Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I'm with you there. You might want to include the crazies at PMF and TJMK too.

We have posters here who argue for guilt and I don't think they are part of that crowd.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
RWVBWL, I think the research you are doing is very important. I don't personally have a lot of time to respond to your posts these days, but I read every one and do spend quite a bit of time pondering them.

Great observation noticing the little hammer and screwdriver on the table downstairs. Both tools of the burglary trade, and as you pointed out Rudy had a small hammer in his possession when he broke into the Milan nursery. And the keys. Do we really not have an explanation for any of those items being there? Danno? Reminds me of the two cell phones that the Postal Police put on the table upstairs which everybody thought were Meredith's telephones but the police later claimed they were their own personal phones.

And Giacomo's bedroom door being locked but blood stains inside the room! If Giacomo locked that door when he left for the weekend, then how could there be blood stains in his bedroom. Does the cat turn lights on AND unlock doors? Some cat!

The boys downstairs reported finding the downstairs premises disturbed. So besides the blood, there was the disturbed bedding and wet sandals which the cat obviously did not do. So what are the possibilities? Meredith cleaning up for the cat? But surely she would have mentioned it to her English girlfriends. And if her boyfriend's cat was bleeding that severely would she really have just left it alone while she went to a party? I don't think so.

I think it is important for us to remember that we know nothing of what happened at the cottage, either upstairs or downstairs from the time Meredith was murdered until the next morning when Amanda arrived. Neither do we know the state of the cottage when the murderer left. Was the upstairs door open, closed, locked, unlocked? Same for Meredith's bedroom door, the downstairs main door, Giacomo's bedroom door? I don't think any of these should be assumed. Anybody could have come and gone from about 9:20pm on. Rudy could have returned. A friend of the residents could have come over. Somebody could have discovered Meredith and reported to the police.

I still ponder Marco Chiacchiera's testimony that you posted RW:

MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
MaCh: Two.
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?MaCh: Yes.
GCM: How do you know?
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….GCM: But you checked…?
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.
"I am trying to be very very careful."
In other words shut the F up you idiot.

How did he 'know'? What did he 'know' that he did not want to tell?

Cody
.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

.
RWVBWL, I think the research you are doing is very important. I don't personally have a lot of time to respond to your posts these days, but I read every one and do spend quite a bit of time pondering them.

Great observation noticing the little hammer and screwdriver on the table downstairs. Both tools of the burglary trade, and as you pointed out Rudy had a small hammer in his possession when he broke into the Milan nursery. And the keys. Do we really not have an explanation for any of those items being there? Danno? Reminds me of the two cell phones that the Postal Police put on the table upstairs which everybody thought were Meredith's telephones but the police later claimed they were their own personal phones.

And Giacomo's bedroom door being locked but blood stains inside the room! If Giacomo locked that door when he left for the weekend, then how could there be blood stains in his bedroom. Does the cat turn lights on AND unlock doors? Some cat!

The boys downstairs reported finding the downstairs premises disturbed. So besides the blood, there was the disturbed bedding and wet sandals which the cat obviously did not do. So what are the possibilities? Meredith cleaning up for the cat? But surely she would have mentioned it to her English girlfriends. And if her boyfriend's cat was bleeding that severely would she really have just left it alone while she went to a party? I don't think so.

I think it is important for us to remember that we know nothing of what happened at the cottage, either upstairs or downstairs from the time Meredith was murdered until the next morning when Amanda arrived. Neither do we know the state of the cottage when the murderer left. Was the upstairs door open, closed, locked, unlocked? Same for Meredith's bedroom door, the downstairs main door, Giacomo's bedroom door? I don't think any of these should be assumed. Anybody could have come and gone from about 9:20pm on. Rudy could have returned. A friend of the residents could have come over. Somebody could have discovered Meredith and reported to the police.

I still ponder Marco Chiacchiera's testimony that you posted RW:

MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
MaCh: Two.
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?MaCh: Yes.
GCM: How do you know?
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….GCM: But you checked…?
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.
"I am trying to be very very careful."
In other words shut the F up you idiot.

How did he 'know'? What did he 'know' that he did not want to tell?

Cody
.

-

Hmm, it's interesting that you shortened Marco Chiacchiera name to Mach, which is my way (and some others here too) of shortening Machiavelli's name when responding to him/ her. Plus, Mario's sentence structuring above kind of reminds me of our Mach's. Do you think... naw can't be.

I find this discussion about the downstairs very interesting and makes me wonder once again about a question I asked here a long time ago, but never got a reply. Does anyone know what happened to the marijuana plants Giacomo had in the downstairs apartment?

Also, what does everyone here mean when they say nursery (the one Rudy was alleged to have broken into)? Is that a children's nursery or a nursery that grows plants?

d

-
ETA: which brings up another question. Did Rudy know about the plants downstairs? And if he did and knew about Giacomo's trip, maybe do you think he asked him if he needed someone to water them and Giacomo told him about Meredith doing that for him? Naw, he would have said something if that were true, wouldn't he?

-

 

[Diocletus]

A piece of information or a finding can be used in a trial whenever there are reasons to believe it truthful, also when it comes from somewhere else, like from some other venue or from some other trial. Judicial findings from other trials specifically can be used in cases different from the original ones. No, there is no requirement that the original source of the evidence is "examined" in a cross questioning as if he were a witness.

Everytime I start to think that the Italian justice system sucks, Machiavelli says something that makes me realize how wrong I am. The Italians have obviously invented a way of having trials that is so efficient, that I can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't immediately start to copy it.

Check it out: in Italy, they can have secret trials, where the defendants aren't allowed in and the prosecutor gets to put on whatever kinds of evidence he wants, and he doesn't have to worry about his witnesses being confronted and cross-examined. Heck, the defendants can't even appeal. How easy and efficient is this! Instead of 20 years, trials might just take 10 years!

All that stuff in the ECHR about public trials, impartial tribunals, cross-examination, putting on evidence, etc. is just yadayada anyway.

Italia uber alles!

 

[Samson]

Here is a section from Nencini being given high praise by Peggy Ganong.

Secondly, from her very first statements, Amanda Marie Knox provides the picture that, at some point during the attack, Meredith was screaming. Indeed, it was only because of the poor girl’s scream [102] that the defendant imagined "what might have happened". This scream, so excruciating that it caused her to move her hands to her ears to block it out, is introduced in the written statement on the same morning at the offices of the Perugia police. Significantly, this is the scream that was clearly heard by the witnesses Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia. It was so "excruciating" that Nara Capezzali was beside herself, something that she told the First Instance Court hearing on 27 March 2009, having previously only spoken about it to the police, about a year after that night of November 2007.

Did Monacchia's scream time line up with Capezzali's because if so it is impossible to be Meredith.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Everytime I start to think that the Italian justice system sucks, Machiavelli says something that makes me realize how wrong I am. The Italians have obviously invented a way of having trials that is so efficient, that I can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't immediately start to copy it.

Check it out: in Italy, they can have secret trials, where the defendants aren't allowed in and the prosecutor gets to put on whatever kinds of evidence he wants, and he doesn't have to worry about his witnesses being confronted and cross-examined. Heck, the defendants can't even appeal. How easy and efficient is this! Instead of 20 years, trials might just take 10 years!

All that stuff in the ECHR about public trials, impartial tribunals, cross-examination, putting on evidence, etc. is just yadayada anyway.

Italia uber alles!

-

That is just too funny d. I found my self chuckling along while reading this and then I realized, CRAP! don't we do the same kind of thing here in the US when prosecutors go to a grand jury to get indictments?

d

-
P.S. It's still funny though, especially the yadayada part at the end. Ha ha.

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Here is a section from Nencini being given high praise by Peggy Ganong.

Secondly, from her very first statements, Amanda Marie Knox provides the picture that, at some point during the attack, Meredith was screaming. Indeed, it was only because of the poor girl’s scream [102] that the defendant imagined "what might have happened". This scream, so excruciating that it caused her to move her hands to her ears to block it out, is introduced in the written statement on the same morning at the offices of the Perugia police. Significantly, this is the scream that was clearly heard by the witnesses Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia. It was so "excruciating" that Nara Capezzali was beside herself, something that she told the First Instance Court hearing on 27 March 2009, having previously only spoken about it to the police, about a year after that night of November 2007.


Did Monacchia's scream time line up with Capezzali's because if so it is impossible to be Meredith.

If somebody states "I heard a scream a year ago" and did not write anything at the time, I would just shake my head. . . . .Kind of skeptic 101 here.

 

[Diocletus]

-


-

That is just too funny d. I found my self chuckling along while reading this and then I realized, CRAP! don't we do the same kind of thing here in the US when prosecutors go to a grand jury to get indictments?

d

-
P.S. It's still funny though, especially the yadayada part at the end. Ha ha.

-

Oh, for indictments, yes. But the Italians have invented a way to do this in actual trials. Genius.

 

[anglolawyer]

1. Maybe for a change of clean men's clothes, or clean clothes that would fit.

So were any clothes reported missing? Were his dirty clothes found?

