Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

In the defense motions debate on October 9 Bongiorno says on page 44 that Raffaele was definitely at the police station when someone accessed his computer on the 5th.

And on page 25 (if I read it correctly), Guede's attorney Francesco Maresca opposed the defense entering the Skype call into evidence. Of course he would. I shouldn't be surprised.

Do they break and enter premises to examine computers in the homes of witnesses or suspects in Italy?

 

[Numbers]

Some information about the incidente probatorio that has generated so many posts.

The text The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical Essays and English Translation, edited by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa is the source for the following information.

The term "incidente probatorio" is translated as "special evidentiary hearing".

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure devotes a chapter, Title VII of Book V to this topic.

CPP Article 392 Cases

1. During preliminary investigations [and preliminary hearings, in accordance with Constitutional Court judgment 77/1994], the Public Prosecutor and the suspect may request that the judge proceed by means of special evidentiary hearing to:
a) the taking of a person's testimony, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the same person will not be able to be examined during the trial due to illness or any other serious impediment;
....
f) an expert report or a judicial simulation, if evidence concerns a person, an object or a place subject to unavoidable modification;
....

Article 393
Request
1. The request shall be submitted within the time limits set for the conclusion of the preliminary investigations and, in any case, within an adequate time for evidence gathering prior to the expiry of the same time limits and shall contain:
a) the evidence to be gathered, the facts in issue and the reasons of its importance for the trial decision;
b) the persons being prosecuted for the facts in issue;
c) the circumstances that, under Article 392, prevent the deferral of evidence to the trial stage.
2. The request submitted by the Public Prosecutor shall also indicate the lawyers of the persons concerned under paragraph 1, letter b), the victim and his lawyer.
2-bis. By means of the request for the special evidentiary hearing referred to in Article 392, the Public Prosecutor shall file all the documents related to the performed investigative actions.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be observed under penalty of inadmissibility.
4. {Prosecutor and suspect may request an extension of the time limit if needed.}
_____
Since the "documents" produced by a DNA profile determination includes, in the general sense, the Electronic Data Files, such EDFs must be gathered by the prosecution and placed in the case file for examination by the defense.

To not do so is clearly a violation of providing the adequate facilities required by the defense, a violation of Convention Article 6.3b. There is ECHR case law that failure to provide original documents or original electronic files to the defense result in a violation of Article 6.3b.

 

[Planigale]

First, there has been indeed one Sollecito's consultant who hinted at contamination from Knox's DNA on the clasp.
Second, but more important, the Y profile chart was available to Sollecito's defence since before the beginning of October 2008, if we believe Bongiorno when she said, on Oct. 4., that the defence had finally managed to obtain the charts the requested.
There was a defence report submitted on Oct.24. about that.
But then there was a subsequent request, from Prof. Pascali to the judge, by which he requested to have also the electronic data files, that he called "log files". Stefanoni answered to the judge saying she was ready to make the electronic data files available to the defence just like she did with the image files, but she put the condition that basically can only be interpreted as follows: that the defence would analyse those data files through the same computer, software and settings ("parameters") that the Scientific Police used, which implies: analyze them in her laboratory or under their supervision.
So Stefanoni said yes to this request too, she only put a condition on this.
After that, the judge decided the data were not indispensable to his decision, and the defence did not go forward with their request (they didn't go to the lab).

I am still interested in this issue. The defence request a copy of the data, Mach now accepts this, and it happened after Oct 24 2008. Stefanoni, responded that they could not have a copy of the original data but had to examine the original data under her supervision. This makes it difficult for the expert and defence lawyer to have confidential discussions, with Stefanoni peering over their shoulders. Using other peoples computers and software with which you may not be familiar is awkward, it also impedes getting multiple opinions e.g. from a statistician such as Balding and a laboratory expert such as Gill (as examples). The statistician in particular would want to use their own software package, e.g.winbugs or R.

