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

[carbonjam72]

Quetion: Did Napoleone or Zugarini spot Rudy's MO on Day 1?

Yes, the head of homicide for the Perugian Squadra Mobile (Flying Squad). That puts a number of (mostly) fat old men ahead of her, Profazio being one notable from this case.



I do not know, though I may recall where information on that might be found. If you go to the first pages of the Conspiracy thread you'll see I got into a discussion with Alt+F4 and linked an article that included a (rather flattering) portrait of her from several years ago, during the first trial I believe. I think it might have been Nina Burleigh's Time article that included some information about the 'high flying women of the Flying Squad or somesuch, as at the time Nina hadn't quite figured out yet that the Perugian police had really screwed the pooch!

I dug the article up, it doesn't say when she was promoted or from what position.

Thanks for fishing that out, I'd actually seen that before, and thought I'd remembered reading other info on Napoleone from Nina or Candace.

Wondering if you have an opinion, and I may be in the minority on this site, but the question is could Napoleone (or Zugarini maybe) have recognized Guede's MO for breaking & entry, from the Kercher crime scene at day 1?

I am strongly in favor of this scenario, that the Perugians and Mignini knew it, or at least suspected it might be Rudy, when they first toured the crime scene.

At the latest, there was a deliberate effort to frame Knox and Sollecito by Nov 4, when the police tried to get her to pick up a knife that "might have been used" to kill Kercher.

Big issue for me, would love to get some resolution on whether people has settled into opinions on this yet.

(I'm aware of some who don't like this suggestion...)

Just found this quote from the article if it helps anyone:

('The Tough Women of The Amanda Knox Case' - Time Magazine - 9/29/2009)

"Perugia's police murder-squad chief Monica Napoleoni often sits behind Comodi. She shows up for most court sessions — even though she is not required to appear — dressed like an undercover vice cop by U.S. standards. Her Morticia Addams hair, deep tan, deeper décolletage, hot-pink baby-doll tops, stylish white jeans, high wedgies and designer totes bring a whiff of the Via Veneto into the courtroom. Napoleoni has spent her career working the surprisingly mean streets of this ancient hill town, infested with battling gangs of Albanian and Moroccan drug dealers and a plague of prostitution from international human traffickers who find it a convenient trading post. Napoleoni is occasionally accompanied by another female homicide cop, Lorena Zugarini, who is built like an East German swimmer. It was Zugarini who kicked in one of the doors of the murder house."

 

[Grinder]

No they don't. Think of a pawn broker, an art or antique dealer. Not some twenty year old snot nosed kid who doesn't have a job, doesn't have a pot to piss in and has no visible outlet to sell his products.

So no one sells goods for a small time thief unless they are pawn brokers or antique dealers . One of your buddies just postulated that Rudi was good at stealing but not selling - think maybe if that were true he would let someone else unload the stuff.

You're right I don't. But I do know that he wasn't holding a bunch cash when he was arrested. So that means he sold everything and spent it or that he didn't sell anything and he was still holding the stolen items.

You may be correct - could you provide the list of what he had on him when arrested? Of course if he hadn't been able to sell anything he wouldn't have cash even if he had tried to sell it.

Nonsense. I'm not going to ignore the fact that he is inside the nursery holding stolen items from at least one other burglary and possibly two. I'm not going to just absolutely dismiss CT.

Neither am I because the burglar sold or fronted the stuff to him.

And the nursery he just happened to be in was burglarized a couple of weeks before he is accused by both CT and Ms. Diaz of being burglars of their homes also very recently.

Ah no, he wasn't accused by CT until after his picture was in the paper, that's the problem. Diaz said she found him in the nursery when she arrived with the lock repairman. She said he had slept there.

 

[Grinder]

Napoleoni was in charge of homicide (which what I said before being "corrected" ) and would hardly be aware of some MO of a small time burglar if in fact he was one.

The idea that she recognized it immediately is absurd. The description of her tough work has nothing to do with small time theft.

I find it interesting that people have totally absurd theories of very significant issues and meet with almost no resistance but suggesting that Rudi may more of a fence than burglar is treated as if it makes a big difference.

CT didn't report his home invasion to Napoleoni. Her job was head of homicide and she didn't take middle of the night theft reports.

 

[Kaosium]

And this porridge is just right. It wasn't a straw man it was a quote from an expert.

The strawman was in 'defeating' an argument no one was making: he didn't need large amounts of ready cash, but he did need to have enough so that people would come to him with their purloined goods. A pawn shop (generally) won't have large amounts of cash on hand (a good idea considering the neighborhoods many are in!) but will have enough so if you bring in something worth a thousand dollars they can give you two hundred or so.

Exactly how much money would he need to be a small time fence?

He'd need enough on hand on a regular basis so that people would bring him stolen stuff. People who steal stuff and want money for it would stop going to a guy who didn't have the ready cash to give them.

However just as importantly he'd need a way to sell it at a profit, that means not selling it to another fence but to the public in some form or another or at wholesale to a retailer of second hand goods.

 

[xinonix]

"Guilters just want Knox in jail, apparently for no reason."

The reason must be that Knox failed to make good on a promise.
When she was in prison she must have been offered a deal where they will get her a judge that likes her, her appeal will happen and she will go home, IF she promises that she will not write a book about her ordeal, and then go on TV to promote it.
She was behind bars at the time so she would give them an enthusiastic yes and agreed to not write a book with 100% sincerity.
When Knox was home she must have changed her mind. Considering the debts her family had, this is understandable.
She wrote the book and went on the TV talk shows to promote it.
The Italians were pissed off and they took back the acquittal.
This happened to Raphael too.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just a thought experiment...

Napoleoni was in charge of homicide (which what I said before being "corrected" ) and would hardly be aware of some MO of a small time burglar if in fact he was one.

The idea that she recognized it immediately is absurd. The description of her tough work has nothing to do with small time theft.

I find it interesting that people have totally absurd theories of very significant issues and meet with almost no resistance but suggesting that Rudi may more of a fence than burglar is treated as if it makes a big difference.
CT didn't report his home invasion to Napoleoni. Her job was head of homicide and she didn't take middle of the night theft reports.

Is it possible that the idea that Guede's MO was recognized by Perugian investigators is not absurd, and is supported by data - especially Guede's prior release from Milan police 5 days earlier with items stolen in an identical burglary in Perugia, and numerous other burglaries in Perugia.

Whereas the theory of 'Rudy the Fence' has little to no indication of being true, either in the any data we've seen, or by common sense - given the fellow's character, mental challenges, and lack of a work ethic?

Could that possibly explain people's differing reactions. But so far Mr G, you're the only person who's weighed in for now (though I think Tesla has said he doesn't buy the 'recognized Rudy's MO' school of thought.)

 

[anglolawyer]

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?

You are on better ground with Tramontano than with the law office. I reckon he probably did both but the case is better for the lawyers' place. The (apparent) suppression of news of his trial and conviction for possessing items from that second storey job using rock confirm my darkest suspicions.

 

[Kaosium]

Napoleoni was in charge of homicide (which what I said before being "corrected" )

My aside was not referring to anything posted to me, but this:

Well as a demonstration of how one admits an error, I was not correct when I said that the Carabinieri handled the work after the PP "sealed" it. It was the Perugian State Police headed by Monica in a squad known as the Flying Squad.

I thought it ironic how in your demonstration of how one admits an error you introduced another one! Perhaps we need more demonstrations of error-admitting from Grinder!

and would hardly be aware of some MO of a small time burglar if in fact he was one.

The idea that she recognized it immediately is absurd. The description of her tough work has nothing to do with small time theft.

I agree, Perugia is a town on the order of a hundred thousand people, and has people from all over the world coming there for tourism and to go to the schools there, one of them even entitled the 'school of foreigners.'

It would be absolutely incredible in my mind that police were aware of and knew Rudy Guede's MO from the few instances that have been made public which all happened within about a month of the murders and were relatively minor. Granted there are probably more that haven't become known and it's possible police had more information than we do, but still it's a town of a hundred thousand or so with plenty of students as well as transients and the like.

