Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

"Any fule" (and the faux-"Private Eye" language is getting really tiresome, not to mention utterly unearned, by the way....) could similarly say that it would be equally idiotic and improbable of Knox and Sollecito - if they had staged the break-in (which they didn't incidentally, according to both fact and now law as well) - to have selected such a large rock and brought it into the cottage with the aim of planting it as the break-in implement. Works both ways, ya see.

"Any fule" could also see the following obvious logic: if Guede had used his small hammer to break the glass, he would have had to have ascended the wall in order to do so. And if the sound of the breaking glass had alerted anyone, Guede would have found himself in a very compromising - and very incriminating - position up at the window. It would have taken him a good couple of seconds to descend (and remember that the ground below the window was on a very steep gradient, making a jump down from a one-storey height very dangerous and difficult) and to then retreat to cover. This was a risk that he wasn't willing to take. Likewise, had there been anybody within the house - heck, he couldn't even be confident that Filomena's room wasn't containing a lightly-sleeping occupant - he could have been caught in a compromising position if the glass breakage had brought anyone rushing over to the window to investigate.

So "any fule" could conclude that Guede would have in fact been very wise indeed to have thrown a rock either from ground level below the window or (more likely) from the raised car parking area roughly level with the window. That way, as soon as Guede threw the rock, he could have retreated quickly and easily into the dark shadows, with an easy escape route back up the driveway or down into the gully. From the shadows, he could observe whether anyone within or outside the cottage had reacted to the glass breakage in any way, and could have waited for a small while (30 seconds to 1 minute perhaps) to confirm that the glass breakage had attracted no reaction before having the confidence to ascend and enter quickly.

Oh, and "any fule" could also reasonably argue that even if there had been smaller stones available, it would have been in Guede's interests to select a larger rock, since he wanted to try to break as large a hole as possible in the glass. Why? Well, he wouldn't have wanted to spend any longer than he had to removing enough glass from the broken pane to enable him to reach in an release the window catch. A small stone might have broken the glass, yes, but it might well have caused only a very small hole and a small number of cracks. Therefore, upon his ascent, Guede might have had to spend additional seconds on the outside face of the cottage, removing sufficient glass to enable him to reach in. That was additional time for anyone outside the cottage to spot him. A larger rock guaranteed the removal of far more glass in the act of the throw, meaning that Guede would almost certainly have to spend less time in his climb and entry.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 12

Actually Nigel Molesworth (Ed Willans & Searle)

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps Vixen et al. could tell us the exact correct sized rock a burglar would have used. Did Mignini provide a " lineup of rocks" easily available in the cottages car park?

 

[Vixen]

It sometimes seems like Vixen doesn't even look at his last post before he makes the next post.
That is one of the things I like about his thinking: It is so fluid.

There are more things in heaven and earth, analemma,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Vixlet (1.5.167-8), Vixlet to Horatio analemma

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps Vixen et al. could tell us the exact correct sized rock a burglar would have used. Did Mignini provide a " lineup of rocks" easily available in the cottages car park?

You jest of course. Not even a child would attempt to use a rock the size of a football. The standard MO is to smash a small segment of glass in front of the window inside lock, insert the hand and unlock it. Voila! The window now opens without any danger of cutting the jugular vein. I had a burglar do this when I lived in a Victorian-style house with large bay windows and wide window ledge, in full sight of me cowering indoors. The police forensics took fingerprints and noted where the glass fragments fell.

There was no sign of Rudy fingerprints, footprint or DNA in Filomena's room. Say you were to argue, ah, he wore gloves and a balaclava. Then that doesn't explain why he targeted Mez, specifically, and left his ID with her. He only stole from Mez (goes your hypothesis) taking her two phones, credit card and €300-, whilst leaving behind two laptops (contra to his MO according to bagels), Filomena's gold jewellery and Amanda's €300- rent in cash in her room.

As to the size of the rock, have a look at this defence attempt to demonstrate it could have been thrown by a burglar. Perhaps by a sling, in the manner of David when he encountered Golaith.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...ock-throwing-simulation-photo-attachments.pdf

 

[Vixen]

Actually if you go to court the police need to provide evidence that the radar gun (or other device) was maintained and calibrated and the accuracy of the device. If they fail to provide this documentation you get off. (This is also true for breathalysers).

Do you imagine they wouldn't be able to do this?

 

[Grinder]

Why would it be a scandal? If you are issued with a ticket for speeding, there is no requirement to prove anything at all other than a snapshot of your whizzing by the speed camera.

Ditto, if a defendant in murder trial disputes the prosecution claims, the onus is on them to produce the, ahem, defence.

For example, if it were your belief the speed camera was kaput, it'd be for you to get the expert witness in to testify this on your behalf.

Actually if you go to court the police need to provide evidence that the radar gun (or other device) was maintained and calibrated and the accuracy of the device. If they fail to provide this documentation you get off. (This is also true for breathalysers).

Do you imagine they wouldn't be able to do this?

It's just that's not what you asserted.

In your link I don't see any demonstration of a rock being thrown. Exactly how do you think the rock broke the window and ended up where it did? Why do you postulate the kids picked up a rock that was too big to throw (according to you)?

Do you believe the kids read about the lawyers' office being broken into and copied the style or did Rudi instruct them on how to do a second story job?

The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009).
​

While I'm not sure Rudi did the lawyers' office or if he did he was alone, but what is undeniable is that the window wasn't broken with a little bitty fire extinguisher hammer or a little rock. Keep in mind that the inner shutters if shut, which is much more likely than the outer ones as they actually shut, wouldn't have a convenient latch to undo and the rather large stone found in Filomena's room would have forced them open. Use that noodle of yours.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's just that's not what you asserted.

In your link I don't see any demonstration of a rock being thrown. Exactly how do you think the rock broke the window and ended up where it did? Why do you postulate the kids picked up a rock that was too big to throw (according to you)?

Do you believe the kids read about the lawyers' office being broken into and copied the style or did Rudi instruct them on how to do a second story job?

The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009).
​

While I'm not sure Rudi did the lawyers' office or if he did he was alone, but what is undeniable is that the window wasn't broken with a little bitty fire extinguisher hammer or a little rock. Keep in mind that the inner shutters if shut, which is much more likely than the outer ones as they actually shut, wouldn't have a convenient latch to undo and the rather large stone found in Filomena's room would have forced them open. Use that noodle of yours.

This is why you drive the Aston Martin, and I get a bus pass.

 

[Vixen]

It's just that's not what you asserted.

In your link I don't see any demonstration of a rock being thrown. Exactly how do you think the rock broke the window and ended up where it did? Why do you postulate the kids picked up a rock that was too big to throw (according to you)?

Do you believe the kids read about the lawyers' office being broken into and copied the style or did Rudi instruct them on how to do a second story job?

The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009).
​

While I'm not sure Rudi did the lawyers' office or if he did he was alone, but what is undeniable is that the window wasn't broken with a little bitty fire extinguisher hammer or a little rock. Keep in mind that the inner shutters if shut, which is much more likely than the outer ones as they actually shut, wouldn't have a convenient latch to undo and the rather large stone found in Filomena's room would have forced them open. Use that noodle of yours.

Go back to the defence document I referred you to and scroll down until you come to the defence's own version of similar rock and how and where it landed in similar room.

One of your body of PIP claimed Rudy was in possession of a small glass breaking hammer at the nursery in Milan.

As for the lawyers office, it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open).

A professional burglar will come armed with aforesaid sharp headed hammer. An amateur will soon realise a pebble won't do it, so of course, it'd be a rather large stone. The boulder you claim Rudy chose at the cottage is vastly disproportionate and would impede the climb in terms of both time taken and in efficiency and effectiveness.

 

[Grinder]

Go back to the defence document I referred you to and scroll down until you come to the defence's own version of similar rock and how and where it landed in similar room.

One of your body of PIP claimed Rudy was in possession of a small glass breaking hammer at the nursery in Milan.

As for the lawyers office, it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open).

A professional burglar will come armed with aforesaid sharp headed hammer. An amateur will soon realise a pebble won't do it, so of course, it'd be a rather large stone. The boulder you claim Rudy chose at the cottage is vastly disproportionate and would impede the climb in terms of both time taken and in efficiency and effectiveness.

Tell you what, if you specify exactly the page and what it means in terms of your assertions I'll look again.

Yes he is said to have had a small hammer. So what? Do you understand that the inner shutters have a latch on the inside that require one to unlatch it in order to enter? How would the break in be accomplished with (the now) sharp headed hammer (wouldn't that be a hatchet?) remembering the need to open the inner shutters?

I believe the shutter was open as Filomena wasn't as ordered as the PGP allege and she was in such a hurry she had Raf wrap her present. Much more likely she would have just closed the inner ones that actually worked.

As for the lawyers office, it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open).​

As for Filomena's window it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open)

 

[Vixen]

Tell you what, if you specify exactly the page and what it means in terms of your assertions I'll look again.

Yes he is said to have had a small hammer. So what? Do you understand that the inner shutters have a latch on the inside that require one to unlatch it in order to enter? How would the break in be accomplished with (the now) sharp headed hammer (wouldn't that be a hatchet?) remembering the need to open the inner shutters?

I believe the shutter was open as Filomena wasn't as ordered as the PGP allege and she was in such a hurry she had Raf wrap her present. Much more likely she would have just closed the inner ones that actually worked.

As for the lawyers office, it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open).​

As for Filomena's window it's obvious anyone entering by a window would need to break it in one way or another (unless already open)

Seriously, how much help do you need to scroll down a document. I cannot do this for you.

Filomena did say the wooden shutters were swollen with age so only one side shut squarely, the other jammed unshut. So not locked.

Anyone outside only need push the shutters apart, then break window at latch.

A burglar would need to be rashly foolhardy and completely incompetent and stupid to risk climbing in through a smashed pane with jagged edges, with consequent risk of severing main arteries. It's not as if student accommodation is likely to contain much of value (except laptops, which were left behind, anyway, and you haven't explained why) that risking your neck and life and limb would make it worthwhile.

PS No a sharp-headed hammer is not a hatchet. A hatchet is a one-sided axe. (cf Lizzie Borden)

 

[bagels]

Another stupid mistake Rudy Guede made as a burglar was when he raped and stabbed one of the occupants when she surprised him rather than fleeing and taking another slap on the wrist.

 

[Grinder]

Seriously, how much help do you need to scroll down a document. I cannot do this for you.

Scrolling = easy. Figuring out your point = not easy

Filomena did say the wooden shutters were swollen with age so only one side shut squarely, the other jammed unshut. So not locked.

Anyone outside only need push the shutters apart, then break window at latch.

Outside shutters swollen = no lock Inside shutters closed = locked

A burglar would need to be rashly foolhardy and completely incompetent and stupid to risk climbing in through a smashed pane with jagged edges, with consequent risk of severing main arteries. It's not as if student accommodation is likely to contain much of value (except laptops, which were left behind, anyway, and you haven't explained why) that risking your neck and life and limb would make it worthwhile.

Big rock blast through glass and open inside shutter, brilliant burglar. More to steal at cottage than lawyers' office. Laptops, cameras, rent money (cash society no pay taxes) surpasses laptop, phone and portable printer.

Perhaps you think the kids staged the lawyers' office burglary as part of their grand scheme.

PS No a sharp-headed hammer is not a hatchet. A hatchet is a one-sided axe. (cf Lizzie Borden)

hatch·et (hăch′ĭt)
n.
1. A small, short-handled axe for use in one hand.
2. A tomahawk.

You mean pointed hammer.

 

[JREF2010]

Another stupid mistake Rudy Guede made as a burglar was when he raped and stabbed one of the occupants when she surprised him rather than fleeing and taking another slap on the wrist.

Yes, agreed... Rudy was kind of a failure at everything he did it seems. Typical burlgar, too lazy to work so he becomes a thief and a worthless parasite in Perugia. Even given a chance to change his life with the rich-family, he is too lazy to work.

Its too bad he wont tell the truth either, he also has liar on his list of success.

the Parasite of Perugia...Rudy Guede

 

[Vixen]

Scrolling = easy. Figuring out your point = not easy



Outside shutters swollen = no lock Inside shutters closed = locked



Big rock blast through glass and open inside shutter, brilliant burglar. More to steal at cottage than lawyers' office. Laptops, cameras, rent money (cash society no pay taxes) surpasses laptop, phone and portable printer.

Perhaps you think the kids staged the lawyers' office burglary as part of their grand scheme.





hatch·et (hăch′ĭt)
n.
1. A small, short-handled axe for use in one hand.
2. A tomahawk.

You mean pointed hammer.

It is a hammer, not a hatchet.

http://www.aspli.com/products/1919/break-glass-emergency-escape-hammer-and-belt-cutter

Ah, but Amanda had staged a burglary in the past which she brags of in her blog. It's not rocket science.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, agreed... Rudy was kind of a failure at everything he did it seems. Typical burlgar, too lazy to work so he becomes a thief and a worthless parasite in Perugia. Even given a chance to change his life with the rich-family, he is too lazy to work.

Its too bad he wont tell the truth either, he also has liar on his list of success.

the Parasite of Perugia...Rudy Guede

Amanda sounds like a liar to me:

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah, but Amanda had staged a burglary in the past which she brags of in her blog. It's not rocket science.

Amanda sounds like a liar to me:

Amanda was part of an April Fools prank. If April Fools pranks are signs of nascent criminal behaviour, then police must be very busy every April 1.

The diary entry you posted, is her recounting of everything after Anna Donnino - the translator at the interrogation, a translator who said that she acted as a mediator between Knox and Ficarra - after Donnino told Knox she had forgotten things because of trauma.

But it is also telling that you then think of Knox as a liar for imagining she'd been at the cottage that night. Others would say that she was coerced into recounting an imagining, but - hey! - at leas you then agree she wasn't there, albeit the motive you ascribe is "lying" rather than coercion.

I thought you thought she was guilty?

 

[Grinder]

It is a hammer, not a hatchet.

http://www.aspli.com/products/1919/break-glass-emergency-escape-hammer-and-belt-cutter

Ah, but Amanda had staged a burglary in the past which she brags of in her blog. It's not rocket science.

A sharpened hammer would be a hatchet but you meant a pointed hammer so you're forgiven.

Can you explain how removing some things from a shared residence to prank a roommate is vaguely similar to the alleged staging at the cottage. In the former no damage was done to the building and things were hidden whereas in the latter the window was smashed and nothing was taken from the break in room - phones, cards, and money were taken from Meredith.

 

[Desert Fox]

Don't you know that anything Amanda ever did which is vaguely tricky is evidence that she killed President Kennedy. . . . .It does not matter that she was not even alive yet.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah, but Amanda had staged a burglary in the past which she brags of in her blog. It's not rocket science.

So here's the deal.

Every time someone trots out pseudo-evidence like this, it is an indication that even they are conceding that the "hard" forensics have collapsed - the DNA, the luminol, etc.

After the DNA evidence collapsed at the Hellmann/Zaneti trial, we were promised that there still was, "all the other evidence" that still convicted them. As mentioned, all that, "all the other evidence" pops up whack-a-mole style. It doesn't matter how many times the April Fools prank back in Seattle is debunked (as evidence relevant to the Perugian murder) - sure enough, someone will recycle it in what amounts to a six-month cycle - and that's just on JREF/ISF.

I dare you. Do a search for it. April Fools prank. One English language, Italian poster here at JREF once said that the whole of Seattle knew about the April Fools prank, and he said they virtually conceded that it was relevant to the trial because all of Seattle practised the Mafia concept of Omertà; meaning that they took a vow of silence to protect one of their own.

This is the way a ersatz-guilt narrative is constructed - from a patchwork of these guilt-sounding things, heavily reinterpreted.

One I fell for early on was the claim that Knox went to Italy already a felon, for the rock-throwing incident at her going away party. Remember that - a felon.

When I joined JREF in the fall of 2011 I simply assumed that was (unfortunately) true. Then I was pointed to JREF posts circa April 2010 where the issue, way back then was discussed ad nauseam.

One guilter had, right on cue, defended the (then recent) Massei conviction by saying, "After all she went to Italy already a felon."

Then - this is five 1/2 years ago people!!! - someone got ahold of the noise citation, a citation the equivalent (according to the form) of a speeding ticket. There was, then, testimony proffered that the reason Knox was served with it, was because she was the least drunk and the most responsible of the people there. Other house-renters could have easily been served.

What have guilters for the last half-decade been citing this as an example of, when it comes around in the cycle?



I even have it here on file at ISF for the next time someone claims it was a war-zone felony.

April Fool prank, or rock-throwing incident - the only reason to raise these things is to readily concede there never was much of a case against Raffaele and Amanda; or else they be talking DNA and luminol.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda was part of an April Fools prank. If April Fools pranks are signs of nascent criminal behaviour, then police must be very busy every April 1.

The diary entry you posted, is her recounting of everything after Anna Donnino - the translator at the interrogation, a translator who said that she acted as a mediator between Knox and Ficarra - after Donnino told Knox she had forgotten things because of trauma.

But it is also telling that you then think of Knox as a liar for imagining she'd been at the cottage that night. Others would say that she was coerced into recounting an imagining, but - hey! - at leas you then agree she wasn't there, albeit the motive you ascribe is "lying" rather than coercion.

I thought you thought she was guilty?

You are skilled at giving an answer to a different question than the one raised. It matters not a jot whether Amanda's April Fools joke was a prank or not. The point - but of course you already know - is that your idol knew how to stage a burglary, which she then applied to the murder scene in Perugia.

She wrote her lies quite voluntarily, and called it a "present", in relaxed solitude - nobody asked her to. It is obvious that, like a child, she thought she would substitute Patrick's name for Rudy's, whilst simultaneously taking herself off the hook and placing herself in a passive role.

Elsewhere in the self-serving missive she prattles on about nobody deserving to die like that, as if it's not a transparent attempt to manipulate the perception of the reader, to present herself as a caring person.