Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

1. 9:08

I am asking to put it in the sequence.
Is that before, or is it after he goes in the bathroom to allegedly wash himself? Elaborate the sequence of actions.
Then you may realize where problems come out from.

2. He doesn't. He mops the floor with her dying body.

He carries three towels in the room and places them around and below the victim's body. The questions are: the purpose; what does he use them for, why, and why does he put them there.

3. See no. 2.

There is no answer on point 2: I am asking why his wet trousers don't drop on the floor. Why don't they drop on the floor when he leaves the bathroom, why not when he leaves the room.

4. Because you don't use keys to flush toilets.

Maybe you forgot that you can't escape the implication that he washed the bathmat and he cleaned the floor. When I say that he came back, I also refer to the fact that he came back at least a first time in order to clean the floor. But anyway he washed and cleaned some things.

But above all it's clear you missed the implication of my question: I was referring to the purpose why he locked the door. What was the purpose of locking the door? Was it to conceal evidence of himself or evidence that someone entered the house?
Would that be consistent with the rest of his actions?

5. 9:11
6. 9:09

Now, I see you contradict the autopsy report evidence. The sexual violence was committed before the stabbing. And instead you place it subsequently (at 21:11). You are egregiously contradicting the evidence.

Then you locate his stepping on the pillow case (several steps) subsequently to the alleged washing, right?
But the wasn't the pillowcase picked up with a bloody hand? Did he had bloody hands subsequently to his washing?
Then you locate the stepping on the pillow prior to the sexual violence. But, wasn't his shoeprint overlapping a previous semen stain?
And how did it happen that he walked on the pillowcase, since what he intended to do was to pick it up?

I won't ask you about the rest of the mass of obvious contradictions in your scenario (why does blood under his shoe "fade" so suddenly? why is there no evidence of footrpints going back to Meredith's door show off, not even enhanced in luminol? Why the left part of one of his footprints was cleaned? the body was untouched with no blood smears etc.)

7. Because there was no blood where he needed to step until he needed to move her dying body into position.

Where he needed to step. Where do you think he needed to step during the development of the aggression? While her blood pured on the right of her shoulder and soaked her blood, for example.

8. He doesn't. He goes downstairs to wash up and then runs away.

How many times does he wash up? And how long does he remain inside the murder room? And inside the cottage actually. Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? It's a long time, if you are a murderer in a foreign house and you know anyone can enter at any moment.

 

[Bill Williams]

But the statement and "request of clarification" you made about investigation was about me.

As for De Nunzio, the only problem is that you are repeating yourself. You are repeating a question to which I had already answered, and where I already stated what I had to say.
I also said that I won't discuss the topic, since it is a matter of investigation and since it is not the reason why I write on forums, so it is pointless to keep on asking me to discuss about it.

You answered with a non-answer, yet your claims of conspiracy involving Masons, De Nunzio and Hellmann is key to the way you view this case.

Your refusal to discuss it is revealing. But it reveals nothing about you personally, it reveals that this is a sensitive issue for you. That's all.

The repetition is that for days, you simply ignored that the question was being asked.

It is not pointless to keep asking you - because you avoid the question. It is interesting in and of itself that you will accuse me of things.....

..... instead of answering the question.

Do you think De Nunzio is a criminal?

One of your attempted rhetorical escape routes to answering this was:

"But you perfectly know this cannot be a matter of forum discussion, since this is matter of investigation."​

I, apparently wrongly, thought this meant that YOU were under investigation. You, apparently, have corrected that impression - in a post where you called me delusional. (Talk about making comments about the poster!) However, since this was one of your answers to the question, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were not answering for fear of incriminating yourself. (There's one less reason for you to answer!)

Because you have not answered the question as asked, I can only repeat it, because it is germane to this thread's discussion:

Do you think Wladimiro De Nunzio is a criminal? (I get the feeling that you are running out of rhetorical escape routes.)

 

[Diocletus]

He carries three towels in the room and places them around and below the victim's body. The questions are: the purpose; what does he use them for, why, and why does he put them there.

That's different than mopping up. Those towels probably have something to do with remorse or rape.

There is no answer on point 2: I am asking why his wet trousers don't drop on the floor. Why don't they drop on the floor when he leaves the bathroom, why not when he leaves the room.

Who says that they were so wet that blood had to be trailing off of them?

Maybe you forgot that you can't escape the implication that he washed the bathmat and he cleaned the floor. When I say that he came back, I also refer to the fact that he came back at least a first time in order to clean the floor. But anyway he washed and cleaned some things.

No, he didn't wash the bathmat: it has a giant bloody footprint on it. He didn't clean up anything except his own clothes.

But above all it's clear you missed the implication of my question: I was referring to the purpose why he locked the door. What was the purpose of locking the door? Was it to conceal evidence of himself or evidence that someone entered the house?
Would that be consistent with the rest of his actions?