I am also unclear about the authority Stefanoni has to decide this, she may advise the judge this is appropriate, but surely the judge decides? Here it appears the judge did not agree to Stefanoni's request, but decided the data were not indispensible to his decision and what? It appears (s)he just ignored the issue and did not rule either way? The choice being between Stefanoni's refusal to disclose a copy of the data which Mach now confirms, but to only allow the defence to examine the original data under her supervision; and the defence request for a copy of the original data to examine for themselves not under supervision of the prosecution. I think this is a very vulnerable position for the prosecution case if it came to an ECHR appeal on inequality of access to forensic results.

ETA
It is clearly unreasonably expensive to fly in and house an international expert, such as Gill to sit in Stefanoni's lab and analyse data under her supervision, whilst it is clearly much more economic to email a data set to them in their own laboratory. The defence have a right to examine the data even if they choose not to present an expert witness and accept Stefanoni's interpretation.

 

[Planigale]

Some information about the incidente probatorio that has generated so many posts.

The text The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical Essays and English Translation, edited by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa is the source for the following information.

The term "incidente probatorio" is translated as "special evidentiary hearing".

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure devotes a chapter, Title VII of Book V to this topic.

CPP Article 392 Cases

1. During preliminary investigations [and preliminary hearings, in accordance with Constitutional Court judgment 77/1994], the Public Prosecutor and the suspect may request that the judge proceed by means of special evidentiary hearing to:
a) the taking of a person's testimony, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the same person will not be able to be examined during the trial due to illness or any other serious impediment;
....
f) an expert report or a judicial simulation, if evidence concerns a person, an object or a place subject to unavoidable modification;
....

Article 393
Request
1. The request shall be submitted within the time limits set for the conclusion of the preliminary investigations and, in any case, within an adequate time for evidence gathering prior to the expiry of the same time limits and shall contain:
a) the evidence to be gathered, the facts in issue and the reasons of its importance for the trial decision;
b) the persons being prosecuted for the facts in issue;
c) the circumstances that, under Article 392, prevent the deferral of evidence to the trial stage.
2. The request submitted by the Public Prosecutor shall also indicate the lawyers of the persons concerned under paragraph 1, letter b), the victim and his lawyer.
2-bis. By means of the request for the special evidentiary hearing referred to in Article 392, the Public Prosecutor shall file all the documents related to the performed investigative actions.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be observed under penalty of inadmissibility.
4. {Prosecutor and suspect may request an extension of the time limit if needed.}
_____
Since the "documents" produced by a DNA profile determination includes, in the general sense, the Electronic Data Files, such EDFs must be gathered by the prosecution and placed in the case file for examination by the defense.
To not do so is clearly a violation of providing the adequate facilities required by the defense, a violation of Convention Article 6.3b. There is ECHR case law that failure to provide original documents or original electronic files to the defense result in a violation of Article 6.3b.

It is worth emphasising that the electropherograms are not the original data produced by the STR typing machine. They are an interpretation of the data, a graphical representation, that can be subject to adjustment. There appearance can be altered by altering the settings in the analysis software. Clearly all documents should include the original data output in addition to the graphical representation.

 

[Antony]

The Hellmann verdict doesn't exist. It would be interesting to see another jurisdiction that attributes a "final" legal value to something that legally doesn't exist, that is not legitimate under any law or authority and it is not recognized by any jurisdiction. The verdict would be attributed to the name of what sovreign power? In the name of whom would the verdict stand?
The Hellmann verdict has the same legal value of a verdict issued by a council made of my cousins presieded over by my grandmother.

You are talking about a document that does not have a legal status in any system or under any authority, jurisprudence or law. The US would have to "invent" a source of legitimization (a law, a legal authority) that currently doesnt exist.

I think you are wrong, and not just for the practical reason that Amanda returned to the US after the Hellmann verdict. The March 2013 Cassazione decision was itself illegal, and it doesn't take much reflection (revisiting the evidence, arbitrary ruling) for a fair-minded person to see it.

You (and others) have never identified the points of law which allegedly led to the Hellmann decision being annulled. The ECtHR will ultimately condemn the March 2013 ruling, along with all the other breaches that have characterised this case. Hellmann will in all likelihood have to be reinstated when Italy is ordered to comply.

 

[Planigale]

Since I was on Forensic science genetics web site I had a quick look at some articles. This is interesting.

