Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I'm not onboard with this yet. I still need to know the circumstances of Guede's friend approaching the police, and when. Do you have any links or info on this question?

I don't think anybody does. . . .One of those really big mysteries in this case.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

That is not the point. I was specifically beginning from a two known candidate premise, one white woman and one black man, both in jail, and saying it was statistically unlikely to be the white woman, before studying any evidence. But you came down like a ton of bricks despite the fact I agreed with Charlie that it was necessary to drop the ethnicity of the male in a sexual homicide, as he cited relevant data. In fact I doubt you actually read my post, but I am ready to move on.

-

I agree with your premise, and when you factor in his race (especially when you use prison populations here in the US as your base) probabilities are a black man is more likely to commit murder than a white woman is, but that premise means nothing until you look at the evidence to verify the premise. But, that also doesn't mean that this premise is gospel.

It's also a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy like the FBI statistic that more homicides are committed by the victim's own family or someone they know. Depending on the year you look at, that number is around 70% (if you exclude unsolved cases). Using this premise, Raffaele and Amanda are the more likely suspects.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2012.xls

It's not that Rudy is black that makes him more probably the guilty one (over Raffaele and Amanda), but that there is more physical evidence he was there during the murder than there is of Raffaele and Amanda, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Quote:
L'odierno imputato Guede, soprannominato "Il Barone", era già stato, infatti, indicato da Stefano Bonassi nel p. v. di s.i. del 4.11.07 (nel quale aveva, tra l'altro, riferito dell'abitudine di Rudi di non scaricare il water dalle feci) e da Temgoua Ndongmo Louis Patrick il 13.11.07.

I think so, katy_did told me that p. v. di s.i. most likely means: "processo verbale di sommarie informazioni" - in other words the record of Stefano Bonassi's interview on the 4th, his witness statement."

From applying Google Translate to the Mignini quote from Methos:

Today's accused Guede, nicknamed "The Baron", had been, in fact, indicated by Stefano Bonassi in p. v. of s.i. of 4:11:07 (which had, among others, reported habit of Rudi not flush the toilet with faeces) and Temgoua Ndongmo Louis Patrick the 13:11:07.

Question: What does "p.v. of s.i." mean? I assume some kind of communication?

Well as Numbers I think has pointed out, preliminary screening of the DNA results may have yielded a geographic of sub-saharan or something like that, so if that's the case, then yeah, they knew they were looking for a black guy.

And if napoleone & zugarini and possibly others like Mignini, recognized Rudy's breaking and entry MO, then yeah, again they knew they were looking for Rudy.

And if, as has come up pretty recently, one of the downstairs guys mentioned their new friend who left an unflushed feces in their toilet, and that their new friend was black, then yeah, they knew on Nov 4th they might be looking for a black man as a perp.

By the way, statistically, speaking, how many men on average in Italy, and in the vicinity of Perugia, leave their feces unflushed in toilets?
I mean, is there a bell curve? Ok, what's the median unflushed time Italian men leave their feces in toilets?

Please this is a serious question, so please nobody make a mockery of it.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Getting beyond statistics, useful as they may be at times, we have the extraordinary statement from PM Mignini that Stefano Bonassi, one of the boys downstairs, in a police interview on Nov. 4, 2007, had identified the "Baron" or Rudy Guede as a visitor downstairs who didn't flush after a BM. And Amanda Knox had pointed out to the police on Nov. 2 the oddity that there was an unflushed BM in the toilet of the larger bathroom.

My theory on the Italian police is that they're not as stupid or incompetent as they seem; they act like clowns as necessary to hide their corrupt or dishonest behavior.

So as of Nov. 4 they knew that Rudy Guede was a very likely suspect. How well did they know who he was? Would he have some public reputation in Perugia from being on the local basketball team? Was someone from the wealthiest family in Perugia still helping him?

Some have claimed he was a police informer, but there is little evidence of that - just that he was released from being caught inside the nursery in Milan. If what Mach explained is true, Breaking and Entering, even Burglary, are barely crimes in Italy - they're more like parking in a no-parking zone. Figuratively: the burglar gets a ticket or a scolding, pays a fine or returns the stolen stuff, and all is well.

But Nov. 4 was perhaps the day that the police (and possibly the prosecutor) decided that Amanda must be guilty, according to Giobbi. She wiggled her hips and said "Oopla" (or some such) when putting on booties before entering the flat. She cried when she was asked about the knives in the kitchen drawer - in a possible attempt by the cops to get her to handle one. Obvious signs of guilt {ironic statement}.

