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

[Bill Williams]

Kettle Black.

Kettle blacker.

 

[Mary_H]

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.<snip>

I agree. The fact that a window can be climbed into does not mean a window was climbed into. I see very little evidence that Rudy climbed in the window, and, to me, the only relevance of the window to the crime is whether or not Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in to cover the murder.

Since there is absolutely ZERO evidence of Amanda and Raffaele staging the break-in to cover the murder, the whole subject can be dismissed as irrelevant to their roles in the crime.

 

[Kaosium]

Convicted of drug dealing, cocaine I believe it was.

His claim to be an upstanding citizen was debunked

Heh, he debunked it himself by his bizarre performance in court, especially the part where he showed up in that coat and hat like he was afraid to be seen and then with his testimony which might have been worse than Toto's!

Is he in prison or did he flee the country/go underground? I've seen things which suggest both.

 

[Paninaro]

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

Why not?

If you do a search it seems to happen now and then, unfortunately.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...140108_1_theft-case-dna-evidence-iris-ambrose

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._sexual-assault-home-invasion-laptop-computer

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bailed-burglar-raped-woman-after-breakin-28905223.html

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s/oldham-rape-intruder-attacked-woman-6317197

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Intruder-raped-woman-son/story-16010146-detail/story.html

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/mar/04/intruder-reportedly-rapes-woman-flees/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brave-woman-daniela-vinci-tells-how-burglar-returned-rape-her-1430315

etc.

 

[Kaosium]

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

Why not? Why couldn't a burglar also be a killer out of (perceived) necessity and a rapist?

Being as there is evidence the bra was removed after she was stabbed but before she died due to the aspirated blood droplets on both the bra and the area of her chest the bra covered, as well as evidence she was dragged and positioned with the pillow under her hips with Rudy's evidence on the pillow and inside her, the explanation she was raped by Rudy as she was dying at least takes into account all that evidence, however macabre it may be.

I'm certainly open to another explanation that takes all that evidence into account, I just can't think of a good one--and I've tried.

It is not consistent with the evidence called luminol footprints.

There's no reason to think the luminol footprints are evidence from the murder and not something that happened before or afterward, and a number of reasons to think they aren't, notably them testing negative for blood with TMB and the fact the scene had been contaminated beyond recognition by the time the luminol was laid down. The Polizia Scientifica processed the shoeprints and then cleaned them up and used that hallway without covering as they processed the rest of those rooms.

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

What do you mean by this?

 

[Grinder]

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 sure? Have a snip where he says that/

I've seen him misreading the testimony of the lawyers to the end that the alarm system wasn't on.

The building was equipped with an alarm system but that night was not activated, because, I also ricostruii the story, had just been installed. That evening I went out to half past eight and I remember perfectly well that I activated the alarm system. The strange thing about it is that I can show that I noticed that the alarm system the next day, when we entered, was not damaged because the cell light was always on, even if it is turned off, and the person or persons who had not have damaged the alarm, but they just turned off the phone dialer, and thereby manifesting a minimal competence, though a certain expertise in the field of alarms, electronics because disable a phone dialer without damaging the alarm I would not be able, even essendone owner, so I would not have this expertise.​

The old guy also is with Mach that possessing stolen goods while in a business he had broken into is no evidence of him being a burglar.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why not?

As much as giving wild parties

"(...) Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.

Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.

Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down." (...)
According to one party guest, "bedlam, with drink, drugs and bodies everywhere".
"Some people were naked inside the bedrooms".
"There were people draped over each other".
"I've been to a lot of student parties in my time, but I've never been to a party like that".
"Everyone just wanted to get drunk, get high and get laid. There was also a lot of violence because everyone was so pumped up."
(...)

Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.
And people here talk as if there was a kind of logical contiguity between committing a theft and being a serial killer who rapes dying women.
The two things seem close to each other in some people's minds.
I guess they tend to look closer in particular when if the person doesn't have a too light coloured skin and didn't attent the Seattle Prep.

Btw, you also accuse Guede of acting through ha series of improbable actions, each one of them unusual, something cmpletely inconsistent; but that's another topic.

In your mind necrophyiliac killer and thief they becomes contiguous concepts when it comes to Guede.
Actually there isn't any logical link. Certainly not more than between Amanda's parties-drug dealers contacts-pranks-casual sex lifestyle and the scenario of a murder committed by drugged idiots who realized they had lost control.

