Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
You have no idea what’s wrong with your reply, do you.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

This is not a high school debating competition. Come out of the playground, "Bill", and put away your tools of sophistry, bluff and bluster and faux exasperation.

You know, I know, we know, he knows, she knows, you know the kids did it. No number of mealy-mouthed silver-tongued words can change it.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I suggest you study the break in analysis by Ron Hendry to understand the wrongful conviction on this matter alone. It is important to prove him wrong to get to the next step, because Mignini says it is a sine qua non for his prosecution. That is where I started, and pretty well finished. In many cases of wrongful conviction it is necessary to remove only one foundation block and the edifice crumbles. Time and time and time ....................again. I always think you are too smart to forego this type of analysis, but you seem hitherto immune.
Click to expand...

I read Ron Hendry's book. The crimescene photos were superb. However, his elaborate theory Rudy "could have" done it on his own, is pure speculation.

It was nice of him to use his road accident engineering reconstruction skills to try to help out the kid's own road crash.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This is not a high school debating competition. Come out of the playground, "Bill", and put away your tools of sophistry, bluff and bluster and faux exasperation.

You know, I know, we know, he knows, she knows, you know the kids did it. No number of mealy-mouthed silver-tongued words can change it.
Click to expand...


You need to back away from the keyboard, go upstairs, and tell your parents that you are finished with your home work for the day.

Also, your rants are becoming quite objectionable and most probably are approaching time-out guide lines . . .
 
Vixen said:
I read Ron Hendry's book. The crimescene photos were superb. However, his elaborate theory Rudy "could have" done it on his own, is pure speculation.

It was nice of him to use his road accident engineering reconstruction skills to try to help out the kid's own road crash.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the book, just the break in analysis on IA. He made little of the glass shard embedded in the hardwood panel of the interior shutter, but showed a close up. This one piece of evidence is conclusive, because the velocity required to achieve this is not possible from inside the room. The rock was not lobbed, but heaved from the carpark at maximum velocity for accuracy. (only one attempt was made and it succeeded). Study that piece of evidence, and explain how it got there with an interior action. The key is understanding that the rock had the same mass as a female shotput, and maximum launch velocity is 28 mph, barely sufficient to drive in this shard. Of course Rudy Guede was a semi professional basketballer......
 
Vixen said:
This is not a high school debating competition. Come out of the playground, "Bill", and put away your tools of sophistry, bluff and bluster and faux exasperation.

You know, I know, we know, he knows, she knows, you know the kids did it. No number of mealy-mouthed silver-tongued words can change it.
Click to expand...

"I" do?

It seems the courts in Italy say different. I guees they're wrong too.

Take a break, "Vixen"!
 
Vixen said:
So Giulia Bongiorno plays clever dick. That's her job. Police - like Marco - are trained to give testimony straightforwardly and objectively.

GB coaches her clients in evasion and deception. Note, she had to GAG Raff completely, as everything he says is an embarrassment, even to a hard-nosed bloodsucking vulture like herself.

It's no accident members of her profession are considered shifty and shady.

At least cops are generally considered to be honest and reliable.

If the telecommunication experts told PC Marco C the phones were switched off, then I believe them.
Click to expand...

Side stepped but with no style. His testimony along with the trial consultant proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police couldn't know the phones were on or off. The alleged "telecommunication experts" probably from the postal "let's fry another hard-drive" police looked at the pattern of calls for the kids and concluded the phones were "made" inactive. They couldn't possibly know when and since they only had a few days of pattern to look at no one with an IQ over 80 would believe they could even be sure the phones were turned off or made inactive at all.

Had their phone been on the police determined only one call or text was missed, Papa's.

Cops have mixed reputations and these particular cops were proven later to be bad apples. Ad hominem attacks on the lawyer or lawyers in general doesn't change the fact that there were no records of on and off. You were and are wrong.

Your attempt to juggle the books just isn't working.
 
Samson said:
I didn't read the book, just the break in analysis on IA. He made little of the glass shard embedded in the hardwood panel of the interior shutter, but showed a close up. This one piece of evidence is conclusive, because the velocity required to achieve this is not possible from inside the room. The rock was not lobbed, but heaved from the carpark at maximum velocity for accuracy. (only one attempt was made and it succeeded). Study that piece of evidence, and explain how it got there with an interior action. The key is understanding that the rock had the same mass as a female shotput, and maximum launch velocity is 28 mph, barely sufficient to drive in this shard. Of course Rudy Guede was a semi professional basketballer......
Click to expand...


So the rock was thrown from the outside? How does that prove it was not a staged burglary?

As you know, during the trial, the cottage was actually broken into. And guess what? They used the front door to get in.
 
Grinder said:
Side stepped but with no style. His testimony along with the trial consultant proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police couldn't know the phones were on or off. The alleged "telecommunication experts" probably from the postal "let's fry another hard-drive" police looked at the pattern of calls for the kids and concluded the phones were "made" inactive. They couldn't possibly know when and since they only had a few days of pattern to look at no one with an IQ over 80 would believe they could even be sure the phones were turned off or made inactive at all.

