Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Machiavelli said:

You are now again deflecting on me, on posters. You should talk about your claims. Evidence of your claims.
I am not interested in Mignini. I am interested in you. In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

I would like to see you put in discussion your claims. Speak about your beliefs. Look at your belifs with critical attitude, try to check what you can actually demonstrate. I am testing your mentality and your rational attitude. I want to see how you think, why you come to your conclusions.

Click to expand...

It's actually stunning.

You're not interested in Mignini.... but then you build the very myth that includes Mario Spezi.... who is ONLY known internationally for his exposure of Mignini, vis a vis the Narducci case, as well as the wrongful prosecution of two unlikelies in Perugia.

The agenda you and Andrea Vogt have bought into could not be more clear. Even in denying you are interested in Mignini, you build the very conspiratorial case that Mignini himself believes.... "My troubles all started with the Narducci case."

Machiavelli is getting these short cryptic prompts: "Deflect", "Talk about your Claims", "Evidence your claims".

It must be frustrating being a handler.

Dup. (though I should probably leave it in twice so it will have twice the effect)

Bill Williams said:

It's actually stunning.

You're not interested in Mignini.... but then you build the very myth that includes Mario Spezi.... who is ONLY known internationally for his exposure of Mignini, vis a vis the Narducci case, as well as the wrongful prosecution of two unlikelies in Perugia.

The agenda you and Andrea Vogt have bought into could not be more clear. Even in denying you are interested in Mignini, you build the very conspiratorial case that Mignini himself believes.... "My troubles all started with the Narducci case."

Click to expand...

Mario Spezi was not interested in Mignini until recently. He was actually "forced" to become an enemy of Mignini, because Mignini focused on him by insisting in helping Giuttari and thus entered and thretened his scope of activity. Spezi's interest was to defend himself from Giuttari, Giuttari was the enemy and the threat not Mignini. Then Mignini became a target merely as secondary effect, since a prosecutor in Florence at the time (Canessa) "called" for the help of the Perugia anti-mafia team (Mignini), asking him to merge the small Narducci cases together with them and with the florentine MoF invesitigation. At the beginning Spezi and Preston still blamed Giuttari alone, they called Mignini a "honest person" and "incorruptible judge", while some Florentine judges pressured Mignini for splitting his work from Giuttari. Mignini did not leave but insisted, and Spezi was forced to consider him an enemy.

Spezi is not "known as a consequence" of Mignini. He was involved in something dangerous unrelated to Mignini, much older, mostly located in another region and pre-existing to any "international" knowledge of Spezi or Mignini.

But all this doesn't matter.

Back to the only point:

Your claims.
(abuse, lies, violations etc... ?)

Your evidence.

You are not answering.
Now you again divert talk about me, about Vogt, etc. But you are forgetting to confront with your claims. You are making claims about people and topics on a case.
You are accusing, claiming facts, you have things to discuss about people and facts. Do you intend to look closely and analyze your actual knowledge about facts?

You need to discuss your evidence and your claims.

Machiavelli said:

No no, Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years.
While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, she wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. She did that on her own will and all alone.

Click to expand...

Too bad Italian law has that bothersome lawyer thing requirement at all. And to top it off a suspect can not even waive that right. So plain, so easy to understand. And yet after 5 almost 6 years... clowns still try to make the claim about something spontaneous...which would the definition of voluntarily giveing up ones rights... which is forbidden by Italian law no matter how many chickens you line up and have cluck about that otherwise.

Supernaut said:

They make beautiful, BEAUTIFUL automobiles and motorcycles, the Italians.

This is the price we pay for them.

Click to expand...

Dont forget the Ray Bans. They make a couple of beautiful autos...but the vast majority are tiny ugly death traps. Motorcycles? Ehhh. This price is too high.
Would you want to open a business in Italy?

Machiavelli said:

Mario Spezi was not interested in Mignini until recently. He was actually "forced" to become an enemy of Mignini, because Mignini focused on him by insisting in helping Giuttari and thus entered and thretened his scope of activity. Spezi's interest was to defend himself from Giuttari, Giuttari was the enemy and the threat not Mignini. Then Mignini became a target merely as secondary effect, since a prosecutor in Florence at the time (Canessa) "called" for the help of the Perugia anti-mafia team (Mignini), asking him to merge the small Narducci cases together with them and with the florentine MoF invesitigation. At the beginning Spezi and Preston still blamed Giuttari alone, they called Mignini a "honest person" and "incorruptible judge", while some Florentine judges pressured Mignini for splitting his work from Giuttari. Mignini did not leave but insisted, and Spezi was forced to consider him an enemy.

