy did burglaries. Whether that is sufficient evidence is another thing entirely.

Don't waste your breath, Kaosium, Machiavelli thinks Guede is innocent of everything.

 

[AmyStrange]

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.
It is not consistent with the evidence called luminol footprints. It is not consistent with the presence of two modus operandi on the murder scene. And so on.

I will not go at lenght to enumerate the evidence. I already proved you wrong, the evidence proves you wrong. You were just unable to see it.

-

You mean "consistent" as in how your writings are consistent with HarryRag's writings?

There is only one MO (modus operandi) and all of it is consistent with Rudy breaking in, surprising, then killing and raping Meredith. The simple fact that you continuously twist evidence with semantics and improbable speculation to make Amanda the witch you think she is and dismiss the more probable speculation that Rudy killed Meredith, proves this has nothing to do with Meredith.

If you really are a critical thinker (which you're not because all your speculation is all one sided) then look at the flip side to your speculation that Rudy did not kill Meredith and prove yourself wrong yourself, but you can't because you are only out to get Amanda and nothing else, including true justice for Meredith which is your cover story and not what you're really trying to do.

Prove me wrong and that you really are a critical thinker and look at everything from our point of view rather than your current point of view, but you can't because all your post here prove you can't or just plain won't.

I was on your side at first until I looked at everything critically.

Come on, prove me wrong,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

LESS probable is MORE probable?

-

Being caught in the school having stolen stuff from the lawyers office, the school itself and also having a woman's gold watch is evidence that Rudy did burglaries. Whether that is sufficient evidence is another thing entirely.

-

Very good point.

Being caught in that situation makes it LESS PROBABLE that Rudy "DID" break in, but a college prank makes it MORE PROBABLE that Amanda killed Meredith. What the hell kind of critical thinking is that?

Evelyn's son obviously doesn't have any critical thinking skills what so ever, either that or he doesn't want to use them because he will end up proving himself wrong,

True Justice for Meredith my ^ss,

d

-

 

[Kaosium]

He was not part of the original gang on Steve Huff's comment board, but it wasn't a full year. I first encountered him on Candace Dempsey's blog in mid-2008. At that time he was all worked up about Kokomani, who had just surfaced in the media as an important new witness. He had high hopes for Kokomani.

Does anyone know what happened to Kokomani?

 

[Bill Williams]

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.

Where are the defenders of Meredith Kercher when these sorts of things are said?

 

[Kaosium]

Don't waste your breath, Kaosium, Machiavelli thinks Guede is innocent of everything.

'Poor, poor Rudy.'

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone know what happened to Kokomani?

Convicted of drug dealing, cocaine I believe it was.

His claim to be an upstanding citizen was debunked

 

[Grinder]

Being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse.

Ah but it is consistent with hosting a loud party and playing a non-violent prank on someone?

The climbing and entering throug that window was called physically 'possible' by Judge Micheli already, you don't need any video for that. (notice that I said climbing and entering, not 'break-in', because I wanted to specify that this would be only part of a break-in).

But from 'possible' to saying that it showed a break in was 'probable'.... there is an ocean in between.

Btw: it is unimportant, but there is not even evidence Rudy did burglaries.

Really? He was caught after breaking into the nursery with stolen items both from the lawyers' office (laptop) and from the nursery (knife and money).

Christian T testified that he fought with Rudy after he broke in and had taken a credit card or 5 Euro. Unlike Nara, Curatolo and the other prosecution witnesses he actually called the police that night. He was not allowed to testify because he hadn't filled out paper work at the station because the wait was too long.

So all the witnesses against that never reported anything for months and even denied telling the police that interviewed them in a timely manner they had seen or heard anything were allowed to testify. What a system.

You have proved nothing, because you have not enumerated the evidence at all.

You simply make statements. You think people should believe you simply because you said it.

Kettle Black.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh ********. People post others' positions from all over the internet. Whether it be an article published somewhere or just another opinion posted somewhere, as long as it is on topic.

I agree. There wouldn't be much to talk about here if we weren't constantly bringing in material from other sources. If Machiavelli has his finger on the pulse of the prosecution's claims, all the better.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is Machiavelli's apology for Rudy.

Rudy is not a burglar.

Besides, being a burglar is not consistent with a theory about killing Meredith and raping a corpse. Makes one wonder why Machiavelli needs to say it, if Rudy never was one!

The climb is eminently doable - this is what Machiavelli says after spending years saying it wasn't - but that's beside the point because the break-in was staged, so he says. (Far be it for anyone to point out that perhaps the only reason to think the break-in was staged was because guilters spend all sorts of powerpoint frames showing that it was impossible to climb in ...... there's definitely a merry-go-round somewhere near...)

This is Machiavelli's apology for the kitchen knife.

Machiavelli spends years and years defending the DNA-link to Meredith about that knife. Then when the RIS Carabinieri give their report to Nencini (along with the EDF's, by the way!) Machiavelli switches gears.... now the kitchen knife is "compatible" with the bedsheet outline, after years and years of never even having to brough the subject, because - Mignini posited TWO knives because of the onvious mismatch.

How much does one have to read before one gets the idea that Machiavelli wants these two people convicted regardless?