Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Let's examine Guede's timeline after the murder/rape of Meredith to understand when bugging his phone might be of interest:

Nov. 1, 2007 about 9:30 pm Murder/rape; later that night, Guede goes to a disco
Nov. 3 ? Guede goes to Germany
Nov. 16 Police visit apartment of Guede with Giacomo Benedetti *
Nov. 19 Police record 3-hour Skype conversation between Guede and Benedetti *
Nov. 20 Guede arrested on a train in Mainz, Germany after travel w/o ticket *
Nov. 20 Forensic police collect items from Guede's apartment *
Dec. 6 Guede returns to Italy. Vaginal swab DNA matches his DNA *

* Information from MMK website

So police could have bugged Guede's apartment from Nov. 16, 2007 until, say Dec. 6, when he would have been held in Italian police custody.

 

[Kauffer]

These taps were ordered by an Investigating Judge, not by the police. And the job was wisely done, since the phone tapping did indeed unveil elements of a conspiracy, and subsequently those family members also had criminal charges.
Sollecito in his book claims to have a "mole" in the Perugian prosecution office and claims connections to Carabinieri and Police. His sister arranged contacts with politicians, MPs from two political parties. All those seeking connections are illicit, his daughter lost her job also as a consequence of this behavior.

Perhaps you believe your own propaganda. The police and the prosecutor decide who to tap and take it to the judge to sign it off. The taps produced nothing yet attempts to fit people up in an effort to derail Mr Sollecito's defence echoing the outrageous charging of Ms Knox's parents. The treatment of Vanessa Sollecito was appalling.

The 83 taps weren't 83 instances of tapping. They were 83 separate taps of which there were 78 separate numbers - hundreds of hours of costly transcripts producing no evidence towatds solving the murder. All this expense plus 82 grand on cartoons but not enough money to record the 5th/6th interrogations. What a crock! All the taps reveal is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were for certain, suspects long before the evening of the 5th. And my bet is that the ECHR is going to cream the Italians for it.

 

[Kauffer]

You may aim your projections on someone about whom there is actual evidence of lying and committing crimes, such ad Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, rather than on an innocent citizen such ad Patrick Lumumba.

This would be the same Lumumba who was arrested at dawn by 15 cops, not given a lawyer, held in isolation, and brought in front of a judge with police "evidence" of a witness who said his bar was closed when it was open, and who was held in custody long after it was absolutely clear, even to idiots, that he was indeed entirely innocent.

No calunia charge for the lying witness I assume?

 

[Numbers]

You may aim your projections on someone about whom there is actual evidence of lying and committing crimes, such ad Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, rather than on an innocent citizen such ad Patrick Lumumba.

Mach,

My projections are aimed at the Italian police, specifically the ones who interrogated Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba. Those police are the persons who lied and committed crimes. ETA: In fact, Patrick Lumumba was called racial epithets, beaten, and brutally abused by the police who arrested and interrogated him.

I'm not aware of Patrick Lumumba having committed any crimes as we in the United States understand. He has filed a civil law suit against Amanda Knox; such suits are filed in large numbers if not every day, than rather frequently in the US. His suit in my opinion is unjustified because Amanda Knox was coerced into making statements against him by the police during an interrogation in which she did not have legal counsel. But again, filing a law suit due to such an error is not a crime in the US.

 

[carbonjam72]

Perhaps you believe your own propaganda. The police and the prosecutor decide who to tap and take it to the judge to sign it off. The taps produced nothing yet attempts to fit people up in an effort to derail Mr Sollecito's defence echoing the outrageous charging of Ms Knox's parents. The treatment of Vanessa Sollecito was appalling.

The 83 taps weren't 83 instances of tapping. They were 83 separate taps of which there were 78 separate numbers - hundreds of hours of costly transcripts producing no evidence towatds solving the murder. All this expense plus 82 grand on cartoons but not enough money to record the 5th/6th interrogations. What a crock! All the taps reveal is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were for certain, suspects long before the evening of the 5th. And my bet is that the ECHR is going to cream the Italians for it.

IIUC, the Italian judiciary is beyond the reach of the ECHR, as a practical. The "independence" (unaccountability) of the judiciary makes them immune to political pressure.

SO even an obligation that Italy the country would accept, in the ECHR declaring human rights violations for Amanda, and later if necessary Raf, the judiciary itself doesn't have to do anything, and could drag their feet for years, or indefinitely if they didn't feel like accepting the criticism.

Italy's judiciary is the problem. They have to fix that, before they can clean up the rampant corruption in the police and political realms. How funny would it be if Amanda Knox brought down the whole damn crooked system?

 

[Numbers]

Supplied by the prosecution office.

Mach,

And don't the prosecution office and the police work together to generate the list of names with phones and/or locations to bug?

 

[Machiavelli]

This would be the same Lumumba who was arrested at dawn by 15 cops, not given a lawyer, held in isolation, and brought in front of a judge with police "evidence" of a witness who said his bar was closed when it was open, and who was held in custody long after it was absolutely clear, even to idiots, that he was indeed entirely innocent.

No calunia charge for the lying witness I assume?

So you admit there is no evidence to make this projections on Patrick Lumumba, an innocent person who was never found lying. Yet there are people here ready to construe the most venomous insinuations about him, speculate about imaginary dark secrets of his life and assume he must be lying and willing to pay lip service to serve the interest of some obscure plot.
Interesting how you "see" innocent people. Maybe just black people, since you don't seem so keen to throw insinuations about Sollecito's family (who, indeed, were involved in obscure and illicit plots).
And well, I thought the story of health inspectors with their own rats was fun. But now I am thinking about the potential of prejudice behind those light hearted stories. Of course if you set this kind of invention in place of reality on any point you would build your own world. It's a world that would work on your own postulates that you don't feel the need to back with evidence.
There was no evidence that a witness was lying. There has been one person who declared the bar was closed - no need to conclude he was lying - but several others declared it was open and the police itself maintained it was open, since they controlled the receipts sequence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

And don't the prosecution office and the police work together to generate the list of names with phones and/or locations to bug?

Well the prosecution can order the police to so things, and the police can perform investigations in which they involve the prosecution. And the investigating judge is a third office who controls. It's powers meant to work together but also to check on each other. It's separate people, appointed by different powers or independent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

My projections are aimed at the Italian police, specifically the ones who interrogated Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba. Those police are the persons who lied and committed crimes. ETA: In fact, Patrick Lumumba was called racial epithets, beaten, and brutally abused by the police who arrested and interrogated him.

I'm not aware of Patrick Lumumba having committed any crimes as we in the United States understand. He has filed a civil law suit against Amanda Knox; such suits are filed in large numbers if not every day, than rather frequently in the US. His suit in my opinion is unjustified because Amanda Knox was coerced into making statements against him by the police during an interrogation in which she did not have legal counsel. But again, filing a law suit due to such an error is not a crime in the US.

Your projections are indeed aimed at Italian police, against which you nurture the most virulent prejudice, but your intent is so venomous that in fact doesn't care about hitting Lumumba too if it fits your design. You literally decide to use him as a club to slam on the head of the police. No problem if you imply that he is a liar and a hypocrite or a willing servant of obscure plots, as long as the projection serves your purpose of sliming the police you won't refrain from smearing his character with some revolting projection too.

 

[Numbers]

So you admit there is no evidence to make this projections on Patrick Lumumba, an innocent person who was never found lying. Yet there are people here ready to construe the most venomous insinuations about him, speculate about imaginary dark secrets of his life and assume he must be lying and willing to pay lip service to serve the interest of some obscure plot.
Interesting how you "see" innocent people. Maybe just black people, since you don't seem so keen to throw insinuations about Sollecito's family (who, indeed, were involved in obscure and illicit plots).
And well, I thought the story of health inspectors with their own rats was fun. But now I am thinking about the potential of prejudice behind those light hearted stories. Of course if you set this kind of invention in place of reality on any point you would build your own world. It's a world that would work on your own postulates that you don't feel the need to back with evidence.
There was no evidence that a witness was lying. There has been one person who declared the bar was closed - no need to conclude he was lying - but several others declared it was open and the police itself maintained it was open, since they controlled the receipts sequence.

Mach,

You may not have noticed that the speculations were about the possibility that the police had blackmailed Patrick Lumumba into not pressing his claims against them for violating his human rights and into pressing his civil suit and/or press statements against Amanda Knox.

Blackmail is a crime with this definition (from Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met.[1][2] It is coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property.[1][3][4][5][6][7][8] It is the name of a statutory offence in the United States of America, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Victoria, Australia, and has been used as a convenient way of referring to other offences....

