Trying again, framing before Nov 6 (my guess is Nov3/4)
It matters because some people are suggesting that Amanda (and Raffaele by extension) were deliberately targeted for framing from the 2nd November despite the police and Mignini knowing they were innocent all along, in order to take the heat off Rudy Guede.
I think this is nonsense. It's the classic question - conspiracy or cock up. I opt for cock up unless someone believing in the conspiracy can show me some extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim.
The evidence planting / fabricating weeks and months on, when the initial evidence leading to the arrests fell apart, is a separate issue and not one that I dispute.
Just responding here, although several people have spoken on this point.
To begin, I think the premise is that Guede's style was recognized by the Perugian investigators, and Mignini was I believe, likely informed before he arrived at the crime scene, at about 3 pm on Nov 2, 2007.
I say this in part, by looking at the video footage of Mignini arriving and briefly shaking hands with Zugarini, as if thanking her. That's my intuitive read of the scene. I also rely on Steve Moore's opinion as to the Perugians calling Milan to get Rudy released 5 days earlier, were a clear indication Rudy was an informant being run by the Perugians. And Bob Graham's interview with Mignini 4 months after the dec 2009 convictions (in 2010), where Graham claims Mignini acknowledged Guede was an informant and should have been prosecuted and locked up at the time of the Kercher murder. Mignini is also asked about the defense not being allowed to raise this new information at their coming appeal, that Rudy had been on a crime spree prior to the killing and had not been prosecuted and might have been an informant - Mignini shrugged it off saying it was irrelevant to the case.
2nd point. Many have suggested Nov 6th as a start date for 'framing' Amanda and Raffaele, after the 'case closed' press conference.
Problem: Again according to Steve Moore, the tag team interrogations for the night of Nov 5th had to have been scheduled in advance to have 12 officers available for over night shifts. Judge Matteini acknowledged that they knew Amanda's mother was arriving on Nov 6th, and this created a danger she would flee and added urgency of the interrogations (this isn't exact, someone can supplement more precisely what Matteini said, I don't have it handy).
So a preplanned, overnight, illegal, unrecorded interrogation, after a week of softening up with excessive questioning leading up to the overnight session designed to break Amanda and Raffaele - that's targeting. So pick a day, when did that start?
3rd point - On Nov 4th, Amanda was taken to the cottage and asked to pick up a knife. She started to try, then broke down and cried. MIgnini claimed this is what made them suspicious of her.
Problem: If the police really thought a knife in the drawer was the murder weapon, why wouldn't they collect any from that drawer for testing?
Two days later, the police went to Raf's apt and Officer Finzi selected a knife at random from Raf's kitchen drawer. It's recounted in Raf's book, but it went something like Finzi asking, "is this ok", and a senior officer replying, "It will do".
Stefanoni tested the knife and found Amanda's DNA on the handle, and Meredith's DNA on the blade. If Amanda had picked up the knife on Nov 4th. do you doubt Stefanoni would have arrived at the same, now fully discredited finding; Amanda's DNA on the handle, and Meredith's DNA on the blade?
If you doubt this is what the police were intentionally trying to do, manufacture a false piece of evidence against Amanda on Nov 4th, then why did they ask her to pick out a knife, and why didn't they test any knives in the drawer when she didn't pick one?
You have to have an answer. Whatever your answer is, that's your answer. You have to account for this police behavior in some other way, and if not, I would argue you need to concede the point.
4th point - Also on Nov 4th (I think, and after the knife episode at the cottage where Napoleone asked Amanda to pick out a knife), a policewoman followed Raf out of the police station, and gave him a lawyer's card and said to call him, 'he'd need it for sure'.
Why would that police woman do that, if not to tip off Raf that they were targeting him - and that she knew it was unfairly so. No police would tip off someone they thought was actually guilty. She must have known her fellow police were out to FRAME Raf & Amanda.
Lastly, just to clarify, if the police had noticed Guede's break-in style, as both Moore and very interestingly, Nencini as well; AND, the Perugians had been protecting Guede from prosecution because they had been using him as an informant as Moore suggests, and Graham reports; AND the Perugians felt responsible for the murder for having intervened with Milan police just 5 days earlier;
THEN its not necessary they knew with certainty that Guede was involved, only that he might be involved. And their hope at that time could have been, 'anyone but Rudy', not necessarily, 'Let's frame the American to protect Rudy' - as thios argument has been repeatedly misrepresented. But by deflecting attention away from Rudy, they deflect attention away from themselves. Its not so much because they care about Rudy, so much as self-preservation because they own Rudy's crimes.
I agree with NUMBERS post about amanda's suspicious behavior: she (and Raf) didn't lawyer up, she was open and tried to help, and she was a sitting duck. She didn't realize how thoroughly corrupt the Italian police are as a standard operating procedure.
Amanda did nothing wrong, her behavior wasn't suspicious, that's another lie from Mignini to justify his wrong doing.
At the crime scene, Mignini delayed the coroner from taking a corpse temperature, making it more difficult to pin down a time of death, making it harder to provide an alibi - FOR ANYONE to provide an alibi. Framing, is what they do.
The witnesses are all tramps, lunatics and the mentally infirm. The evidence was faked in the lab, and the data concealed. Exculpatory evidence destroyed, like the computers, or suppressed like the semen stain and the window glass. Coerced confession, framing, tramp witnesses, its all SOP.
But lets stay on track for early framing.
MIgnini's career was collapsing; under indictment and losing another satanic cult case in Florence against another innocent man, DR Francesco Calamandrei.
Did Mignini genuinely believe Calamandrei was the Monster of Florence? That Mario Spezi was the Monster of Florence? That Dr Francesco Narducci was the Monster of Florence? That 20 Florentines were all part of the satanic sect responsible for the crimes of the Monster of Florence?
In all these cases, Mignini got his satanic cult theory from the psychic medium Gabriella Carlizzi (you have to understand how batsh*t crazy this lady is), and
Mignini met with her again within days of the Nov 2 killing of Meredith Kercher.
Framing before Nov 6th? Yes or no?
Just please don't dodge the evidence in support of the argument, demanding 'cites' or 'proof' when we know darn well we're all working on limited information. If you have
Better information provide it, but demanding
PROOF and refusing to accept anything from professional journalists, isn't a counter-argument, its fake skepticism. It's sticking your head in the ground and complaining its dark outside.
I'm including NUmber's comments below because I think they're spot on:
NUMBERS #2891; Thanks for reminding us (and me in particular) of the available police photography and the analysis done by Hendry and other non-police or defense experts for the window break-in and of course the climb to the window. The police were responsible enough to take some photographs, however, they should have done among other forensic work, fracture analysis of the glass, especially if they wished to scientifically support their claim of a staged break-in. I am not sure if the police fully documented the protective grid over the lower window and the ground below it.
The evidence and non-police analysis of available evidence clearly demonstrates that the break-in resulted from a rock thrown from outside and that a climbing entry was feasible by, for example, an individual of Rudy Guede's height and presumed physical ability.
Guede's possession of the laptop from the Perugia lawyers' office when he was discovered (arrested?) in the Milan nursery school, would have been assumed by police and prosecutor to indicate that he had stolen these items by burglary (in the US). His claim that he bought them would be a defense against the burglary charge, and would need support. The similarities of the break-ins at the lawyers's office and the Kercher et al. flat is, of course, telling.
An unknown, except to the PLE, is how many such second-story burglaries were being committed in Perugia and by how many different individuals. While the police and prosecutor may have instituted their frame-up of AK (and therefore RS) to protect Rudy Guede, it is also possible that they started the frame simply as a matter of convenience and efficiency. It allowed them to claim to have solved the case within a few days, and saved them the work and trouble of actually investigating. And of course, the initial theory of a sex-ritual motive fit nicely with Mignini's previously documented obsessions (as written of in Preston and Spezi's book Monster of Florence).
NUMBERS #2902 - The prosecutor and police were open to committing misconduct from the first day of discovering Meredith's body, IMO. They may not have focused on AK and RS until another day or two had passed. The suspicious "behavior" of AK, IMO, was 1) her lack of an attorney, 2) her openness to talking to the police, 3) her non-conformity to Italian expectations of feminine behavior, 4) her being an outsider, with no Perugian family or support (except her new boyfriend), 5) her being an American, 6) her being female and thus a fit to Mignini's obsessions.
Remember that Giobbi commented that it was her behavior - such as eating pizza instead of staying home crying and (allegedly) wiggling her hips when putting on protective shoe coverings, that convinced him of her guilt.
About the best I can manage tonight.
): I might think, based on my analysis of the teams' strengths, that Team A is going to win the league (or Superbowl). But I needn't be a supporter of Team A to come to that conclusion - indeed, I might well be a supporter of a rival team, Team B. So I might "want" my team, Team B, to win the league/Superbowl, but I might at the same time analytically think that Team A actually will win.