I find it interesting that people have totally absurd theories of very significant issues and meet with almost no resistance but suggesting that Rudi may more of a fence than burglar is treated as if it makes a big difference.

That may be because there's less actual indications of Rudy being a fence than him being an informant!

CT didn't report his home invasion to Napoleoni. Her job was head of homicide and she didn't take middle of the night theft reports.

Someone has to work the night check and there has to be someone of Napoleoni's rank working the shift, it's not just all sergeants there after dusk. Another description of what CT testified to might be considered 'attempted murder' with the knife brandishing and all, at least by a guy still all pissed off about it.

 

[acbytesla]

Is it possible that the idea that Guede's MO was recognized by Perugian investigators is not absurd, and is supported by data - especially Guede's prior release from Milan police 5 days earlier with items stolen in an identical burglary in Perugia, and numerous other burglaries in Perugia.

Whereas the theory of 'Rudy the Fence' has little to no indication of being true, either in the any data we've seen, or by common sense - given the fellow's character, mental challenges, and lack of a work ethic?

Could that possibly explain people's differing reactions. But so far Mr G, you're the only person who's weighed in for now (though I think Tesla has said he doesn't buy the 'recognized Rudy's MO' school of thought.)

While I agree that Rudy is not a fence, I also see no reason that they would "recognize" Rudy's MO. Rudy is doing nothing really that identifies himself. He didn't break a window at the nursery, I don't think he broke a window at CT's and that wasn't brought to the police's attention until after the murder. And breaking a window is not a signature. And outside of the nursery there is no known history of Rudy being arrested before.

 

[Kaosium]

Occam's - he was directed there because the lock didn't work or the someone had a key.

That's possible too, it doesn't matter to me. He was there having illegally entered, eating their food and taking their stuff and was apprehended before he was finished, so we don't know what he would have left with.

We do know he was messing with their computers when he was caught, it would fit with his previous history if he planned to leave with them. After all, if (in your world) he'll pay good money for a stolen computer because he thinks he can sell it for a profit, and we know he had no compunctions regarding taking their stuff as his pilfering of their food, cash and knife shows, why wouldn't he take those computers when he left too?

The only real reason I can think of is he'd found that getting rid of stolen computers is harder than he thought as his collection at home indicates because he wasn't a fence and didn't know how to turn that silicon and plastic into Euros.

Not on the list of things claimed he had - I'm saying they only listed things that weren't his on the accounts you are referring to

So what? What does that suggest to you?

Just the hyperbole. I already said he was rich, just skeptical about the added juice of being Richard Corey.

I've read elsewhere he was considered the wealthiest man in town, but it doesn't really matter as he was rich enough that people in the area would know his name and his influence.

You confused Raf's dad's power aspect.

Sorry, I got confused as to who and what we were talking about. At any rate Raffaele's father is not on the same level as Rudy's foster family.

 

[carbonjam72]

Osmotically speaking...

While I agree that Rudy is not a fence, I also see no reason that they would "recognize" Rudy's MO. Rudy is doing nothing really that identifies himself. He didn't break a window at the nursery, I don't think he broke a window at CT's and that wasn't brought to the police's attention until after the murder. And breaking a window is not a signature. And outside of the nursery there is no known history of Rudy being arrested before.

Considering these events in isolation, I can see your position.

But what about Milan? Why was Rudy released by the Milan police? (after a call with the Perugians).

Steve Moore says its an obvious sign that Rudy was an informer for the Perugians. Mignini as much admits it in his interview with Graham (which not everyone accepts as a source here).

If your answer, 'we don't know', 'it's not important, who cares?', it wasn't an important case, why not release him?', and so on. None of these really are answers.

Why was there a phone call from Milan to Perugia? From the accounts I've read on this (possibly none of which are acceptable sources to all), the Perugians went to bat for Rudy. Why?

If you don't have an answer for that, then I think you have a problem. I can understand stand saying 'no, not an informer', but then what? What explains that call? And if the answer is the 'Corporalli family, (his adopted family)', then based on what - just throwing out unsupported conjecture?

At least Steve Moore has 25 years field experience. I'm not suggesting blind trust, but that's not nothing. It's a lot more than nothing.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

 

[Kaosium]

And if the answer is the 'Corporalli family, (his adopted family)', then based on what - just throwing out unsupported conjecture?

It's not unsupported conjecture, it's supported quite well by the fact they took him in, clothed him, fed him and loved him--at least for a while. Police wouldn't know that he'd been basically cut off and Rudy wouldn't be telling them!

 

[Grinder]

The strawman was in 'defeating' an argument no one was making: he didn't need large amounts of ready cash, but he did need to have enough so that people would come to him with their purloined goods. A pawn shop (generally) won't have large amounts of cash on hand (a good idea considering the neighborhoods many are in!) but will have enough so if you bring in something worth a thousand dollars they can give you two hundred or so.

Well it's all relative -

I keep the pawnshop cash with the pawnshop and I would never risk cash flow to buy something very large. Never throw all your money on one number. We usually keep like $150,000 on hand [in case of big purchases.] Anything larger than that you’re gonna have to take a damn check.​

From Inc. Magazine

Top hit on Google "how much cash do pawn stars have on hand"

I'm sure the guy doesn't understand his own business.

He'd need enough on hand on a regular basis so that people would bring him stolen stuff. People who steal stuff and want money for it would stop going to a guy who didn't have the ready cash to give them.

Drug dealers also want cash but they front stuff all the time.

However just as importantly he'd need a way to sell it at a profit, that means not selling it to another fence but to the public in some form or another or at wholesale to a retailer of second hand goods.

Yes and? So he has contacts in Milan or just tries the "flea market" approach. My guess is that he tried to sell stuff at the train station and that's why he used that story.

Do you all think that he was broke, stole things but didn't sell them? This is like the argument made that he wouldn't go to Milan to sell stuff because it was too expensive but he would go to just hang out.

I certainly hope the future work for the defense doesn't use the Nina and CT stories without some corroboration. Dan is right that CT should have had some contemporaneous verification. I've read he had something to do with a coffee shop but had Rudi thrown out of Domus by a friend that worked as a bouncer. Why didn't the defense build up the case for Rudi being the crime wave burglar by getting corroboration?

This sounds so much like the PGP argument that each element (Diaz, CT) shouldn't be examined individually but all of it needs to be taken as a whole. So what that the prints don't match and the DNA is sketchy when you look at the evidence all together they say the kids are clearly guilty.

Maybe he's a burglar that broke into the lawyers' and the cottage but not CT's or Diaz' but we really don't know. Maybe he's a burglar and a fence. Maybe he's just a fence. We don't really know and it doesn't really matter but using evidence you wouldn't use against the kids seems hypocritical.

 

[acbytesla]

That's possible too, it doesn't matter to me. He was there having illegally entered, eating their food and taking their stuff and was apprehended before he was finished, so we don't know what he would have left with.

We do know he was messing with their computers when he was caught, it would fit with his previous history if he planned to leave with them. After all, if (in your world) he'll pay good money for a stolen computer because he thinks he can sell it for a profit, and we know he had no compunctions regarding taking their stuff as his pilfering of their food, cash and knife shows, why wouldn't he take those computers when he left too?

The only real reason I can think of is he'd found that getting rid of stolen computers is harder than he thought as his collection at home indicates because he wasn't a fence and didn't know how to turn that silicon and plastic into Euros.

Grinder has always misunderstood me about the sell-ability of the computers. I think they were probably sell-able but probably not for enough money that would make it worth a fence and a thief's worthwhile together. Walk into any pawn shop with a brand new computer without the a receipt and see how much they are willing to give you for it. I'd bet they'd buy it but you wouldn't be happy with their offer. I think you'd be lucky to get half what it costs new. To get anything even close to a top end offer, they would spend time on the phone trying to figure out the value of it.

Now try a two year old computer. Maybe twenty percent tops. But I'd bet Rudy could sell the laptop at the college for a better price although not a lot better..but better.

 

[Strozzi]

"Guilters just want Knox in jail, apparently for no reason."

The reason must be that Knox failed to make good on a promise.
When she was in prison she must have been offered a deal where they will get her a judge that likes her, her appeal will happen and she will go home, IF she promises that she will not write a book about her ordeal, and then go on TV to promote it.
She was behind bars at the time so she would give them an enthusiastic yes and agreed to not write a book with 100% sincerity.
When Knox was home she must have changed her mind. Considering the debts her family had, this is understandable.
She wrote the book and went on the TV talk shows to promote it.
The Italians were pissed off and they took back the acquittal.
This happened to Raphael too.

Where do you get these fantastic ideas? Do you have any facts to support this idea that when she was in prison she must have offered her a deal? And the quid pro quo is she not tell what happened to her or go on TV about it. Or that by writing her book she betrayed some mythical secret deal and therefore the Italian Supreme Court overturned the Hellman verdict ?

Is this coming from some other website?

 

[carbonjam72]

Unsupported conjecture

It's not unsupported conjecture, it's supported quite well by the fact they took him in, clothed him, fed him and loved him--at least for a while. Police wouldn't know that he'd been basically cut off and Rudy wouldn't be telling them!

I would consider that suggestion to be unsupported conjecture.

The fact that Rudy had a relationship once with the family, doesn't mean it was on going at the time he was with the Milan police. On the contrary, he was pretty much on the outs with them. (I understand the mother helped him get an apartment).

I'm not saying it's unreasonable, it may have happened. But that conjecture reflects on the conversation that occurred between Milan and Perugia, the contents of that specific conversation, and my recollection is that the police officer quoted didn't know the reasons, it was just a request that they felt obliged to respond to from the Perugians.

It may have been related to the Corporalli family in some way, but there's no positive indication that's true. That's why I say it's unsupported, there's no support at the time that it actually occurred.

Whereas Moore's theory is that it is a common and familiar practice among police departments. Doesn't mean Moore is right. But that is based on field experience at least.

The issue is, why did Milan release Rudy? There has to be a reason. You can say 'there's no reason', or 'it doesn't matter'. But I think it's relevant.

 

[Strozzi]

Is it possible that the idea that Guede's MO was recognized by Perugian investigators is not absurd, and is supported by data - especially Guede's prior release from Milan police 5 days earlier with items stolen in an identical burglary in Perugia, and numerous other burglaries in Perugia.

Whereas the theory of 'Rudy the Fence' has little to no indication of being true, either in the any data we've seen, or by common sense - given the fellow's character, mental challenges, and lack of a work ethic?

Could that possibly explain people's differing reactions. But so far Mr G, you're the only person who's weighed in for now (though I think Tesla has said he doesn't buy the 'recognized Rudy's MO' school of thought.)

You missed me. I also don't find it credible that the police recognized Rudy's rock MO. As I've commented here recently, the police were dealing with a very upsetting crime scene. Gingerly stepping around the body of a young woman brutally knifed and molested. Her mouth area showed injury of having been shoved into a wall or the floor. I can't believe anything would have held the provincial police back from immediately busting in Rudy's door if they had connected the rock MO to Rudy. If that lightbulb had lit, the flying squad would have rushed to their cars to find "that young black who threw the rock through the lawyer's office window".

One thing we know is that the Perugia police are inept in investigating crime, correctly piecing together clues, and seeing evidence right in front of their eyes.

 

[Kaosium]

Well it's all relative -

I keep the pawnshop cash with the pawnshop and I would never risk cash flow to buy something very large. Never throw all your money on one number. We usually keep like $150,000 on hand [in case of big purchases.] Anything larger than that you’re gonna have to take a damn check.​

From Inc. Magazine

Top hit on Google "how much cash do pawn stars have on hand"

I'm sure the guy doesn't understand his own business.

So how does this support your argument that Rudy Guede would have been a viable fence? Or have you shot yourself in the foot trying to prove me 'wrong' on an irrelevancy?

