Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Amanda Knox: I am resolved to clear the names of the wrongfully convicted
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion...nox-resolved-clear-names-wrongfully-convicted

Throughout my own ordeal, I was sustained on hundreds of days and in countless ways by the resolve – and the hope, the kindness, the work – of others.

I know I’m not alone, even when I’m alone.
Over the past eight years, I must have written this line thousands of times. It was the way I closed every letter to my loved ones from prison. It meant to me that although none of my loved ones could hold my hand through imprisonment, they were with me in every other way possible. I repeated that line to myself throughout this Labor Day. For me, my experience was an experience shared with many people — family, friends and strangers — who believed in my innocence and who worked and advocated for it relentlessly. I was never alone. I will always be tremendously thankful for that.

I am SO proud to be one of the nameless supporters whose efforts, however small, have corrected this terrible injustice and brought about this joyful day

This" joyful day"? Do share your insights into which bits of the Bruno-Marasca report are "joyful", as the rest of us have missed it.

It is so joyful to read your pearls of wisdom.

 

[Grinder]

Well the last couple of days have produced some more focused information on some things. The old saw that the kids turned their phones off has been debunked across the board. The police at most stated that their phones "were made inactive" which would include not using them because they didn't want to answer, placing them in a part of the house where reception was bad or by turning the phone off.

We also learned that there is no proof to be found by the proponent that Amanda tore pages out of her diary. In fact, the PGP site made clear only one page of her diary had been made public.

We also can see that either Raf lied about a call he said he received or he was hopelessly mixed up. This raises the question, with all of their criminal expertise (cleanup, staged burglaries, controlling the investigation, deposing of bloody clothes and shoes etc.) they forgot to go over a basic alibi. Raf knowing no call was completed lied and said it was, brilliant.

What we haven't uncovered is an example of a murder knife not testing positive for blood yet producing a perfect DNA sample of the victim.

 

[Grinder]

Anyone can practise hard and then eventually do it. The point is, would a professional burglar, as you claim Rudy was, really prefer a nine-foot climb in plain sight of busy traffic and a 4kg boulder in their back pocket, or would they simply kick down the glass fronted terrace door in the dark and which is out of sight?

Be sensible now.

Such a silly statement. You could never do that climb - it takes thumbs

It was not in plain site. He threw the 9 lb rock from the parking area.

The kitchen balcony door was in plain sight of the road.

The window wasn't 9 feet from the sill of the bottom window.

 

[Vixen]

Such a silly statement. You could never do that climb - it takes thumbs

It was not in plain site. He threw the 9 lb rock from the parking area.

The kitchen balcony door was in plain sight of the road.

The window wasn't 9 feet from the sill of the bottom window.

Trust me, if Massei could have blamed it all on"the Ivorian", I am sure he would not have hesitated to. As the key fact-finding judge, he was unable to.

Not even Bruno-Marasca could apply their illogical meanderings to reach that conclusion.

 

[Methos]

bagels, not even the most bent judges could exonerate the kids. All of them say the burglary was staged. Next question: by whom and for what purpose?

[...]

Nope, take a look here (pg. 143)::

ASSOLVE
entrambi gli iinputati dai reati loro ascritti ai capi A, B, C, D per non aver commesso il fatto e dal reato di cui al capo E perché il fatto non sussiste, respingendo la domanda proposta nei loro confronti dalla parte civile Tattanelli Aldalia;

You've made very clear that you think that judges Hellmann and Zanetti were "bent".
Next question: by whom and for what purpose?

 

[Samson]

bagels, not even the most bent judges could exonerate the kids. All of them say the burglary was staged. Next question: by whom and for what purpose?

Think hard: cui bene from convincing the cops the job was not an inside one?

Hellmann said the burglary was not staged.

He reversed the Massei conviction saying something like the act did not happen. It is difficult for me to understand how an articulate and intelligent person can keep denying the settled facts.

 

[Methos]

Trust me, if Massei could have blamed it all on"the Ivorian", I am sure he would not have hesitated to. As the key fact-finding judge, he was unable to.

Not even Bruno-Marasca could apply their illogical meanderings to reach that conclusion.

Why do you think so?
Just one example: On the "Meredith Kercher was killed by more than one person" fact that hadn't been set into stone by Rudy Guede's appeals at the time judge Massei lists all the experts who gave their expertise on that topic. Those experts based their opinion on the forensic evidence, mostly the autopsy report. (pages 111 to 153).

The expert hired by the civil party (1) is sure that there must have been more than one attacker, the experts (2) called in by the defense state that Meredith Kercher could have been killed by a lone assailant, the experts working on behalf of the prosecution and the court (4) state that the forensic evidence doesn't allow for a conclusion and that both scenarios are possible.

Judge Massei looks at this information and ignores it, he decides that it would have been against Meredith Kerchers personality to have been overwhelmed by just one person...

Massei filled the gaps in the evidence with his own speculations, my guess is that the part of the Marasca/Bruno ruling dealing with that point is aimed at him...

 

[Grinder]

Massei filled the gaps in the evidence with his own speculations, my guess is that the part of the Marasca/Bruno ruling dealing with that point is aimed at him...

Perhaps Follain, Dempsey, Burleigh et al. have just been auditioning for a judgeship.

 

[Grinder]

Such a silly statement. You could never do that climb - it takes thumbs

It was not in plain site. He threw the 9 lb rock from the parking area.

The kitchen balcony door was in plain sight of the road.

The window wasn't 9 feet from the sill of the bottom window.

Trust me, if Massei could have blamed it all on"the Ivorian", I am sure he would not have hesitated to. As the key fact-finding judge, he was unable to.

Not even Bruno-Marasca could apply their illogical meanderings to reach that conclusion.

How so? What conclusion?

 

[analemma]

This" joyful day"? Do share your insights into which bits of the Bruno-Marasca report are "joyful", as the rest of us have missed it.

It is so joyful to read your pearls of wisdom.

The joyful day was when the Italian Supreme Courts ended the witch hunt of these two innocent victims of ignorance and hatred.
I know that there are still some that are filled with hatred and ignorance, but the injustice has ended.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyone can practise hard and then eventually do it. The point is, would a professional burglar, as you claim Rudy was, really prefer a nine-foot climb in plain sight of busy traffic and a 4kg boulder in their back pocket, or would they simply kick down the glass fronted terrace door in the dark and which is out of sight?

Be sensible now.

Take a look at these pictures, then revise your statement.



shows Filomena's window not in plain sight of busy traffic. In fact the climb begins below the lower parking area, which itself is below the road. The area under Filomena's window is in the dark, and all maneuvres needed to get in re relatively stealthy. That description describes the balcony on the other side....


Which as you can see is plainly visible from the street and illuminated by a streetlamp.

As for this impossible nine-foot climb, you need to see the video from which this clip comes.

 

[Grinder]

Bill your presentation needs a bit of work. The picture of the "back porch" kitchen balcony is from too high an angle. The picture of the window of Filomena is from way too high.

Neither window is that clear from the road but Filomena's is less obvious because of your points and because people in cars on that side of the road need to look back and down. Only the passenger could do it. In both cases only a small break in traffic would give complete security.

 

[analemma]

You need to review the video as you got most all of it wrong. The climbing enthusiast did not stand on the lower window's bars but rather the sill below the bars. He grabbed the top bar of the lower window and from a crouch pulled himself up and grabbed the sill of the upper window. He was only able to just grab the sill and the sill was above his head.

In a later part he is asked if an athletic person could do it and he yes easy. Then they ask about opening the shutters and he lowers himself to put his feet on the top bar and at that point his chest is at the sill level. It is not clear that with the shutters closed he would have been able to get to the shutter opening stance.

The video clearly demonstrates that the window was easily climbable and most importantly shows that the 3 1/2 meter number is highly deceptive. Rudi had no climbing history even if he did the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up.

Picky, picky, picky...
He was only able to just grab the sill and the sill was above his head.
There are 3 bars on the lower window: If he were shorter he could have stood on one of those and grabbed the ledge.
It is not clear that with the shutters closed he would have been able to get to the shutter opening stance.
I do not understand what you mean by that statement, Grinder?
He was standing on the LEDGE above the lower window when he was at chest level.
He stepped down to the bars so the shutters would be above him so he could open and shut them.
Rudi had no climbing history even if he did the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up
I do not understand what you mean by "the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up", Grinder?
Did the lawyers stage a demonstration like this video?
I thought that there demo was some photos of one of them at different positions on the wall, which would not be as convincing as this was.
And didn't Rudy break into a second floor office before the murder?

 

[Grinder]

The picture in the article shows that a car on the cottage side of the road would force passengers to look back and down to see the window of Filomena.

I don't know how to crop it so here's the link

 

[analemma]

Massei filled the gaps in the evidence with his own speculations, my guess is that the part of the Marasca/Bruno ruling dealing with that point is aimed at him...

Good point, but I think that it is aimed at both Nencini and Massei.

 

[Methos]

Perhaps Follain, Dempsey, Burleigh et al. have just been auditioning for a judgeship.

 

[Grinder]

Picky, picky, picky...
He was only able to just grab the sill and the sill was above his head.
There are 3 bars on the lower window: If he were shorter he could have stood on one of those and grabbed the ledge.

But that's not what he did.

It is not clear that with the shutters closed he would have been able to get to the shutter opening stance.
I do not understand what you mean by that statement, Grinder?

If the shutters were closed it is not clear there would be enough sill to grip. I don't happen to believe that the shutters were closed.

When he demonstrated how easy it would be to open the shutters he lowers himself from the ledge to put his feet on the top bar. It would have been better had he climbed the lower window bars with the shutter in place and then demoed the opening and closing.

His work clearly shows that the window was not a feat for Spiderman.

Rudi had no climbing history even if he did the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up
I do not understand what you mean by "the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up", Grinder?
Did the lawyers stage a demonstration like this video?
I thought that there demo was some photos of one of them at different positions on the wall, which would not be as convincing as this was.
And didn't Rudy break into a second floor office before the murder?

The only climbing history for Rudi is his alleged "climb" to the balcony of the lawyers' office that was burglarized. It was different because there was a balcony similar to the one on the other side of the cottage.

 

[Methos]

Good point, but I think that it is aimed at both Nencini and Massei.

You are right of course, Nencini also did his own gap-filling, so that point seems to be aimed at both of them...

I take this part of the interview judge Nencini gave after his verdict translated by Andrea Vogt :

Not even with regard to the decision handed down in Rudy Guede’s case?
“Effectively the specifics of the case was this: there was a person already convicted via fast-track, and definitively, for concourse in the same homicide. The Court of Cassation was asking us to consider who participated and their roles. We could have said that the two accused weren’t there, and then provided convincing reasoning, but we did not believe this to be the truth.”

as an admission that he was presiding a show trial. The alternative would be that this experienced judge has no idea what "reasonable doubt" means... both suggestions are equally frightening...

 

[Bill Williams]

The picture in the article shows that a car on the cottage side of the road would force passengers to look back and down to see the window of Filomena.

I don't know how to crop it so here's the link

Nice catch.... and over their shoulder. And Filomena's side of the house would not be illuminated by headlights.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gievn that it is now just you and me, we are going to have to get along.

You're welcome.