Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Thank you for your helpful response, LondonJohn take note.

Essentially from what I have seen in this case the cornerstone of the inquisitorial system remains intact, that is the judge acting as an inquisitor and the public prosecutor leading the police investigation and prosecution.

Ethnocentric, I don’t think so nor culturally biased, I recognise differences Islam brings to those countries. There is little point in me expecting every country to be like England where we have an active opposition, every week the Prime Minister faces questions from opposition parties, that is here, other countries differ in their institutions. I regard my position as being tolerant of others.

Regarding the Italian judicial system transformation, see:

The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988) by Giulio Illuminati [Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of Dept. of Law, University of Bologna] Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 4 Issue 3 (2005)

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/

ETA:
Regarding democracy v. mob rule:

Liberal democracy may be defined as one where there are limits to what the majority may impose on the minority (or minorities) - for example, no imposition of religious belief; there is respect for minority rights.

Mob rule may be defined as the absolute rule by the majority; there is no respect for minority rights. Thus, people who are perceived as different are attacked because of this perception.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's reactionary version of reasonable doubt

Hmmm. I seem to remember a post starting "Oh deary deary me." Was that "tolerant of others" or "helpful", I wonder?

LondonJohn,

Since CoulsdonUK forgot to thank you for the links, it falls to the rest of us, so thank you. Here is Mignini's definition of beyond a reasonable doubt as provided by a thoughtful article from Andrew Gumbel: "Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other." (highlighting mine)

Mignini is defining plausibility, not what constitutes a case that is convincing BARD. Coupled with the SCC's version of what the presumption of innocence means (see my quote earlier to day on the Alberto Stasi case), one has to wonder what is holding back a further round of much needed reforms.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Right of confrontation

But of course if you're wary of Chinese academia.....

https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf

"In 1997, Parliament passed an amendment to Article 513 of the 1988 Code, which had dealt with the admissibility of the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who has exercised his right to remain silent.103 This provision had originally protected defendants against such hearsay statements but it had been held unconstitutional in 1992 on the ground that in order to discover the truth, the judge must be able to examine as much information about the crime as possible.104
"What Parliament tried to do in 1997 in its revision of Article 513 was to preserve a defendant’s right of confrontation with respect to such statements. Revised Article 513 stated that the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who now exercises his right to remain silent at trial could only be used against a defendant at trial if the defendant consented to the use of such statements at trial." The entire passage is interesting reading because of the tug-of-war between the parliament and the constitutional court.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would agree that Sollecito is a terrible public speaker and is probably your archetypal awkward geek, however, this is in no way compatible with being violent. On the other hand, although the spotlight has never really been shone on the background of Guede, the little we do know would suggest that he experienced a fair degree of neglect and instability of close relationships as a child, which would put him at a high risk of attachment difficulties, which has a strong association with later personality disorders and being unable to control your emotions in times of great stress. Guede fits the profile, Amanda and Raffaele do not

I think these kind of arguments - the "fits the profile" argument - are misused by the pro-Knox supporters and think they don't realize how slippery and prejudicial they really are. Actually, there are not many good reasons to conclude that Knox had a stabile, balanced personality and reliable social functioning. There is also no reason to assume Sollecito had no psychological issue. Neither that they had no drug problem nor other personal or contextual factor of instability. Nothing actually says "reliable" about these people.
Rudy Guede, we have good arguments to speculate about his own psychological traumas and issues and possible dark areas. But the profile that the pro-Knoxes paint for Rudy is that of a lonely serial killer wo would attack an unknown person inside her flat and then sexually abuse of a dead body. I think there is no element to assume that Rudy fits this kind of extreme and unusual criminal profile.
If we assume a multiple perpetrator scenario instead, we shall assume that the crime and motive of it is the result of a group dynamic. Such as those crimes committed by couples of youths or improvised small gangs are. This means that the psychological contribute to the crime and its motive is not given by one person alone. It means the single perpetrators have their own peculiar issues but if not put together in that situation and context they wouldn't be able nor experience the motive to commit the crime alone.

 

[acbytesla]

As I am not in a position to gainsay any of this I will confine myself to the observation that it seems mighty strange that Bongiorno would be so hotly critical of Mignini for not scheduling any trial questioning if in fact this is something for the defence to do. Surely, it should have been the other way round: Mignini should have submitted that it was outrageous that Sollecito had stayed out of the 'witness box' (not sure you have those either) and clear evidence of his guilt!!