The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood
Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 41-46
Daly, D.J.; Murphy, C.; McDermott, S.D.

in essence they looked at DNA transfer from 300 volunteers, 100 touching wood, metal and glass. 23% of people transferred DNA to fabric. In 10% of cases they transferred mixed DNA. That is both their own DNA and someone else's. So on this basis one could say there is a 10% chance that MK transferred Sollecito's DNA herself when putting on her bra. Is this enough to be reasonable doubt? it certainly should not be dismissed. This was just the first paper i spotted not a result of prolonged looking!

 

[Desert Fox]

Since I was on Forensic science genetics web site I had a quick look at some articles. This is interesting.

The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood
Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 41-46
Daly, D.J.; Murphy, C.; McDermott, S.D.

in essence they looked at DNA transfer from 300 volunteers, 100 touching wood, metal and glass. 23% of people transferred DNA to fabric. In 10% of cases they transferred mixed DNA. That is both their own DNA and someone else's. So on this basis one could say there is a 10% chance that MK transferred Sollecito's DNA herself when putting on her bra. Is this enough to be reasonable doubt? it certainly should not be dismissed. This was just the first paper i spotted not a result of prolonged looking!

Going to have to see if I can get a full copy of it. . . .I have a friend who works at a school with a forensic department.

 

[Diocletus]

In the defense motions debate on October 9 Bongiorno says on page 44 that Raffaele was definitely at the police station when someone accessed his computer on the 5th.

And on page 25 (if I read it correctly), Guede's attorney Francesco Maresca opposed the defense entering the Skype call into evidence. Of course he would. I shouldn't be surprised.

The Kerchers trying to protect poor Rudy. Now that's rich.

 

[Strozzi]

Since I was on Forensic science genetics web site I had a quick look at some articles. This is interesting.

The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood
Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 41-46
Daly, D.J.; Murphy, C.; McDermott, S.D.

in essence they looked at DNA transfer from 300 volunteers, 100 touching wood, metal and glass. 23% of people transferred DNA to fabric. In 10% of cases they transferred mixed DNA. That is both their own DNA and someone else's. So on this basis one could say there is a 10% chance that MK transferred Sollecito's DNA herself when putting on her bra. Is this enough to be reasonable doubt? it certainly should not be dismissed. This was just the first paper i spotted not a result of prolonged looking!

Plainigale, thank you for posting this. In that test the subjects presumably touched the fabric sample once. Of course we don't know at this point what a "touch" consises of. If it was to place a hand down on a cloth item laying flat on a hard surface or held a cloth without firm finger pressure I would intuitively expect transfer to occur with less frequency than if one gripped a 1" wide bra clasp tightly (pulling against tension).

The study reported that in 10 percent of the cases the subject deposited another person's DNA on the fabric. If Meredith touched her fingers to the bra clasp several times in the process of getting dressed, I would count each contact/grip as a separate opportunity to deposit DNA. Due to that, it may be reasonable to multiple the chances of her depositing her own DNA on the clasp (23 percent?) by each time (1, 2, 3?) she adjusted (slid ever so slightly?) her fingers' grasp on the clasp in the process of fastening it. It seems to me that if she had Raffaele's DNA on her fingers the probability of her depositing Raffaele's DNA on the fabric while gripping/tugging on it to align and hook the hooks together would be 10 percent x (1,2, 3?) times. Which gives 20 percent if she grasped, loosened/adjusted her grasp, firmed her grip again (effectively 2 grips), and 30 percent probability if she grasped the clasp, loosened/adjusted her grip, tightened it, loosened/adjusted it again, tightened her grip 3 times. All done in the space of a second or two or three. (Ladies, did you ever have difficulty fastening your bra and take four seconds to get the hooks in right - and adjust your grip (slide fingers ever so slightly scraping off skin cells?) several times on the two ends of the strap?)

Kercher has two hands, one hand gripping each end of the bra strap as she fastened the clasp. Should we double the probability of DNA transfer since she is gripping both ends of the bra clasp, one with each hand?

