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

[Grinder]

Its amazing to me that Alan Dershowitz was able to defend OJ, but can't see the potential for the innocence of Amanda & Raf

was he paid by oj? is he paid now to be controversial?

 

[Grinder]

How did the wearing of a t-shirt in 2009 influence the ISC in 2013 to make rulings on evidence based on its "osmotic nature"? Name one thing cited by the ISC which belongs to Knox's behaviour since, say, Nov 7, 2007?

Are you suggesting that the courts ruled based on facts and evidence?

Part of the osmotic nature of this case is Amanda's and Raf's behaviors.

She seems guilty to them. She didn't behave correctly, ever.

What was the name of the woman that was found not gulty of killing her baby? Anthony? If she had worn a shirt to court that said "here comes the sun" what would that have mad eyou think?

You seem unable to dispassionately see what is plainly to be seen.

 

[Machiavelli]

The technical definition of what you are doing, Machiavelli, is called "flooding". It is to repeatedly assert that you have done something - "you have been shown repeatedly" - when you have shown no such thing.

You mean, like when you claimed that Massei wrote that Knox and Sollecito suffered of no psychopatology. While this kind of topics you 'find' in Massei themselves are irrelevant, the fact is that Massei never made such assertion (it would be totally irrelevant if he did, he did not, anyway). You merely assert something, while such thing doesn't exist.

It's much like when you claim that Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report did not debunk the psychopathology of the two accused. You simply assert that Massei did not debunk psychopathology.

Exactly. The non-existence of something does not require a proof. I simply deny what you say because there is no substance in your assertion.

Indeed you make this absurd, foolish reasining, you only derive the 'existence' of something(what? you are also ambiguous) from a non-existence, from the non-existence of the very same thing you intend to demonstrate.

And, yes, I do note you kept that particular assertion in the double negative - refusing to cite anything that says Massei actually did believe Mignini's cock-and-bull claim that they suffered from some sort of psychopathology.

Actually, you only show more of your method: not only you assert something about Massei. Not only you make up a logical consequentiality ('no mention' of something (?) means 'debunking' (?) ) which is a totally invented logical procedure, such logical procedure doesn't exist in reality or in fact finding or in law. That's not enough. You also assert someì more without backing it; not content of talking about Massei, you make another assertion this time about an alleged Mignini's 'argument', which you say he used and that was allegedly debunked (with factual 'findings' or don't know what); you don't back your assertion about the existence of such argument. There is no proof that an alleged psychopatology was ever point of evidence in Mignini's argument. It's simply one more of your assertions.
In reality, alleged psychopathology was never a point of evidence in Mignini and Comodi's arguments. It could not be anyway; because as for the procedure code, the existence of a psychopatology, itself, cannot be used as a piece of evidence to prove guilt. And it wasn't, because anyway when psychopatology is used as an argument for some specific purposes, there is a specific prodedure for this, there are cross-questioned experts that perform an investigation and there is a discussion about it.
Nothing of this kind ever happend so it is simply nonsensical to assert that a fact-finding ever took place about psychopathology.
But this is what you assert.
It is your assertion, not mine.
You are the one who needs to back your own assertions, not me - I don't have to ofer demonstrations about your uproven assertions. And it's you the one who is unable to substantiate what you assert.

 

[Caper]

Mach... What the hell did you just say?

 

[Grinder]

Mach I think this is what Bill refers to:

This Court considers that both the defendants should be granted generic mitigating circumstances equivalent to the above-mentioned special aggravating circumstance.
There are various elements allowing generic [extenuating circumstances] to be granted in the case in question.
First, it should be recalled that the seriousness of the crime is not in itself alone an obstacle to the recognition of generic extenuating circumstances (a principle established since 1979 by the S.C.30 with judgement No. 7392, and confirmed with
30 Suprema Corte di Cassazione
391
sentence 33690/09); for their recognition [of generic extenuating circumstances], reference should also be made to certain elements and states of affairs, other than those indicated legislatively by Article 62 of the Criminal Code due to, for the said clause, the express provision contained in Article 62 bis of the Criminal Code: ‚independently of the circumstances set out in Article 62‛. Therefore, in exercising the power of discretion required of a judge, without singling out specific Article 62 bis of the Criminal Code situations in the presence of which such standards must apply, account must be taken of circumstances not explicitly envisaged by the legislator but which have a significant value for the purpose of determining the sentence without disregard ‚for the criteria indicated by the legislator in Article 133 of the Criminal Code, dealing with all-comprehensive regulation on the possible situations which might have an effect on how sanctions are dealt with‛ (Cassation 33690/09).


That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code. Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events [took place]. The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves because it [the situation] was different from that in which they had grown up and did not have the usual points of reference (family, friends, acquaintances made through the years, one’s own country and town 392of origin) which might have served as a continual support, [point of] comparison and check in the decisions of daily life. Thus Amanda Knox, who had been in Perugia for less two months, driven only (as far as the proceedings have allowed [us] to judge) by curiosity and by the desire to have several experiences, found herself living without that protection and shelter constituted, in particular, by her family (in this regard what Amanda declared with regard to her ‚big‛ family, *and+ to the intense and continual [lasting] relationships existing within it, appears even more significant); analogously [the same applies to] Raffaele Sollecito whose father phoned him regularly, signifying the need his son still had for a presence [someone to be there] to continually listen to, support and guide him; phone calls which were, however, incapable of taking the place of the [physical] closeness and control which were evidently still necessary (significant circumstances ex [according to] Article 133 paragraph 2 number 4 of the Criminal Code). [422] It should further be noted that the criminal acts were carried out on the force of purely chance contingencies which, put together one with the other, created a situation that, in the combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together with him at the house on the Via della Pergola where, precisely that evening, Meredith is alone. A crime that is carried out, therefore, without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime. Considerations which, together with what has been observed on malice with regard to the crime of murder, appear significant in terms of Article 133 paragraph 1 number 3 of the Criminal Code.
Even the[their] behaviour towards Meredith once the assault and the murder had been committed, which consisted in covering her lifeless body, shows a feeling of pity for the victim, a refusal, and thus a sort of repentance for what has been done: refusal and repentance expressed through such an act of pity. And also the fact of having remained far from Meredith’s room when, through the breaking down of the door, it was opened, seems to be along the same lines as the act of covering the body: the pity towards the victim and the refusal of the evil committed which appear to be expressed in the act of covering the body and in the decision to remain far away so as not to see Meredith’s body, her blood spilt. Behaviours which are shown to be

 

[acbytesla]

was he paid by oj? is he paid now to be controversial?

It wouldn't matter if he wasn't paid for either. There is ego involved as well as publicity that would help him with his career. Bit I'd bet he got paid for both. My guess is that he OJ didn't pay his entire bill.

As for his comments now. I attribute them to a desire to be remain front and center. People do a lot for ego.

 

[Desert Fox]

Mach... What the hell did you just say?

There is a term for what he just did but will not get by the language filters
"Baffle with B. . . . ." (Hint, name of a Penn and Teller Television Show)

 

[Strozzi]

Mach... What the hell did you just say?

I think he is getting ready to present his timeline of the crime, including the time of death, that takes into account events that can be independently verified.

 

[acbytesla]

Mach... What the hell did you just say?

Only he knows Caper. I think Mach is trying to say that you can't prove a negative. But his problem is that Bill quotes Massei directly. Mach tries desperately to twist Massei's meaning or he often denies until Bill goes back to Massei's text. But then Mach will try and blame it on the translation. We've only seen this 5 thousand times.

Massei reminds me of Vizzini (played by Wallace Shawn) in the "Princess Bride" where Vizzini keeps saying "inconceivable" about the man in black closing in on them. I think Bill in this case is playing Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Grinder]

From the dark side:

If using drugs makes a person an unreliable and not a credible witness (Curatolo, per Amanda’s logic), would using drugs make another person reliable and credible (Amanda)?

And if the reasoning becomes: “Oh, it’s the type of drug that’s important”, then it can’t be said that heroin is a hallucinogen. Curatolo still saw what he saw.

Further, admitting to having, and describing, “flashbacks” when attempting to recall something, if real, points as a symptom to an underlying problem in the neural circuitry, either induced, or chronic. So the reliability/credibility focus shifts back onto the accuser.

The “drug-user witness = no witness” line of reasoning is not going to be able to stand up on its own legs.​

My first thought is that this was written while on drugs far stronger than anything described within.

The issue isn't that heroin makes one hallucinate. Curatolo saw disco buses and the kids from 9:30 until midnight as well as lots of people that didn't exist. He didn't remember a thing when asked by the police, etc.

But sure let's throw out Curatolo and Amanda and move on to real evidence.

I suggest that the cat look up the effects of long term heroin use.

 

[Strozzi]

You mean, like when you claimed that Massei wrote that Knox and Sollecito suffered of no psychopatology. While this kind of topics you 'find' in Massei themselves are irrelevant, the fact is that Massei never made such assertion (it would be totally irrelevant if he did, he did not, anyway). You merely assert something, while such thing doesn't exist.

Exactly. The non-existence of something does not require a proof. I simply deny what you say because there is no substance in your assertion.

Indeed you make this absurd, foolish reasining, you only derive the 'existence' of something(what? you are also ambiguous) from a non-existence, from the non-existence of the very same thing you intend to demonstrate.

Actually, you only show more of your method: not only you assert something about Massei. Not only you make up a logical consequentiality ('no mention' of something (?) means 'debunking' (?) ) which is a totally invented logical procedure, such logical procedure doesn't exist in reality or in fact finding or in law. That's not enough. You also assert someì more without backing it; not content of talking about Massei, you make another assertion this time about an alleged Mignini's 'argument', which you say he used and that was allegedly debunked (with factual 'findings' or don't know what); you don't back your assertion about the existence of such argument. There is no proof that an alleged psychopatology was ever point of evidence in Mignini's argument. It's simply one more of your assertions.
In reality, alleged psychopathology was never a point of evidence in Mignini and Comodi's arguments. It could not be anyway; because as for the procedure code, the existence of a psychopatology, itself, cannot be used as a piece of evidence to prove guilt. And it wasn't, because anyway when psychopatology is used as an argument for some specific purposes, there is a specific prodedure for this, there are cross-questioned experts that perform an investigation and there is a discussion about it.
Nothing of this kind ever happend so it is simply nonsensical to assert that a fact-finding ever took place about psychopathology.
But this is what you assert.
It is your assertion, not mine.
You are the one who needs to back your own assertions, not me - I don't have to ofer demonstrations about your uproven assertions. And it's you the one who is unable to substantiate what you assert.

Machiavelli, do you work in theater?

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach I think this is what Bill refers to:

This Court considers that both the defendants should be granted generic mitigating circumstances equivalent to the above-mentioned special aggravating circumstance.
There are various elements allowing generic [extenuating circumstances] to be granted in the case in question.
First, it should be recalled that the seriousness of the crime is not in itself alone an obstacle to the recognition of generic extenuating circumstances (a principle established since 1979 by the S.C.30 with judgement No. 7392, and confirmed with
30 Suprema Corte di Cassazione
391
sentence 33690/09); for their recognition [of generic extenuating circumstances], reference should also be made to certain elements and states of affairs, other than those indicated legislatively by Article 62 of the Criminal Code due to, for the said clause, the express provision contained in Article 62 bis of the Criminal Code: ‚independently of the circumstances set out in Article 62‛. Therefore, in exercising the power of discretion required of a judge, without singling out specific Article 62 bis of the Criminal Code situations in the presence of which such standards must apply, account must be taken of circumstances not explicitly envisaged by the legislator but which have a significant value for the purpose of determining the sentence without disregard ‚for the criteria indicated by the legislator in Article 133 of the Criminal Code, dealing with all-comprehensive regulation on the possible situations which might have an effect on how sanctions are dealt with‛ (Cassation 33690/09).


That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code. Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events [took place]. The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves because it [the situation] was different from that in which they had grown up and did not have the usual points of reference (family, friends, acquaintances made through the years, one’s own country and town 392of origin) which might have served as a continual support, [point of] comparison and check in the decisions of daily life. Thus Amanda Knox, who had been in Perugia for less two months, driven only (as far as the proceedings have allowed [us] to judge) by curiosity and by the desire to have several experiences, found herself living without that protection and shelter constituted, in particular, by her family (in this regard what Amanda declared with regard to her ‚big‛ family, *and+ to the intense and continual [lasting] relationships existing within it, appears even more significant); analogously [the same applies to] Raffaele Sollecito whose father phoned him regularly, signifying the need his son still had for a presence [someone to be there] to continually listen to, support and guide him; phone calls which were, however, incapable of taking the place of the [physical] closeness and control which were evidently still necessary (significant circumstances ex [according to] Article 133 paragraph 2 number 4 of the Criminal Code). [422] It should further be noted that the criminal acts were carried out on the force of purely chance contingencies which, put together one with the other, created a situation that, in the combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together with him at the house on the Via della Pergola where, precisely that evening, Meredith is alone. A crime that is carried out, therefore, without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime. Considerations which, together with what has been observed on malice with regard to the crime of murder, appear significant in terms of Article 133 paragraph 1 number 3 of the Criminal Code.
Even the[their] behaviour towards Meredith once the assault and the murder had been committed, which consisted in covering her lifeless body, shows a feeling of pity for the victim, a refusal, and thus a sort of repentance for what has been done: refusal and repentance expressed through such an act of pity. And also the fact of having remained far from Meredith’s room when, through the breaking down of the door, it was opened, seems to be along the same lines as the act of covering the body: the pity towards the victim and the refusal of the evil committed which appear to be expressed in the act of covering the body and in the decision to remain far away so as not to see Meredith’s body, her blood spilt. Behaviours which are shown to be

Thanks Grinder.

I think this is about the eighth time this has been posted for Machiavelli to refer to. Instead, he wishes to hurl invective at ME!

Anything but deal with the issue at hand.

In fairness, it may be a language issue, so M. can probably be given the benefit of the doubt.

However, instead of dealing with the text of what you've posted, this is what Mach says (given on point form so that some sense is made of it):

- the fact is that Massei never made such assertion

(We may need to post the above section of Massei a ninth time)​

- it would be totally irrelevant if he did, he did not, anyway

(So what he posted above is irrelevant? Machiavelli: which other parts of Massei are irrelevant? His reasoning about the break-in?)​

- You merely assert something, while such thing doesn't exist.

(It may need to be posted a tenth time. So far, Machiavelli has simply asserted his position, offering nothing to "prove it".)​

I think it's a language issue.

 

[Grinder]

Only he knows Caper. I think Mach is trying to say that you can't prove a negative. But his problem is that Bill quotes Massei directly. Mach tries desperately to twist Massei's meaning or he often denies until Bill goes back to Massei's text. But then Mach will try and blame it on the translation. We've only seen this 5 thousand times.

Massei reminds me of Vizzini (played by Wallace Shawn) in the "Princess Bride" where Vizzini keeps saying "inconceivable" about the man in black closing in on them. I think Bill in this case is playing Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Bill falls in love with certain words. He likes psychopathy. I don't find the word even once in Massei.

Mach further suggests that there is a special hearing for this determination which never happened in this case. He is saying that the prosecution never made a formal case that they had a psychopathy.

It would appear that if they did have a psychopathy that might be something that would be like mentally incompetent here.

 

[Strozzi]

Bill falls in love with certain words. He likes psychopathy. I don't find the word even once in Massei.

Mach further suggests that there is a special hearing for this determination which never happened in this case. He is saying that the prosecution never made a formal case that they had a psychopathy.

It would appear that if they did have a psychopathy that might be something that would be like mentally incompetent here.

This reminds me. As I understand it, when Amanda cut her hair in prison she was sent to the prison psychiatrist. Do you think the psychiatrist was working with Mignini to maintain or expand the psychological profile that the PLE is alleged to have created on Amanda? If it exists, was this secret psychological profile a reason the PLE believe Amanda was involved in the crime?

Did it mention "she ate pizza"?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill falls in love with certain words. He likes psychopathy. I don't find the word even once in Massei.

Mach further suggests that there is a special hearing for this determination which never happened in this case. He is saying that the prosecution never made a formal case that they had a psychopathy.

It would appear that if they did have a psychopathy that might be something that would be like mentally incompetent here.

Grinder... "psychopathology" is the waste basket term for much of the psychobabble crap hurled at Knox and Sollecito, their families and anyone who supports them.

You need to get out more.

The origin of this "debate" Machiavelli tries to engage in, was the 13 things I wrote many months ago, the 13 things that Massei found that simply destroy the original Mignini/Comodi prosecution. Massei, in convicting then, then had to reinvent the crime.

Massei found that Raffaele had called 112 BEFORE the arrival of the postal police, found no mixed blood, found that Amanda and Meredith had had a normal friendly relationship, etc., namely something completely different from what Britons are going to hear about in the Channel 3 documentary by Andrea Vogt on Monday.

For Machiavelli this is a line in the sand. For guilters this is a line in the sand. (At least Edward McCall is honest when he says in his Wiki that he disagrees with Massei over the timing of the 112 calls! Machiavelli is not honest.)

You, yourself, are engaging in ad hominem when you say I use that word because of some fault of my own. It is simply a core claim of guilters - that Knox and/or Sollecito had some sort of psychopathology.

You should spend some time at TJMK.

 

[Strozzi]

The only way I see getting a real believable story out if Rudy is to try the Mr Big approach... I live in Nova Scotia Canada and its broken 3 murder cases I can think... I'm actually amazed it works as well as it does. But that would take a law enforcement that actually wants to solve the problem.

Caper, I think there are other ways to get the true story from Rudy, besides him finding God. These other ways include one or a combination of the following: A friend/willing listener/sympathizer whose friendship is important to Rudy. Liquor. Drugs. Flattery. Forgiveness.

Rudy must be a lonely man. Someone will get to him with a tape recorder running.

 

[acbytesla]

I think he is getting ready to present his timeline of the crime, including the time of death, that takes into account events that can be independently verified.

Really Strozzi? I can't wait for Machiavelli to do that. But you would think after all this time that he had done that. Maybe because even the great Machiavelli can't get a square peg to fit into a round hole.

But understand something Machiavelli. I think there have been many Italian geniuses. Da Vinci, Filippo Brunelleschi, Guglielmo Marconi...granted Marconi had to steal much of his invention from Nikola Tesla..but I'll let that pass. Enrico Fermi, Enzo Ferrari.

But like in all countries the great ones aren't really legal minds.

BTW Grinder..I sent you a PM.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli will argue these points with his last breath. Why? Because these are thirteen things that Judge Massei found, that completely undercut most of the case Mignini/Comodi brought to trial.

Judge Massei, then, had to reinvent the crime to justify his conviction. Of note is that a pre-meditated crime that Mignini brought, because an accidental, last minute, inexplicable "choice for evil" in Massei's scenario.

They are in no particular order.

1. There was no psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito. (For those who get hung up on this one, try the other ten on for size!)

2. Meredith and Amanda had a normal, unstrained friendship apart from normal household tiffs.

3. There are no forensic traces of Amanda in Meredith's room.

4. There is no "mixed blood" in the cottage in any of the rooms. Massei makes consistent mention of Amanda's "biological material" mixed with Meredith's blood.

5. There is no motive for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved in this, save for an inexplicable "choice for evil".

6. Rudy and Raffaele had had no contact prior to the murder, and Amanda and Rudy had had only fleeting contact in large groups.

7. Raffaele called 112 prior to the Postal Police arriving

8. There is no constant "changing of stories" by Knox about the murder.

9. The climb in through Filomena's window was very doable - Massei argues on other grounds why he thinks Guede didn't go in that route. But it is easy.

10. The science before Massei's court do not rule out that the attack was done by one person.

11. Massei only posits a theoretical clean-up, then again not in the murder room but in the hallway between Meredith's and the bathroom. He finds no "positive" evidence to suggest a clean-up.​

I forget the other two. This should be enough to give Machiavelli apoplexy for the next week! But the thing which is remarkable is that even the ISC as well as Crini (and apparently Nencini) need to keep reinventing this crime, and denying the findings of the prosecutor/court preceding them.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder... "psychopathology" is the waste basket term for much of the psychobabble crap hurled at Knox and Sollecito, their families and anyone who supports them.

You need to get out more.

The origin of this "debate" Machiavelli tries to engage in, was the 13 things I wrote many months ago, the 13 things that Massei found that simply destroy the original Mignini/Comodi prosecution. Massei, in convicting then, then had to reinvent the crime.

Massei found that Raffaele had called 112 BEFORE the arrival of the postal police, found no mixed blood, found that Amanda and Meredith had had a normal friendly relationship, etc., namely something completely different from what Britons are going to hear about in the Channel 3 documentary by Andrea Vogt on Monday.

For Machiavelli this is a line in the sand. For guilters this is a line in the sand. (At least Edward McCall is honest when he says in his Wiki that he disagrees with Massei over the timing of the 112 calls! Machiavelli is not honest.)

You, yourself, are engaging in ad hominem when you say I use that word because of some fault of my own. It is simply a core claim of guilters - that Knox and/or Sollecito had some sort of psychopathology.

You should spend some time at TJMK.

No I shouldn't.

The question is did Mignini make this claim of psychopathy or just a variety of possible reasons that Amanda that stimulated her to murder Meredith?

Massei doesn't exactly undo the phone call issue but rather accepts the defenses version for purposes of the motivations. He doesn't really make a big deal about it one way or the other.

Massei makes the case that the kids except for drug use are okay and hadn't shown major defects. Mach is challenging you to cite where Mignini made the assertions. he doesn't accept Barbie or Follain or Vogt or Dempsey quotes with which I agree.

Can you produce direct quotes from the prosecution on this? Was this just from leaks and tab articles/

 

[Desert Fox]

9. The climb in through Filomena's window was very doable - Massei argues on other grounds why he thinks Guede didn't go in that route. But it is easy.

Does the window really matter. . . .
Maybe he came through that way or maybe not. Not sure it matters.
Not certain but he could have been invited in or the door left unlocked.
Window may have nothing to do it