Anyway, we can agree that because Amanda Knox did volunteer to be questioned (both in December '07 and at trial) she must be innocent, which more or less wraps up this series of threads. Thank you everybody! It has been most stimulating.

In the US, juries are instructed to add no weight to the fact that defendant does not take the stand. It is quite interesting that you point out the obvious that the Italians have it both ways. That is, that if Raffaele doesn't take the stand, he must be guilty, and it is irrelevant that Amanda does.

As the "church lady" use to say on SNL..."how convenient".

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I think these kind of arguments - the "fits the profile" argument - are misused by the pro-Knox supporters and think they don't realize how slippery and prejudicial they really are. Actually, there are not many good reasons to conclude that Knox had a stabile, balanced personality and reliable social functioning. There is also no reason to assume Sollecito had no psychological issue. Neither that they had no drug problem nor other personal or contextual factor of instability. Nothing actually says "reliable" about these people.
Rudy Guede, we have good arguments to speculate about his own psychological traumas and issues and possible dark areas. But the profile that the pro-Knoxes paint for Rudy is that of a lonely serial killer wo would attack an unknown person inside her flat and then sexually abuse of a dead body. I think there is no element to assume that Rudy fits this kind of extreme and unusual criminal profile.
If we assume a multiple perpetrator scenario instead, we shall assume that the crime and motive of it is the result of a group dynamic. Such as those crimes committed by couples of youths or improvised small gangs are. This means that the psychological contribute to the crime and its motive is not given by one person alone. It means the single perpetrators have their own peculiar issues but if not put together in that situation and context they wouldn't be able nor experience the motive to commit the crime alone.

-

Although I agree with much of what you said Mach, group dynamics is not needed for one person to kill another. Hell, serial killers or killers killing their first (or their only) victim alone is more common (way more common) than the improbability of three virtual strangers psychologically agreeing to kill a fourth.

Read Chapter Seven (The Serial Murderer's First Kill) from "Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters" by Peter Vronsky to better understand what I mean by this. It's an eye-opener, in my opinion.

And although I tend to believe that Rudy's personal history and character argues that he did not kill Meredith on purpose, but rather her death was an accident (if he did indeed kill Meredith). But, this does not mean that something in Meredith's actions (or reactions) didn't trigger something in him (see Chapter Seven from the above book) that set off a chain of events (in his mind) where he had no choice but to kill her, or he couldn't control his actions or response. This is sometimes referred to as an escalating act.

This is more probable than three virtual strangers psychologically agreeing to kill a fourth, but once again that is merely my opinion and not a fact, just like your statement above is just your opinion also, and not a fact.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here,

d

-
ETA: The hilited part above refers to groups of people who weren't virtual strangers. They knew each other and were already psychologically agreeable to committing crimes together, in my opinion. I know of no case where three virtual strangers, all of a sudden, became psychologically agreeable to killing a fourth. If you know of any such case (including an "improvised gang"), please enlighten me.

Even lynchings and ancient Roman Gladiator sport killings (for example) were committed by large groups of people who knew each other or had a history of committing these types of killings before. Even war is not a good example, because in those situations, it was kill or be killed, unless you are saying Meredith was trying to kill the other three, and in self defense, they killed her? I can't even begin to see Meredith doing that or that happening at all. That scenario just doesn't make any sense.

Mob (or crowd) type mentality (or dynamics) are the only types that even come close to what you are referring to, but even in those cases, those types of mentality (or dynamics) involve larger groups than just three people. Like I said, if you know of any such case (or cases), please enlighten me.

Even than, you still have to explain how my probabilities about the TOD (which I explained HERE) along with Raffaele and Amanda's alibi are not probable.

-

 

[Diocletus]

Another thing: it's wrong to say that just a defendant cannot impute the police. But to accuse something of a misconduct or a crime is something that must be done formally, within timings, and must be done with legal assistance, in order to have some chance to appear credible. If the police beats up a suspect, the attorney has information about it but starts no legs action, the attorney commits a very severe ethics misconduct and faces disbarring.

OK. Knox raised as a defense that the police induced her to commit callunnia. Now the ECHR has this issue.

 

[NancyS]

I think these kind of arguments - the "fits the profile" argument - are misused by the pro-Knox supporters and think they don't realize how slippery and prejudicial they really are. Actually, there are not many good reasons to conclude that Knox had a stabile, balanced personality and reliable social functioning. There is also no reason to assume Sollecito had no psychological issue. Neither that they had no drug problem nor other personal or contextual factor of instability. Nothing actually says "reliable" about these people.
Rudy Guede, we have good arguments to speculate about his own psychological traumas and issues and possible dark areas. But the profile that the pro-Knoxes paint for Rudy is that of a lonely serial killer wo would attack an unknown person inside her flat and then sexually abuse of a dead body. I think there is no element to assume that Rudy fits this kind of extreme and unusual criminal profile.
If we assume a multiple perpetrator scenario instead, we shall assume that the crime and motive of it is the result of a group dynamic. Such as those crimes committed by couples of youths or improvised small gangs are. This means that the psychological contribute to the crime and its motive is not given by one person alone. It means the single perpetrators have their own peculiar issues but if not put together in that situation and context they wouldn't be able nor experience the motive to commit the crime alone.

The group theory is completely nonsensical - Guede perfectly matches the profile of a troubled young man, engaging in petty crime and unable to control his emotions at a time of great stress, which led to violence.

And seeing as nobody has ever come forward to say that Amanda/Raffaele were regularly spangled, it is fairly easy to assume that they had no drug problem

 

[acbytesla]

I think these kind of arguments - the "fits the profile" argument - are misused by the pro-Knox supporters and think they don't realize how slippery and prejudicial they really are. Actually, there are not many good reasons to conclude that Knox had a stabile, balanced personality and reliable social functioning. There is also no reason to assume Sollecito had no psychological issue. Neither that they had no drug problem nor other personal or contextual factor of instability. Nothing actually says "reliable" about these people.
Rudy Guede, we have good arguments to speculate about his own psychological traumas and issues and possible dark areas. But the profile that the pro-Knoxes paint for Rudy is that of a lonely serial killer wo would attack an unknown person inside her flat and then sexually abuse of a dead body. I think there is no element to assume that Rudy fits this kind of extreme and unusual criminal profile.

Frankly, I don't think there are many of the Knox supporters that think that Rudy was a lonely serial killer. Most believe that Rudy was intent first on burglary, then that morphed into rape and that morphed into murder. This is not really an uncommon scenario. In fact there are many murders that fit this scenario.

If we assume a multiple perpetrator scenario instead, we shall assume that the crime and motive of it is the result of a group dynamic. Such as those crimes committed by couples of youths or improvised small gangs are. This means that the psychological contribute to the crime and its motive is not given by one person alone. It means the single perpetrators have their own peculiar issues but if not put together in that situation and context they wouldn't be able nor experience the motive to commit the crime alone.

Why would we "assume a multiple perpetrator scenario when the evidence doesn't really support it and rapes/murders committed by couples are super rare? Also group dynamics don't really apply to three people that are almost or are strangers to each other.

I really don't understand yours or anyone's willingness to jump to such an absurd, ridiculous and virtually unheard of scenario. Why? There is no evidence that these four people arranged a rendezvous. There are no calls or texts to support it. (unlike Patrick) And about the only thing A&R have in common with Rudy are their ages. Rudy is uneducated, poor with no future. His life is about basketball and sports. Compare this to Raffaele, a rich doctor's son obsessed with computers about to graduate. Raffaele and Amanda read voraciously and Rudy doesn't. Rudy doesn't know Amanda and Raffaele, so why does he admit being there and then said that Amanda and Raffaele weren't? Why would he cover for them?

There have been couples that have committed murders, I grant you that, but they are extremely rare and they almost always are with couples with long term dysfunctional relationships, not couples that have been together for little over a week.

This whole story of yours and the Italians, might make an interesting book or movie but that is because it is unheard of. All it is is your imagination.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Frankly, I don't think there are many of the Knox supporters that think that Rudy was a lonely serial killer. Most believe that Rudy was intent first on burglary, then that morphed into rape and that morphed into murder. This is not really an uncommon scenario. In fact there are many murders that fit this scenario.


Why would we "assume a multiple perpetrator scenario when the evidence doesn't really support it and rapes/murders committed by couples are super rare? Also group dynamics don't really apply to three people that are almost or are strangers to each other.

I really don't understand yours or anyone's willingness to jump to such an absurd, ridiculous and virtually unheard of scenario. Why? There is no evidence that these four people arranged a rendezvous. There are no calls or texts to support it. (unlike Patrick) And about the only thing A&R have in common with Rudy are their ages. Rudy is uneducated, poor with no future. His life is about basketball and sports. Compare this to Raffaele, a rich doctor's son obsessed with computers about to graduate. Raffaele and Amanda read voraciously and Rudy doesn't. Rudy doesn't know Amanda and Raffaele, so why does he admit being there and then said that Amanda and Raffaele weren't? Why would he cover for them?

There have been couples that have committed murders, I grant you that, but they are extremely rare and they almost always are with couples with long term dysfunctional relationships, not couples that have been together for little over a week.

This whole story of yours and the Italians, might make an interesting book or movie but that is because it is unheard of. All it is is your imagination.

-

Although team serial killers are not as rare as you would think* (at least not as rare as I once thought), you still make a good point nonetheless about them not being virtual strangers like Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda were, which I also made in my post ABOVE,

d

-
*According to "The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Second Edition" by Michael Newton there are over 140 known team serial killers.

-
ETA: You are right, I don't remember anyone saying Rudy was a serial killer here, although some people have suggested (if he did kill Meredith) that he could possibly kill again once he is free, myself included, and this is borne out in the book "Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters" by Peter Vronsky which states (paraphrasing) that after someone with the propensity to become a serial killer kills their first victim and taste blood, they will almost inevitably want to do it again.

-

 

[Numbers]

"In 1997, Parliament passed an amendment to Article 513 of the 1988 Code, which had dealt with the admissibility of the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who has exercised his right to remain silent.103 This provision had originally protected defendants against such hearsay statements but it had been held unconstitutional in 1992 on the ground that in order to discover the truth, the judge must be able to examine as much information about the crime as possible.104
"What Parliament tried to do in 1997 in its revision of Article 513 was to preserve a defendant’s right of confrontation with respect to such statements. Revised Article 513 stated that the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who now exercises his right to remain silent at trial could only be used against a defendant at trial if the defendant consented to the use of such statements at trial." The entire passage is interesting reading because of the tug-of-war between the parliament and the constitutional court.

From: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure n Italy (G. Illuminati) - referring to Italian trials under the inquisitional system:

It is easy to understand why the preliminary investigative phase served
as the central process of criminal proceedings, as this was when evidence
was actually collected. In most cases the trial phase did not add to what
had been done in the investigative phase or disavow the conclusion
reached during the investigation. The trial simply functioned as a control
on what had been previously decided. The trial often turned out to be merely an occasion for the “official reading” of the record formed during the investigative stage.
It is true that witnesses could be called to trial to testify and their
testimony could differ from that given to the investigating judge. But the decision still could be based solely on the investigative dossier, disregarding the evidence presented during the trial phase.
Moreover, in most cases the witness was asked to simply “confirm” the statements given to the investigating judge. The ability of the trial judge to rely exclusively upon the investigative dossier is determinant in establishing
the inquisitorial profile of this system.

The Italian courts sometimes (Nencini, Massei) revert to the inquisitorial system de facto, IMO.

 

[Numbers]

Use of Rudy Guede statements unconstitutional

From: https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf

More recently, in February of 2002, the Constitutional Court was
asked about the constitutional legitimacy of Article 500, which had been
changed by Public Law n. 63 of 2001.126
The Court stated in its opinion, “Article 111 has elevated to a constitutional level the right of a defendant to challenge evidence against him at trial.”SUP]127[/SUP]
The Court went on to state that this means that the trial is, in Italian, impermeabile, meaning by this term that out–of–court statements cannot be permitted to enter the trial as evidence against the accused where the defendant had no opportunity to confront and challenge the maker of those statements.[SUP]128[/SUP] Evidence against a defendant must be developed at trial so that the defendant has an opportunity to test that evidence and offer evidence that contradicts that evidence.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings!
About that Cats Blood/Crime Scene down below:
Stefano Bonassi's room has 2 beds, side by side.
Amanda recalled: Nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend.
(Probably a reason for only his bedroom having 2 side by side beds, my opinion only)

This is the bedroom with blood on the mattress sheet and the comforter.
There are Crime Scene markers in this room.
The comforter is shoved up to the top of the bed.
The blood on the comforter, with straight lines on it,
differs a lot from the blood drops on the bedsheet,
you've seen the pics the other day.


1 other bedroom has 2 separate beds in it, both are made, the room tidy.
I believe that this room was shared by Marco + Ricardo.
There apparently were no blood drops found in this room,
maybe the door was closed?

Neither of these rooms I mention above had to be broken into by police investigators, from what I can tell.

I believe it was only Giacomo's bedroom door that was locked,
and broken into, it looks like the door was kicked in by the cops.

Meredith had Giacomo's keys. They were found upstairs in her flat.
Weird how only Meredith's room was locked upstairs,
and her new Italian boyfriends bedroom was the only 1 found locked down below.
His bed is made, some things are on it.


Beside Stefano's bedroom,
only this locked bedroom has Crime Scene markers in on.
On the floor.

There are 2 apparently bloody drawings or bloody outlines on the floor of this locked bedroom. I've mentioned that they bother me, for some reason, maybe because they were found behind the only locked bedroom door downstairs.

1 is by the door when opened,

1 by the sandals, further away, with a marker nearby.

I added a red outine, badly scribbled, I know,
but so you can see them better, especially if you are reading this on a small mobile device, not a laptop as I am using.

I've been around cats all my life,
those thin pinline marks, if they are from blood,
do not look like something an injured cat or any animal would have left.
Look at the curvy lines...

So what are they?
Why aren't there more of these floor drawings or trails anywhere else in the flat?
Why is only Giacomo's bedroom door locked? What's the story here?


About the blood drops,
why do some of the bloody drops have a more splattered look, while some look neater and with more blood? Are the splattered blood drops watered down, as Diocletus suggested? And dropped from higher up, where as the cat's bloody ear is much lower to the ground?

I believe that the dripping blood going down the outside stairs is watered-down blood of Meredith Kercher, dripping off of a wet item of clothing.

I am not certain whether the person who was dripping the blood (let's call him "Rudy") went inside. It does look like a cat could have gone through the window. On the other hand, there are some things about the inside blood that look wrong: it's on a lightswitch; the bloody bedding looks like it was pressed down by someone sitting on it; the splatters on the floor look too large/sporadic to be coming from a cat.

I'd luv to see you folks watch and rewatch, a few times,
the Part 2 video from Nov. 3, 2007 that I'll link again:
https://mega.co.nz/#!fwo3UbDS!YpT6M0rQJiaKKLy6HjZ8XrfB69YrKpgFCIVGaHckejw
and then have you chime in with your thoughts...
RW


PS - Sorry for my often long posts, I most always type from a laptop.
An observation: Do some of you do so, when posting or responding, type from a small mobile device, like a cell phone? Just wonderin', it'd help me understand why many folks posts are only a sentence or 2, for I sometimes wonder, come'on, is that all you have to say, when I read your thoughts?
Have a good 1, RW

 

[Diocletus]

Greetings!
About that Cats Blood/Crime Scene down below:
Stefano Bonassi's room has 2 beds, side by side.
Amanda recalled: Nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend.
(Probably a reason for only his bedroom having 2 side by side beds, my opinion only)

This is the bedroom with blood on the mattress sheet and the comforter.
There are Crime Scene markers in this room.
The comforter is shoved up to the top of the bed.
The blood on the comforter, with straight lines on it,
differs a lot from the blood drops on the bedsheet,
you've seen the pics the other day.


1 other bedroom has 2 separate beds in it, both are made, the room tidy.
I believe that this room was shared by Marco + Ricardo.
There apparently were no blood drops found in this room,
maybe the door was closed?

Neither of these rooms I mention above had to be broken into by police investigators, from what I can tell.

I believe it was only Giacomo's bedroom door that was locked,
and broken into, it looks like the door was kicked in by the cops.

Meredith had Giacomo's keys. They were found upstairs in her flat.
Weird how only Meredith's room was locked upstairs,
and her new Italian boyfriends bedroom was the only 1 found locked down below.
His bed is made, some things are on it.


Beside Stefano's bedroom,
only this locked bedroom has Crime Scene markers in on.
On the floor.

There are 2 apparently bloody drawings or bloody outlines on the floor of this locked bedroom. I've mentioned that they bother me, for some reason, maybe because they were found behind the only locked bedroom door downstairs.

1 is by the door when opened,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9202[/qimg]

1 by the sandals, further away, with a marker nearby.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9203[/qimg]

I added a red outine, badly scribbled, I know,
but so you can see them better, especially if you are reading this on a small mobile device, not a laptop as I am using.

I've been around cats all my life,
those thin pinline marks, if they are from blood,
do not look like something an injured cat or any animal would have left.
Look at the curvy lines...

So what are they?
Why aren't there more of these floor drawings or trails anywhere else in the flat?
Why is only Giacomo's bedroom door locked? What's the story here?