Did Stefanoni examine both ends of the bra strap for Raffaele's DNA, or was she only into this level of investigation on the trophy clasp that Stefanoni recovered on camera for show? if Raffaele had through direct contact (during an attack) grabed her bra strap directly to unhook it he would have used two hands and thereby double the probability of directly depositing (23 percent? x 2) his DNA on the bra strap. To be more precise, each grasp in which he grips, loosens/adjusts/slides his fingers ever so slightly, and re-tightens his grip may be an additional chance (23 percent?) to deposit his DNA. If he gripped, relaxed finger pressure, re-tightened his grip enough times, he could quickly reach 100 percent probability of depositing his own DNA. So what did Stefanoni find when she tested the other end of the bra strap? Nothing from Raffaele?

If an assailant were grabbing the bra strap of a moving victim, or even a perfectly still unconscious one (a heavy body), wouldn't the assailant loosen and re-tighten his grip several times as he tightens (manipulates) the bra strap's two ends together to unhook the ends? If he did what they claim, DNA from his fingers should be found in quantities suggestive of direct contact in two places.

 

[carbonjam72]

So this is a 'review of the literature' not original research. This is presented for a conference and is published in its proceedings. This would not be regarded as a peer reviewed publication. The usual reason for churning out one of these is because your employer only allows you attend a conference if you have paper in. Conferences facilitate this by accepting almost anything.

Kind of funny. Stef creates a fake paper to schnurr her way into an industry trade conference, and take a day off from work, on paid leave no doubt.

And Mach spins this little bit of subterfuge, into a kind of professional credential!

What type of audience is supposed to be on the receiving end of this vaudeville act?

 

[carbonjam72]

Some "search for the truth", the Kerchers have got going.

In the defense motions debate on October 9 Bongiorno says on page 44 that Raffaele was definitely at the police station when someone accessed his computer on the 5th.

And on page 25 (if I read it correctly), Guede's attorney Francesco Maresca opposed the defense entering the Skype call into evidence. Of course he would. I shouldn't be surprised.

This surprises me. But it shows the motivation of the civil attorney Maresca, and the absolute irresponsibility of the Kerchers in allowing this to happen on their behalf, and still claim to be "on a search for the truth".

Maresca is intentionally perpetuating a miscarriage of justice, and it seems plain and straight forward that it is contrary to the interests of justice, a clear conflict of interest, to allow civil parties to participate in criminal cases.

But given the length of trials in Italy, any case would take 15 years to go through both criminal, and then civil proceedings.

On the bright side, I believe the nation of India takes 19 years to process criminal cases, but I may be wrong on that. If so, Italy is still not the slowpoke, so that's something anyway.

 

[Strozzi]

One other thing I hope we can clear up. Del Prato said the cops told her they didn't know what to do with Guede after he was arrested and charged so they let him go.

He wasn't a secret agent put on a train back to Perugia.

What do the cops do with others they catch trespassing? What do they do with others who steal a butcher knife? (Guede had put the kindergarten kitchen's butcher knife in his knapsack - an act of theft). It is pretty low-level stuff. He didn't attack the kindergarten director or locksmith who found him in the school. He didn't try to escape. He gave a story and waited without resistance for the police to arrive.

Nobody said he was a secret agent (this isn't a spy movie). He is a burglar known to the police in Perugia as a burglar, who may have been used as a low-level informant by the police. I believe the police in Perugia may have told the Milan police to send him back to Perugia. "We'll deal with him."

I don't buy the view that he was an important (high-level) informant protected by the police in this murder. If the police had connected the two rock-throwing incidents together and to Rudy, they would have tracked him down ASAP. They were dealing with a gruesome, gory murder of a young English woman. A team of horses could not have held back the police flying squad from going after Guede if they recognized the rock as Rudy's signature. They would not have found him in time (he left town the same day the body was discovered), but if police thought the rock was Guede's and that he was involved in slaughtering the English student they would within a few hours have located his apartment and busted in his door.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy not "secret agent", but plausibly a police informant

One other thing I hope we can clear up. Del Prato said the cops told her they didn't know what to do with Guede after he was arrested and charged so they let him go.
He wasn't a secret agent put on a train back to Perugia.

Glad to continue this discussion on this point.

I'll look up the quotes from Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey's books when I have a chance later. I'm pretty sure they were clear on the reporting.