 

[Mary_H]

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

Rudy's background is perfectly consistent with the crime having happened the way Charlie Wilkes has described it happening. And Meredith was not dead when Rudy left, so he didn't rape 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.

The luminol footprints are bosh and easily disregarded as questionable evidence. What are the two modus operandi?

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.

But can you prove the prosecution's case correct, beyond a reasonable doubt?

The old prosecutor, Mignini, kept changing his suggested scenarios, so we know he had no idea what happened. And this is how you describe the new prosecutor's suggestion:

Crini sticks to the most simple and stark elements needed for an explanation using the known factual elements, he says the background behind an emerging argument - the prior “genesis” of some conflict, especially that lead to possibility to spark arguments on Meredith’s part - should be considered the disagreements about house managements, meaning habits related to the sharing of the house.

The sharing of a common space is one certain background, one sure terrain where an argument or negative emotions must have sparked from. (This obviously does not rule out likely contribution by other causal factors).

How does anyone get away with saying there are known factual elements? There are none, and that is all there is to it. Any guesses are based purely on imagination.

Where does anyone get the idea that Meredith was prone to being argumentative, negative, critical or easily offended? Aren't there three websites chock full of descriptions of how patient, loving, tender, kind and forgiving Meredith was? Or do you guys reserve the right to say she had a quick temper and was annoyed by petty inconveniences when it suits your purposes?

And who has seen any evidence of Amanda expressing any hostility, except in the interpretations of those who are hell bent on lynching her? Amanda sang and laughed out loud, strummed the same guitar chord repeatedly, bought red underwear with a picture of a cow on it -- wow -- let me count the ways this psycho bitch was hateful, spiteful, violent and vengeful!

The bottom line, though, is that if you and Crini want to base your ENTIRE motive for the crime on AMANDA'S recounting of Meredith's gentle reminder about using the toilet brush, then don't you think you should give Amanda credit for at least some of the rest of her story?

I hate to burst your and Crini's little bubble of fantasies about the scratching, clawing world of jealous coeds raging against each other over who wins the cutest boy (would that it were you or he?), but when I was in my twenties it never even crossed my mind to fight with a dorm mate or housemate. How about the rest of the female posters here?

 

[codyjuneau]

.

Kettle Black.

Kettle blacker.

.
You guys should get electric kettles, much cleaner.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

.



.
You guys should get electric kettles, much cleaner.
.

Whenever I argue with Grinder, I think I'm 11 again....

 

[Machiavelli]

Why not? Why couldn't a burglar also be a killer out of (perceived) necessity and a rapist?

Being as there is evidence the bra was removed after she was stabbed but before she died due to the aspirated blood droplets on both the bra and the area of her chest the bra covered, as well as evidence she was dragged and positioned with the pillow under her hips with Rudy's evidence on the pillow and inside her, the explanation she was raped by Rudy as she was dying at least takes into account all that evidence, however macabre it may be.

I'm certainly open to another explanation that takes all that evidence into account, I just can't think of a good one--and I've tried. (...)

But now I was talking about the staging scenario, and the consistency between the above alleged scenario and having committed a theft (maybe).
There isn't any logical connection between the two things.

Your scenario takes in account some picked pieces of evidence but leaves out a lorry of other pieces and explanations, points creating a huge pattern inconsistence.
Which is actually huge so that it becomes unreasonable to attempt explain the crime with a Guede-alone scenario.

But moreover, whatever you think about the physical evidence, your scenario is anyway totally independent from any evidence you have about Guede's criminal profile. Your scenario is extreme in terms of motive or criminal profile, and you just can't deduce your peculiar scenario from the fact that he slept in a nursery school in Milan or that he had stolen items or drinking habits. As I said the logical link between your scenario and Guede's profile is certainly not stronger than the link between Knox's profile and Crini's scenario.

 

[Paninaro]

I couldn't agree more. The only comment people should be making to Doug and the Moores is prove it. Show us the proof or at a minimum lay out the reasoning that is so convincing.

Every aspect of the PGP case against the kids should be put to the test. All of their mumbo jumbo such as the timelines of police arriving should be mocked when they can't put together a timeline of the murder.

We should mock their witnesses, their 'compatibles' and all their wild stories of riots and rape pranks.