About the blood drops,
why do some of the bloody drops have a more splattered look, while some look neater and with more blood? Are the splattered blood drops watered down, as Diocletus suggested? And dropped from higher up, where as the cat's bloody ear is much lower to the ground?




I'd luv to see you folks watch and rewatch, a few times,
the Part 2 video from Nov. 3, 2007 that I'll link again:
https://mega.co.nz/#!fwo3UbDS!YpT6M0rQJiaKKLy6HjZ8XrfB69YrKpgFCIVGaHckejw
and then have you chime in with your thoughts...
RW


PS - Sorry for my often long posts, I most always type from a laptop.
An observation: Do some of you do so, when posting or responding, type from a small mobile device, like a cell phone? Just wonderin', it'd help me understand why many folks posts are only a sentence or 2, for I sometimes wonder, come'on, is that all you have to say, when I read your thoughts?
Have a good 1, RW

Check out the flip flops. Were those the wet ones? Do those marks on the floor look like something that you would expect to see if you got some blood on your sweatshirt, washed it in a shower, ripped blood off of it all the down the stairs, and then put it down on a tile floor where some of the bloody water pooled on the tiles?

 

[anglolawyer]

Why would Guede go downstairs? Covered in blood too. Why, if someone really had gone downstaits covered in blood would the cops be covering it up at all, let alone from the word go?

 

[Planigale]

Oh deary deary me.

The reason why I stated that France and Italy’s justice systems are similar is because they are! They are both based on the inquisitorial system, just as US and UK are based on common law, apples and oranges.

Stop talking about UK law. England has a common law system, (is the origin of the common law system), Wales, Ireland North and South had the English common-law system applied to them and still have it. Scotland had a Roman law system like Italy and under the act of union kept its separate legal system, it is influenced by the English system but Scotland essentially has a hybrid system. The fiscal in Scotland is an inquisitorial lawyer like the magistrate in France and Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

Why would Guede go downstairs? Covered in blood too. Why, if someone really had gone downstaits covered in blood would the cops be covering it up at all, let alone from the word go?

Well, if he did, I suppose it could be a place to "hide out," collect his thoughts and get further rinsed off.

What was he doing from 9:30 to 10:00?

 

[Desert Fox]

-
ETA: You are right, I don't remember anyone saying Rudy was a serial killer here, although some people have suggested (if he did kill Meredith) that he could possibly kill again once he is free, myself included, and this is borne out in the book "Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters" by Peter Vronsky which states (paraphrasing) that after someone with the propensity to become a serial killer kills their first victim and taste blood, they will almost inevitably want to do it again.

I was also one. . . .Kind of hoping you were right that it was a mistake and he accidently killed her. Being that he does not seem to feel any guilt, not sure that it likely however.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, if he did, I suppose it could be a place to "hide out," collect his thoughts and get further rinsed off.

What was he doing from 9:30 to 10:00?

ETA: This seems impossible. I mean, why would anyone take two showers?

 

[acbytesla]

I cannot understand why it is so easy for certain people to embrace this absurd ridiculous scenario involving Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda. Especially when not only do the facts and evidence doesn't lead you to this idea, but statistics don't either. There is nothing that ties these three suspects together. Amanda met Rudy two weeks before very casually with not much more than a couple of words passed between each other. Rudy was gone for about a full week of the two between then and the murder. There isn't a call or text between them ever and the same is true for Raffaele. Amanda barely knew Raffaele.

How is it likely that these three would "together" murder Meredith and go on their separate ways? It's not just unlikely, it's downright laughable and absurd.

Find another crime in history that remotely resemble this crime. Good luck.

Machiavelli points to the idea that Rudy did this alone is absurd because he really hasn't been known to have a violent history. And he fully admits that Amanda and Raffale don't either. He basically suggest that "group dynamic" led the three of them to commit this murder together. But that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The "group dynamic" would have had the opposite effect. It would far more likely "inhibit" as oppose to promote violent behavior. And the fact that none of these people knew each other very well and Amanda barely spoke Italian also would be an inhibiting factor. They are not likely to murder Merdith over 300 Euros to split between the three of them...an amount that is pocket change to Raffaele and not much more to Amanda, especially considering they would have to split it 3 ways. And even if Amanda did not like Meredith (no actual evidence of this either) but if she didn't, there is no reason for Raffaele or Rudy to help Amanda kill Meredith. They have no problem with Meredith.

I DON'T GET IT.