Well I think we're coming closer together, so I'll just point to a few issues left.
First off I agree Mignini delaying the temperature reading is already corrupt. It enlarges the time of death, and facilitates a conviction by making an alibi more difficult to sustain. So Mignini's a scoundrel out of the gate.
And the police gather evidence, to some degree guided by Mignini. But ultimately, Mignini has to fit the pieces of evidence together into a story that he, the prosecutor takes to court. So far, I think that puts us largely in agreement.
But you downplay Mignini's involvement prior to his showing up at 1:45am statement. BUt in Raf's book, a policewoman followed him out of the police station and gave him a lawyer's card and said he'd need it for sure. I'm not sure if that was Nov 3 or 4, but she must have heard something. It suggests a decision had been made that Raf and Amanda would be targeted at that time. It's consistent with the knife stunt at the cottage on Nov 4th as well. Are you excluding Mignini from this investigative decision, why? Doesn't this sound liek they'r all pulling in the same direction at this point? WHo is in a position to make that decision, if not Mignini? And on what basis would you exclude Mignini from such a role? Because you "don't think he played that big a role at that point'? Not good enough for me, its not enough to claim you're right on this point.
Where we're differing, is the police familiarity with Guede before the Kercher killing, and any effort to protect Guede as a result.
Your suggestion that GUede didn't have a record, reference to the size of the town, unsolved crimes, the severity of Guede's past crimes are reasonable questions to ask. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Napoleone actually acknowledged the police were familiar with Guede before the murder because of burglary activities in Perugia.
Moreover, the Milan arrest had Rudy in possession of the items stolen from the law office in Perugia with the same MO as the cottage, rock through a second story window, with a metal grating assisted climb-up. In addition there was a phone call from Perugia asking Milan to put Rudy on the next train back to Perugia. These facts were enough to convince Steve Moore, highly decorated 25 year veteran of the FBI. No disrespect, but is your experience in crime scene analysis remotely comparable to Moore? If not, then why are you so quick to dismiss his conclusions, and substitute your own, not merely as alternatives, but as fact? The fact that you don't like the conclusion does not diminish Moore's professional credentials, nor at least some level of inferred credibility that ought reasonably confer. Your reasons are conjectural. So are Moore's really, but his conjecture is far better informed than yours (AFAIK - I don't know your background, but you do).
Add to this Nencini's confirmation that the police knew Guede well enough to be familiar with his B&E MO. Nencini raised the issue on a different context, bizarrely trying to imply that Guede would not fake a break-in in his own style and draw attention to himself, therefore Amanda and Raf staged the break-in, inexplicably in Guede's style. The idea that it could be an actual break-in by Guede, is outside Nencini's universe. But it's interesting that Nencini would confirm the police familiarity with Guede and his B&E MO when they arrive at the crime scene on day one. You have no reason to dispute this, other than conjecture of how you would expect things to be, rather than accepting positive indications of how things actually are - at least according to subject matter experts. (Normally Nencini is a questionable source, but Rudy provides probable half-truths too, we just have to sort through it a bit).
Last point, is the point of no return for Mignini. After the Nov 6th case closed press conference, I think we agree Mignini has a lot of reasons for not backing away from his arrests of AK, RS, and PL.
Looking foolish, yes. Undermining his credibility in regard to satanic orgy murder claims, absolutely, because he has those two other cases going on, and badly, at the same time.
But protecting Guede is an additional factor for not backing down. You say they came to the conclusion the break-in was staged, and point to the stories they leaked in the press at the time. Apart from the fact that they leaked false stories regularly to the press, what reason do you have to believe the police genuinely believed the break-in was staged?
I know there were comments from Battistelli (?) postal police, people have suggested he started the idea and it took hold.
But I disagree. If Moore and Nencini are correct that the police had a relationship and were familiar with Guede's MO, they would have a reason to conceal or minimize Guede's role. They don't have to know it's Guede, but they could suspect he might have been responsible. But if the police allowed Guede to commit crimes because he was an informant, and helped him return to Perugia from Milan for the same reason, then they are responsible for Guede's actions in killing Meredith. If Guede alone is responsible, then Mig & the police are responsible too. Protecting Guede is also protecting themselves.
The excuses the police give to suggest it was a staged break-in, a female perpetrator because of the duvet covering the body, their refusal to test the glass to prove which way the glass was broken, and the lies of 'glass on top of clothes'. The concealment of DNA profiles downstairs, and the hundreds of hidden profiles. The refusal to test the semen stain, or concealing the fact that they did test it, we really don't know.
You're willing to accept the police's assertion that they believed the break-in was staged. I'm not. If the break-in wasn't staged, they have a single perp.
And you are committed to the idea, that the police tracked down Guede is proof that they weren't protecting Guede. I say Mignini plays the cards he's dealt. They had prints in blood that matched Guede to his records as an immigrant. How could they not follow up. How are we supposed to substitute our conjecture for what may have happened, with what did happen. I can't, and I don't think you can either. We have to be able to admit when we've reached the limit our theory allows. Ultimately, I think the police collect what the can, but Mignini assembles the pieces of the puzzle.
