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

[Grinder]

I think this argument put to bed the argument that Rudy was a fence.
He simply did not have the ready cash indicating he was a fence.

You really think that low level fences operate like in the movies? You then agree that he didn't rob the nursery?

I must say you just don't know what you are talking about when it comes to how this level of thief works.

If RW's Spanish account is accurate do you suppose he just collected stolen computers? Why do you think he went to Milan? To go dancing as he claimed? Why did he carry the stolen watch?

ETA - We really don't know what Rudi was doing the month before the murder. We really don't know if he was a one man crime wave or if he was a fence. We don't know if he was in Cristian's and as I've said many times had Cristians story worked against the kids none of the PIP here would buy it.

 

[anglolawyer]

You really think that low level fences operate like in the movies? You then agree that he didn't rob the nursery?

I must say you just don't know what you are talking about when it comes to how this level of thief works.

If RW's Spanish account is accurate do you suppose he just collected stolen computers? Why do you think he went to Milan? To go dancing as he claimed? Why did he carry the stolen watch?

ETA - We really don't know what Rudi was doing the month before the murder. We really don't know if he was a one man crime wave or if he was a fence. We don't know if he was in Cristian's and as I've said many times had Cristians story worked against the kids none of the PIP here would buy it.

Wait a cotton picking minute! We know he was convicted of handling stolen goods, to wit - a laptop and a phone. The same items as were stolen from the lawyers' office in the town where he lived. It is a perfectly reasonable surmise that he burgled that office. Much more likely than that he bought the items from the burglar intending to travel to Milan and sell them (an unsuccessful venture since he still had them when caught) especially in view of the weird crap reported by the lawyers about glass being piled up and stuff neatly organised by the burglar. That is Rudy's signature. He makes himself at home, boils pasta for the kiddies and basically behaves like a screwball. The fact the Perugia cops did not bestir themselves to nail him for that burglary probably only means they didn't try or succeed in lifting his prints from the law office but it is perfectly reasonable to believe he is by far the most likely candidate for that burglary.

Since Desert Fox supposedly knows nothing about small time fencing suppose you tell us how it works. In Italy. Any links or sources would be hugely appreciated.

 

[Diocletus]

I am very suspicious of that as well, and spent much more time perusing your chart than it may appear. A possible innocent explanation for that sequence also occurred to me, but I won't give the intellectual filth any freebies: they can figure it out on their own if they know enough about it.
I won't be holding my breath.

Until those EDFs are coughed up and the entirety of the work done actually revealed that DNA is worthless as evidence against Raffaele and Amanda and only indicative of a corrupt prosecution.

Please PM me on IIP to discuss your thoughts on this. Thanks.

 

[carbonjam72]

Please PM me on IIP to discuss your thoughts on this. Thanks.

Would be curious if there's anyway to share.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks I'll read it later - maybe

Is there a difference with prepaid? T-Mobile knows which phone I'm using when I switch the SIM. I wonder if Rudi knew one way or the other.

I don't think so. The network is the same.
It is my understanding that the different companies have always pretty much had the ability to track the serial number in either environment but that they haven't done it. It merely a matter of the software.

 

[Dan O.]

So are you trying to say that you've just debunked one of the longest-standing myths of the case? But I thought that Patrick himself had given testimony to the effect of having 2 phones or sims or whatever?

We bashed this heavily in the last round. It was in one of Frank's articles where if you read it a certain way you get the impression that Patrick is saying there were two phones. But all he is saying is that there was the one phone that he kept at the bar. This left the possibility open that there was a second phone which he took home. However, I now see that is impossible because there is only one IMEI number.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wait a cotton picking minute! We know he was convicted of handling stolen goods, to wit - a laptop and a phone. The same items as were stolen from the lawyers' office in the town where he lived. It is a perfectly reasonable surmise that he burgled that office. Much more likely than that he bought the items from the burglar intending to travel to Milan and sell them (an unsuccessful venture since he still had them when caught) especially in view of the weird crap reported by the lawyers about glass being piled up and stuff neatly organised by the burglar. That is Rudy's signature. He makes himself at home, boils pasta for the kiddies and basically behaves like a screwball. The fact the Perugia cops did not bestir themselves to nail him for that burglary probably only means they didn't try or succeed in lifting his prints from the law office but it is perfectly reasonable to believe he is by far the most likely candidate for that burglary.

Since Desert Fox supposedly knows nothing about small time fencing suppose you tell us how it works. In Italy. Any links or sources would be hugely appreciated.

This will be difficult without consulting True Crime authors.

(I know, I know..... I should let this go......)

 

[acbytesla]

If you had been following the eariy developments of the case, one of the controversies that came up was the fact that Patrick swapped phones after the murder. This was presented in Matteini complete with the IMEI numbers. Thus the documented fact that the europian phone systems were recording the IMEI number as part of the call detail records back in 2007.


But thanks to your post revisiting this issue I have discovered something new.

Patrick phone had been using the number 354548014227987 but after the murder they found he was using the number 354548014227980. What I hadn't known until just now when I read about it on Wikipedia is that the last digit in this number is a Luhn checksum. It means that there was always only one phone, there was no phone swap, there was no sim swap, there was only an incompetent postal police that didn't recognize that their own equipment was dropping the check digit. Ah, that's Italian!

That's funny if it wasn't another example of just how sloppy and incompetent they were.

 

[Desert Fox]

You really think that low level fences operate like in the movies? You then agree that he didn't rob the nursery?

I don't know exactly why he was in the nursery. . . I think there is some kind of thrill with what he was doing.
I will also say that I think he shows clear signs of having something severely wrong with him and it bodes ill for when he gets released.
There are not normal burglar activity who want to get in and out as quickly and quietly as possible.

I must say you just don't know what you are talking about when it comes to how this level of thief works.

No honor among thieves. . . No thief is going to trust a fence to work on consignment.

The best evidence is that Rudy is a poor (skill wise) burglar with mental issues.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok here's the deal. Everyone was speculating that this "separation strategy" that Raffaele and/or his lawyers were pursuing was somehow detrimental to Amanda Knox. Some innocentisti feared Raffaele was about to throw Knox under a bus because he happens to think the case against him, and therefore the defence against it, is a wee bit different than for Knox.

Well, the appeals documents are in to Cassazione, Raffaele seems to be advancing a somewhat different approach (appeal to the United Sections being one), and so far there are no buses heading Knox's way.

The glee that guilters must have felt has gone the way of much hot air in many balloons. A separation strategy is just that, a separation strategy.

 

[Desert Fox]

This will be difficult without consulting True Crime authors.

(I know, I know..... I should let this go......)

Or you know. . .a former PI?

 

[acbytesla]

What reason is there to believe that the issue of his adoptive parents was raised with the Milan police by anyone?

But there was a reported phone call with the Perugian police, and Guede was released after that call. (Pretty sure I saw a comment from the milan police officer saying something to the effect, 'these requests among police departments happen all the time'. (I know, sources).

But pressure from the adopted parents would be a reason for Guede to go to the law office to try to talk his way out of having their stolen property. But that doesn't mean the adoptive parents told him to do it, or were even aware of his doing it. Just saying it could fit, not saying I buy it. I can't figure out what Rudy was doing going to the law office, unless its an indication of how out of touch with reality he really is, thinking he could talk his way out of being caught with their property.

Graham reported Rudy was linked to six burglaries before the Kercher murder, so yes, kind of a spree. (Unless you doubt the report, but then you can just keep shaving away any reported facts until what's left fits any theory you like).

Rudy not a fence. Burglar yes, fence no. Couldn't hold a job as a gardener, not a fence, not secret agent material. Low level informant yes, secret agent/assassin/fence no.

I'm not saying that this is actually why Rudy went to the law office to apologize, just merely a possible reason. Another might be that probably being ignorant of the law in Italy, he didn't want the lawyers pursuing him or urging the police to press charges. I don't really know what was going through Rudy's head when he went and apologize, nor do I actually think it was all that strange.

 

[Grinder]

Wait a cotton picking minute! We know he was convicted of handling stolen goods, to wit - a laptop and a phone. The same items as were stolen from the lawyers' office in the town where he lived. It is a perfectly reasonable surmise that he burgled that office. Much more likely than that he bought the items from the burglar intending to travel to Milan and sell them (an unsuccessful venture since he still had them when caught) especially in view of the weird crap reported by the lawyers about glass being piled up and stuff neatly organised by the burglar.

Well partner, how often was he convicted of burglary? Why do you think he had the watch and the "stolen" keys. How do you know he didn't sell some other things? People keep saying he was broke but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Just because he didn't stay in a hotel doesn't mean he was broke. Maybe he didn't want a trace of being in Milan.

That is Rudy's signature. He makes himself at home, boils pasta for the kiddies and basically behaves like a screwball. The fact the Perugia cops did not bestir themselves to nail him for that burglary probably only means they didn't try or succeed in lifting his prints from the law office but it is perfectly reasonable to believe he is by far the most likely candidate for that burglary.

Petitio principii. You use your assumptions to create a signature. Of course sleeping over he made himself at home but other than that you have him taking drink and poop at the cottage. Not even CT strengthens this theory of signature.

Since Desert Fox supposedly knows nothing about small time fencing suppose you tell us how it works. In Italy. Any links or sources would be hugely appreciated.

Fair enough. I'll as good a job of doing that as all the rest here. Your just like the rest. Do you believe that you accept CT's story if it hurt the kids? Why would he report the crime and when he discovered who the perp was he didn't bother to let the police know. Apparently there was so much crime that there was always a line to fill out reports. Of course, he could have just called them when he discovered Rudi at Domus (where Rudi went dancing a couple of weeks later seemingly without any trepidation) but alas he didn't.

There really is no reason to go after Rudi. He was involved and there is no credible evidence that the kids were. A one off story in a True Crime Novel becomes a major point in establishing his history. When someone on a skeptics forum questions long held assumptions he is pilloried. There was a girl killed in Perugia a year before and I think we should just assume Rudi did it, why not?

It's funny that people argue that Milan was too far and too expensive for a fencing trip yet they accept that he just went there to go dancing.

He either stole the loot himself or acquired it from someone else. His trip the lawyers' office makes no sense if he had actually done the job unless that is a custom in Italy.

It certainly hasn't been established that he was or wasn't a fence. I ask again why he kept a pile of stolen computers in his flat?

 

[Grinder]

Or you know. . .a former PI?

Which of the following is not one of the crucial defining characteristics of a professional fence, according to Darrell Steffensmeier?

S/he has access to large amounts of ready cash

Source

 

[Grinder]

I'm not saying that this is actually why Rudy went to the law office to apologize, just merely a possible reason. Another might be that probably being ignorant of the law in Italy, he didn't want the lawyers pursuing him or urging the police to press charges. I don't really know what was going through Rudy's head when he went and apologize, nor do I actually think it was all that strange.

Well of course you don't know. But the evidence isn't that he apologized which of course would be proof of your position. What he did was tell them that he bought the stuff in Milan. He was an innocent victim.

On October 29, a colleague in the law office had called the lawyer Paolo Brocchi to tell him that in the corridor was a person who said that he had been found with some goods in Milan, goods that had been declared stolen by the lawyer Brocchi, but which he claimed to have purchased legitimately in Milan. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede (p. 20, hearing of June 6, 2009).
​

Before someone once again states that they don't believe he bought it in Milan - I don't and I don't think anyone does - but doesn't mean he couldn't have fronted the goods to sell out of town.

 

[Kaosium]

Anyone that sells hot goods that he didn't steal himself is a fence. Not all fences pay up front. We know he had stolen goods in Milan when caught in the nursery that had no signs of break in. There is absolutely nothing pointing to him having stolen the 2000 Euros.

Except that he was caught stealing from there later, that is indeed something you'd have to take into account. As for there being no signs of a 'break-in' that's just semantics: (courtesy of Massei incidentally) whether he went through an unlocked window/door or broke something when entering, he was there illegally.

In contrast there's absolutely nothing indicating Rudy was a fence and his circumstances suggest it was highly unlikely. He didn't have cash on hand nor is there any reason to believe he could regularly profit from it.

I don't think anyone believes that he "bought" the loot in Milan. We don't know if he had other funds besides the petty cash.

Sure we do, the same way we know he had their knife, money and the items from the lawyer office burglary: they searched him and his pack.

To nitpick a nitpicker you just make stuff up, brilliant.

Nope, I even linked the information I was correcting you on. The Polizia Postale is part of the same organization as the Squadra Mobile and is entirely separate from the Carabinieri. As a result of the Postals getting there first the investigation was handled by the Polizia di Stato and not the Carabinieri.

Incidentally, Monica Napoleoni was not the head of the Squadra Mobile either, I've posted her correct title a hundred times on this board.

Do you have any source for his foster dad being the "richest man in town"? I have no doubt that he is very well off but the only source for the "wealthiest man" is the renown Patrick King.

No, it's not, you can even google the name and use google translate (probably necessary) to find more information about him.

Here is bit from Nina - note the quotes from

Caporali affectively adopted Rudy and gave him work at a farmhouse bed and breakfast the family owned.
"We gave him an opportunity, even though we knew he was a liar and had been in trouble, but we wanted to give him a chance," said Caporali.
"We took him in as a son, but he was more interested in other things than studying and work. We gave him a job but we had to sack him because he was never there.
"In the end we asked him to leave our home because we just couldn't cope any longer and we have had no contact with him for more than a year.
​

Quotes add credibility for me when the man quoted has the means and connections to have them corrected and this would undo the recent theory that Rudi was ordered by his foster to go visit the lawyers. For me it also reduces the chance that the police would give him special treatment.

As I noted, Rudy would not advertise the part where he was thrown out, and there's reason to believe not everyone in the household felt the same way about him at the end. He just drops the name to give the impression he wouldn't need to steal anything and asks them to contact someone in the household who was not as adamant about breaking contact with him as Paolo Caporali was in that quote, given after Rudy was arrested for murder which is a damn good reason to distance oneself further.

When convenient his fosters had disowned him and thrown him out on his ear. When convenient his fosters protected the liar from the police. If he needs to be broke and in need of rent money so be it. One account has his mother taking care of him and the next has the family disowning him.

Yes, human relationships are often more complicated than they appear on the surface. Noting this is not 'convenient,' it's reality.

As the son of one of the richest men in town was Raf given cover? Did he do more than we know about, as the PGP contend?

Dr. Sollecito is from Puglia, which is even more hell and gone from Perugia than Milan, it's down there by the 'heel' of the Italian boot. Perugian police would have no reason to tread more carefully with the son of an urologist who'd married a propertied woman on the other side of the country.

There's also a difference between Rudy's crimes in Milan and murder.

 

[acbytesla]

Well partner, how often was he convicted of burglary? Why do you think he had the watch and the "stolen" keys. How do you know he didn't sell some other things? People keep saying he was broke but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Just because he didn't stay in a hotel doesn't mean he was broke. Maybe he didn't want a trace of being in Milan.


Petitio principii. You use your assumptions to create a signature. Of course sleeping over he made himself at home but other than that you have him taking drink and poop at the cottage. Not even CT strengthens this theory of signature.

Fair enough. I'll as good a job of doing that as all the rest here. Your just like the rest. Do you believe that you accept CT's story if it hurt the kids? Why would he report the crime and when he discovered who the perp was he didn't bother to let the police know. Apparently there was so much crime that there was always a line to fill out reports. Of course, he could have just called them when he discovered Rudi at Domus (where Rudi went dancing a couple of weeks later seemingly without any trepidation) but alas he didn't.

There really is no reason to go after Rudi. He was involved and there is no credible evidence that the kids were. A one off story in a True Crime Novel becomes a major point in establishing his history. When someone on a skeptics forum questions long held assumptions he is pilloried. There was a girl killed in Perugia a year before and I think we should just assume Rudi did it, why not?

It's funny that people argue that Milan was too far and too expensive for a fencing trip yet they accept that he just went there to go dancing.

He either stole the loot himself or acquired it from someone else. His trip the lawyers' office makes no sense if he had actually done the job unless that is a custom in Italy.

It certainly hasn't been established that he was or wasn't a fence. I ask again why he kept a pile of stolen computers in his flat?

And you knock me for straw man arguments?

First let me say. I have no idea about Rudy's financial resources only that he had very little money on him when he was caught at the nursery. Maybe he had a healthy bank account. I don't know. He did have wealthy adoptive parents and supposedly one of them arranged for him to have the apartment in Perugia. So I'd say there is a reasonable possibility that even if Rudy couldn't pay his own rent at the end of a month that someone else might pay it.

I don't buy that Rudy was a fence. Every real indication is that Rudy wasn't exactly flush with cash. His phone issues are an indication of that. As for CT. Obviously his story would ring truer if he had reported it to the police. But I don't think that CT would necessarily report the crime later after seeing Rudy at the discos if he hadn't reported him earlier.

We can speculate until the cows come home where Rudy got his money. The anecdotal evidence is that Rudy was a thief. The coincidences are just too many.
1. Being caught in a nursery that was robbed only a couple of weeks earlier.
2. Being caught with burglar's tools. (The little hammer)
3. Being caught with items stolen from a previous burglary that took place less than two weeks earlier. (The law firm)
4. Being caught with an item that matches the description of a stolen item from his next door neighbor who's home was broken into only a couple of days earlier.
5. Being identified by Cristian Tremantano as the person who he saw in his home a month earlier.
6. Looks to have broken into the cottage with the broken 2nd floor window and murdered Meredith Kercher.

You can put your head in the sand forever on all of this Grinder, but the available evidence points to Rudy being a burglar...NOT a fence. It doesn't point to him being a drifter or that he couldn't pay his rent.

Rudy has no visible means of support..so either Rudy's adoptive parents were helping him or he was engaged in illegal activities. Others have suggested that Rudy was a drug dealer, yet I haven't actually seen a shred of evidence to support this theory...not that he wasn't..just nothing to support it. Or that he was a fence, also nothing to support that theory. Or that he was a small time burglar. There may not be enough evidence to prove this conclusively but there sure is a damn good trail of bread crumbs for this theory.

 

[Grinder]

Except that he was caught stealing from there later, that is indeed something you'd have to take into account. As for there being no signs of a 'break-in' that's just semantics: (courtesy of Massei incidentally) whether he went through an unlocked window/door or broke something when entering, he was there illegally.

In contrast there's absolutely nothing indicating Rudy was a fence and his circumstances suggest it was highly unlikely. He didn't have cash on hand nor is there any reason to believe he could regularly profit from it.

No evidence of a break in. No significant loot. Prato says there was no signs of a break in. She was with a locksmith do you think he was tehre to lock a window

He had a large number of computers according to the Spanish kids. He was convicted of possession. The lawyers office had a alarm that the thief was able to get around.

Sure we do, the same way we know he had their knife, money and the items from the lawyer office burglary: they searched him and his pack.

Did he have his ID? All I've ever seen reported is what he had that was stolen property.

Nope, I even linked the information I was correcting you on. The Polizia Postale is part of the same organization as the Squadra Mobile and is entirely separate from the Carabinieri. As a result of the Postals getting there first the investigation was handled by the Polizia di Stato and not the Carabinieri.

So? I already said that.

Incidentally, Monica Napoleoni was not the head of the Squadra Mobile either, I've posted her correct title a hundred times on this board.

She was in charge of the homicide unit.

No, it's not, you can even google the name and use google translate (probably necessary) to find more information about him.

please provide a source other than King for him being the wealthiest man in town

As I noted, Rudy would not advertise the part where he was thrown out, and there's reason to believe not everyone in the household felt the same way about him at the end. He just drops the name to give the impression he wouldn't need to steal anything and asks them to contact someone in the household who was not as adamant about breaking contact with him as Paolo Caporali was in that quote, given after Rudy was arrested for murder which is a damn good reason to distance oneself further.

This is just pure conjecture.

Yes, human relationships are often more complicated than they appear on the surface. Noting this is not 'convenient,' it's reality.

Choosing which one is the convenience

Dr. Sollecito is from Puglia, which is even more hell and gone from Perugia than Milan, it's down there by the 'heel' of the Italian boot. Perugian police would have no reason to tread more carefully with the son of an urologist who'd married a propertied woman on the other side of the country.

There's also a difference between Rudy's crimes in Milan and murder.

I'm talking about how he was treated at home by those police not in Perugia. The cover-up protection wasn't for murder.

 

[acbytesla]

Well of course you don't know. But the evidence isn't that he apologized which of course would be proof of your position. What he did was tell them that he bought the stuff in Milan. He was an innocent victim.

On October 29, a colleague in the law office had called the lawyer Paolo Brocchi to tell him that in the corridor was a person who said that he had been found with some goods in Milan, goods that had been declared stolen by the lawyer Brocchi, but which he claimed to have purchased legitimately in Milan. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede (p. 20, hearing of June 6, 2009).
​

Before someone once again states that they don't believe he bought it in Milan - I don't and I don't think anyone does - but doesn't mean he couldn't have fronted the goods to sell out of town.

OK..he didn't "apologize". Any way you look at it, Rudy was trying to absolve himself at least publicly for his sins. He is explaining away his involvement. Sort of like the murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

Which of the following is not one of the crucial defining characteristics of a professional fence, according to Darrell Steffensmeier?

S/he has access to large amounts of ready cash

Source

Umm, do you understand why that is?
First, many fences will trade money for drugs.
Second, there is a large difference between having "large amounts of cash" and "having not a pence to your name."

Might want to read this
[Link]