Some of the posters here, including myself, are speculating that the Italian police committed the crime of blackmail, a form of coercion, against Patrick Lumumba, to force him to stop making claims against them for their vicious and brutal actions toward him when he was arrested and interrogated Nov. 6, 2007. The police directed racial insults at him, beat him, threatened him with a long prison term, and otherwise mistreated and abused him. He initially reported this maltreatment to one or more newspapers and, if I recall correctly, initiated legal action against the police. However, after a while, he dropped his action against the police, was awarded some money for false arrest which he refused, and initiated a civil law suit against Amanda Knox for defamation.

One indication of the coercion by the police against Patrick Lumumba after he was released from detention on Nov. 20, 2007, is that is pub was not allowed to remain open for a long time. I speculate that this was a warning to Patrick from the authorities that he had to stop speaking out against his mistreatment, or his pub would not be allowed to reopen.

This crime, if it occurred, that we are discussing is not that of Patrick Lumumba, but of the Italian police.

 

[Numbers]

Your projections are indeed aimed at Italian police, against which you nurture the most virulent prejudice, but your intent is so venomous that in fact doesn't care about hitting Lumumba too if it fits your design. You literally decide to use him as a club to slam on the head of the police. No problem if you imply that he is a liar and a hypocrite or a willing servant of obscure plots, as long as the projection serves your purpose of sliming the police you won't refrain from smearing his character with some revolting projection too.

No, I am speculating he may be the unwilling, coerced victim of the Italian police as they defended themselves against his justified claims of mistreatment by them.

He has not lied, in my opinion. He may be mistaken, because he has blamed another victim for the problems caused by the police.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is an oddity. IMO Mignini seems to feel a need to be believed and to be vindicated. It's a weakness of his. This is one of the fora (among others) in which knowledgable people sit in judgment on him. From his closing speech in one of the trials I gather he made reference to online discussions and he has gone so far as to prosecute those who have the temerity to publish criticism of the process. So I think Mach has wormed his way into a position of trust and confidence as the most formidable (let's face it, the competition isn't stiff ) and loyal of the pro-guilt commentators and has become a sort of approved outlet, which is useful for us because, without Mach, we would not know of Mignini's embellishment of his 2.00 a.m. claim, that he was in REM sleep when awoken and told of happenings at the questura. This is like Guede claiming to remember and thinking it worth mentioning that Meredith used her keys to unlock the door when they arrived together (no ******). It's the type of embroidery used by liars when they want to be convincing but which (to me) has the opposite effect. It's not only liars, though. Also honest but weak people with a desperate need to be believed behave this way, so it doesn't prove anything either way but it sure is odd.

This oddness was also noted by CNN's Drew Griffin. In an afterthought following his 2010 Mignini interview, Griffin noted that a strange thing happened the next day.

On the street of Perugia, the two of them bumped into each other. Mignini asked Griffin if he'd appeared believable the day before.

Of course this could mean many things. Maybe Mignini has an inferiority complex which he covers with courtroom bluster.

But the look on Griffin's face was telling. It was like Griffin couldn't believe the odd things this case seemed to shoot out of nowhere.

 

[RWVBWL]

About Rudy Guede's phone...

Greetings,
You folks have been doing some fun research,
here's my 2 cents for what it's worth, which was discussed months ago:


Rudy Guede had a SIM #.
Here's some info about it, from when he was busted in Milan:

However then in the morning I saw this lady and a child and some men, I explained everything to the lady, how things had happened, and I said to the lady to call the Police. Then the Police came who then seized my cell phone and computer.
Napoleoni: Was the cell phone yours Rudy?
Guede: The cell phone wasn’t mine, it wasn’t mine… in the sense that I hadn’t bought it…
Pros. Mignini: Do you remember the number?
Guede: My SIM number yes
Pros. Mignini: The one they seized in Milan
Guede: The SIM was mine but not the cell phone
Napoleoni: Can you tell us the number of the SIM
Guede: 329.1819627 and from that moment I never had a cell phone again
Napoleoni: Sorry Rudy, this SIM card, do you remember when you used it?
Guede: Since a long time… it was actually in my name…


Link to my old post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10074888&postcount=9293
* * *

Rudy Guede called Carlos,
1 of the Spanish students on Halloween to meet up with them that night.
It is from this call from Rudy Guede that the cops tracked down 2 of the Spanish students and had them return from Switzerland to Perugia for questioning.


I quote from a post I wrote that I had titled Rudy had a phone?:

We find out about the happened by means of the Police of Perugia. The newspapers had done to themselves echo of the brutal murder of one Erasmus Englishwoman, but nobody between the Spanish we relate the event to Guede. «Come to Police station immediately». Carlos and Carolina were in Switzerland when they received the call of the agents. At its arrival to Perugia they accompanied them to the Police station. The call of Guede to Carlos the day of Halloween had been the culprit of the subpoena.

Link to my post which has link to a newpaper article written in Spanish
by 1 of the Spanish Erasmus students, named Nacho Azparen:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10009313&postcount=6032

* * *

I'd be curious to find out when Carlos and Carolina were called by the Perugian police and asked to come back to Perugia, for it appears that ILE had Rudy Guede's phone # or SIM #.
See ya,
RW

 

[acbytesla]

I was under the impression that when Rudy was arrested in Milan that the phone belonged to the lawyers that was burglarized but the SIM card inside the phone belonged to Rudy.

Any one remember?

 

[Machiavelli]

I acknowledged that you didn't say that. I just noticed that you were following Machiavelli around on this forum like a puppy dog so I assumed you agreed with him.

Am I mistaken? Do you have something pithy to say?

Vibio makes you become nervous?

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I am speculating he may be the unwilling, coerced victim of the Italian police as they defended themselves against his justified claims of mistreatment by them.

He has not lied, in my opinion. He may be mistaken, because he has blamed another victim for the problems caused by the police.

Maybe it doesn't occur to you that if you pick a free citizen - a free, decent, and proud citizen - and you call him a "coerced" victim, a puppy "under control" of the police, a victimized servant of a dictatorial system, than maybe you are offending that person. You are sliming his reputation, his honour, and possibly his family. You are insinuating that a free citizen is a worm. A poor chap in need of our loathing compassion.
And, what about insinuations like that this is maybe because he was cheating on her wife or didn't pay taxes...

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Machiavelli,
Another Italian, Frank Sfarzo, wrote this of Lumumba back on Feb. 24, 2008:
On the side of the investigation, a local newspaper yesterday reported that some compromising material was allegedly found in Patrick's pub when it was searched. Still something to be explained for our rich man, it would seem...

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000349/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html


Care to share with us Americans what it was that the local newspaper was reporting about?


By the way, here's another interesting tidbit about Lumumba,
from old Perugia Shock, dated March 3, 2008:
<snip>
"The little bit of money is nothing for me. I've always been rich by family. People take a mortgage to buy a house, I paid in cash. Why don't you go to check? And I've taken this place as a "business lease". I pay rent here. And it has even been closed for a long time. You should ask me if I've really taken those money."
<snip>

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000333/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html



Machiavelli,
Is it common for Italians to pay for their residences in cash,
as Lumumba tells Sfarzo that he did? Sounds like the dude wasn't hurtin' for $$$$.

But yet this home owner and business man, rich by family and with $$$$,
for some reason did not have a lawyer present when the cops arrested and interrogated him as the prime suspect in Meredith Kercher's rape and murder. I wonder why?

 

[Numbers]

Maybe it doesn't occur to you that if you pick a free citizen - a free, decent, and proud citizen - and you call him a "coerced" victim, a puppy "under control" of the police, a victimized servant of a dictatorial system, than maybe you are offending that person. You are sliming his reputation, his honour, and possibly his family. You are insinuating that a free citizen is a worm. A poor chap in need of our loathing compassion.
And, what about insinuations like that this is maybe because he was cheating on her wife or didn't pay taxes...

Mach,

I see you're back on this topic. Apparently discussion of the horrendous police mistreatment of Patrick Lumumba, which had been documented in a contemporary newspaper article if I recall correctly, has touched a nerve.

While I said that I speculated that Mr. Lumumba had dropped his legal action and ceased making statements about his mistreatment at the hands of the Italian police, which occurred at the time and subsequent to his arrest on Nov. 6, 2007 for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, which was a false charge brought against him by the Italian police, as a result of coercion or some form of threat or intimidation by the police, I never called him a "puppy" nor was I the one speculating in any way about him being blackmailed as a result of any questionable activity on his part. Others might have speculated about him being blackmailed on the basis of some activity the police had detected, but I believe the police in some places are powerful and corrupt enough not to need such an excuse to persecute or coerce an honest and innocent person, especially in Italy.

All these insults you are piling on Mr. Lumumba (puppy, worm, loathing compassion, etc.) are strictly your own saying, your own words. You are not quoting me.

I have never met Mr. Patrick Lumumba, but if he has been a victim of police brutality, as he initially reported and began to take legal action on, I feel a deep and sincere compassion for him. There have been many such victims, even here in the US. And I have a strong belief that authorities who abuse and brutalize should be held accountable. Your words seem to me merely a way to disguise the issue of this alleged police brutality that was initially reported by Patrick Lumumba.

However, it is or was for Mr. Lumumba and the Italian Republic to seek the legal consequences for alleged police brutallity in the jurisdiction of Italy, since we here in the US only know about it from news reports. If Patrick Lumumba decided based upon his own reason and free will not to pursue that matter, that was of course his free choice.

If I or others here speculate that a corrupt police force has coerced or influenced him to drop his legal action against the police, I certainly do not consider that a mark against him. There are many otherwise proud and courageous people who have been forced to do things against their will by the coercion of unjust authorities. Europe in the twentieth century was replete with uncounted examples of that.

In my opinion, you merely hide your support of a corrupt police force behind you insincere concerns for Mr. Lumumba's honor.

 

[carbonjam72]

Maybe it doesn't occur to you that if you pick a free citizen - a free, decent, and proud citizen - and you call him a "coerced" victim, a puppy "under control" of the police, a victimized servant of a dictatorial system, than maybe you are offending that person. You are sliming his reputation, his honour, and possibly his family. You are insinuating that a free citizen is a worm. A poor chap in need of our loathing compassion.
And, what about insinuations like that this is maybe because he was cheating on her wife or didn't pay taxes...

Amanda and Raffaelle were free and decent citizens.

They never hurt anyone, and yet they have been falsely accused, slandered, convicted, imprisoned, and continue to be hounded by these unfair and baseless charges.

Pointing outrage in any other direction is purely distraction.

Lumumba, I understand, was paid for his slanders in the media by the way, no? Lumumba's slander is not innocent, even though I am quite certain he was pressured by police to stop his criticizing them, he is just one more paid shill at this point. Look at the country he comes from. The media should be held to account for their role in this and other cases. The owner/publishers should be in criminal court for how they destroy innocent lives just to peddle their despicable lies. If you don't understand the importance of preventing a jury from being exposed to that type of prejudicial material, then what more can be said to you?

 

[Samson]

Mach,

I see you're back on this topic. Apparently discussion of the horrendous police mistreatment of Patrick Lumumba, which had been documented in a contemporary newspaper article if I recall correctly, has touched a nerve.

While I said that I speculated that Mr. Lumumba had dropped his legal action and ceased making statements about his mistreatment at the hands of the Italian police, which occurred at the time and subsequent to his arrest on Nov. 6, 2007 for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, which was a false charge brought against him by the Italian police, as a result of coercion or some form of threat or intimidation by the police, I never called him a "puppy" nor was I the one speculating in any way about him being blackmailed as a result of any questionable activity on his part. Others might have speculated about him being blackmailed on the basis of some activity the police had detected, but I believe the police in some places are powerful and corrupt enough not to need such an excuse to persecute or coerce an honest and innocent person, especially in Italy.

All these insults you are piling on Mr. Lumumba (puppy, worm, loathing compassion, etc.) are strictly your own saying, your own words. You are not quoting me.

I have never met Mr. Patrick Lumumba, but if he has been a victim of police brutality, as he initially reported and began to take legal action on, I feel a deep and sincere compassion for him. There have been many such victims, even here in the US. And I have a strong belief that authorities who abuse and brutalize should be held accountable. Your words seem to me merely a way to disguise the issue of this alleged police brutality that was initially reported by Patrick Lumumba.

However, it is or was for Mr. Lumumba and the Italian Republic to seek the legal consequences for alleged police brutallity in the jurisdiction of Italy, since we here in the US only know about it from news reports. If Patrick Lumumba decided based upon his own reason and free will not to pursue that matter, that was of course his free choice.

If I or others here speculate that a corrupt police force has coerced or influenced him to drop his legal action against the police, I certainly do not consider that a mark against him. There are many otherwise proud and courageous people who have been forced to do things against their will by the coercion of unjust authorities. Europe in the twentieth century was replete with uncounted examples of that.

In my opinion, you merely hide your support of a corrupt police force behind you insincere concerns for Mr. Lumumba's honor.

Mr Lumumba as you correctly accord him gentlemanly status is seeking money from Amanda Knox, who he probably correctly believes has ability to pay.
This is a parallel notion to the five surviving Kercher family members seeking money from Raffaele Sollecito, who are also probably correct in believing he has the ability to pay.