So, I don't think we're that far apart. I think it's mostly a debate about how well the police knew Guede before the killing. And in trying to lessen Guede's role, are the police also trying to lessen their blame in having allowed him to remain free to kill - thus throwing blame onto the police for Ms Kercher's death.
I had hoped for a shorter post. And I know you'll hash out an even longer one. But I'll add that Mignini has a habit of getting stuck on dumb ideas. He theorized (in 2002) that Dr Narducci had been drowned (in 1985) as part of the satanic sex cult behind the MOF killings. When the Narducci family objected to Mignini exhuming the body, Mignini interpreted their resistance to his investigation as complicity in his imagined MOF cult. When Spezi went on Italian TV (2004) and ridiculed Mignini's investigation, Mignini charged Spezi with being the actual Monster of Florence (2006). When Preston befriended and collaborated with Spezi on their Monster book, Mignini charged Preston as Spezi's criminal accomplice (2006). When reporters, police, and prosecutors opposed Mignini's linking Narducci's drowning to the MOF case, Mignini opened secret investigations of them trying to link them to the MOF cult (which led to charges against Mignini in 2007). When people disagree with Mignini, he charges them with slander and calumnia, especially defendants in criminal cases.
It's entirely possible Mignini created a fantasy of Amanda that satisfied his professional needs, and then fully believed his own baloney, and wouldn't accept any contrary evidence, just as he had in the previous examples - in the same criminal 'satanic cult' theory. I think Mignini is incapable of separating fact from fiction. The Rudy element is one more loose end, I think its a mistake to dismiss it out of hand, IMO.
carbonjam72 since the wheel has clicked back onto the break in, I would encourage you to comment on my following observations.
There is a simple flow chart.
Mignini says if the break in was not staged, then they (2) are innocent.
Therefore we should prove the break in was not staged.
I will not refer to researchers here, because primary evidence comprises uncontested photographs.
1. There is powdered glass visible in the divot in the right frame member of the interior shutter.
2. There is a deeply and securely embedded glass shard in a remote location, below and far left of this divot, in this same shutter.
3. The angle of incidence of this shard is vertical to the shutter.
4. There is temporal simultaneity of these two events.
Massei's conjecture concludes the composite window shutter arrangement was half open eg 45 degrees to simulate the break in. This would be a plausible notion were it not for the following forensic truths. The only possible way to deliver the glass shard with sufficient velocity to embed at a 90 degree angle to the shutter, is for the glass to be immediately adjacent to the shutter, and for a trampoline effect to enable the glass shard to be propelled at a speed beyond the speed of the rock.
For example, the golf ball moves faster than the club head at impact, but more easily is understood the continual bouncing of a tennis ball from a racket. The velocity is compounded far beyond the wrist movement required to maintain the bounce.
In all cases the action is perpendicular to the force.
It is completely inviolable as a law of physics that the glass in the window was proximate to the interior shutter, and that the rock was delivered at a perpendicular degree to the glass and thence the shutter.
Therefore, there are two possibilities.
1. The rock was used as an instrument of vandalism from within the dwelling.
2. The rock was used as an instrument of vandalism from outside the dwelling
In the former case, the requirement as listed above is that there is a right angled delivery to the glass/shutter complex, with huge velocity. The glass/shutter complex must therefore be directly located with the enclosed shelving behind.
This is where it gets really interesting.
Raffaele or Amanda are wielding a 9 pound rock, to simulate a break in. The result is that a glass shard becomes deeply embedded in the interior shutter.
To effect this result the velocity at a perpendicular attack is HUGE.
Let us now consider the effect of this hurling of the rock, which is perpendicular, the interior shutter is against the wardrobe.
Yet the damage to this shutter is constrained to a divot in the frame of that shutter.
I posit that this is completely impossible.
If anyone throws a 9 pound rock at this window frame, with the following result
1. There is damage only to the frame of the shutter.
2. There is an embedded glass shard to a remote location.
It is physically impossible to throw this stone in a constrained environment to damage ONLY THE FRAME. Think all of you. If you are inside the house, and you cast this stone at right angles to cause this divot, the panels of the shutter WILL be damaged. On the other hand, if you throw this stone from the car park, the rock will do the following.
1. Randomly hit a target.
2. If that target happens to be the frame near the hinge, the trampoline effect will propel the glass shard fast enough to embed ( I believe this is the most crucial item for exoneration), the near hinge event accords impact delay.
My contention is that this is a logically sufficient proof to show that
1. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele could stage this.
2. They were not involved in Meredith's slaying.
I hope someone will find fault in my conclusions.
ETA this is important.
If a rock is thrown from the car park, there will be the following consequences
1. It will be a best endeavour. Result not bad, got the target near the hinge of the window.
2. The divot will be constrained to the frame and not the panel simply because the impact burst open the shutter, please all think and think.