I don't believe those that think this case should be judged on facts of the actual crime should join with the dark side and promote rumors or discuss points on the basis of 'if it were true'.

Recently it was said here that Rudy had been involved in 5 break-ins in a short period of time and that he had been stabbed in the stomach over a drug dispute but we really have no proof of those. Earlier someone claimed that a gold watch from Rudy's next door neighbor was found in his pack and subsequently disappeared but we only have one true crime novelist to base that on.
The dark side talks of things such as the coke dealer's phone number being in Amanda's phone speed dial based on one obscure news report.

I see no value in competing with them in spreading rumor.

Nina Burleigh doesn't say that the womans gold watch found in Guedes back pack was the same one stolen from Guedes neighbor Madu Diaz in the burglery, if I understand correctly.

She gives a source for the claim that the watch was in the possession of Guede when he was arrested, Perugian carabinieri Francesco Zampa.

And he seems to be a writer too, as well as a carabienieri! http://it.linkedin.com/pub/francesco-zampa/17/150/b97

I would say the information about the womans gold watch is more than a rumour, even if it can't be treated as absolutely verified. It seems likely that Burleigh is not lying, but of course there could be some misunderstanding. Maybe someone should ask Zampa if he was only spreading a rumour and didn't have direct information.

Machiavelli has not yet given us a name of the drug dealer which allegedly, which he could have done.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

As much as giving wild parties


Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.

On the contrary, the claim that Guede committed a sexual assault after cutting Meredith's throat is based purely on physical evidence, as opposed to a feeble tissue of speculation about what could have happened.

 

[Mary_H]

As much as giving wild parties

Originally Posted by Daily Mail
"(...) Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.

Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.

Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down." (...)
According to one party guest, "bedlam, with drink, drugs and bodies everywhere".
"Some people were naked inside the bedrooms".
"There were people draped over each other".
"I've been to a lot of student parties in my time, but I've never been to a party like that".
"Everyone just wanted to get drunk, get high and get laid. There was also a lot of violence because everyone was so pumped up."
(...)

Lies, lies, lies. When are people ever going to learn that you can't believe what you read in The Daily Mail?

There is barely enough room on those streets for a single car to drive through, slowly. ONE police unit responded, no back-up was called. No crime was committed, so there would be no reason to collect the names of witnesses. Nobody was going to court to find out who had reported or testified against them.

The only name needed here is the one The Mail made up -- the pretend "party guest."

Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.
And people here talk as if there was a kind of logical contiguity between committing a theft and being a serial killer who rapes dying women.
The two things seem close to each other in some people's minds.

There is plenty of evidence that criminals escalate their behavior over time. Most criminals don't start with murder, they work their ways up through petty thefts and altercations. They are driven to the next level when there is no intervention at the previous levels.

I guess they tend to look closer in particular when if the person doesn't have a too light coloured skin and didn't attent the Seattle Prep.

I know of someone who went to Prep, was white and committed murder. He was prosecuted and convicted, because there was evidence he committed the crime. His status didn't save him.

Btw, you also accuse Guede of acting through ha series of improbable actions, each one of them unusual, something cmpletely inconsistent; but that's another topic.

In your mind necrophyiliac killer and thief they becomes contiguous concepts when it comes to Guede.
Actually there isn't any logical link. Certainly not more than between Amanda's parties-drug dealers contacts-pranks-casual sex lifestyle and the scenario of a murder committed by drugged idiots who realized they had lost control.

There is plenty more. It's ridiculous even to suggest Amanda's background is consistent with someone who would play out those fantasies you, Mignini and Crini have in mind.

I would never accuse Rudy of being a necrophiliac, or even of planning the attack or the murder. Maybe if you would stop characterizing the crime as bizarre, improbable and outlandish, you could see that such things happen every day.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The bottom line, though, is that if you and Crini want to base your ENTIRE motive for the crime on AMANDA'S recounting of Meredith's gentle reminder about using the toilet brush, then don't you think you should give Amanda credit for at least some of the rest of her story? (...)

