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

[Grinder]

She's a pretty good writer, but my interest ultimately is in using the break in forensics to prove Rudy was inside before Meredith, and the lawyer office evidence is part of this, so there are elements of Moore etc that are relevant. I have written posts that use the embedded glass shard as proof of this. I am figuring a simple way to do velocity tests to explain it, and will report in due course.

I see the critical path is to get the American public on side with a simple argument on only two or three points before Kerry can coldly sacrifice Amanda. Not really my job admittedly.

Do you know who she is?

Her credentials are that you like the way she writes. Funny.

We are a long way from the Secretary of State making a decision but it is pretty sure that it won't be Kerry. The Italians won't wrap this up until the end of the year or maybe next year and if the convictions are upheld and nothing comes of ECHR then I wouldn't expect the extradition request to come before 2016.

I can tell you that putting a "they framed them the first hour" argument out there can do nothing but hurt her chances.

 

[Lensman]

Read this story to see how easily cross contamination can occur.

(apologies if this has already been posted - I haven't waded through all 117 pages of this thread)

 

[acbytesla]

Don't have time for more than this:

I think it is absurd to think one that the head of the homicide squad would know Guede's MO if anyone actually knew it. Even if they looked at the break-in (IIRC the PP said it was staged and they definitely would have known about Rudi) and said oh my god Rudi did this I can't imagine the PLE moving into a mode of covering for him and framing anybody much less a well off Italian and a young American girl. Crazy talk.

Mach has made it clear that mere possession of stolen goods isn't that serious in Italy and that the police in Milan were happy just to get rid of him and the paperwork.

This is the image of the lawyers' office:

[qimg]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMNFfz_yAVYJDxVYrXoVUn-hNkMhI5ps_Frd7EZzre0E3FjnD2Jg[/qimg]

I'm not sure which window was the target but while similar there are differences. I doubt Rudi was the only one in Perugia that climbed to second story windows and threw a rock.

Of course not Grinder, but Rudy had the stolen laptop and was caught inside another establishment as well as is the main suspect in a murder where there is a high probability of a break in.

You seem like you are willing to ignore the obvious to pick at the edges.

No one can prove that Rudy actually committed the burglary at the law office. I think we all agree with that. There is also reasons to maybe doubt Christian Tremantano's story and ID of Rudy Guede and no one can prove that Rudy burglarized Ms. Diaz, his next door neighbor. But the coincidences loom very large. The proximity of those burglaries, the timing and the circumstantial evidence. What this proves is not that Rudy Guede should be convicted in those cases, but that there is reasonable evidence to suspect an actual burglary of the cottage.

 

[kwill]

Please pray tell what are Karen's credentials? She is a total FOA devotee.

Harsh.

Why not just call her a groupie?

Karen knew Curt Knox before any of us ever heard of Amanda. She lives in the same community as the Knox family, knows many of their friends, and has personally met Amanda.

FOA devotee makes it sound like she's some crackpot from any old where who just fervently supports the people you like to call "the kids" for reasons of her own. That's not what's going on. She knows they're innocent for all the same reasons you do (because there is no motive or evidence), and she also happens to know them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you know who she is? Her credentials are that you like the way she writes. Funny.
We are a long way from the Secretary of State making a decision but it is pretty sure that it won't be Kerry. The Italians won't wrap this up until the end of the year or maybe next year and if the convictions are upheld and nothing comes of ECHR then I wouldn't expect the extradition request to come before 2016.

I can tell you that putting a "they framed them the first hour" argument out there can do nothing but hurt her chances.

Every once in a while a post here generates a great belly laugh.

If you want to know her credentials, you have the opportunity to ask her.

What are your credentials? No one seems to have even the opportunity to ask, yet that doesn't seem to stop you )(or me) from posting copiously here!

What a truly bizarre comment.... a "criticism-sounding-like" comment that really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Grinder]

Of course not Grinder, but Rudy had the stolen laptop and was caught inside another establishment as well as is the main suspect in a murder where there is a high probability of a break in.

What are you talking about? He wasn't a suspect in a murder case until well after the arrest of the kids. Go back reread and explain what you are trying to say

You seem like you are willing to ignore the obvious to pick at the edges.