Spezi is not "known as a consequence" of Mignini. He was involved in something dangerous unrelated to Mignini, much older, mostly located in another region and pre-existing to any "international" knowledge of Spezi or Mignini.

But all this doesn't matter.

Back to the only point:

<............ sinister deletia ............>

Click to expand...

Apologies, Machiavelli, this is quite laughable. I apologize profusely for putting this that way....

You say that you're not interesting in Mignini.

I say, if you're not interested in Mignini, why do you spend so much typing-time typing about Spezi, who is part of what Mignini himself claims is the conspiracy against himself.....

And THEN after typing ALL that stuff about Mignini, the Narducci thing, and Spezi, you say that it doesn't matter..... do you ever read your posts?

Both you and Andrea Vogt do this. Spend inordinate amounts of time trying to defend Mignini, all the while saying you're not interested in him.

Ok..... ah, er, ok.

Machiavelli said:

Mario Spezi was not interested in Mignini until recently. He was actually "forced" to become an enemy of Mignini, because Mignini focused on him by insisting in helping Giuttari and thus entered and thretened his scope of activity. Spezi's interest was to defend himself from Giuttari, Giuttari was the enemy and the threat not Mignini. Then Mignini became a target merely as secondary effect, since a prosecutor in Florence at the time (Canessa) "called" for the help of the Perugia anti-mafia team (Mignini), asking him to merge the small Narducci cases together with them and with the florentine MoF invesitigation. At the beginning Spezi and Preston still blamed Giuttari alone, they called Mignini a "honest person" and "incorruptible judge", while some Florentine judges pressured Mignini for splitting his work from Giuttari. Mignini did not leave but insisted, and Spezi was forced to consider him an enemy.

Spezi is not "known as a consequence" of Mignini. He was involved in something dangerous unrelated to Mignini, much older, mostly located in another region and pre-existing to any "international" knowledge of Spezi or Mignini.

But all this doesn't matter.

Back to the only point:

Your claims.
(abuse, lies, violations etc... ?)

Your evidence.

You are not answering.
Now you again divert talk about me, about Vogt, etc. But you are forgetting to confront with your claims. You are making claims about people and topics on a case.
You are accusing, claiming facts, you have things to discuss about people and facts. Do you intend to look closely and analyze your actual knowledge about facts?

You need to discuss your evidence and your claims.

Click to expand...

Lol...yes Mario became interested when Mignini tossed him in jail illegally. What was the result of that trial on the accusation made by Mignini against Mario? Remind us.

Remind us why Mignini kept Lumumbas bar closed long after he was released from prison. I say Mignini did this to stop Lumumba from talking to reporters and telling about his police abuse and illegal interrogation...seems he wasnt allowed an attorney either. Which seems to be confirmed when Mignini filed charges against AK parents for something they said in the USA and was by all circumstantial evidence true. (Missing interrogation tapes, no investigation of the police to gather evidence if perhaps Knox was actually struck...sure she was...Rita did it. Failing to investigate is another crime of Mignini who had a duty to do so.

Look the man has made several TV recorded interviews. Most have been translated and the transcripts prove Mignini is the BIGGEST liar in this whole case. For example...Mignini says poor Lumumba accused by this girl for this crime...but the smart people understand that Mignini was the guy who kept "poor Lumumbas" bar closed for months...starving him into submission. This makes him a liar and a corrupt man.

He lies about the recording...once he says "we forgot to push record" another time he says "we could not afford" ...stop dont bother with your pitiful excuse about two separate interrogations the witness and the suspect...he is simply caught lying. Making excuses for his poor corrupt work.

You are entitled to claim I have a prejudice...but I understand that I hear no disagreement from average Italians about this case which is not just absurd but is not even logically close, it is fact less, the CSI has been shown to be faulty and sloppy and corrupt, a large number of irregularities such as burned hard drives, missing or absent cctv evidence, the strangest "Super witnesses" the world has ever seen...the huge number of sub-related cases filed against lawyers, defendants , families of defendants, reporters, newspapers, bloggers, even Frank Sfarzo is attacked thru Google. These are things ...corruptions that have no place in a fair trial...in a shaky corrupt trial...yes we expect to see all this and the hundreds of other items I simply dont have the time to bother wasting by pointing them out to you...but there are hundreds...maybe thousands...wrong shoes...cant count rings, lies about calling lawyers, calling family.

How hard and brave to attack to young stupid college students...and you are proud of that? Good for you. How is your association with AL going? You know AL Kia DA?

Machiavelli said:

You are now again deflecting on me, on posters. You should talk about your claims. Evidence of your claims.
I am not interested in Mignini. I am interested in you. In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

I would like to see you put in discussion your claims. Speak about your beliefs. Look at your belifs with critical attitude, try to check what you can actually demonstrate. I am testing your mentality and your rational attitude. I want to see how you think, why you come to your conclusions.

Click to expand...

This is a super-strange post. Where have you been for the past 5 1/2 years, Mach? As far as I know, you have been right in the mix, starting with Candace's blog. It's hard to believe you have missed PIP discussing their claims, speaking about their beliefs, looking at their beliefs with a critical attitude, and trying to check what they can actually demonstrate, because it happens every day.

You need to focus on the essential issue: The prosecution's role is to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's role is to find the weaknesses in the case. That's what PIP people do. We are reacting, not proactively working to destroy lives.

Calling PIP a political propaganda machine is very similar to calling Amanda manipulative. It reveals a fear that someone is trying to exercise power over you. My personal belief is that PLE perceived Amanda as an exotic creature onto whom they projected many of their own darkest inclinations. I see PGP doing the same thing to PIP all the time.

.
Some thoughts on the channel 5 show:

• - despite its shortcomings, the most powerful media statement yet, demonstrating biased, sloppy, and lazy detective work by the prosecuting team.
• - the defense lawyer spoke excellent English, I would hire that guy.
• - the lawyer playing Mignini's advocate did not seem to like the cards she was dealt. I suspect the Florence prosecutor won't either. You got to know when to fold them ..
• - the climb was as easy as most athletes knew it would be.
• - if the PGP are correct, the police department must have been overwhelmed with phone calls from passing motorists who spotted the guy scaling the wall to the window.
• - no longer will Rudy be able to secretly laugh at the fools who explain in great detail how it would be impossible for him to break in through Filomena's window.
• - there is now video evidence showing how easy the climb is
• - there is now a video demonstrating how easily DNA contamination can occur
• - there is now a video interview of a sound expert stating it would be 'impossible' for the lady to have heard footsteps on the steps
• - there is now a video of both lawyers agreeing that the prosecution team theorizing instead of performing simple scientific tests is unacceptable.

.

Machiavelli said:

In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

Click to expand...

Gee, another conspiracy.

Machiavelli said:

I think you are writing on forums claiming that a number people (possibly a big number) committed crimes or abuses.
Now, here there are also posters (acbtesla, RandyN etc.) who extend their accusation to really big numbers of people, as they say like that all Italians are corrupt, or that Italy is rotten as a culture or as a state, etc. I don't think there is a rational ground where you can contend with racism and prejudice so there is nothing to discuss with these people.
You instead, Bill, are seemingly focused on a number single individuals. Mignini, Massei, Vogt, Stefanoni... At least apparently.
You use some expressions like "forced to sign", and you bring allegations of abuses. You are making claims.

So the point is only this: whether you can prove your claims. There is really no other point of discussion.
You should only tell what are your claims of illegality or abuses, and what is your evidence. You are calling some people criminals, you are alleging actions. You have some burden of proof on your claims.
Until now, you have been shown to be wrong, your claim proven unfounded or false. Your latter statement about the SC still rings like the attempt to repeat something despite you have just been shown that it was unfounded and false. You have already been explained that the SC ruling is no evidence of violation of the rules. You have an obvious acceptance by all judges about other things.
So you are just without any argument, though you accuse me of "defending" or "deflecting"?

Click to expand...

They railroaded the girl because she is American. There's your "racism."

Vogt=dope. Just read her stories. There's a reason she ain't in NY.
Massei=dope. Example: his retarded motivation, which no one in the world agrees with
Stefanoni=liar. Example: selective disclosure of records
Mignini=deceitful liar. Example: deprivation of counsel, suppression of dna evidence, submission of false evidence

Machiavelli said:

You are now again deflecting on me, on posters. You should talk about your claims. Evidence of your claims.
I am not interested in Mignini. I am interested in you. In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

I would like to see you put in discussion your claims. Speak about your beliefs. Look at your belifs with critical attitude, try to check what you can actually demonstrate. I am testing your mentality and your rational attitude. I want to see how you think, why you come to your conclusions.

Click to expand...

This is 'projection' taken to a new level of absurdity and surreality.

It's like watching someone kicking another in the shin while screaming in pain.

Maybe Polly would like another cracker.

Mary_H said:

This is a super-strange post. Where have you been for the past 5 1/2 years, Mach? As far as I know, you have been right in the mix, starting with Candace's blog. It's hard to believe you have missed PIP discussing their claims, speaking about their beliefs, looking at their beliefs with a critical attitude, and trying to check what they can actually demonstrate, because it happens every day.

You need to focus on the essential issue: The prosecution's role is to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's role is to find the weaknesses in the case. That's what PIP people do. We are reacting, not proactively working to destroy lives.

Click to expand...

The defence role takes place exclusively within the legal arena. When in the public arena, it's no defensive role, it's called propaganda. However you are not defending Amanda Knox, certainly not with legitimate legal means. The means by which you operate are qualified as mafious and criminal; they are focused not on seeking alleged "weaknesses" of the case but they they target people and institution through dirty propaganda, they are focused on defaming people and attacking the legitimacy of powers.
Moreover, bear in mind that I also consider a restricted group in the FoA as responsible of taking part in organizing a judiciary corruption.

Calling PIP a political propaganda machine is very similar to calling Amanda manipulative. It reveals a fear that someone is trying to exercise power over you.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And it's someone criminal. It is indeed an attack on what I consider legtitimay and sovreignity. And it is indead carried on by mafious means and with he help of criminal elements and networks.
By the way, it's not that original. I happens in Italy on regular basis. Civil war is not a mind obsession in Syria, it's reality; conspiracies and mafia networks are not a fantasy.

My personal belief is that PLE perceived Amanda as an exotic creature onto whom they projected many of their own darkest inclinations. I see PGP doing the same thing to PIP all the time.

Click to expand...

Amanda Knox is a trivial creature; she has no role but a passive one in this. She has a manipulative attitude, but she was manipulated herself (just as always happend to manipulators; this is how it works).
Amanda's involvement was just obvious; her lies are obvious; the involvement of multiple perpetrators in the murder was obvious. Evidence is obvious. Also the honesty of investigators was obvious, as well as the absurdity of your conspiracy theories, and the falsehood of your claims (like the false claim that Stefanoni refused to disclose evidence, the absurdity about HIV test, the Satanic rite, the allegation of law vio lations, the false media reports and your reliance of criminals like Spezi and Sfarzo (or things told by idiots like Preston) and so on... ).
Your purpose is to "save" the life of a person - or anyway an interest - which you care about for some reason; but your operation to achieve that is like the dffusion an anti-semitic libel campaign or like the anti-Dreyfuss or anti-Mossadeq campaigns.
Because the truth about facts is evident and most obvious to me, it is a matter of perception about reality. Your claims about people are false because they are ansurd and false not because of who Knox or Sollecito are. Amanda Knox has nothing to do with that.

codyjuneau said:

.
Some thoughts on the channel 5 show:

• ...
• - the lawyer playing Mignini's advocate did not seem to like the cards she was dealt. I suspect the Florence prosecutor won't either. You got to know when to fold them ...

Click to expand...

That was very much my impression. Does anyone know who the prosecution team is in Florence?

• - there is now a video of both lawyers agreeing that the prosecution team theorizing instead of performing simple scientific tests is unacceptable.

.

Click to expand...

The comments on the C5 website have the usual batch of ill-informed guilter comment - at least one saying how good she was, and others complaining that she sold out to the defence. To me it illustrated just how vacuous the prosecution case is, and how obvious it was to their own advocate long before the programme material was covered.

As I have stated in a previous post, it is blatantly obvious Amanda and Raffaeale were being interrogated as suspects. Despite this they were denied access to lawyers and the interrogations were not recorded. This is only a small part of the misconduct which occurred in this case. The prosecution released lies to the media and lied in court. The prosecution destroyed and suppressed evidence. They used dubious forensic evidence eg a knife which did not match the wounds. Why did the prosecution have to resort to these measures if they had such a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele?

Grinder said:

There was missing furniture but still plenty of room for four people.

This from the Daily Mail or this from Hendry.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and 15 people can fit into a phone booth. I have no doubt that it would be possible for 4 people to to be in that room at one time. I also don't doubt that 3 people could murder one person in that room. What I do doubt is the ability of 4 people to commit this murder in that room without leaving more definitive evidence of 3 people killing someone.

Machiavelli said:

The defence role takes place exclusively within the legal arena. When in the public arena, it's no defensive role, it's called propaganda. However you are not defending Amanda Knox, certainly not with legitimate legal means. The means by which you operate are qualified as mafious and criminal; they are focused not on seeking alleged "weaknesses" of the case but they they target people and institution through dirty propaganda, they are focused on defaming people and attacking the legitimacy of powers.
Moreover, bear in mind that I also consider a restricted group in the FoA as responsible of taking part in organizing a judiciary corruption.

Click to expand...

Gee, another conspiracy, this time accusing members here of criminal acts and a conspiracy in organizing judicial corruption. How many conspiracies are we up to now, Mach.

One could ask Machiavelli if he could look into a mirror and say that. I have a strong suspiscion that he was.

Does Machiavelli perceive the prosecution using "mafious means and with he help of criminal elements and networks"? Toto was after all a criminal element and the prosecutions numerous leaks to the media were using the networks to deliver their propaganda. Or is he truly blind to that side?!

BTW, what happened to Briars? I had just asked him a couple of specific questions about what he had posted and he disappeared again. This seems to be a predictable behavior which I mentioned before. It's a good thing that I saved those questions in his permanent file so I can repost them when he gets back.

Machiavelli said:

Amanda Knox is a trivial creature; she has no role but a passive one in this. She has a manipulative attitude, but she was manipulated herself (just as always happend to manipulators; this is how it works).
Amanda's involvement was just obvious; her lies are obvious; the involvement of multiple perpetrators in the murder was obvious. Evidence is obvious. Also the honesty of investigators was obvious, as well as the absurdity of your conspiracy theories, and the falsehood of your claims (like the false claim that Stefanoni refused to disclose evidence, the absurdity about HIV test, the Satanic rite, the allegation of law vio lations, the false media reports and your reliance of criminals like Spezi and Sfarzo (or things told by idiots like Preston) and so on... ).
Your purpose is to "save" the life of a person - or anyway an interest - which you care about for some reason; but your operation to achieve that is like the dffusion an anti-semitic libel campaign or like the anti-Dreyfuss or anti-Mossadeq campaigns.
Because the truth about facts is evident and most obvious to me, it is a matter of perception about reality. Your claims about people are false because they are ansurd and false not because of who Knox or Sollecito are. Amanda Knox has nothing to do with that.

Click to expand...

Machiavelli - you forgot a few things. Do we have to add things that you forget?

You forgot....... The Masonic Conspiracy!

You forgot....... that through analyzing Knox's writings she could "choose" not to sleep and remain functional.

You forgot....... that between you and Andrea Vogt, that is the sum total of the PR Campaign to save Mignini.

acbytesla said:

Yeah, and 15 people can fit into a phone booth. I have no doubt that it would be possible for 4 people to to be in that room at one time. I also don't doubt that 3 people could murder one person in that room. What I do doubt is the ability of 4 people to commit this murder in that room without leaving more definitive evidence of 3 people killing someone.

Click to expand...

Tesla you have conflated two points. The room has plenty of space for four people to be in there. The pictures show it and the FOA argument that the room is too small for that is just not true.

The second point about leaving evidence (Locard in memory of Anglo ) was part of my point to which you responded. I have agreed with that point for years, before Bertha was agleam in anyone's eye.

If the murder occurred as the prosecution usually contends, then it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point that no DNA, blood, hair or anything from Amanda or RAf was found on Meredith. This was an issue the show could have done a better job on.

I wish they had spent more time comparing "footprints" from luminol with reference prints and had emphasized that the prints need to match to be viable evidence. They probably could have taken reference prints from a few crew members and showed that their prints too were compatible.

A demonstration of the bathmat print being made with a foot dripping of bloody water on that type of material would have shown how much bleeding of the print could have occurred.

I was also impressed by how many windows face the cottage from the apartments. If there was a scream that Nara could possibly hear, it should have been heard by many others especially if it was before 10:30. Which it was.

Machiavelli said:

I think you are writing on forums claiming that a number people (possibly a big number) committed crimes or abuses.
Now, here there are also posters (acbtesla, RandyN etc.) who extend their accusation to really big numbers of people, as they say like that all Italians are corrupt, or that Italy is rotten as a culture or as a state, etc.

Click to expand...

In fact Machiavelli, I haven't said anything even close to this. I have always judge people as people. Not black or white, Asian or Indian, Jewish or Gentile...etc..etc. etc.

I do believe your system is broken with many corrupt or stupid characters involved. Mignini is just one, as is the head of your Supreme Court who believes that the US government brought down or imploded the World Trade Center. It is your courts that convicted seismologists for failing to predict an earthquake. Your courts that just imprisoned crew members on the Costa Concordia. I also think you are corrupted. I think you are intellectually dishonest. I come to that judgement by way of the obfuscation in your arguments.

That is a far cry from saying that all of Italy is dishonest. I have nothing against the Italian people, I like the food, I like the wine, I like the shoes. I have owned 4 different Italian motorcycles over the years and a long time ago, I owned a Fiat convertible. Can't say it was really well made, but I sure enjoyed driving it.

I strongly believe your judicial and penal system is in need of significant reform. It's not good for your people, your economy or your status in the world.

RoseMontague said:

Gee, another conspiracy, this time accusing members here of criminal acts and a conspiracy in organizing judicial corruption. How many conspiracies are we up to now, Mach.

Click to expand...

.
He's on to us Rose. Wait until he see what happens next!
.

Grinder said:

Tesla you have conflated two points. The room has plenty of space for four people to be in there. The pictures show it and the FOA argument that the room is too small for that is just not true.

The second point about leaving evidence (Locard in memory of Anglo ) was part of my point to which you responded. I have agreed with that point for years, before Bertha was agleam in anyone's eye.

Click to expand...

With all respect Grinder, I don't think I'm conflating anything.

The documentary showed the room without furniture including the desk, the bed and the wardrobe. The furniture alone takes up half the room.

Does that prevent four people from being in that room? No...but I think the room is definitely crowded for 4 people. Not much room to maneuver, footprints on top of footprints, blood would have been everywhere and there would be voids in the blood splatter and footprints that would have been smudged by the others.

We really aren't disagreeing with each other. I think the evidence demonstrates that 4 people WEREN'T in that room during this murder.

acbytesla said:

With all respect Grinder, I don't think I'm conflating anything.

The documentary showed the room without furniture including the desk, the bed and the wardrobe. The furniture alone takes up half the room.

Does that prevent four people from being in that room? No...but I think the room is definitely crowded for 4 people. Not much room to maneuver, footprints on top of footprints, blood would have been everywhere and there would be voids in the blood splatter and footprints that would have been smudged by the others.

We really aren't disagreeing with each other. I think the evidence demonstrates that 4 people WEREN'T in that room during this murder.

Click to expand...

It's laughable when someone says that while being possible that a lone attacker had done this, that it is far easier for 3 people to have subdued the poor victim.

There's a "well, duh!!!!" comment. It's when the evidence demonstrates that 4 people were not in that room that the issue is not which scenario would subdue someone more easily....

.... it's, is a lone attacker scenario possible? The answer to that is yes. Even Massei conceded that.

Bill Williams said:

It's laughable when someone says that while being possible that a lone attacker had done this, that it is far easier for 3 people to have subdued the poor victim.

There's a "well, duh!!!!" comment. It's when the evidence demonstrates that 4 people were not in that room that the issue is not which scenario would subdue someone more easily....

.... it's, is a lone attacker scenario possible? The answer to that is yes. Even Massei conceded that.

Click to expand...

.
I don't think Rudy originally intended to kill Meredith. The whole point of using the knife was to threaten her with overwhelming consequences if she fought back. Meredith probably submitted at first, hence not many defensive wounds on her hands. Only Rudy can tell us why he ended up taking her life anyway.
.

Machiavelli said:

The defence role takes place exclusively within the legal arena. When in the public arena, it's no defensive role, it's called propaganda. However you are not defending Amanda Knox, certainly not with legitimate legal means. The means by which you operate are qualified as mafious and criminal; they are focused not on seeking alleged "weaknesses" of the case but they they target people and institution through dirty propaganda, they are focused on defaming people and attacking the legitimacy of powers.

Click to expand...

Is it also called propaganda when the prosecution gives crime scene photos to the press? Or do you believe the prosecution have more rights to influence public opinion than the defense does? Do the media themselves constitute mafious and criminal means?

By the way, we attack the illegitimacy of powers, not the legitimacy.

Moreover, bear in mind that I also consider a restricted group in the FoA as responsible of taking part in organizing a judiciary corruption.

Click to expand...

Can you back up this claim? Your arguments would have more strength if you would provide evidence.

Indeed. And it's someone criminal. It is indeed an attack on what I consider legtitimay and sovreignity. And it is indead carried on by mafious means and with he help of criminal elements and networks.

Click to expand...

You're like the college kid who just found out his father has affairs and his mother is an alcoholic. You just refuse to believe it. There's got to be something wrong with anyone who would attack your perfect parents that way.

By the way, it's not that original. I happens in Italy on regular basis. Civil war is not a mind obsession in Syria, it's reality; conspiracies and mafia networks are not a fantasy.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee you nobody here is in the Mafia.

Amanda Knox is a trivial creature; she has no role but a passive one in this.

Click to expand...

That's kind of my point.

<snip>Because the truth about facts is evident and most obvious to me, it is a matter of perception about reality. Your claims about people are false because they are ansurd and false not because of who Knox or Sollecito are. Amanda Knox has nothing to do with that.

Click to expand...

I am glad you recognize this is a matter of perception about reality. And you are correct, it is not Knox or Sollecito's doing that all of this is obvious, absurd and false to you. That is the doing of your culture and your extremely strong resistance to seeing things differently from the way you have been socialized to see them.

codyjuneau said:

.
He's on to us Rose. Wait until he see what happens next!
.

Click to expand...

I don't think he has a clue. This should be fun.

Bill Williams said:

It's laughable when someone says that while being possible that a lone attacker had done this, that it is far easier for 3 people to have subdued the poor victim.

There's a "well, duh!!!!" comment. It's when the evidence demonstrates that 4 people were not in that room that the issue is not which scenario would subdue someone more easily....

.... it's, is a lone attacker scenario possible? The answer to that is yes. Even Massei conceded that.

Click to expand...

Well, this is the essence of the entire prosecution. A bunch of "could haves" have been combined in to some kind of "must have".

• There "could have" been multiple attackers...(even though the evidence does not really point toward multiple attackers)
• The burglary "could have" been staged (even though that evidence isn't really there either)
• They "could have" conspired with Rudy, even though they really didn't know him.
• They could have killed Meredith even though there is no motive for killing her and neither have committed a violent act in their lives.

I can't believe the Italian for pursing such a piss poor case. There are some really stupid people in Perugia and Rome. Let's hope that they are a bit more sane in Florence.

Bill Williams said:

.... it's, is a lone attacker scenario possible? The answer to that is yes. Even Massei conceded that.

Click to expand...

Many examples of lone wolfs, I guess...

Theres some of my mind that accepts the Rudy and the guy who ran into Alessandra Formica's boyfriend at times... as I understand it Alessandra didn't think it was Rudy. I never read her testimony.

The evidence from the murder scene all points to Rudy alone, I guess...but then who knows what the Stefonani hid away and ignored.

Only Rudy knows and Maresca doesn't want him bothered by answering questions.

Even if there was evidence of multiple attackers, why are Amanda and Raffaele, two people who did not know Guede, the only people on the face of the planet who could have committed the murder with Guede. If Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder with Guede, how do you explain the following :-

1) Amanda barely knew Guede, Raffaele did not know Guede at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only know each other six days. Was it credible that three virtual strangers would come together to commit a brutal sexual assault and murder?

2) If Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede, had no relationship or communication with him prior to the night of the murder, how exactly did they plan and arrange to murder Meredith with Guede?

3) Was is credible that a woman would help a stranger sexually assault and murder another woman? When women help men commit sexual assaults and murder, the women have been in long term dysfuctional relationships with the man. Myra Hindley is an example of this.

4) In the period between the discovery of Meredith's body and the interrogations the phone conversations of Amanda and Raffaele were monitored where no mention of Guede was made. Is it credible that Amanda and Raffaele could go for three days without mentioning someone they had committed a brutal sexual assault and murder with?

5) When did Amanda and Raffaele commit the murder with Guede?

Welshman said:

Even if there was evidence of multiple attackers, why are Amanda and Raffaele, two people who did not know Guede, the only people on the face of the planet who could have committed the murder with Guede. If Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder with Guede, how do you explain the following :-

1) Amanda barely knew Guede, Raffaele did not know Guede at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only know each other six days. Was it credible that three virtual strangers would come together to commit a brutal sexual assault and murder?

2) If Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede, had no relationship or communication with him prior to the night of the murder, how exactly did they plan and arrange to murder Meredith with Guede?

3) Was is credible that a woman would help a stranger sexually assault and murder another woman? When women help men commit sexual assaults and murder, the women have been in long term dysfuctional relationships with the man. Myra Hindley is an example of this.

4) In the period between the discovery of Meredith's body and the interrogations the phone conversations of Amanda and Raffaele were monitored where no mention of Guede was made. Is it credible that Amanda and Raffaele could go for three days without mentioning someone they had committed a brutal sexual assault and murder with?

5) When did Amanda and Raffaele commit the murder with Guede?

Click to expand...

Precisely, It's absurd that Amanda would help Rudy, someone she had barely even spoken to and Raffaele someone she had known for 6 days kill Meredith her roommate of 420 days. There is no motive for Amanda, no motive for Raffaele. And the idea that it was the result of a sexual motive of Amanda's is beyond absurd.

But of course, none of this really matters, since there really isn't evidence of multiple attackers...not unless the ILE is suppressing that.

The demo climb was not convincing if the shutters had been pulled shut. As I've thought all along, I doubt they were shut and even Filomena admitted she hadn't latched them. She only became surer of shutting them when questioned more than once.

If the shutters had been shut when the kids went to stage the burglary, it makes even less sense that they would stick with that window as the entry point. The PGP would have us believe that they decided they needed to burglary to cover their involvement. I have never bought into that theory, but if they did think "we need another way in for Rudy than the front door", why would they continue with a window with closed shutters?

acbytesla said:

Precisely, It's absurd that Amanda would help Rudy, someone she had barely even spoken to and Raffaele someone she had known for 6 days kill Meredith her roommate of 420 days. There is no motive for Amanda, no motive for Raffaele. And the idea that it was the result of a sexual motive of Amanda's is beyond absurd.

But of course, none of this really matters, since there really isn't evidence of multiple attackers...not unless the ILE is suppressing that.

Click to expand...

and to get off the pc and within 30-40minutes go kill, or even have a sex orgy is ridiculous.....even after Raffaele had plans to help a friend at midnight.

so if its so obvious, where is Maresca's head at?
what are they hoping for? the court will believe Nara and Toto, and the double knife theory, an impossible Lone Wolf scenario,

the fake cleanup determined by who? the same detectives under Monica Napoleoni who couldn't even count the circles on Raffaeles tennis shoe?

Grinder said:

The demo climb was not convincing if the shutters had been pulled shut. As I've thought all along, I doubt they were shut and even Filomena admitted she hadn't latched them. She only became surer of shutting them when questioned more than once.

If the shutters had been shut when the kids went to stage the burglary, it makes even less sense that they would stick with that window as the entry point. The PGP would have us believe that they decided they needed to burglary to cover their involvement. I have never bought into that theory, but if they did think "we need another way in for Rudy than the front door", why would they continue with a window with closed shutters.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree, I don't think it makes an iota of difference. While it might if they were latched, but standing on the grate from the lower window, one could easily open the shutters from the outside.

Machiavelli - do either you or Andrea Vogt side with the prosecution in the "seismologists failed to predict an earthquake" conviction?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=italy-abruzzo-earthquake-scientist-trial

Scientific American said:

A year ago an Italian court sentenced six scientists and an ex-government official to six years in prison for manslaughter. More specifically, the judge found them guilty for failing to give adequate advance warning to the population of L’Aquila, a city in the Abruzzo region of Italy, about the risk of the April 2009 earthquake that caused 309 deaths.

Click to expand...

acbytesla said:

Again, I disagree, I don't think it makes an iota of difference. While it might if they were latched, but standing on the grate from the lower window, one could easily open the shutters from the outside.

Click to expand...

Watch it again. Keep in mind that Rudy couldn't know from the outside that the shutter wasn't latched. If the shutters were pulled closed it would necessitate, at a minimum, a climb up to open them. Then he would need to go back down and up to the parking area to throw the rock.

I'm convinced that Mignini was able to get Filomena to remember she closed them.

It just doesn't make any sense that Rudy would know that the shutters wouldn't latch. It wouldn't make any sense for a burglar to make that climb to test them. That climb is doable but not easy. The new grill made it easier. While the window grate is a ladder there are no higher cross pieces to hold on to when the feet get above the bottom cross pieces.

JREF2010 said:

and to get off the pc and within 30-40minutes go kill, or even have a sex orgy is ridiculous.....even after Raffaele had plans to help a friend at midnight.

so if its so obvious, where is Maresca's head at?
what are they hoping for? the court will believe Nara and Toto, and the double knife theory, an impossible Lone Wolf scenario,

the fake cleanup determined by who? the same detectives under Monica Napoleoni who couldn't even count the circles on Raffaeles tennis shoe?

Click to expand...

Where is any of their heads? This is the most moronic of murder scenarios almost ever considered. I think the Perugian police must have been on drugs when they conceived this one.

You know if Amanda and Raffaele has a long term dysfunctional relationship, something like this might be remotely possible. However, two kids that just met who could only barely communicate with each other makes this beyond absurd.
This is a absurd joke played in a farce. Unfortunately the whole thing is real.

YOU HAVE TO BE A TOTAL MORON to even consider them to be guilty with these circumstances and this evidence.