Obviously, he did it to delay discovery of the dead body. His turd isn't a crime and was probably the last thing on his mind.

Now, I see you contradict the autopsy report evidence. The sexual violence was committed before the stabbing. And instead you place it subsequently (at 21:11). You are egregiously contradicting the evidence.

Is this the same autopsy report that said she had consensual sex? She obviously could have been stabbed shortly before he raped her. I doubt that the autopsy report says that, and if it does, it's wrong. I've learned that Italian technicians are far from infallible.

Then you locate his stepping on the pillow case (several steps) subsequently to the alleged washing, right?
But the wasn't the pillowcase picked up with a bloody hand? Did he had bloody hands subsequently to his washing?

It was his own blood.

Then you locate the stepping on the pillow prior to the sexual violence. But, wasn't his shoeprint overlapping a previous semen stain?
And how did it happen that he walked on the pillowcase, since what he intended to do was to pick it up?

Oh yeah, I guess he did step in the semen. So that footprint was made while he was pulling up his pants.

I won't ask you about the rest of the mass of obvious contradictions in your scenario (why does blood under his shoe "fade" so suddenly? why is there no evidence of footrpints going back to Meredith's door show off, not even enhanced in luminol? Why the left part of one of his footprints was cleaned? the body was untouched with no blood smears etc.)

Not impressed. Most of these tings are either things the police probably missed or that don't need to exist anyway.

How many times does he wash up? And how long does he remain inside the murder room? And inside the cottage actually. Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? It's a long time, if you are a murderer in a foreign house and you know anyone can enter at any moment.

He washed briefly upstairs, and then afterwards he rinsed his clothes and got new pants downstairs.

 

[Machiavelli]

You answered with a non-answer, yet your claims of conspiracy involving Masons, De Nunzio and Hellmann is key to the way you view this case.

Your refusal to discuss it is revealing. But it reveals nothing about you personally, it reveals that this is a sensitive issue for you. That's all.

The repetition is that for days, you simply ignored that the question was being asked.

It is not pointless to keep asking you - because you avoid the question. It is interesting in and of itself that you will accuse me of things.....

..... instead of answering the question.

Do you think De Nunzio is a criminal? (...)

You are lying. I did not build any rhetorical escape: I answered straightforward, my answer was: yes. This means the topic is over. I do not answer repeated questions.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are lying. I did not build any rhetorical escape: I answered straightforward, my answer was: yes. This means the topic is over. I do not answer repeated questions.

Machiavelli - you have accused me of misinterpreting you in the past.

So I ask this one last time to make it crystal clear, and to avoid misunderstanding.

When I ask, "Do you believe De Nunzio is a criminal," your answer is "yes"?

ETA - one of your many answers to this question was:

"But you perfectly know this cannot be a matter of forum discussion, since this is matter of investigation."​

Why are you now answering, "yes"?

 

[carbonjam72]

Where is my Masonic pay check

It's in the mail, along with your FOA PR supertanker paycheck, at least according to addle minded guilt-ards.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fraud in the handling of the personal computers, those which were owned/used by the people in the vicinity of the Murder of Meredith Kercher:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/computer-fraud-alibi/

It is an incredible read.

 

[carbonjam72]

Btw, the Guede sample from the vaginal swab: even assuming it's not semen, which is open to question based on the quantification results, can anyone explain to me why we're so sure that it's "epithelial" cells as opposed to, say, blood from Rudy's bleeding finger???

Until I get such an explanation I'm adding Rudy's vagina dna to the list of stuff that is probably Blood from Rudy's finger.

Great point DC. Would they have tested for blood on that sample, if only to help ascertain whether there were internal injuries that might cause bleeding?

I'm just speculating on procedure here, but I think the point that the DNA match from the vagina swab might be Rudy's blood, is insightful.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are lying. I did not build any rhetorical escape: I answered straightforward, my answer was: yes. This means the topic is over. I do not answer repeated questions.

Usually there is a single item which makes one think that somebody is guilty, their "strongest argument" might be a way of describing it.

So what is your single strongest argument for the guilt of Amanda and Rafffaele?

 

[carbonjam72]

Machiavelli and Giuliano Mignini are full members of the beliefs below....

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories​

You can see why both Mignini and Machiavelli are so sensitive when it comes to the claims of "Satanic Rite" theories of this crime.....

​

Conservative Catholics are particularly susceptible.

Italy has had an issue with "secret societies", even banning some (Article 18 of the Constitution of Italy bans secret associations).

For an example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due​

​

The Kercher murder, acc. to Machiavelli and his conspiracy theories about De Nunzio and Hellmann, are simply part of a larger war within Italy for the very control of the country. At the least, it is reflected in the internecine war even Machiavelli concedes is at root to these trial-proceedings.

Machiavelli would take issue with you. For him (and for Mignini and for many in the party-of-the-PMs), these conspiracies have more than adequately been demonstrated.

Your mileage may vary.

Hey Bill,

Don' know if you've seen my posts on this aspect, but I do believe this line of inquiry is interesting and perhaps explanatory to a large degree.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's time for you to depart from Spezi and Preston's books.

Spezi was caught in a Villa near Florence, together with ex-policeman Zaccaria and with the mobster and multiple previous offender Luigi Ruocco, while they were attempting to place false evidence against Antonio Vinci.

Btw, Spezi had another conviction for calunnia in Milan just ten days ago (this one was about a false accusation report against Giuttari, that Spezi had submitted to a judge years ago).

Well Mach, you are correct that I rely on the Spezi/Preston books for factual information. So if you doubt they are accurate and truthful, then its inevitable that we will be in disagreement.

It would help though, if you could be more specific about what points you feel they have lied about, or just made honest mistakes about, so we could examine those arguments specifically.

i was unaware that Spezi had a recent conviction of any kind. Could you possibly share a link or cite that we could see? I'd be fascinated to read about it.
That Spezi got duped by the criminal, I don't doubt. But to suggest that Spezi, a reporter who had followed the Monster of Florence case from the beginning, over 3o years at that point, was somehow himself THE Monster of Florence, seems more than just silly. It sounds crazy.

The whole line of Mignini's reasoning in the Narducci investigation, tells the sad story of a bizarre and dangerous prosecutor, who first imagines fantastic conspiracies, then believes his fantasies, then ruthlessly abuses his office to prosecute and terrorize those who question his delirium.

Giuliano Mignini is a rare specimen. As is Antonio Vinci. Their names will forever be linked in history, as the two madmen of the Monster of Florence crimes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hey Bill,

Don' know if you've seen my posts on this aspect, but I do believe this line of inquiry is interesting and perhaps explanatory to a large degree.

A summary of those posts would be interesting.

I think this has everything to do with Mignini's mindset, as he approached the cottage on Nov 2, 2007.

Whereas I do not think Machiavelli is a "player" in this, he certainly reflects the biases.

 

[carbonjam72]

A summary of those posts would be interesting.

I think this has everything to do with Mignini's mindset, as he approached the cottage on Nov 2, 2007.

Whereas I do not think Machiavelli is a "player" in this, he certainly reflects the biases.

Oh dear God, thank you. Now, can you consider that Mignini, napoleone and Zugarini recognized Rudy's break-in MO immediately at the crime scene, as alleged by Steve Moore, Nencini in his motivation report, and Napoleone in her testimony?

I haven't got anyone else to formally buy-in yet, but Bill by golly, I smell a sale.

My most recent posts have been within the last few weeks, and I've been all over this board. I think what got me re-started on it again was when the subject of the downstairs break-in came up. I'm not too handy at fishing out past quotes from these boards, I could try, but you're better likely to get a quick result doing a search, if you're decent at the task.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you have accused me of misinterpreting you in the past.

So I ask this one last time to make it crystal clear, and to avoid misunderstanding.

When I ask, "Do you believe De Nunzio is a criminal," your answer is "yes"?

ETA - one of your many answers to this question was:

"But you perfectly know this cannot be a matter of forum discussion, since this is matter of investigation."​

Why are you now answering, "yes"?

My answer is what I have already answered on the same question on Oct. 31:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10303686#post10303686

The answer is still the identical one, quoted from my 31 Oct. post:

yes, I think so

And it was already a repetition of the same question, as I pointed out.

 

[Bill Williams]

My answer is what I have already answered on the same question on Oct. 31:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10303686#post10303686

The answer is still the identical one, quoted from my 31 Oct. post:



And it was already a repetition of the same question, as I pointed out.

Thank you for digging that out. You, in fact, think that Wladimiro De Nunzio is a criminal.

Have you ever been contacted by Carabinieri for this defamation? If not, why not?

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh dear God, thank you. Now, can you consider that Mignini, napoleone and Zugarini recognized Rudy's break-in MO immediately at the crime scene, as alleged by Steve Moore, Nencini in his motivation report, and Napoleone in her testimony?

I haven't got anyone else to formally buy-in yet, but Bill by golly, I smell a sale.
My most recent posts have been within the last few weeks, and I've been all over this board. I think what got me re-started on it again was when the subject of the downstairs break-in came up. I'm not too handy at fishing out past quotes from these boards, I could try, but you're better likely to get a quick result doing a search, if you're decent at the task.

Only if you offer a deep discount.

There is no way of knowing, really, if Mignini approached the cottage, saw the break-in, and said to himself, "For the love of sweet Jesus, Rudy Guede broke in and killed that girl! We're in for a crap-load of trouble now!!!..... Oh look, there's a girl kissing that boy.... I sincerely hope she's an American, then I can get back at Doug Preston...."

I doubt that Mignini thought that. I do not go with Moore's thesis.

There's just no way of knowing, really.

I think that Mignini and Napoleoni carried on blissful in the first few days that they'd solved this crime - solved it based on Knox's faux-confession, behavioural observation, and a confession where she'd not been part of the actual murder, but was covering for Lumumba. Raffaele had to be arrested at the same time to hold Knox. Marco Chiacchiera had to be relegated to the sidelines, because I believe there were many in PLE who kept quiet about their reservations.

Then the case fell apart against Lumumba - and at the same time, it became apparent that Rudy Guede had to have been involved. (Briefly in the press reports of the day, they thought this was a four-person crime.)

I think that Mignini was derailed by his conservative Catholicism, as well as his tendency to see things associated with the Day of the Dead in mythological terms.

I know that Barbie Latza Nadeau has fallen out of favour with the Pro-guilt lobby these days (see Winterbottom's film!), but she at one time was adamant that co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with his (then) Satanic rite theories. It then morphed into sex-game-gone-wrong theories.... for this transgression of Nadeau's, Machiavelli referred to her as an "approximate reporter".

True, Nencini in his motivation report, and Napoleoni in her testimony said it was known right from the git-go that this was Rudy's M.O. Truly, I have no idea what to make of this, other than that both Nencini and Napoleoni are clueless.

So, I'll perhaps buy what you're selling, but at reduced cost.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thank you for digging that out. You, in fact, think that Wladimiro De Nunzio is a criminal.

Have you ever been contacted by Carabinieri for this defamation? If not, why not?

I'm opposed to keeping after Mach on this question of DeNunzio, even though I'm fascinated by the discussion.

The law enforcement system in his country is virtually totalitarian, not unlike North Korea in some ways. It's fun for us, but there can be real criminal consequences for expressing these kinds of opinions for an Italian.

So much as I don't agree with Mach's opinions, I don't think its fair play to prod and provoke he/she into making statements that could be construed criminally by local authorities. - just imo, of course.

 

[carbonjam72]

Only if you offer a deep discount.

There is no way of knowing, really, if Mignini approached the cottage, saw the break-in, and said to himself, "For the love of sweet Jesus, Rudy Guede broke in and killed that girl! We're in for a crap-load of trouble now!!!..... Oh look, there's a girl kissing that boy.... I sincerely hope she's an American, then I can get back at Doug Preston...."

I doubt that Mignini thought that. I do not go with Moore's thesis.

There's just no way of knowing, really.

I think that Mignini and Napoleoni carried on blissful in the first few days that they'd solved this crime - solved it based on Knox's faux-confession, behavioural observation, and a confession where she'd not been part of the actual murder, but was covering for Lumumba. Raffaele had to be arrested at the same time to hold Knox. Marco Chiacchiera had to be relegated to the sidelines, because I believe there were many in PLE who kept quiet about their reservations.

Then the case fell apart against Lumumba - and at the same time, it became apparent that Rudy Guede had to have been involved. (Briefly in the press reports of the day, they thought this was a four-person crime.)

I think that Mignini was derailed by his conservative Catholicism, as well as his tendency to see things associated with the Day of the Dead in mythological terms.

I know that Barbie Latza Nadeau has fallen out of favour with the Pro-guilt lobby these days (see Winterbottom's film!), but she at one time was adamant that co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with his (then) Satanic rite theories. It then morphed into sex-game-gone-wrong theories.... for this transgression of Nadeau's, Machiavelli referred to her as an "approximate reporter".

True, Nencini in his motivation report, and Napoleoni in her testimony said it was known right from the git-go that this was Rudy's M.O. Truly, I have no idea what to make of this, other than that both Nencini and Napoleoni are clueless.

So, I'll perhaps buy what you're selling, but at reduced cost.

Have you seen the video footage of Mignini first arriving at the crime scene on Nov 2, at about 2pm I think, getting out of his car and shaking hands first with napoleone, and then briefly with Zugarini - and appearing (imo) to thank Zugarini in some way. I know, I know, wish I had a link.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm opposed to keeping after Mach on this question of DeNunzio, even though I'm fascinated by the discussion.

The law enforcement system in his country is virtually totalitarian, not unlike North Korea in some ways. It's fun for us, but there can be real criminal consequences for expressing these kinds of opinions for an Italian.

So much as I don't agree with Mach's opinions, I don't think its fair play to prod and provoke he/she into making statements that could be construed criminally by local authorities. - just imo, of course.

I agree. I don't see what it has to do with this topic either.

 

[Dan O.]

...
Who says that they were so wet that blood had to be trailing off of them?

The straw man sayith and that makes it so so.