The reported facts are that Guede was arrested in the Milan break-in. That Rudy was found in possession of stolen items from the Perugia law office burglary a week or so earlier (IIUC, prompting contact from Milan to Perugia).

Subsequently, that a call was made from Perugia to Milan, requesting Guede be released. A police officer fom Milan was named, and quoted discussing the phone call from Perugia as saying something like, "these things happen from time to time".

Rudy was put on the next train back to Perugia, with his backpack, and according to Steve Moore, with his knife. (Apparently, I have to assume, not the knife that belonged to the Milan nursery, since it was theirs and not Rudy's. But who knows if this detail is correct?).

Five days later, Rudy killed Meredtih.

There is no report of Rudy being a "secret agent" by any reporter or news source I've seen, nor do I personally believe it.

Steve Moore and Bob Graham have speculated that Rudy Guede was acting as an informant for the Perugian police, and had been given a license to continue his burglaries and low level crime to allow him to remain active. (Maybe the police got a share of the proceeds?).

Mignini himself, when asked in an interview by Graham, is reported to have said that Rudy Guede may have been an informant for the Perugian police but he didn't know, and it would surprise him, because people of Guede's background are often approached by police for becoming informants.

Napoleone testified at trial, that Guede was known in Perugia for burglaries, even though he had not been arrested or prosecuted. Bob Graham listed six incidents of Guede's burglaries in Perugia and Milan, in the month prior to Meredith's murder (IIRC).

That's a lot of evidence to just hand wave away.

So IMO - Rudy a secret agent? Not likely, no one credible has said so (AFAIK).

Rudy a police informer - seems logical, likely, and suggested by people knowledgeable and experienced in law enforcement and supported by reporting of credible professional journalists.

As always, YMMV. However, if you disagree, please be specific of which if any of the elements above you think aren't true, or relevant? What is the basis of your position? Anything besides the explanation you provided?

 

[Strozzi]

Kind of funny. Stef creates a fake paper to schnurr her way into an industry trade conference, and take a day off from work, on paid leave no doubt.

And Mach spins this little bit of subterfuge, into a kind of professional credential!

What type of audience is supposed to be on the receiving end of this vaudeville act?

"Dottores", lots of 'em!

 

[carbonjam72]

What do the cops do with others they catch trespassing? What do they do with others who steal a butcher knife? (Guede had put the kindergarten kitchen's butcher knife in his knapsack - an act of theft). It is pretty low-level stuff. He didn't attack the kindergarten director or locksmith who found him in the school. He didn't try to escape. He gave a story and waited without resistance for the police to arrive.

Nobody said he was a secret agent (this isn't a spy movie). He is a burglar known to the police in Perugia as a burglar, who may have been used as a low-level informant by the police. I believe the police in Perugia may have told the Milan police to send him back to Perugia. "We'll deal with him." I don't buy the view that he was an important (high-level) informant protected by the police in this murder. If the police had connected the two rock-throwing incidents together and to Rudy, they would have tracked him down ASAP. They were dealing with a gruesome, gory murder of a young English woman. A team of horses could not have held back the police flying squad from going after Guede if they recognized the rock as Rudy's signature. They would not have found him in time (he left town the same day the body was discovered), but if police thought the rock was Guede's and that he was involved in slaughtering the English student they would within a few hours have located his apartment and busted in his door.

I'm in agreement with the way you see things. Guede was plausibly a low level informant, and police would not protect him as a "high value source". Totally agree up to that point.

But by your own account, you have the Perugians facilitating Guede's return to Perugia, and five days later he kills Meredith. What should the cops say? D'oh!!?

The police deflecting attention from Guede and onto others served a number of agendas, including their own. It helped Mignini with his satanic sect cases and his own criminal case defense, and it helped Giobbi get another trophy picture of Amanda for his wall of "serious criminals".

But the argument I see for the police protecting Rudy, is that they are protecting themselves for having facilitated his release from Milan (which you acknowledge), and thus their own culpability in Meredith's death. They don't all have to be in on it. Napoleone and Zugarini would be enough, and you do need to see the video of those two greeting Mignini at the crime scene on day one. I swear there is something in Zugarini and Mignini shaking hands, to my eye anyway.