And Amanda's mother must have made plans on or before Nov. 4 to travel from Seattle to Perugia, to arrive on Nov. 6. The police would know about these plans from tapping Amanda's phone.

So IMO all this determines the rush to hold the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele on the night of Nov. 5/6. Was Patrick Lumumba targeted to hold the place of the murderer that the police already knew was occupied by Rudy Guede? And the text messages between Patrick and Amanda on Nov. 1, with a little mistranslation, gave the police their opening to launch the frame.

Is there other information available to support, contradict, or modify this scenario?

 

[MDDVS]

One does not have to be a victim of violence to harbor those feelings......

I jave been a victim of violent crime (obviously not homicide) but I don't harbor those feelings.

 

[Numbers]

For those interested:

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in Italian, is available online (in two sections; 746 articles total):

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/22

There is also a book with the CCP translated into English, but the book is currently unavailable from Amazon.
The italian code of criminal procedure. Critical essays and english translation
Publisher: CEDAM (January 1, 2014)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 8813341067
ISBN-13: 978-8813341060

 

[MichaelB]

New English translation of utterly useless witness Antonella Monacchia.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Antonella-Monacchia.pdf

 

[Desert Fox]

New English translation of utterly useless witness Antonella Monacchia.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Antonella-Monacchia.pdf

My issue is not with what she said but that she was given any credibility.

 

[anglolawyer]

New English translation of utterly useless witness Antonella Monacchia.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Antonella-Monacchia.pdf

Thanks. That was interesting. Nobody asked her how she knew the date of this scream. She didn't think it relevant or important enough to warrant calling the police, even though she was in the habit of alerting the police in response to night time noises. Who was the female arguing in Italian with the male? Surely not Amanda or Meredith. Why didn't they ask her parents what time (and date) she woke them up? No questions about her windows, wherher open or closed, type of glazing.

 

[Numbers]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Getting beyond statistics, useful as they may be at times, we have the extraordinary statement from PM Mignini that Stefano Bonassi, one of the boys downstairs, in a police interview on Nov. 4, 2007, had identified the "Baron" or Rudy Guede as a visitor downstairs who didn't flush after a BM. And Amanda Knox had pointed out to the police on Nov. 2 the oddity that there was an unflushed BM in the toilet of the larger bathroom.

My theory on the Italian police is that they're not as stupid or incompetent as they seem; they act like clowns as necessary to hide their corrupt or dishonest behavior.

So as of Nov. 4 they knew that Rudy Guede was a very likely suspect. How well did they know who he was? Would he have some public reputation in Perugia from being on the local basketball team? Was someone from the wealthiest family in Perugia still helping him?

Some have claimed he was a police informer, but there is little evidence of that - just that he was released from being caught inside the nursery in Milan. If what Mach explained is true, Breaking and Entering, even Burglary, are barely crimes in Italy - they're more like parking in a no-parking zone. Figuratively: the burglar gets a ticket or a scolding, pays a fine or returns the stolen stuff, and all is well.

But Nov. 4 was perhaps the day that the police (and possibly the prosecutor) decided that Amanda must be guilty, according to Giobbi. She wiggled her hips and said "Oopla" (or some such) when putting on booties before entering the flat. She cried when she was asked about the knives in the kitchen drawer - in a possible attempt by the cops to get her to handle one. Obvious signs of guilt {ironic statement}.

And Amanda's mother must have made plans on or before Nov. 4 to travel from Seattle to Perugia, to arrive on Nov. 6. The police would know about these plans from tapping Amanda's phone.

So IMO all this determines the rush to hold the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele on the night of Nov. 5/6. Was Patrick Lumumba targeted to hold the place of the murderer that the police already knew was occupied by Rudy Guede? And the text messages between Patrick and Amanda on Nov. 1, with a little mistranslation, gave the police their opening to launch the frame.

Is there other information available to support, contradict, or modify this scenario?

One comment on Mignini's statement. It appears from the statement that the authorities knew from Bonassi's police interview of Nov. 4, 2007 that the "Baron" was "Rudy Guede". However, that could be a compression of information due to summarization by Mignini. That is, did Bonassi (or the police) on Nov. 4 know and state that the Baron was named Rudy Guede? Or did the police need to find other information to obtain a traceable name for the non-flushing visitor?