No one can prove that Rudy actually committed the burglary at the law office. I think we all agree with that. There is also reasons to maybe doubt Christian Tremantano's story and ID of Rudy Guede and no one can prove that Rudy burglarized Ms. Diaz, his next door neighbor. But the coincidences loom very large. The proximity of those burglaries, the timing and the circumstantial evidence. What this proves is not that Rudy Guede should be convicted in those cases, but that there is reasonable evidence to suspect an actual burglary of the cottage.

I think you are confused just like the ship meant Bertha was going to start up three months ago.

I think Rudi broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith. I'm not sure he didn't have an accomplice that Koko drove to the cottage.

What was being addressed is the idea that the PLE woulod immediately recognize Rudi's work and begin the framing of the kids.

The PLE had no knowledge of Rudi and CT or Diaz if in fact either happened.

 

[carbonjam72]

She's a pretty good writer, but my interest ultimately is in using the break in forensics to prove Rudy was inside before Meredith, and the lawyer office evidence is part of this, so there are elements of Moore etc that are relevant. I have written posts that use the embedded glass shard as proof of this. I am figuring a simple way to do velocity tests to explain it, and will report in due course.

I see the critical path is to get the American public on side with a simple argument on only two or three points before Kerry can coldly sacrifice Amanda. Not really my job admittedly.

Completely agree. Public opinion is the key, not just to preventing extradition, but to reversing the guilty verdicts. Not my job either, but will do what I can.

 

[Samson]

Do you know who she is?

Her credentials are that you like the way she writes. Funny.

We are a long way from the Secretary of State making a decision but it is pretty sure that it won't be Kerry. The Italians won't wrap this up until the end of the year or maybe next year and if the convictions are upheld and nothing comes of ECHR then I wouldn't expect the extradition request to come before 2016.

I can tell you that putting a "they framed them the first hour" argument out there can do nothing but hurt her chances.

A useful observation, though unrelated to the potential it may be a correct theory. I have put it in the impossible to disprove for now category, unlike the Massei conjectures.

How do you or anyone interpret the negligence of the state department? It disturbs me, but I have little cultural understanding.

 

[Bill Williams]

Harsh.

Why not just call her a groupie?

Karen knew Curt Knox before any of us ever heard of Amanda. She lives in the same community as the Knox family, knows many of their friends, and has personally met Amanda.

FOA devotee makes it sound like she's some crackpot from any old where who just fervently supports the people you like to call "the kids" for reasons of her own. That's not what's going on. She knows they're innocent for all the same reasons you do (because there is no motive or evidence), and she also happens to know them.

Grinder's schtick is to occupy some mythical middle position. As such he gets to say such things about both sides.

 

[Grinder]

Every once in a while a post here generates a great belly laugh.

If you want to know her credentials, you have the opportunity to ask her.

What are your credentials? No one seems to have even the opportunity to ask, yet that doesn't seem to stop you )(or me) from posting copiously here!

What a truly bizarre comment.... a "criticism-sounding-like" comment that really doesn't mean anything.

She writes tomes on the case. She is involved with the FOA and has been an advocate for ever. While she doesn't live in the same community, it has been said she has some relationship with Curt and perhaps Amanda.

I'm not publishing and would not expect my opinions to be quoted as backup to someone's assertions as was done here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Read this story to see how easily cross contamination can occur.

(apologies if this has already been posted - I haven't waded through all 117 pages of this thread)

There have been a number of recent cases with DNA that I am pretty concerned about

 

[Bill Williams]

She writes tomes on the case. She is involved with the FOA and has been an advocate for ever. While she doesn't live in the same community, it has been said she has some relationship with Curt and perhaps Amanda.

I'm not publishing and would not expect my opinions to be quoted as backup to someone's assertions as was done here.

That last sentence is fair comment.

The first paragraph, is pure poppycock. Note the passive tense of your claim.

 

[carbonjam72]

What are you talking about? He wasn't a suspect in a murder case until well after the arrest of the kids. Go back reread and explain what you are trying to say



I think you are confused just like the ship meant Bertha was going to start up three months ago.

I think Rudi broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith. I'm not sure he didn't have an accomplice that Koko drove to the cottage.
What was being addressed is the idea that the PLE woulod immediately recognize Rudi's work and begin the framing of the kids.