2. Anything that distinguishes Guede from Amanda and Raf is bad for Guede, bad for Mignini's theory of a group crime, and bad for the cops if they are protecting Guede for whatever reason.

Yes, but that imperative did not kick in until some time into November. Way too late to be airbrushing an entire crime scene downstairs.

3. How do we know when the police decided the evidence downstairs would not be useful? They did test the blood drops, returned human profiles, but chose not to disclose them. Stefanoni is on video demanding the results of a "presumed semen" stain, but those test results have never surfaced either. I've argued the police knew GUede MO upon first arriving at the crime scene, realized Guede might be involved, and that they themselves might have some 'explaining' to do for springing Guede from Milan and bringing him back to Perugia just 5 days earlier.
Based on what? Fantasy?

4. But most importantly, there is a trail of blood evidence that has been DNA tested and come back with a human profile. Ought we not first ask what the evidence shows Guede did do, before asking "why would he do it?".
Let's see it. Cite please.

Comments in bold.

 

[Diocletus]

Comments in bold.

What does lack of information about missing clothes mean? They weren't missing, or the investigation sucked?

His missing clothes are with the knife. Probably threw them in the nearest bin, which I'm sure the cops didn't check.

The timing issue is interesting. What makes you think that they didn't decide on nov 6 to abandon the downstairs crime scene?

 

[carbonjam72]

Comments in bold.

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
1. Maybe for a change of clean men's clothes, or clean clothes that would fit.

So were any clothes reported missing? Were his dirty clothes found?

2. Anything that distinguishes Guede from Amanda and Raf is bad for Guede, bad for Mignini's theory of a group crime, and bad for the cops if they are protecting Guede for whatever reason.

Yes, but that imperative did not kick in until some time into November. Way too late to be airbrushing an entire crime scene downstairs.

3. How do we know when the police decided the evidence downstairs would not be useful? They did test the blood drops, returned human profiles, but chose not to disclose them. Stefanoni is on video demanding the results of a "presumed semen" stain, but those test results have never surfaced either. I've argued the police knew GUede MO upon first arriving at the crime scene, realized Guede might be involved, and that they themselves might have some 'explaining' to do for springing Guede from Milan and bringing him back to Perugia just 5 days earlier.
Based on what? Fantasy?

4. But most importantly, there is a trail of blood evidence that has been DNA tested and come back with a human profile. Ought we not first ask what the evidence shows Guede did do, before asking "why would he do it?".
Let's see it. Cite please.

1- I could swear i saw testimony, between a lawyer and one of the downstairs guys asking if any clothes were missing. I don't recall the answer, and I remember being puzzled as to why that testimony was being featured or thought important. I didn't know the case well at the time, and haven't been able to find it again, though I have looked. So I think that question was at least asked. (I don't recall that Guede's dirty clothes were ever found, nor his sneakers that tracked in Meredith's blood).

2. - I've wondered whether kicking the door downstairs by Zugarini was an effort to pollute the downstairs with broken glass, in case the intruder had tracked in glass from the upstairs. Again, this would be motivated by the police wanting to protect Guede, in the event he were involved - which leads to the next question -

3. - A few months ago I think, Strozzi asked me why I've argued this point, and I left a rather lengthy explanation in a post. I don't think anyone responded or commented on it. I'll try to fish out the post number, but I'm pretty sure it was an exchange between myself and Strozzi. The short answer is, the idea of Guede being a police informant and being run by the Perugians is Steve Moore's theory, from his chapter in the book, '...The Forgotten Killer...'. So no, not fantasy. Rather, based on extensive detail I find convincing. I'll try to fish out the post, not sure how much luck I'll have, but if you're curious as to my thinking, I really laid out what I had there.

4. Like all (or most of) the hard evidence I accept on the case, its listed in either the injusticeinperugia or www.murderofmeredithker.com web sites. If you haven't seen the section on the downstairs crime scene, it's great. Kind of late, do you need me to cite these things more specifically, or is this close enough for you to find?

But I would value your response, especially to my longer post to Strozzi as to Guede's prior relationship to the police, and indications that polcie were protecting Guede from DAY 1.

 

[codyjuneau]

-

Hmm, it's interesting that you shortened Marco Chiacchiera name to Mach, which is my way (and some others here too) of shortening Machiavelli's name when responding to him/ her. Plus, Mario's sentence structuring above kind of reminds me of our Mach's. Do you think... naw can't be.

I find this discussion about the downstairs very interesting and makes me wonder once again about a question I asked here a long time ago, but never got a reply. Does anyone know what happened to the marijuana plants Giacomo had in the downstairs apartment?

Also, what does everyone here mean when they say nursery (the one Rudy was alleged to have broken into)? Is that a children's nursery or a nursery that grows plants?

d

-
ETA: which brings up another question. Did Rudy know about the plants downstairs? And if he did and knew about Giacomo's trip, maybe do you think he asked him if he needed someone to water them and Giacomo told him about Meredith doing that for him? Naw, he would have said something if that were true, wouldn't he?

-

.
Hi d

I did not do the MaCh abbreviation. That was in the version RW posted. You can also use the first 3 letters in Chiacchiera to come up with MaChi.

I don't know about the marijuana plants.

Nursery refers to the Nursery School in Milan that Rudy broke into.

Although we knew Rudy had broken into the school, it was only recently we found out that Rudy was charged and convicted of possession of stolen goods that were found on him at the Nursery. Some of the stolen goods were from a lawyer's office very close to Rudy's residence in Perugia. There may have also been a gold watch which was stolen from Rudy's neighbour. In addition, it appears the Perugian police told the Milan police to release Rudy back to their charge in Perugia.

How the police and courts managed to keep the charge against Rudy a secret is a mystery. Did they really charge him, or was that something they fast tracked much later on to cover their asses for not charging him earlier? The same sort of thing happened with Curatola. He was belatedly charged with dealing drugs for a time period long before he was a witness in Meredith's trial. Then after his last testimony in Meredith's trial he was imprisoned on those charges and died shortly thereafter.

Watch this video of the lady that ran the Milan Nursery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

Cody
.

 

[Machiavelli]

What nonsense - there is no evidence of Amanda ever taking any drugs apart from cannabis - and even this she got from her upstanding and responsible flatmates. Nobody has ever come forward to say that they have seen Amanda spangled and gurning her head off. You obviously know absolutely nothing about how young people use drugs - but think if you shout 'sex and drugs' loud enough, it will smear her name so that people think she is also guilty of murder.

Really? Where do you get this stuff from? It's just bad trashy tabloid fiction and not worthy of Take a Break magazine

Knox contradicts herself all over, her story - as you can see from her testimonies statements and interrogation - gets entangled in a growing and swelling tapestry of inconsistences. Her not checking for her 300 euros, her contradictory account about her concerns that maybe a burglar had entered the house, it's among the inconsistences. We notice that she tries to pin the "contact" with drug dealers on her flatmates nonchalantly. But five euros is quite ridiculous since Hashish was around 40 euros per smallest piece in Perugia, and there was a lot of other substances, and in fact it was Knox exchanging phone calls with drug dealers, not her flatmates. Knox was the one who knew Rudy Guede and had sexual intercourses with dealer Federico Martini, not her flatmates.
I point out that I am not the person screaming here.

 

[Dan O.]

...

I still ponder Marco Chiacchiera's testimony that you posted RW:

MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
MaCh: Two.
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?MaCh: Yes.
GCM: How do you know?
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….GCM: But you checked…?
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.
"I am trying to be very very careful."
In other words shut the F up you idiot.

How did he 'know'? What did he 'know' that he did not want to tell?

Cody
.

The court had ruled that what was said in the illegal interrogations could not be used. Any officer that was involved in that interrogation would have to be very careful to insure that there was another source for the information outside of the interrogations before presenting that information in court.

 

[acbytesla]

Knox contradicts herself all over, her story - as you can see from her testimonies statements and interrogation - gets entangled in a growing and swelling tapestry of inconsistences. Her not checking for her 300 euros, her contradictory account about her concerns that maybe a burglar had entered the house, it's among the inconsistences. We notice that she tries to pin the "contact" with drug dealers on her flatmates nonchalantly. But five euros is quite ridiculous since Hashish was around 40 euros per smallest piece in Perugia, and there was a lot of other substances, and in fact it was Knox exchanging phone calls with drug dealers, not her flatmates. Knox was the one who knew Rudy Guede and had sexual intercourses with dealer Federico Martini, not her flatmates.
I point out that I am not the person screaming here.

No Amanda doesn't contradict herself. You are just being silly, not to mention lying and smearing. . Minor inconsistencies are to be expected which is all that you ever find. You turn a bunch of nothings into something only through wild speculation and innuendo. One only look at Meredith's British friends. They almost all remembered that evening a little different. Were they all hiding something?

But let's go back to your suggestion that Amanda tried to pin the contact with drug dealers on her flatmates. No one but sleazy scummy tabloid writers and gullible morons think that Amanda had any issue with drugs. or that Knox was exchanging calls with drug dealers. We know this to be bull, because we've gone over her phone bill with a fine tooth comb. When Amanda's roommates were asked if Amanda had a problem with drugs, their answer was an emphatic NO.

Knox DID NOT know Rudy Guede, She was introduced to Rudy by the boys downstairs and there isn't a single phone call or text between the two EVER!!! And btw, Rudy had a phone until a few days before Meredith's murder so saying something was going on between them is total nonsense.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hiya Diocletus!
I'm back online, spent the rest of the day at the beach...

Regarding my earlier posting today:

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.

Where is the sheet?

Aha!
I goofed!
Thanks for correctin' me!!!
Both of the bedsheets on the 2 side-by-side beds in Stefano's bedroom were removed.
(Note to myself, double check your notes, dude!)

Which markers are in this room?

The Crime Scene markers I found were:
#1, Large Font.
Seen on his comforter, shoved towards the top of his 2nd bed,
the bed farthest from his bedroom doorway entrance.

#2, Large Font.
Seen on this same mattress, with its bedsheet removed.
Also seen were small letters A, B, +C seen at blood drops.

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.

Which markers?

In Giacomo's bedroom,
I see Crime Scene marker #3, Large Font.
Near a pair of black sandals, by a bloody outline on the floor, (of which I've posted a photo recently of, and also near a window, facing outside. (At 18:31:58 on 3 Nov. 2007, it was still twilight outside, light enough to kinda see still.)

On Giacomo's bed, I note the bed is made, there is a 2nd top quilt, in floral pattern, laid on top of a plaid blanket, and there is a plastic white, lettered bag on it, apparently mostly empty, with clothing laid neatly nearby on his bed.

A thought: what if the outside blood drops are going UP the stairs,
meaning that the blood was diluted downstairs?

What if our hero was carrying a wet bundle of clothing, perhaps wrapped up in a sheet???

Hi Diocletus,
Your headin' up the stairs theory has also crossed my mind,
worth keepin' an open mind about, in my humble opinion.
As does your theory on how the bloody pinline markings mighta come to be, as seen in Crime Scene marker #3, Large font.

Just for everyones info,
when the cops broke into the downstairs flat, they found really clean kitchen, no dirty dishes in the sink, for they were drying in the rack. The kitchen table had all 4 chairs neatly pushed in towards the table cloth covering, but strangely, there was a floral(?) colored sheet from a bed(?) laying on the kitchen floor, behind a chair, near the door.

What a strange place to leave dirty laundry, when you have room mates....


Also odd, in this surfers opinion,
were the plastic bags seen laying on top of the stove,

esh, what a fire hazard that coulda become.
I can't tell if any burners were on, can you?
Why would I ask?

This kinda reminds me of the incident a few day earlier before Meredith Kercher's murder when Rudy's neighbors place burned down, all because, what was it, someone burglarized the place, feasted, and then left a scarf on top of a lamp, where a fire started. The stove was also left turned on in this incident, from what I've read.

Who woulda been suspected and what woulda been the outcome regardings Meredith's murder if the place had caught fire and burned down, with her body in it?

Just wondering,
RW

 

[codyjuneau]

...

I still ponder Marco Chiacchiera's testimony that you posted RW:

MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
MaCh: Two.
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?MaCh: Yes.
GCM: How do you know?
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….GCM: But you checked…?
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.
"I am trying to be very very careful."
In other words shut the F up you idiot.

How did he 'know'? What did he 'know' that he did not want to tell?

Cody
.

The court had ruled that what was said in the illegal interrogations could not be used. Any officer that was involved in that interrogation would have to be very careful to insure that there was another source for the information outside of the interrogations before presenting that information in court.

.
Thanks Danno. Is that your opinion for why he was being careful, or do you know it as a fact?

I wonder because if you are correct, then Marco is giving information from the interrogation. It is only the source of the information he is not giving.

I also wonder why he would trust her word on the shower, but not trust her word on so many other things.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Another great post RW.

That thing lying on the floor in front of the table looks to me like a shower curtain, complete with the rod (the white tube beside it).

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Or, it could also be a window curtain, from the front door perhaps?

Cody
.

 

[RWVBWL]

.
Or, it could also be a window curtain, from the front door perhaps?

Cody
.

I'm kinda likin' this theory,
makes sense it'd be covering the kitchen window.

But that said,
I'd like to see the vid where Officer Z broke in the window again,
time to check if it's online still...
L8's, RW