The police are not necessarily a monolithic entity all moving in unison. Most of them could be playing it straight and following the evidence, and direction of Mignini who is "leading" the investigation. When the match for Guede is confirmed in Rome, the police's main contingent moves in to arrest Guede. That doesn't mean Napoleone, Zugarini, Ficarra and Mignini aren't all dirty cops and corrupt.

 

[MichaelB]

Look I was just being sarcastic with the secret agent comment. There's someone on Facebook who's always paying out on the secret agent informant theory.

Another thing I just remembered from Del Prato is she got the knife back and threw it away. She didn't want it anymore. And another thing is she immediately thought Guede was responsible for the previous break-in a few weeks earlier when 2000 euros was stolen.

 

[carbonjam72]

Look I was just being sarcastic with the secret agent comment. There's someone on Facebook who's always paying out on the secret agent informant theory.

Another thing I just remembered from Del Prato is she got the knife back and threw it away. She didn't want it anymore. And another thing is she immediately thought Guede was responsible for the previous break-in a few weeks earlier when 2000 euros was stolen.

Ok, great.

Now what about the other points I mentioned in regard to the reporting of the phone call from Perugia to Milan? And then the follow up exchange with Strozzi?

Can you face the claim straight on?

 

[Dan O.]

If an assailant were grabbing the bra strap of a moving victim, or even a perfectly still unconscious one (a heavy body), wouldn't the assailant loosen and re-tighten his grip several times as he tightens (manipulates) the bra strap's two ends together to unhook the ends? If he did what they claim, DNA from his fingers should be found in quantities suggestive of direct contact in two places.

My recollection is that DNA of an assailant was only found in the one location on back right band of the bra itself.

Someone really needs to demonstrate this ripping apart of the bra by Rudy Guede. This needs to be produced as a YouTube video and delivered to the news media when the Italian court confirms the verdict against Raffaele and Amanda to show how totally Incompotent the Italians are at prosecuting and judging this case.

Rudy grabbed the back band of the bra on the right side behind Meredith's sholder with one hand. He is pulling out and down her back so his other hand is probably lifting her right leg. The weight of Meredith's limp body is pulling back on the bra and it begins to separate starting where the right sholder strap attaches to the band. When the right sholder strap is pealed off to where it attaches to the clasp, it is pulling the clasp up and Rudy pulling on the band is pulling the clasp down. This causes the clasp to rotate so all the force is focused un the upper hook and the lower hook slides out of it's eye. The entire weight of Meredith's body is pulling on the one hook, nearely pulling it out of the fabrics and causing it to straighten. But before it comes off the eye, the last stitches holding the band to the clasp give way. The left band snaps back pulling the clasp away and throwing it to the floor. Merdith's body drops and is caught momentarily by the left sholder strap which snaps.

One simple action leaving one clear DNA trace and resulting in the ripping apart of the bra in three places and the detachment and deformation of the clasp exactly as seen in the photographic record.


ETA: and where is the prosecution's/pro guilt theory of what happened?

 

[Strozzi]

I'm in agreement with the way you see things. Guede was plausibly a low level informant, and police would not protect him as a "high value source". Totally agree up to that point.

But by your own account, you have the Perugians facilitating Guede's return to Perugia, and five days later he kills Meredith. What should the cops say? D'oh!!?

The police deflecting attention from Guede and onto others served a number of agendas, including their own. It helped Mignini with his satanic sect cases and his own criminal case defense, and it helped Giobbi get another trophy picture of Amanda for his wall of "serious criminals".

But the argument I see for the police protecting Rudy, is that they are protecting themselves for having facilitated his release from Milan (which you acknowledge), and thus their own culpability in Meredith's death. They don't all have to be in on it. Napoleone and Zugarini would be enough, and you do need to see the video of those two greeting Mignini at the crime scene on day one. I swear there is something in Zugarini and Mignini shaking hands, to my eye anyway.

The police are not necessarily a monolithic entity all moving in unison. Most of them could be playing it straight and following the evidence, and direction of Mignini who is "leading" the investigation.