Amanda's recounting? I am based ont the English girls and roommates testimonies, obviously not on Knox's declarations.
Knox's recollection included a "blaming of victim", while offering an obviously false account: among other absurdities she said about the blood stains in the bathroom, she said she didn't worry about the 20 cm blood stain on the mat because she thought it could have been menstrual blood from Meredith, so nothing to worry about. Reality: leaving smears of menstrual blood, this is what Meredith complained with her for, because it was something that she found unnerving, and given that - as everybody knew, including Knox - Meredith was extremely clean and was fussy about clean bathroom, and she would have just never left patches of blood on the bathmat.
Knox perfectly knew that she would never do that, no way she could have thought that such behaviour could have been a casual behaviour of Meredith and that it happened there was nothing to worry about. No way.
Knox is projecting her own "blame" on another person. While perfectly knowing - and she admits it elsewhere - that it didn't belong to that person.
She is, technically, "blaming the victim" - projecting her own flaws and shameful sides on the victim; she's taking a revenge, returning blame. It's resentment, it's a most typical red flag, it's what murderers do.

 

[Machiavelli]

Lies, lies, lies. When are people ever going to learn that you can't believe what you read in The Daily Mail?

If all posters on this forums at once declare now that they don't belive Lumumba was ever mistreated by the police as teh Daily Mail says, then I will "learn" it.

Otherwise, I will think that you decide to believe the Daily Mail rather selectively.

I point out btw that Knox supporters were calling the April fool prank story "a lie" for years, until a week ago.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda's recounting? I am based ont the English girls and roommates testimonies, obviously not on Knox's declarations.Knox's recollection included a "blaming of victim", while offering an obviously false account: among other absurdities she said about the blood stains in the bathroom, she said she didn't worry about the 20 cm blood stain on the mat because she thought it could have been menstrual blood from Meredith, so nothing to worry about. Reality: leaving smears of menstrual blood, this is what Meredith complained with her for, because it was something that she found unnerving, and given that - as everybody knew, including Knox - Meredith was extremely clean and was fussy about clean bathroom, and she would have just never left patches of blood on the bathmat.
Knox perfectly knew that she would never do that, no way she could have thought that such behaviour could have been a casual behaviour of Meredith and that it happened there was nothing to worry about. No way.
Knox is projecting her own "blame" on another person. While perfectly knowing - and she admits it elsewhere - that it didn't belong to that person.
She is, technically, "blaming the victim" - projecting her own flaws and shameful sides on the victim; she's taking a revenge, returning blame. It's resentment, it's a most typical red flag, it's what murderers do.

No less than Judge Massei disbelieves you. Machiavelli, you should read Massei's motivations report.

Besides that, you "it's what murderers do," is your confirmation bias. Taking your conclusion as proof of the premises you offer.

You should read this:

Manipulation in the name of a murdered girl

http://groundreport.com/manipulation-in-the-name-of-a-murdered-girl/

 

[Mary_H]

If all posters on this forums at once declare now that they don't belive Lumumba was ever mistreated by the police as teh Daily Mail says, then I will "learn" it.

Otherwise, I will think that you decide to believe the Daily Mail rather selectively.

I have always said that story was made up, as was the story by Kate Mansey. A search of my name and Daily Mail will show that I have urged supporters many times to disregard the Mail interview with Lumumba.

I point out btw that Knox supporters were calling the April fool prank story "a lie" for years, until a week ago.

The way the story was presented by PGP was a lie. Amanda's version was different.

 

[Skind]

I point out btw that Knox supporters were calling the April fool prank story "a lie" for years, until a week ago.

And we're still calling it a lie now.

Because it was then, and still is now.

The event admitted to by Knox bears very little resemblance in terms of intent, context, execution, content, harm or severity to the "April Fool Prank Story", nor is it reasonable to hold that they are similar.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong, and exposing a rather worrying mentality if you cannot see the difference.

 

[Bill Williams]

If all posters on this forums at once declare now that they don't belive Lumumba was ever mistreated by the police as teh Daily Mail says, then I will "learn" it.

Otherwise, I will think that you decide to believe the Daily Mail rather selectively.

I point out btw that Knox supporters were calling the April fool prank story "a lie" for years, until a week ago.

Once again your spin is showing. Up until a week ago guilters/haters called this the "rape prank", and as proof that Knox had participated in a, well.... rape prank.

Up until a week ago, supporters said it was no such thing. Now - guilters are literally reinventing the Kercher crime, based on an April Fools' prank Knox once participated in. Guilters finally are not calling it a rape prank....

All this while Rudy Guede, a known burglar with a history of such, breaks into a cottage in Perugia and murders a true innocent.

And some posters here say that burglars don't attack and rape. Who are you going to believe, Machiavelli?