Had their phone been on the police determined only one call or text was missed, Papa's.

Cops have mixed reputations and these particular cops were proven later to be bad apples. Ad hominem attacks on the lawyer or lawyers in general doesn't change the fact that there were no records of on and off. You were and are wrong.

Your attempt to juggle the books just isn't working.
Click to expand...

For a start, the hard drives were not fried by the police. Raff's ASUS was already broken and cops recovered Filomena's laptop data.

Please show me the evidence the laptops were ever 'fried'.

If Amanda confirmed her phone was off, and Raff lied about getting a dad call at 2300, what remains the problem?
 
Vixen said:
So the rock was thrown from the outside? How does that prove it was not a staged burglary?

As you know, during the trial, the cottage was actually broken into. And guess what? They used the front door to get in.
Click to expand...
It was not the prosecution theory. Massei explained in detail how Amanda or Raffaele supposedly held the shutter open and broke the window. There are two problems, one is the velocity problem, but also the accuracy problem. The edge of the window was hit, when from point blank range the target was huge to middle the pane. But it was thrown from outside as I think you concede. Therefore it was Rudy or Raffaele, Amanda not having the strength. But the prosecution never suggested this. Now you are thinking about it, how advisable is it to risk waking the gods with this action at midnight with a dead body in the house. And what if the target was missed?
 
Vixen said:
So the rock was thrown from the outside? How does that prove it was not a staged burglary?

As you know, during the trial, the cottage was actually broken into. And guess what? They used the front door to get in.
Click to expand...

And guess what? Filomena's window was boarded up and eventually had bars put over it because the owner considered it an easy point of entry. (OK, i don't know that latter claim for sure, but it does seem reasonable to infer because the bars were installed!)
 
Vixen said:
So the rock was thrown from the outside? How does that prove it was not a staged burglary?

As you know, during the trial, the cottage was actually broken into. And guess what? They used the front door to get in.
Click to expand...

Please can't you control yourself?

5:53PM GMT 18 Feb 2009
The unidentified intruders broke a window, ransacked the house and left four kitchen knives and some candles behind in various rooms, officials said.

12:02PM GMT 20 Mar 2009
Lawyers and a judge discussed the break-in as the trial resumed for two people accused in the student's killing.
The break-in was noticed during a routine inspection on Thursday, when police realised that a window had been broken.​

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...1964/Break-in-at-Meredith-Kerchers-house.html

It was broken into twice during the trial. Both times through a window.
 
Vixen said:
[...]
As you know, during the trial, the cottage was actually broken into. And guess what? They used the front door to get in.
Click to expand...
Nope, "they" used the the kitchen window via the balcony:
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/se...processo/casa-incursione/casa-incursione.html
twice:
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/se...ocesso/materasso-rubato/materasso-rubato.html
clue.gif
 
Samson said:
It was not the prosecution theory. Massei explained in detail how Amanda or Raffaele supposedly held the shutter open and broke the window. There are two problems, one is the velocity problem, but also the accuracy problem. The edge of the window was hit, when from point blank range the target was huge to middle the pane. But it was thrown from outside as I think you concede. Therefore it was Rudy or Raffaele, Amanda not having the strength. But the prosecution never suggested this. Now you are thinking about it, how advisable is it to risk waking the gods with this action at midnight with a dead body in the house. And what if the target was missed?
Click to expand...


IIRC The hole in the window pane was something like 50cms wide. However, one of the shutters was firmly shut, and the other only slightly ajar.

Back to the drawing board.
 
Bill Williams said:
And guess what? Filomena's window was boarded up and eventually had bars put over it because the owner considered it an easy point of entry. (OK, i don't know that latter claim for sure, but it does seem reasonable to infer because the bars were installed!)
Click to expand...

Probably because there'd be morons keen to try it.
 
It's been pointed out to me in PM that I did bring up the "cat-burglar" thread. Apologies to Vixen for saying she did.
 
Vixen said:
IIRC The hole in the window pane was something like 50cms wide. However, one of the shutters was firmly shut, and the other only slightly ajar.

Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...

The only thing known is that the outer shutters wouldn't close properly. Filomena was in a hurry and wasn't really sure if she had pulled it shut. She became more sure after Amanda was arrested and she spent more time with the PLE.
 
Grinder said:
Please can't you control yourself?

5:53PM GMT 18 Feb 2009
The unidentified intruders broke a window, ransacked the house and left four kitchen knives and some candles behind in various rooms, officials said.

12:02PM GMT 20 Mar 2009
Lawyers and a judge discussed the break-in as the trial resumed for two people accused in the student's killing.
The break-in was noticed during a routine inspection on Thursday, when police realised that a window had been broken.​

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...1964/Break-in-at-Meredith-Kerchers-house.html

It was broken into twice during the trial. Both times through a window.
Click to expand...

According to Prosecutor Mignini, who witnessed the evidence himself, "The intruders had broken in through the glass door, that gave on to the terrace - which he had always argued was the easiest way in."

If you recall, a female cop broke down the downstairs door with little resistance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom