• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
Marry, how do you explain the sock drawer?
Click to expand...

Grinder said:
<snip>Could you expand on that?
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
Rudy's German diary
I don't know what problems she had with Amanda, but I heard her complaining, so I got up and went to her room. I saw she was furious and she said- her exact words- "That whore of a doper." Heavy words for two people who were friends. Then I asked what had happened. She said she couldn't find her money and she showed me the drawer next to the bed where she also kept her lingerie. "Maybe it was a thief," I said. But we saw there was no sign of a break-in, neither inside nor outside the house. So it had to be someone from the house and she was complaining only about Amanda, and not about the other two girls who lived there. From there she went to Amanda's room to see if there were signs of forced entry in her room but there weren't any. Then she opened Amanda's drawer, and I saw her money wasn't there. Meredith knew where Amanda kept the money and she became )furious).
Click to expand...

First of all, Rudy has no credibility, period. Second, to me, this again looks like a contrivance based on instructions from the prosecution or Rudy's lawyers. "Look, we're trying to establish the claim that Meredith and Amanda didn't get along, that Meredith thought Amanda used too much pot, had too many lovers, and that maybe Meredith even thought she was a thief." Every word that is written is intended to make the reader think a certain way.

Several questions come to mind. Why was Meredith looking for money while Rudy was there? Does Meredith's family think she was given to language like, "That whore of doper?"

They saw there was no sign of a break-in? Why would that even occur to Meredith, when it is so easy to steal money from drawers without breaking in? Just because Meredith was allegedly complaining only about Amanda doesn't mean it couldn't have been one of the other girls, or one of their acquaintances. This section is just Rudy's chance to say he saw no break-in when he got there. And why go to Amanda's room to see if there was any forced entry when Rudy has already established they searched the house for signs of forced entry? (I can't remember -- did Amanda say her money had been stolen out of her drawer? I don't think so.)

Rudy wants us to think that both Meredith's and Amanda's money is gone because, obviously, Amanda was out spending it -- on what? Hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of more marijuana? I don't know -- how expensive was gas that year in Perugia? Maybe they were filling up the tank in the car for the trip to Gubbio.

No mention of socks.
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

Makes sense. Damn, there goes my "the pizza delivery guy" did it theory. On the TV, the delivery guy is always finding bodies and nobody ever suspects them,

d

-
Click to expand...

TV isn't reality. In most of the miscarriage of justice cases I know about, the police arrested the people who discovered the crime. That's one of the things that told me what was going on when I first read about this.
 
Mary_H said:
:D Sorry, Wildhorses. I never dreamt anyone would take me seriously for a change. ;) I thought I was just riffing on Rose's earlier post.

Now that I've pulled off a prank, though, we all know there is only one direction to head from here......
Click to expand...


You really ought to hand yourself in to the authorities preemptively. I imagine that even now you're fermenting rabid urges to participate in a brutal group murder of a friend of yours. Frankly, you disgust me ;)

Incidentally, Maori has apparently just argued that Meredith was killed at around 9pm:


La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 55m

Processo Meredith, avvocato Maori (Sollecito): "Meredith è stata uccisa alle 21"
Click to expand...


translation:


Meredith trial, Lawyer Maori (Sollecito): "Meredith was killed at 9pm"
Click to expand...


This argument can only be made with reference to the stomach/duodenum autopsy analysis, together with supporting evidence such as Meredith's failure to call her mother again after the failed 8.56pm call, and perhaps also the laundry still in the washing machine and the fact that Meredith had not removed any of her outer clothing.
 
Oh, court is in session right now? Thank you for posting that.

I just tuned into to Barbie and Vogt tweets. Is there anyone else y'all recommend following?
 
MichaelB said:
Are you serious?

He admitted "leaning out the window" in Filomena's room. Breaking a 2nd story glass window with a rock was the same MO he used two weeks earlier.

How do you rationalize it?
Click to expand...

I haven't put too much thought or effort into Rudy's activities, Michael, because I have never thought it was necessary to provide an alternative to the prosecution's theories to prove that Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the crime. I see Rudy's crime as something separate from the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele, and it is not necessary for us to solve it or even prove it to protect A & R.

One reason I don't see a break-in is that, to me, Filomena's bedroom looks like it has had a rock thrown in the window but it doesn't look like it has been gone through. Who walks through a room in the middle of a burglary and leaves a shopping bag that is right in his path? Meredith's laundry is on top of the part of the curtain that is on the ground, meaning the curtain wasn't moved. Other people will say that is not her laundry, that is clothing Rudy pulled out of the cupboard and onto the top of the curtain.

I admit I could be wrong because I have not studied the pictures closely because of a lack of interest in Rudy, but I did read Ron Hendry's summation and I don't think there is ironclad evidence of a burglar being in Filomena's room. There are compatibilities.

I don't see that much motivation in Rudy for breaking into the girls' apartment. Why not break into the boys'? Why not just kick the door down instead of climbing in a window? Why be out wandering around at the time of night when a lot of young people are just thinking about getting social and hitting the streets? To burglarize, or to be social? Once you get sociable with other people, you can usually bum or lift some cash, if you are so inclined. What time did his other burglaries take place? I think Rudy may have been wandering around to see if any of his friends wanted to hang out, and he crossed paths with Meredith at her house. He was an opportunist and asked if he could use the bathroom. She may not have wanted him to but didn't have the confidence to turn him down.

If Rudy were in the house when Meredith walked in, why attack her instead of just lying low, waiting a while, then exiting out the same window he had entered? I can see if he were sitting at the kitchen table and she saw him, or they suddenly met face-to-face, how he might panic, but still, why not just leave and hope for the best? The fact that she didn't drop her books as she came in suggests there was nothing troubling her until after she got to the bedroom. I think if Rudy was motivated to sexually assault Meredith (which he obviously was) it would be more likely to have developed over the course of some interaction between them rather than from panic, unless Rudy was high on some aggression-producing drug.

Interestingly, in the one article we have about Rudy, written by Patrick King based on Nina Burleigh's research, Rudy's friends said he suffered from fugue states at night after which he couldn't remember what he had done. That would have been an ideal defense for him, except that I suppose by the time he and his lawyers got together, he had already revealed too much about whet he remembered about being at the cottage.
 
Last edited:
JREF2010 said:
Merediths calls from the cottage that morning from inside the cottage connected through a different tower as I read it.
Click to expand...

My information is that every call made from the cottage was connected via the Piazza Lupatelli Tower 171 meters with a direct site line towards Filomena and Amanda's Bedroom window. Although Meredith's bedroom is next to Amanda's Bedroom there is no window facing the Lupatelli tower in her bedroom.

The only window in Meredith's window is on her other outside wall and it views the valley and the Strada Vincenale Wind Tower 30064 which is 1720 meters away.

Cellular radio waves can and do pass through walls, but the material of the wall makes a large difference as as to how well they do this. I frankly can't tell if those walls are stone or stucco from the pictures. My guess is stucco, but I can't say unequivocally.

So, the question unanswered in my mind, is does the wall facing the Piazza Lupatelli tower obstruct its signal enough that the more distant Wind tower provides a stronger cell signal while in front of Meredith's bedroom window.

I have spent some time translating the defense cellular engineer's testimony using Google but it has been frustrating and I've been too lazy to work through the lousy translate.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Vogt just tweeted "There's reasonable doubt."

ETA: She was quoting Sollecito's attorney. I thought she was coming to her senses. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I had the exact same reaction. Same moment of relief over the triumph of reason... then reality set in.

I guess it's not worth staying up to see the rebuttals. I'm already saddened by the hater tweets I've seen. Given all the weird stuff that's been floated, I can understand people thinking AK/RS are guilty. (I don't agree: I know that stuff is false.) But I CANNOT understand anyone thinking there's not reasonable doubt.

I am hooked on this case because I keep HOPING reason will prevail, that irrational thinking will give way to rational. Ain't gonna happen.

Those poor kids.
 
OMG, the rebuttal is back on the 211 call.

I guess that's smart prosecution. The kids sure do look guilty if you argue they didn't call the Carabinieri until after the postal police arrived. The only problem with that argument is: it's false.
 
Wildhorses said:
OMG, the rebuttal is back on the 211 call.

I guess that's smart prosecution. The kids sure do look guilty if you argue they didn't call the Carabinieri until after the postal police arrived. The only problem with that argument is: it's false.
Click to expand...

If the Nencini court wants to find the defendants guilty on Crini's time warp, they will have to justify the times Raffaele called the Carabinieri and the time the Postal Police arrived. Those times are known times and you can't lie about it in the motivation report the way Crini is doing in person.
 
Wildhorses said:
OMG, the rebuttal is back on the 211 call.

I guess that's smart prosecution. The kids sure do look guilty if you argue they didn't call the Carabinieri until after the postal police arrived. The only problem with that argument is: it's false.
Click to expand...
Concrete proof the prosecution haven’t been following this thread. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom