Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
They probably meant the door window, a popular way for burglars to enter.
Click to expand...
Please show us a picture of the door window at the cottage. They didn't go in through the front door. Do your accounts ever balance?
 
Vixen said:
Fact is, Amanda had Mez' blood on her hands or foot even if as Bruno-Marasca say could have been post-mortem.

So: why didn't Amanda call the police when she found herself covered in blood? The story of the earring causing her earlobe to bleed copiously is contemptibly lame.
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference between a fact and an allegation.

It's a fact that Rudy had Meredith's blood on his hand, and this happened right next to the body.

It's alleged that Amanda had Meredith's blood on her hands, because Amanda's DNA was found in her own sink in her own bathroom. It's a stupid allegation of course, but the prosecution was desperate for anything.
 
bagels said:
You need to learn the difference between a fact and an allegation.

It's a fact that Rudy had Meredith's blood on his hand, and this happened right next to the body.

It's alleged that Amanda had Meredith's blood on her hands, because Amanda's DNA was found in her own sink in her own bathroom. It's a stupid allegation of course, but the prosecution was desperate for anything.
Click to expand...

No, it is not an 'allegation', it is fact found. It is also final, as decreed by Bruno and Marasca.

Face the truth.
 
Grinder said:
The house in Perugia has been sealed off as a crime scene since the murder in November 2007.
Police officers had guarded the house in the weeks after the death, but they are no longer on duty at the property, which is surrounded by police tapes.
It is not yet known when the break-in occurred, but officers have not visited the property since January.
Police said the intruders had gained entry to the home through a kitchen window at the back of the home and that nothing had been taken


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zarre-devil-worship-ritual.html#ixzz3rnB0hwEo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

ROME -- Prosecutors say intruders have broken into the house where a British student was slain last year in central Italy.

Prosecutors in Perugia say the break-in was discovered early today during an inspection.

They said the intruders broke a window, ransacked the house and left four kitchen knives and some candles in various rooms, but not in the bedroom where the body of Meredith Kercher was found in 2007.
Click to expand...

They left a burnt out candle and four knives. One inside the front door, one on the kitchen floor on top of a police evidence sheet, one outside Mez' door, pointing to it, and one on Mez' bed.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, it is not an 'allegation', it is fact found. It is also final, as decreed by Bruno and Marasca.

Face the truth.
Click to expand...

nope. read it. it is a restatement of the prosecution case but not a judicial fact. but if it was, it would only be part of the bigger judicial fact that they were found not guilty.
 
Vixen said:
He did not come in through the window. He came in through the front door.
Click to expand...
bagels said:
So it's just a lucky coincidence for Amanda that she staged a break-in involving a large heavy rock smashing glass perched above climbable metal bars and throwing clothes around the room and her accomplice just happened to have a criminal history of being involved with a break-in involving a large heavy rock smashing glass perched above climbable metal bars and throwing clothes around the room. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that this spectacular coincidence helps the defense. It seems like denial to me.
Click to expand...

I believe Grinder may have offered a correction, but I'll try it again in case my memory is faulty.

Didn't Nencini say that Rudy was simply too professional to take the tacky route, in through the window? No self-respecting professional burglar, esp. one of Rudy's status well known to the PLE, would do anything other than go in through the front door.

In a spectacular example of dietrology, the obvious is actually not true, because the obvious is rarely true - the truly informed will look for hidden clues to come up with a remarkable invention.

It is obvious that Rudy came in through Filomena's window, yet dietrology insists on unproven and unlikely staging of a scene which only the simple-minded would confuse with what something would look like if Rudy had broken in. It was a classic staging tactic to think of leaving the rock in that bag!
 
Bill Williams said:
I believe Grinder may have offered a correction, but I'll try it again in case my memory is faulty.

Didn't Nencini say that Rudy was simply too professional to take the tacky route, in through the window? No self-respecting professional burglar, esp. one of Rudy's status well known to the PLE, would do anything other than go in through the front door.
Click to expand...

You are falling for the same thing Vixen is. Nencini said that IF the defense assertions about Rudi's burglary history were correct then he would have, as a professional, entered through the front door.

This was a synoptic of the defense assertion and Nencini showing why it was in error.
 
Grinder said:
nope. read it. it is a restatement of the prosecution case but not a judicial fact. but if it was, it would only be part of the bigger judicial fact that they were found not guilty.
Click to expand...

Reread Bruno and Marasca. They state the merits trial judge must be honoured in his "facts found". The judge of the first instance court, Massei, did find the DNA incriminating. Bruno-Marasca did not overturn this finding. They merely say, ah, that may be so, but it could have happened after the murder, therefore there is doubt it was because of murder.
 
Vixen said:
Reread Bruno and Marasca. They state the merits trial judge must be honoured in his "facts found". The judge of the first instance court, Massei, did find the DNA incriminating. Bruno-Marasca did not overturn this finding. They merely say, ah, that may be so, but it could have happened after the murder, therefore there is doubt it was because of murder.
Click to expand...

Nope. You've read too much Murdoch in your youth.

Just like Nencini isn't saying Rudi was known professional burglar.
 
Grinder said:
You are falling for the same thing Vixen is. Nencini said that IF the defense assertions about Rudi's burglary history were correct then he would have, as a professional, entered through the front door.

This was a synoptic of the defense assertion and Nencini showing why it was in error.
Click to expand...

Damn. I hate it when you're right. Fortunately it is infrequent! :p
 
Bill Williams said:
I believe Grinder may have offered a correction, but I'll try it again in case my memory is faulty.

Didn't Nencini say that Rudy was simply too professional to take the tacky route, in through the window? No self-respecting professional burglar, esp. one of Rudy's status well known to the PLE, would do anything other than go in through the front door.

In a spectacular example of dietrology, the obvious is actually not true, because the obvious is rarely true - the truly informed will look for hidden clues to come up with a remarkable invention.

It is obvious that Rudy came in through Filomena's window, yet dietrology insists on unproven and unlikely staging of a scene which only the simple-minded would confuse with what something would look like if Rudy had broken in. It was a classic staging tactic to think of leaving the rock in that bag!
Click to expand...

One of your lot claimed Rudy carried a small glass-breaking hammer in his burglary tool kit. What is the chance of a professional burglar who uses a little glass-breaking hammer suddenly throwing caution to the wind and instead, using a boulder 12" x 12" diagonally, weighing 4kgs (9lbs, the weight of a heavy newborn baby). Professional means efficient, effective and fast.

When this boulder was passed around the jury, they were shocked by its sheer weight. The idea Rudy is an idiot who has the physique of a musclebound discus thrower who decided he'd ditch the little lightweight sharp effective hammer with consequent twinkling of breaking glass for a CRASH! BANG! WALLOP! of a rock, bowling ball size, AND manage to toss it nine feet in the air AND accurately bang through the middle of half shut shutters is sheer madness, when any fule can see he is of slight build and average height.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
One of your lot claimed Rudy carried a small glass-breaking hammer in his burglary tool kit. What is the chance of a professional burglar who uses a little glass-breaking hammer suddenly throwing caution to the wind and instead, using a boulder 12" x 12" diagonally, weighing 4kgs (9lbs, the weight of a heavy newborn baby). Professional means efficient, effective and fast.

When this boulder was passed around the jury, they were shocked by its sheer weight. The idea Rudy is an idiot who has the physique of a musclebound discus thrower who decided he'd ditch the little lightweight sharp effective hammer with consequent twinkling of breaking glass for a CRASH! BANG! WALLOP! of a rock bowling ball size AND manage to toss it nine feet in the air AND accurately bang through the middle of half shut shutters is sheer madness, when any fule can see he is of slight build and average height.
Click to expand...

Doubtful that Filomena closed anything. Wasn't she a drugged up tart on her way to sleep with her fake fiancee? The little hammer wouldn't have been the right tool for the job. It would be like trying to do the data work for the IRS on one laptop. He broke the window in a way to be sure if someone was home he could scoot and if not it would blast a big hole to enter. Musclebound athletes can throw a 16 lbs shot 60 feet. A nine pound rock is just a bag of flour.
 
Grinder said:
Doubtful that Filomena closed anything. Wasn't she a drugged up tart on her way to sleep with her fake fiancee? The little hammer wouldn't have been the right tool for the job. It would be like trying to do the data work for the IRS on one laptop. He broke the window in a way to be sure if someone was home he could scoot and if not it would blast a big hole to enter. Musclebound athletes can throw a 16 lbs shot 60 feet. A nine pound rock is just a bag of flour.
Click to expand...

Four bags of sugar. You're in a very unkind mood today?

Rudy already knew no-one was home, silly, that's why he went off for a kebab and returned later. Please refer to the cctv footage.
 
Vixen said:
Four bags of sugar. You're in a very unkind mood today?

Rudy already knew no-one was home, silly, that's why he went off for a kebab and returned later. Please refer to the cctv footage.
Click to expand...

You mean the heaviest bag of sugar or flour is 1 kg? What light weights. Don't you all have Costco or some such store?
 
Grinder said:
You mean the heaviest bag of sugar or flour is 1 kg? What light weights. Don't you all have Costco or some such store?
Click to expand...

Our standard bags of sugar come in 2lb bags, thus four and a half bags sugar.

We have Costco. I don't buy sugar these days. I have a small bag of Xylitol, which is derived from birch bark.
 
Vixen said:
One of your lot claimed Rudy carried a small glass-breaking hammer in his burglary tool kit. What is the chance of a professional burglar who uses a little glass-breaking hammer suddenly throwing caution to the wind and instead, using a boulder 12" x 12" diagonally, weighing 4kgs (9lbs, the weight of a heavy newborn baby). Professional means efficient, effective and fast.

When this boulder was passed around the jury, they were shocked by its sheer weight. The idea Rudy is an idiot who has the physique of a musclebound discus thrower who decided he'd ditch the little lightweight sharp effective hammer with consequent twinkling of breaking glass for a CRASH! BANG! WALLOP! of a rock, bowling ball size, AND manage to toss it nine feet in the air AND accurately bang through the middle of half shut shutters is sheer madness, when any fule can see he is of slight build and average height.
Click to expand...


"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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom