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

[Bill Williams]

First point, evidence is just evidence. It's either legit or it isn't. Whether it can be helpful to prosecution of defense is irrelevant, right?

Second point - facial recognition is one form of biometric analysis. But professional digital analysis also entails taking specific measurements of the real world objects that are on display in the photo, for example; the sidewalk, the street, railings, and so on. By taking these measurements, the zoom of the lens can be determined, and the biometric data of the individual can be determined with greater specificity.

That's not just how tall are they, but how broad across the shoulders, what is the length of the shoulder to the elbow, elbow to wrist, hands and finger length if possible, torso, legs to knee, short legs long legs, etc. There is a whole wealth of data that can be used to include/exclude a person suspect from a person depicted in a photograph. Any distinctive tattoos, clothing or hair style, and so on.

Point is, taking a simple gander at a single still doesn't tell you much, unless its obvious not to be the same person (by the way, I think CNN has multiple images from the same clip). By my eye, there's no way its Amanda. And as a factual matter, it can't be - if we believe that they never left Raf's apt, and there is no reason to believe they did - notwithstanding this contrivance.

However one thing I did notice, on I think the Daily Mail site; they had resized the photo to make the Amanda and mystery person appear to be the same size on the page. Mystery person image had clearly been zoomed, and the photo selected for comparison had the feet in the closest position possible to create the appearance of similarity in both size and body position.

That type of presentation is inherently deceptive, so WELL DONE BRITS! Once again you have distinguished yourselves as craven crazed 'guilters' baying at the moon like rabid wolves. (Apologies to all our non-rabid Brit friends, but let's face it, Italy and the UK have a perception issue on this case).

Not to mention apologies to our rabid non-Brit friends.

 

[platonov]

The emergence of this video is curious.

I agree its probably not Britney.

If I had to guess ...... its Anne Hathaway on her way to meet the pope or Frank S with some case evidence she found online.

 

[Bill Williams]

The emergence of this video is curious.

I agree its probably not Britney.

If I had to guess ...... its Anne Hathaway on her way to meet the pope or Frank S with some case evidence she found online.

Here's the better explanation:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/05/07/the-ritual-sacrifice-of-amanda-knox/

 

[Bill Williams]

The emergence of this video is curious.

I agree its probably not Britney.

If I had to guess ...... its Anne Hathaway on her way to meet the pope or Frank S with some case evidence she found online.

It was curious in 2008.... and it was dismissed back then.

 

[Grinder]

That's odd I read it months ago and assumed it was common knowledge with the old timers. Grinder would never admit it to evidence I'm sure.
The stolen laptops in Milan prove he stole them from Perugia himself by a very high probability indeed. Perugia 160,000, Milan 1,200,000. Two Perugians meet per chance in Milan, no realistic chance. I expect he stole plenty more in Milan if his room was that well stocked.

Maybe it's only news to me

I hadn't heard of the computers. I never believed he got the one found in Milan in Milan. Here we have a problem convicting people driving stolen cars for theft only possessing a stolen car. He may have been fencing them for another thief.

Just as I believe that the kids should be afforded their rights, which they weren't, and the same goes for all defendants. I don't exactly see how the computers could be admitted in this case against Rudi.

I wonder if there were prints on the computers that matched one of the unidentified prints in the cottage.

I still entertain the possibility that Rudi wasn't alone but arrived with Koko or is it Cocoa and maybe another. I would like to know more about the supposed Albanian drug cartel in Perugia.

 

[Anode]

I've only read the start of this but will finish later. Just wanted to forward to anyone who hasn't yet seen it.

The Ritual Sacrifice of Amanda Knox

 

[acbytesla]

The malice only applies to public figures.

Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth. This is the definition in only the United States and came from the landmark 1964 lawsuit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which ruled that public officials needed to prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel.
​

You're right, but Amanda and Raffaele would constitute public figures. Celebrities, public officials are normally considered public figures, but you can become a public figure of no fault of your own such as being accused of a high crime....even after being found innocent.

Actual malice need not be proved for a private figure, just a reckless disregard for the truth.

 

[anglolawyer]

I hadn't heard of the computers. I never believed he got the one found in Milan in Milan. Here we have a problem convicting people driving stolen cars for theft only possessing a stolen car. He may have been fencing them for another thief.

Just as I believe that the kids should be afforded their rights, which they weren't, and the same goes for all defendants. I don't exactly see how the computers could be admitted in this case against Rudi.

I wonder if there were prints on the computers that matched one of the unidentified prints in the cottage.

I still entertain the possibility that Rudi wasn't alone but arrived with Koko or is it Cocoa and maybe another. I would like to know more about the supposed Albanian drug cartel in Perugia.

Actually, the reason why it's hard to convict someone of stealing a car is the need to prove the element of 'intention to permanently deprive' which is often not present e.g. with joyriders. We have a special offence called taking without consent which applies specifically to cars for this very reason. There is even a verb 'TWOCing' (pronounced 'twokking').

Unless there were prints at the lawyers' office or something like that it is unlikely Rudy could be successfully charged for burglary under US or English law but handling stolen goods is a different matter and it seems that is what he was (secretly) convicted of.

 

[acbytesla]

I hadn't heard of the computers. I never believed he got the one found in Milan in Milan. Here we have a problem convicting people driving stolen cars for theft only possessing a stolen car. He may have been fencing them for another thief.

Just as I believe that the kids should be afforded their rights, which they weren't, and the same goes for all defendants. I don't exactly see how the computers could be admitted in this case against Rudi.

I wonder if there were prints on the computers that matched one of the unidentified prints in the cottage.

I still entertain the possibility that Rudi wasn't alone but arrived with Koko or is it Cocoa and maybe another. I would like to know more about the supposed Albanian drug cartel in Perugia.

But of course, you are missing the point Grinder. Rudy was already convicted of the murder and no one is suggesting that he be "convicted" of the burglaries. That is a different issue. The question is, is this evidence that Rudy probably was involved in committing burglaries? Is this more compelling than non-existent glass on the ground outside the cottage?

I think the answer to those questions is a resounding YES.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

CCTV footage

The cottage is right across the street from the parking structure. Interviewing the drivers that entered or exited the parking structure around the time of the murder would be as important as interviewing the neighbors.

Good point, but there is so much evidence of lack of an intellectually honest approach to the investigation that I doubt anyone in ILE made a serious attempt. Did the police allow the overwriting of some CCTV footage?

 

[anglolawyer]

But of course, you are missing the point Grinder. Rudy was already convicted of the murder and no one is suggesting that he be "convicted" of the burglaries. That is a different issue. The question is, is this evidence that Rudy probably was involved in committing burglaries? Is this more compelling than non-existent glass on the ground outside the cottage?

I think the answer to those questions is a resounding YES.

There is nothing more to discuss about Rudy. It is a stipulated fact that he is a professional burglar.

 

[acbytesla]

There is nothing more to discuss about Rudy. It is a stipulated fact that he is a professional burglar.

Grinder seems to think that all these pieces of evidence means nothing in relation to the cottage break in. (Which I don't understand) We have the fact that 4 break ins took place within a few blocks of his place within 35 days. That in each of them, there is something that ties him to these burglaries. You would have to say that Rudy is the MAIN suspect in all of them. You have the fact that Rudy is unemployed and his neighbors says his apartment is filled with "computers"? Rudy has no internet, Rudy is not a computer science student, so why?

The question is, was the cottage break in and actual breaking and entering by Rudy Guede or a "staged burglary" by the two college students, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

Not whether we should use this evidence..some obviously anecdotal to convict Rudy of burglary or of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greatings all,
The surf sucks here in L.A. today, it's chilly and May Grey at the beach, The Los Angeles Clippers basketball team got soundly beaten last night by OKC, and I'm still wondering about Nacho and The Spanish Connection...

Why don't we know more about this story?
Here's Nacho Azparren, nowadays a newspaper writer who seemingly responds to questions:
http://comunidad.lne.es/entrevista-chat/4746/Deporte/Nacho-Azparren-responde/entrevista.html

When he wrote that article that I'll link again,
Titled:
Drinks with the murderer of Perugia
Rudy Guede, convicted for the death of an English, came out with the Spanish Erasmus just the night before the crime!
http://www.lne.es/sucesos/2011/10/05/copas-asesino-perugia/1138272.html
Amanda and Raff were set free.

Now they both have been re-convicted,
(though strangely, convicted brutal murderer Raffaele Sollecito is still allowed to walk freely in Italy)
maybe Nacho might wanna talk and write again about this incident he wrote of back in 2011.

Can anybody really fluent in Spanish write down some important questions and email or tweet Nacho Azparren or call him directly to get more info on The Spanish Connection's direct knowledge of Rudy Guede? The guy hung out with Rudy on Halloween!
Was Rudy even in costume?
Did The Spanish ever smoke and buy from Rudy?

Let's find out more info on Carlos, whom Rudy Guede called that day.
Were he and Carolina dating?
When were these 2 called by ILE?
Before it was known that Rudy was The Wanted Man?
When did they come back to Perugia from Switzerland?
Before Rudy was returned to Italy from Germany?
Do they remember if their statements were recorded?
Does Carolina have an estimate of how many computers she saw?
How many laptops, desktops, printers even?
Did they ever see the police entering Rudy's flat?
If so, when?
Did anyone see if the ILE removed anything?
Were they wearing protective suits and booties too?
Did the news media cover this?

Come on JREFers, lets try and get some answers!
Do you have any questions you might ask Nacho Azparren?
If no one else does, I might ask a bro, a Peruvian surfer, to help me contact and communicate with Nacho,
for I feel that this needs to be explored more, and I bet that The Spanish would like to be included in the discussion. Heck maybe even ask Nacho to join here on The JREF!

Have a great day,
RW

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, the reason why it's hard to convict someone of stealing a car is the need to prove the element of 'intention to permanently deprive' which is often not present e.g. with joyriders. We have a special offence called taking without consent which applies specifically to cars for this very reason. There is even a verb 'TWOCing' (pronounced 'twokking').

Unless there were prints at the lawyers' office or something like that it is unlikely Rudy could be successfully charged for burglary under US or English law but handling stolen goods is a different matter and it seems that is what he was (secretly) convicted of.

The burglar who entered the lawyer's office apparently cut themselves on broken glass. Assuming the blood matched Rudy's, a conviction would be easy.

But even in the US, the police are unlikely to collect a sample and have it analyzed for a simple burglary.

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder seems to think that all these pieces of evidence means nothing in relation to the cottage break in. (Which I don't understand) We have the fact that 4 break ins took place within a few blocks of his place within 35 days. That in each of them, there is something that ties him to these burglaries. You would have to say that Rudy is the MAIN suspect in all of them. You have the fact that Rudy is unemployed and his neighbors says his apartment is filled with "computers"? Rudy has no internet, Rudy is not a computer science student, so why?

The question is, was the cottage break in and actual breaking and entering by Rudy Guede or a "staged burglary" by the two college students, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

Not whether we should use this evidence..some obviously anecdotal to convict Rudy of burglary or of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

What is the opinion of the forums' professional burglars (we must have a few)? Is Nonsencini's deduction correct - that a pro-burglar would always have gone right in through the door?

 

[Grinder]

But of course, you are missing the point Grinder. Rudy was already convicted of the murder and no one is suggesting that he be "convicted" of the burglaries. That is a different issue. The question is, is this evidence that Rudy probably was involved in committing burglaries? Is this more compelling than non-existent glass on the ground outside the cottage?

I think the answer to those questions is a resounding YES.

Here's what I was responding to:

That's odd I read it months ago and assumed it was common knowledge with the old timers. Grinder would never admit it to evidence I'm sure.
The stolen laptops in Milan prove he stole them from Perugia himself by a very high probability indeed. Perugia 160,000, Milan 1,200,000. Two Perugians meet per chance in Milan, no realistic chance. I expect he stole plenty more in Milan if his room was that well stocked.​

Now what would the phrase admitting to evidence mean? ADMITTING.

If people want to discuss it here and point to the computers as some sort of evidence that's fine. I am not convinced that he took all of these. It is very possible that he was a fence. It makes perfect sense that he took computers from Perugia to Milan to sell.

Tesla I never said anything about convicting him for burglary. It feels like
another straw man.

Just as I believe that the kids should be afforded their rights, which they weren't, and the same goes for all defendants. I don't exactly see how the computers could be admitted in this case against Rudi.​

Anglo as I understand it, having a stolen car doesn't prove you stole it unless you were seen taking it. I haven't heard the joy-riding issue but that could also be the case here.

Tesla - there could be an argument made that the libels made early were before they had become public figures and perhaps it could be argued that they never were seeking the status but at some point with the TV appearances that would be a tough argument even for Grinder

 

[anglolawyer]

The burglar who entered the lawyer's office apparently cut themselves on broken glass. Assuming the blood matched Rudy's, a conviction would be easy.

But even in the US, the police are unlikely to collect a sample and have it analyzed for a simple burglary.

Yes, I have heard some pretty funny stories about the lengths our cops will go to to not investigate domestic burglaries and other petty crimes (not petty to the victim of course) so I would be surprised if scenes of crime officers were dispatched to the scene en masse to give it the full once over. Maybe if the lawyers bumped someone off and dragged the body inside but not otherwise.

 

[MDDVS]

What is the opinion of the forums' professional burglars (we must have a few)? Is Nonsencini's deduction correct - that a pro-burglar would always have gone right in through the door?

That's completely ridiculous. You can google in a few minutes dozens of examples of burglars entering though windows, sometimes at much greater heights than this case.

 

[Diocletus]

That's completely ridiculous. You can google in a few minutes dozens of examples of burglars entering though windows, sometimes at much greater heights than this case.

Yes, but do we know that the window-entering burglars are "professionals"? Maybe that's Nencini's point: "professional burglars" go through doors, only the amateurs go through windows.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo as I understand it, having a stolen car doesn't prove you stole it unless you were seen taking it. I haven't heard the joy-riding issue but that could also be the case here.

Look, handling always includes theft. If you are in a stolen car you are handling it what with being inside it and all. That is not the problem. You do not have to see someone steal to prove theft, obviously. The problem is what I said - drunks blag a car and drive home, dumping it a hundred yards from the house. That is not stealing since there is no intention to permanently deprive. Borrowing is not stealing. Cars are special. Trust me. I'm a lawyer.

WTH I looked it up for you in the Washington penal code:

(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.

(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony.

TWOCing - US version.