But in either case, the non-flushing in the upstairs could be linked by suspicion to the non-flushing downstairs, to be followed by forensics (DNA testing). In contrast, there was no reasonable suspicion for the pursuit by police and prosecutor of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba.

 

[MichaelB]

I am of the firm belief that many pro-guilt idiots commentators are people who have been affected by violent crime either directly or indirectly, and that they therefore harbour feelings of vindictiveness, bitterness and anger. I think they see Knox in particular as a vehicle for their own self-catharsis. I also think they have in common a critical factor: a certain level of education and a long-standing obsession with engagement on the internet.

Browsing .eughhh on the back of what was posted here over the past few days, I came across a post that really encapsulates the approach being adopted by so many pro-guilt idiots commentators. It's regarding whether or not Guede doubled back to Kercher's room at the time when he left the faint (and vanishing) trail of bloody shoe prints going down the hallway (my bolding for emphasis):

I've tried to (sic) many times to rule out that Guede doubled-back to get Meredith's keys. I can't prove that it didn't happen but neither is there any evidence that it did.

Here is someone who is clearly desperate to find ways to vindicate a belief that Guede must have acted in concert with Knox and Sollecito. That sentence I've quoted above bears re-reading and remembering as a gold-standard example of the type of twisted logic that pretty much all the pro-guilt commentators are using to try to support their conclusion at all costs.

I think most of them don't know how trials work or how to weigh evidence or what impeaching witnesses means. The guilters are just really stupid people who should never sit on a jury. I don't know how else to describe them. Nearly all of them think the heroin bum is credible and even Kokomaniac is. They have wild imaginations that are completely out of touch with reality. Steve Moore once said Amanda is their voodoo doll capable of anything they want.

But I've also seen quite a few admit to being victims of violent crime. eg The Bard and The 411 who are both vile.

There's a few smart ones like Thoughtful but when it comes to the case, she's dense, really really dense. I remember when she came to IA to discuss her book and take on her critics and said the break-in was definitely staged because otherwise it meant Guede had to climb in through the hole in the glass (and not the actual window with shutters open). I couldn't believe it....Yet that's what she thought.

Another thing that stood out is when I said Guede most likely was on the toilet when Meredith arrived home and he didn't flush because it would have alerted her he was in the house. Well thoughtless was flabbergasted! What on earth was I talking about and wherever did I get such a silly idea. So even after years of following the case she didn't know much about it.....or have any common sense.

Then there's the sickos like Quennell and the mad doctor who are in a league of their own....

 

[carbonjam72]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Getting beyond statistics, useful as they may be at times, we have the extraordinary statement from PM Mignini that Stefano Bonassi, one of the boys downstairs, in a police interview on Nov. 4, 2007, had identified the "Baron" or Rudy Guede as a visitor downstairs who didn't flush after a BM. And Amanda Knox had pointed out to the police on Nov. 2 the oddity that there was an unflushed BM in the toilet of the larger bathroom.

My theory on the Italian police is that they're not as stupid or incompetent as they seem; they act like clowns as necessary to hide their corrupt or dishonest behavior.

So as of Nov. 4 they knew that Rudy Guede was a very likely suspect. How well did they know who he was? Would he have some public reputation in Perugia from being on the local basketball team? Was someone from the wealthiest family in Perugia still helping him?

Some have claimed he was a police informer, but there is little evidence of that - just that he was released from being caught inside the nursery in Milan. If what Mach explained is true, Breaking and Entering, even Burglary, are barely crimes in Italy - they're more like parking in a no-parking zone. Figuratively: the burglar gets a ticket or a scolding, pays a fine or returns the stolen stuff, and all is well.

But Nov. 4 was perhaps the day that the police (and possibly the prosecutor) decided that Amanda must be guilty, according to Giobbi. She wiggled her hips and said "Oopla" (or some such) when putting on booties before entering the flat. She cried when she was asked about the knives in the kitchen drawer - in a possible attempt by the cops to get her to handle one. Obvious signs of guilt {ironic statement}.

And Amanda's mother must have made plans on or before Nov. 4 to travel from Seattle to Perugia, to arrive on Nov. 6. The police would know about these plans from tapping Amanda's phone.

So IMO all this determines the rush to hold the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele on the night of Nov. 5/6. Was Patrick Lumumba targeted to hold the place of the murderer that the police already knew was occupied by Rudy Guede? And the text messages between Patrick and Amanda on Nov. 1, with a little mistranslation, gave the police their opening to launch the frame.

Is there other information available to support, contradict, or modify this scenario?

We're very close now, in what you're suggesting here. But I have a few follow up questions.

1. There was an article in the Mail on Sunday on November 4, 2007 (a sunday), describing a senior police detective saying they were investigating the possibility the murderer was a woman, someone close to Meredith.

So that tabloid story has to be leaked before it is published in London. If Stefano Bonassi made his statement about Rudy and the unflushed feces on Nov 4, the police appear from the article to be already eying Amanda.

From 'Waiting to be Heard', Chapt 9, "November 4, 2007, Day Three" -

"Had I seen a news item that morning in 'The Mail on Sunday', a London tabloid, it might have shifted everything for me.

The article said that the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman - someone Meredith had known well. "We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends', a senior police detective said".

2. If the police knew by Nov 4th, that 'the baron' Rudy, the non-flusher, might have been responsible, why would they have wanted to cover for Rudy?

Would the police have had some other indication only that the perp might be black, such as a partial DNA profile for sub-saharan ancestry, or hair and blood on Filomena's broken window that never made it through processing? (Info that Lumumba would be a biologically suitable candidate?).

Or, did they simply recognize Rudy's method of B&E, since Napoleone testified that Rudy was known in Perugia before the murder for his burglary activities?

Nencini asserts in his motivation that Rudy's method of B&E was well known to the police and that they would have recognized Rudy's MO. Nencini uses this to argue Rudy didn't stage the break-in. But it leaves the implication, that if the police would have recognized Rudy's MO right away, then it follows that they did recognize Rudy's MO right away. According to Nencini, it is logically necessary to conclude the police did recognize Rudy's MO when they first arrived at the crime scene.
3. If the police did know from the crime scene, and from Stefano Bonassi, that they were looking for Rudy, or at a minimum, a young black male acquaintance of Stefano's from the basketball court, then what motivation would they have to frame Lumumba?

What would motivate the police to frame Lumumba and ensnare Amanda? But more specifically, what would motivate the police to point attention away from Rudy Gude/or alternatively Stefano's unknown acquaintance, and instead focus on Amanda and her boss Patrick.

The police MUST have wanted to implicate Patrick, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY KNEW they should have been looking for either Rudy, or at least Stefano's black basketball friend. SO WHY PROTECT RUDY/Stefano's FRIEND AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

4. The only logical motivation for the police that I've seen introduced, goes back to the incident in Milan, where a call came in from Perugia to let Rudy go, and put him back on a train to Perugia. Others have recently doubted this account, but I've seen the police officer in Milan who is quoted by name describing the call from Perugia, and saying something like, 'these things happen'.

So the police, deflecting attention away from Rudy Guede, is deflecting attention away from themselves. The Perugian police are guilty for not having prosecuted Guede for his burglaries in Perugia of which they were well aware, and for helping to free Guede from Milan.

The only contrary voice on the issue of Milan, is from Mach, who must always be taken with a few grains of salt.

Once the alibis of the boys downstairs check out, and the other two girls upstairs, all that's left available for the police to take the fall for Rudy, is Amanda. And the article appearing on Nov 4, shows the police were already moving in this direction on November 3rd.

Though I'm still trying to piece together the timeline, since this issue has revived my interest, - Stefano's November 4, 2007 statement on the Baron and his unflushed feces, was that statement made in the morning? Because the police led Amanda to the cottage that AFTERNOON, and tried to get her to pick up a knife from a drawer of unused utensils, and Amanda had a panic attack. Mignini, not very good liar that he is, used that incident to claim that Amanda's reaction is what aroused his suspicions of her.
So Numbers/LJ and others following this line of reasoning, the difference from my perspective, is whether you agree that the police recognized Rudy's MO of breaking and entry.

Because if you believe the police are intentionally framing Amanda and Lumumba on November 4th, then you have to explain their motivation for protecting Guede, which they must also be doing, because its the same act, just the flip-side of the coin. You have to explain the police motivation. And covering their own lying asses works pretty good, imo.

 

[platonov]

The hilited term seems rude and uncivil.

I think it’s rather informative tsig.

It means that the argument will be based on the ‘theory’ that the conspiracy against Amanda originates with and is all the fault of Mignini [He really should have a mustache] as opposed to the other conspiracies that are floating around.

Aliens, getting back at the CIA or the USAF, an attack on the white race or America, they hated Amanda because she was too beautiful etc etc.

Although there is considerable confusion/overlap on the parameters of the conspiracy.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think it’s rather informative tsig.

It means that the argument will be based on the ‘theory’ that the conspiracy against Amanda originates with and is all the fault of Mignini [He really should have a mustache] as opposed to the other conspiracies that are floating around.

Aliens, getting back at the CIA or the USAF, an attack on the white race or America, they hated Amanda because she was too beautiful etc etc.

Although there is considerable confusion/overlap on the parameters of the conspiracy.

Not quite, platonov, but you are beginning to understand.

"Migninian" refers to someone who views Mignini's case against AK and RS as essentially correct. They rately quote Massei's, Cassazione from 2013, Crini or Nencini, who all have their own take.

For instance, Mignini is the only one to postulate premeditation. All the blather about psychopathology and/or Knox being jealous of Kercher makes someone a Migninian, because no other convicting court/prosecutor argues that way.

 

[carbonjam72]

Obtuse, oblique, oblong.

I think it’s rather informative tsig.

It means that the argument will be based on the ‘theory’ that the conspiracy against Amanda originates with and is all the fault of Mignini [He really should have a mustache] as opposed to the other conspiracies that are floating around.

Aliens, getting back at the CIA or the USAF, an attack on the white race or America, they hated Amanda because she was too beautiful etc etc.

Although there is considerable confusion/overlap on the parameters of the conspiracy.

Well P, if you're asking for the outlines of the Mignini led conspiracy, I think that's what I've been trying to show, in my post just above yours.

If you're honestly interested in discussing the Mignini conspiracy, may I suggest you start there?

Distracting the comments board with gratuitous insults, like yelling racism, shows you have nothing to add.

 

[Numbers]

We're very close now, in what you're suggesting here. But I have a few follow up questions.

1. There was an article in the Mail on Sunday on November 4, 2007 (a sunday), describing a senior police detective saying they were investigating the possibility the murderer was a woman, someone close to Meredith.

So that tabloid story has to be leaked before it is published in London. If Stefano Bonassi made his statement about Rudy and the unflushed feces on Nov 4, the police appear from the article to be already eying Amanda.

From 'Waiting to be Heard', Chapt 9, "November 4, 2007, Day Three" -

"Had I seen a news item that morning in 'The Mail on Sunday', a London tabloid, it might have shifted everything for me.

The article said that the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman - someone Meredith had known well. "We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends', a senior police detective said".

2. If the police knew by Nov 4th, that 'the baron' Rudy, the non-flusher, might have been responsible, why would they have wanted to cover for Rudy?

Would the police have had some other indication only that the perp might be black, such as a partial DNA profile for sub-saharan ancestry, or hair and blood on Filomena's broken window that never made it through processing? (Info that Lumumba would be a biologically suitable candidate?).

Or, did they simply recognize Rudy's method of B&E, since Napoleone testified that Rudy was known in Perugia before the murder for his burglary activities?

Nencini asserts in his motivation that Rudy's method of B&E was well known to the police and that they would have recognized Rudy's MO. Nencini uses this to argue Rudy didn't stage the break-in. But it leaves the implication, that if the police would have recognized Rudy's MO right away, then it follows that they did recognize Rudy's MO right away. According to Nencini, it is logically necessary to conclude the police did recognize Rudy's MO when they first arrived at the crime scene.
3. If the police did know from the crime scene, and from Stefano Bonassi, that they were looking for Rudy, or at a minimum, a young black male acquaintance of Stefano's from the basketball court, then what motivation would they have to frame Lumumba?

What would motivate the police to frame Lumumba and ensnare Amanda? But more specifically, what would motivate the police to point attention away from Rudy Gude/or alternatively Stefano's unknown acquaintance, and instead focus on Amanda and her boss Patrick.

The police MUST have wanted to implicate Patrick, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY KNEW they should have been looking for either Rudy, or at least Stefano's black basketball friend. SO WHY PROTECT RUDY/Stefano's FRIEND AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

4. The only logical motivation for the police that I've seen introduced, goes back to the incident in Milan, where a call came in from Perugia to let Rudy go, and put him back on a train to Perugia. Others have recently doubted this account, but I've seen the police officer in Milan who is quoted by name describing the call from Perugia, and saying something like, 'these things happen'.