Drug dealers also want cash but they front stuff all the time.

Why might that be the case for drugs but not hold as well for stolen goods?

Yes and? So he has contacts in Milan or just tries the "flea market" approach. My guess is that he tried to sell stuff at the train station and that's why he used that story.

A thief trying to sell the things he stole doesn't a fence make.

Do you all think that he was broke, stole things but didn't sell them? This is like the argument made that he wouldn't go to Milan to sell stuff because it was too expensive but he would go to just hang out.

I think he stole things and sold them as best he could, if you believe the same then I have totally misunderstood your argument.

I certainly hope the future work for the defense doesn't use the Nina and CT stories without some corroboration. Dan is right that CT should have had some contemporaneous verification. I've read he had something to do with a coffee shop but had Rudi thrown out of Domus by a friend that worked as a bouncer. Why didn't the defense build up the case for Rudi being the crime wave burglar by getting corroboration?

Is that the friend/acquaintance of Rudy's who independently corroborated at least part of CT's story by saying in passing (about something else entirely) that Rudy couldn't go to Domus as he'd been banned from that bar?

This sounds so much like the PGP argument that each element (Diaz, CT) shouldn't be examined individually but all of it needs to be taken as a whole. So what that the prints don't match and the DNA is sketchy when you look at the evidence all together they say the kids are clearly guilty.

No, if you look at all the evidence together it says the police and prosecution was corrupt and incompetent because the evidence isn't what they say it is and they're overlooking the obvious solution that they 'ruled out' at the beginning of the investigation.

In contrast you're just nitpicking irrelevancies and thinking it's the same thing as doing blood tests that come out negative then hiding them and lying about it in court but still attempting to pretend they were blood.

Maybe he's a burglar that broke into the lawyers' and the cottage but not CT's or Diaz' but we really don't know. Maybe he's a burglar and a fence. Maybe he's just a fence. We don't really know and it doesn't really matter but using evidence you wouldn't use against the kids seems hypocritical.

There is no evidence as suggestive of Amanda and Raffaele being murderers as the instance in the nursery is of Rudy Guede being a thief. Nothing anywhere close, they weren't caught there in the act, they didn't have anything on them indicating they murdered anyone, they didn't have evidence of previous murders on them.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rushing to Rudy's

You missed me. I also don't find it credible that the police recognized Rudy's rock MO. As I've commented here recently, the police were dealing with a very upsetting crime scene. Gingerly stepping around the body of a young woman brutally knifed and molested. Her mouth area showed injury of having been shoved into a wall or the floor. I can't believe anything would have held the provincial police back from immediately busting in Rudy's door if they had connected the rock MO to Rudy. If that lightbulb had lit, the flying squad would have rushed to their cars to find "that young black who threw the rock through the lawyer's office window".

One thing we know is that the Perugia police are inept in investigating crime, correctly piecing together clues, and seeing evidence right in front of their eyes.

I think I responded in a previous post to your position here.

In a nutshell though, your assumption is that the police had no relationship with Rudy. And that the police were honestly trying to pursue the truth of the crime scene. I disagree.

Your position is that the police really believed the break-in was staged. I don't believe they thought that, I think that's a lie by the police.

I think they wanted a group crime.

Another question for you: Do you believe Knox and Sollecito were framed? If so, what's the earliest point you can identify? (I say Nov 4th at the latest).

 

[Strozzi]

Doesn't it mean something that two of the premises that Rudy burgled or allegedly burgled are premises he knew? It does to me.

The house of his neighbor was exactly that -the house of his neighbor. Right next door. She said Rudy knew her informally, petted her dog outside, and observed her loading her car the day of the burglary. Plus, that burglar cooked a meal ("a feast") in her kitchen. Obviously, the burglar took his time in her home. He was not in a hurry - hevwas not in and out in three minutes!

The cottage that he burgled was his friends' abode. He knew the property!

You can't get me to believe he is connected to just any odd burglary in Perugia, but when his cooking MO is in the adjacent house- when he observed his neighbor leave for the countryside? And a stolen woman's gold watch? Yes.