The PLE had no knowledge of Rudi and CT or Diaz if in fact either happened.

"...broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith."

Do you imagine Meredith let him in before or after he broke the window from the outside? (Because if he didn't break the window from the outside, then who did break the window, and from which direction?)

And if she did let him in, then perhaps you also believe the sexual contact was consensual? Grinder, with this capacity for speculation, you might well conclude the murder was consensual.

Thank you so much for clarifying your position, with this truly amazing conjecture. I'm glad I put in the energy to lay out what I think, and I appreciate all the feedback, including yours. But when you're referring to people as "FOA", it speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

I do think you have made some excellent points and I have modified my position to incorporate your POV, believe it or not, you helped me, especially on the peculiarities of the Italian mindset. I do respect your input, but I must admit, I'm surprised by these last couple exchanges.

 

[acbytesla]

What are you talking about? He wasn't a suspect in a murder case until well after the arrest of the kids. Go back reread and explain what you are trying to say



I think you are confused just like the ship meant Bertha was going to start up three months ago.

I think Rudi broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith. I'm not sure he didn't have an accomplice that Koko drove to the cottage.

What was being addressed is the idea that the PLE woulod immediately recognize Rudi's work and begin the framing of the kids.

The PLE had no knowledge of Rudi and CT or Diaz if in fact either happened.

Excuse me Grinder, Rudy was identified by his palm print at the cottage, the point is there is significant evidence to suspect an actual burglary at the cottage both with the circumstantial evidence linking Rudy to those break ins and the evidence of a break in at the cottage.

 

[Grinder]

A useful observation, though unrelated to the potential it may be a correct theory. I have put it in the impossible to disprove for now category, unlike the Massei conjectures.

How do you or anyone interpret the negligence of the state department? It disturbs me, but I have little cultural understanding.

It would seem that the general policy is to let the locals sort it out. What and at what point would you have had them do? The Italians said they had hard evidence including DNA and the murder weapon.

I've made numerous points about why the idea of framing from the get is whack.

 

[Grinder]

Excuse me Grinder, Rudy was identified by his palm print at the cottage, the point is there is significant evidence to suspect an actual burglary at the cottage both with the circumstantial evidence linking Rudy to those break ins and the evidence of a break in at the cottage.

Tesla you seem quite confused. The assertion is that the PLE started framing the kids from the first. Napoleoni and others after I pointed out as chief of the homicide she wouldn't know supposedly recognized Rudi's MO and moved to frame the kids from the very beginning. They certainly didn't know it was Rudi's palm print until much later.

This convo has nothing to do with whether or not Rudi was involved with the break-in but rather when the police began to frame Amanda and Raf.

 

[carbonjam72]

She writes tomes on the case. She is involved with the FOA and has been an advocate for ever. While she doesn't live in the same community, it has been said she has some relationship with Curt and perhaps Amanda.

I'm not publishing and would not expect my opinions to be quoted as backup to someone's assertions as was done here.

Just to clarify, here is a comment that karen left appended to her article in the comments section, regarding her sourcing.

Here's Karen's comment to Peter Gibbons - describing her sourcing:

Karen Peter Gibbons • 11 hours ago
Dear, you are laboring under legal 'rules' that are not Italian. And since when does one need a law degree to point out when a legal action stinks to high heaven? After all I am not arguing this before a court of law.

Rather I am gathering facts to educate people. And the entire article is based on court documentation, not some cheesy hate site run by a creeper.
It seems to me that your need to DIMINISH ME is clearly the issue here, not that I've taken the time to read Italian, US and international law and form an opinion about what happened to a couple of college kids in a hostile police station in the middle of the night.

In addition, I recognize a fair amount of information that is mentioned in many of the most familiar books on the subject, besides Amanda's and Raf's books; including Burleigh, Dempsey, MOF (Preston/Spezi), The Forgotten Suspect (Moore, Douglas, Preston, Heavey), at a minimum. Those are the ones that come to mind off hand, plus she incorporates additional info I hadn't seen.

Why the personal attacks? Just argue the facts.

 

[Grinder]

"...broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith."

Do you imagine Meredith let him in before or after he broke the window from the outside? (Because if he didn't break the window from the outside, then who did break the window, and from which direction?)

And if she did let him in, then perhaps you also believe the sexual contact was consensual? Grinder, with this capacity for speculation, you might well conclude the murder was consensual.

Thank you so much for clarifying your position, with this truly amazing conjecture. I'm glad I put in the energy to lay out what I think, and I appreciate all the feedback, including yours. But when you're referring to people as "FOA", it speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

I do think you have made some excellent points and I have modified my position to incorporate your POV, believe it or not, you helped me, especially on the peculiarities of the Italian mindset. I do respect your input, but I must admit, I'm surprised by these last couple exchanges.

One scenario would be that Rudi threw the rock and waited to see if anybody reacted. Meredith returns at that time and he talks his way in and then we know what ended up happening.

The police stated that the sex was consensual for the first few days. IIRC not forced sex was ever determined to have occurred but on that I'm not sure.

The speculation is yours.

Karen is FOA. She has been FOA from the beginning. She is a total advocate and thus has less weight in voicing an opinion that is based not on independent research but inside info.

Let me give you an analogy. In 1937 the US Senate was holding hearing on making marijuana illegal. The only doctor testifying said there was no evidence that marijuana was dangerous. The next day the prohibitionists pulled out an article from the NE Journal of Medicine that laid out the evils of the weed. But, the article was written by Harry J. Anslinger, the first drug czar, so it didn't really have ant weight.

AFAIK Karen has no special knowledge and has been putting out tweets and articles with the same theme for ever.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just to clarify, here is a comment that karen left appended to her article in the comments section, regarding her sourcing.

Here's Karen's comment to Peter Gibbons - describing her sourcing:

Karen Peter Gibbons • 11 hours ago
Dear, you are laboring under legal 'rules' that are not Italian. And since when does one need a law degree to point out when a legal action stinks to high heaven? After all I am not arguing this before a court of law.

Rather I am gathering facts to educate people. And the entire article is based on court documentation, not some cheesy hate site run by a creeper.
It seems to me that your need to DIMINISH ME is clearly the issue here, not that I've taken the time to read Italian, US and international law and form an opinion about what happened to a couple of college kids in a hostile police station in the middle of the night.

In addition, I recognize a fair amount of information that is mentioned in many of the most familiar books on the subject, besides Amanda's and Raf's books; including Burleigh, Dempsey, MOF (Preston/Spezi), The Forgotten Suspect (Moore, Douglas, Preston, Heavey), at a minimum. Those are the ones that come to mind off hand, plus she incorporates additional info I hadn't seen.

Why the personal attacks? Just argue the facts.

It seems Pruett DOES identify her sources, and more importantly respond to sourcing issues. All she asks is to stop the personal attacks.

Any comments about either her distance or closeness to the Mellas/Knox family is totally immaterial. It shows an unwillingness to argue the facts, and is ad hominem.

 

[Samson]

"...broke the window from the outside. I think he may have entered through that window or have been let by Meredith."

Do you imagine Meredith let him in before or after he broke the window from the outside? (Because if he didn't break the window from the outside, then who did break the window, and from which direction?)

And if she did let him in, then perhaps you also believe the sexual contact was consensual? Grinder, with this capacity for speculation, you might well conclude the murder was consensual.

Thank you so much for clarifying your position, with this truly amazing conjecture. I'm glad I put in the energy to lay out what I think, and I appreciate all the feedback, including yours. But when you're referring to people as "FOA", it speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

I do think you have made some excellent points and I have modified my position to incorporate your POV, believe it or not, you helped me, especially on the peculiarities of the Italian mindset. I do respect your input, but I must admit, I'm surprised by these last couple exchanges.

An unlikely but just plausible theory is he broke the window, she came out and he said the perp just ran away, and she let him in as security. I don't believe this however. All theories would be after the window was broken.

ETA, a point worth labouring is that Rudy would expect all residents to be out partying before all saints day holiday, and he thought he had all the time in the world. Meredith was alone in not realising Friday was a holiday. Amanda knew because she was hanging out with an Italian, but Meredith went home early to study for Friday. Maybe the other british girls didn't know to tell her.