So the police, deflecting attention away from Rudy Guede, is deflecting attention away from themselves. The Perugian police are guilty for not having prosecuted Guede for his burglaries in Perugia of which they were well aware, and for helping to free Guede from Milan.

The only contrary voice on the issue of Milan, is from Mach, who must always be taken with a few grains of salt.

Once the alibis of the boys downstairs check out, and the other two girls upstairs, all that's left available for the police to take the fall for Rudy, is Amanda. And the article appearing on Nov 4, shows the police were already moving in this direction on November 3rd.

Though I'm still trying to piece together the timeline, since this issue has revived my interest, - Stefano's November 4, 2007 statement on the Baron and his unflushed feces, was that statement made in the morning? Because the police led Amanda to the cottage that AFTERNOON, and tried to get her to pick up a knife from a drawer of unused utensils, and Amanda had a panic attack. Mignini, not very good liar that he is, used that incident to claim that Amanda's reaction is what aroused his suspicions of her.
So Numbers/LJ and others following this line of reasoning, the difference from my perspective, is whether you agree that the police recognized Rudy's MO of breaking and entry.

Because if you believe the police are intentionally framing Amanda and Lumumba on November 4th, then you have to explain their motivation for protecting Guede, which they must also be doing, because its the same act, just the flip-side of the coin. You have to explain the police motivation. And covering their own lying asses works pretty good, imo.

All your questions are valid.

The police and especially Mignini may have identified Amanda as a "suspect" on Nov. 2. Mignini is an authoritarian and anti-American; the little Mignini speech posted by Methos demonstrates that.

The police and prosecution may have protected Guede merely because they needed him to be relatively co-operative in their framing of Amanda and Raffaele. There was at least one US case I remember where the police where so focused on the wrongly accused they gave a pass to the person actually guilty.

Or maybe Guede was a police informer. Or someone from the wealthy Perugian family which had informally adopted Guede was protecting him.

Some of us have speculated that some physical evidence - hair or DNA - led the police to believe that a sub-Saharan African was involved, and this motivated them to focus on Patrick Lumumba, who was of course Amanda's boss.

I don't believe there is enough publicly available information at present to understand all the details of the police and prosecution misconduct in this case. But if anyone does have some information that would clarify these issues, please post it.

 

[carbonjam72]

Stefan Bonasso's statement on Nov 3? per Candice Dempsey

All your questions are valid.

The police and especially Mignini may have identified Amanda as a "suspect" on Nov. 2. Mignini is an authoritarian and anti-American; the little Mignini speech posted by Methos demonstrates that.

The police and prosecution may have protected Guede merely because they needed him to be relatively co-operative in their framing of Amanda and Raffaele. There was at least one US case I remember where the police where so focused on the wrongly accused they gave a pass to the person actually guilty.

Or maybe Guede was a police informer. Or someone from the wealthy Perugian family which had informally adopted Guede was protecting him.

Some of us have speculated that some physical evidence - hair or DNA - led the police to believe that a sub-Saharan African was involved, and this motivated them to focus on Patrick Lumumba, who was of course Amanda's boss.

I don't believe there is enough publicly available information at present to understand all the details of the police and prosecution misconduct in this case. But if anyone does have some information that would clarify these issues, please post it.

Well here's the issue for me; if you accept that the police knew they were looking for Rudy/Stefano's feces unflushing friend on Nov 4, and were actively framing Amanda and Patrick, then there has to be a motivation for the police.

Rudy being an informant, as in protecting Rudy because he has value in his role as an informant, sounds implausible, and unsupported. (Implausible, because Rudy is lazy and unreliable in all things).

The wealthy family angle, is "available for speculation", but as far as I know, unsupported by anything but conjecture. In this way, speculation on it is vague and ambiguous - we don't have anything specific as to how, when, where, by whom, and why - any such cooperation occurred. So for me, that's a "low peak".

But the experience in Milan, in combination with Rudy's past experience as a burglar, and known by the police as a burglar - gives the police the best motivation of all - SELF-PRESERVATION.

MIGNINI framed Amanda and Patrick to save himself. That's a consistent theory.
So two questions: Did they identify Amanda as a suspect on Nov 2? And, did they identify Rudy as a suspect on Nov 2?

Also, I was reading Candace Dempsey again, and she says Stefano Bonassi mentioned Rudy to police in a witness statement on November 3rd, 2007. (Perhaps the statement is signed and dated Nov 4th?, anyway, that's a small difference, but important).

Here's Candace quoting Stefano:

"One guy who came to our house was tall, skinny, and he always wore basketball shoes and baggy trousers. He was nicknamed Body Boga", Stefano said. The nickname was apparently a reference to Dejan Bodiroga, the Serbian basketball star. Rudy also went by "the baron". Police asked Stefano what size shoes Rudy wore, but he didn't know. They were looking for a shoe to fit the bloody Nike print by the bed.

 

[Methos]

Italian Lawbooks

For those interested:

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in Italian, is available online (in two sections; 746 articles total):

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/22

[...]

Nice find For completeness, this website has a searchable database of the codice penale, codice civile, codice di procedura penale and the codice di procedura civile: LeggeOnLine

 

[carbonjam72]

Some just need to be ignored -

I assume you appreciate your humor.

I won't try to explain the statistical issues here since I went over them in an earlier post. Racism is clearly a problem for some of the guilters. I was particularly struck by some of the terms Machiavelli, in his/her/their posts, applied to Patrick Lumumba.

The most openly racist behavior is on the part of Mignini and the police, in slotting Lumumba in for Guede, when they knew patrick was innocent.

But the absolute worst, is when Mignini tried to appeal to racism in "don't let the black boy pay alone". Cynical, sadistic, narcissistic, hypocrite that he is.

And the Migninians, like P, simply echo his depravity.

It's a distraction though, I'm intrigued to get back to the case and hear more. The fact of Stefan Bonassi's identification to the police of Rudy on Nov 3 or 4, is very interesting indeed.

Now, do we yet have a better fix on when Rudy's friend approached the police to tell them he thought his friend might be involved in the Kercher murder, thus leading to the recorded skype call where Rudy stated Amanda wasn't there, and didn't know Raffaelle?

 

[Kauffer]

The most openly racist behavior is on the part of Mignini and the police, in slotting Lumumba in for Guede, when they knew patrick was innocent.

But the absolute worst, is when Mignini tried to appeal to racism in "don't let the black boy pay alone". Cynical, sadistic, narcissistic, hypocrite that he is.

And the Migninians, like P, simply echo his depravity.

It's a distraction though, I'm intrigued to get back to the case and hear more. The fact of Stefan Bonassi's identification to the police of Rudy on Nov 3 or 4, is very interesting indeed.

Now, do we yet have a better fix on when Rudy's friend approached the police to tell them he thought his friend might be involved in the Kercher murder, thus leading to the recorded skype call where Rudy stated Amanda wasn't there, and didn't know Raffaelle?

Could it be that despite the credible indications that Guede's name was being mentioned to the police around 3rd or 4th November, that they were so obsessed with Ms Knox as their suspect in chief, they simply weren't listening? If they were trawling through Ms Knox's phone records and listening to her calls from 2nd or 3rd, they would have found no trace of Guede. But they would have found Lumumba.

Something set the police off on the Lumumba trail in the 5th/6th interrogations. Either they genuinely put two and two together and made five upon examining Ms Knox's phone in the interrogation or, they had homed in on him before the interrogation started. Now, that could have been from the raw data in Ms Knox's phone records or the taps. Or perhaps it could have been as a result of an unidentified crime scene sample associated with an African origin individual, or combination of all these.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's also rather interesting how "critical thinker" tsig has not seen fit to pipe up with similar self-righteous concern about the very recent use of terms such as "Knoxian", "pro-Knox" or "Knox supporter" to generically describe anyone who believes Knox (and, erm... Sollecito) should be acquitted. I wonder why that might be. Oh no, wait, I don't wonder at all........

By the use of those terms my intent was not derogatory. For various reasons I didn't found the Italian term "innocentisti" fully satisfactory.
I am ready to call them by the term they prefer. However I don't know what is the term they want to be called. It should be something acceptable to the opposite side, I suppose, for people like me to use it.

At the beginning I used to call them FoAs, but that was objectionable, as in fact that indicates a certain group who dis use thus label, but there are others who do not belong to that group.
As for me, I don't feel offended being called a "guilter", actually I won't even perceive "Migninian" as offensive, but sounds probably reductive, maybe not fit to all guilters and does not sound the best.

Not all Knox-supporters or advocates here are actual sympathetic "Knoxophiles" apparently, though a few are.