Guide lived in Perugia. That was his home. A duty officer at police headquarters in Perugia took a call from Milan police saying, essentially, we got this guy here. He was caught inside a school. Trespassing. Didn't try to flee. He has a laptop which belongs to someone in Perugia. Guide says he bought it from a stranger at the train station here in Milan. The Milan police think it's stolen - that he stole it in Perugia. Perugia duty officer says he'll check with someone and says he will call Milan back. (It is possible that Guede, himself, asked the Milan police to call Perugia because police officer so-and-so will vouch for and tell them that he is basically a good guy.)

Perugia police call back and say, essentially, yea, we know the guy. He's a low-level burglar. They may have said Guede is a minir informant. Send him back. We'll deal with him.

I don't see any embarrassment for the Perugia police in that or for Guede being back on the streets in Perugia. Milan would have released him sooner or later, pending court for tresspassing, and Guede would have returned home anyway. Blaming the Perugia police for letting a not-yet murdered anyone murderer-to-be lose on the streets is tenuous.

Magnini or course knows the history of Police contact with Guede, including why he was suspected or known to some police officers as a burglar and any role Guede may have had as a (minor) police informant. Mignini pretends lack of knowledge, but he knows everything about what Guede was suspected of and any prior role as informant. He prosecuted Guede.

Mignini must know that Guede threw the rock into the lawyer's office window and climbed up, but Mignini didn't know that until the police connected Guede to the crime a week or so after arresting Knox, Soloecito, and Lumumba for murder.

Mignini prosecuted Guide as one of three murderers. Mignini and Guede's lawyer operated parallel. Mignini prosecuted Guede for murder, but as a chump follower, not head perpetrator, and not for any criminal act (break-in, burglary, theft of money or phones) that would indicate Guede might have acted alone.

Separating Guede for a fast-track trial meant Guede would be tried separately and automatically get a much-reduced sentence. That was Guede's lawyer's doing, even though it played right into Mignini's hand. Mignini needed one thing from Guede - don't undermine the case against the others. Don't say the others were not there.

 

[MichaelB]

Ok, great.

Now what about the other points I mentioned in regard to the reporting of the phone call from Perugia to Milan? And then the follow up exchange with Strozzi?

Can you face the claim straight on?

This is what's in A Fatal Gift of Beauty

He told police he was South American. And since he was clean and polite, police didn’t cuff him when they led him out of the nursery school and drove him to the police station. There they inspected his backpack and found a bunch of keys, a laptop, a cell phone, a small hammer of the type used to break bus windows in emergencies, and a woman’s small gold watch. The laptop and cell phone were soon identified as belonging to Perugia lawyer Paolo Brocchi. Neither Perugia nor Milan police has ever revealed the ownership or fate of the women’s gold watch. The Milan police held Rudy for four hours, during which he sat in a chair and refused to answer questions. The Milan prosecutor, after a call to the Perugia police, released Rudy that afternoon. The Milan police didn’t want to let him go , according to the officers involved, but they had no choice. Detention is up to the prosecutor on duty, and on that October Saturday morning, the prosecutor had many more serious cases to sort through than to keep this minor, nonviolent , potential burglar on their roster. Rudy was Perugia’s problem, not Milan’s. According to some accounts, the prosecutor actually called the Perugia police, who instructed him to send Rudy home. He confiscated the backpack with the laptop, cell phone, and watch and directed the young man to the train station. If they tried, the Milan police were never able to coax anything more out of Rudy about how he had happened to find the nursery school or whether he had been there before. The Milan authorities also made no connection between the stolen 2,000 euros at the nursery school and the Saturday break-in two weeks later. The first robbery remains unsolved.

Burleigh, Nina (2011-08-02). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 129). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

"According to some reports"

Who? Where? What reports? Del Prato said he was let go because they didn't know what to do with him. I've never come across anything credible about Guede being put on a train or Perugia calling Milan and saying let him go or there was a second knife he got to keep. I just haven't. There was Bob Graham's unpublished Mignini interview which I guess is interesting if it's accurate but Mignini doesn't say he was an informant.

If you want to go down the conspiracy theory road then go right ahead. I don't wish to argue about it because it really doesn't interest me. But there is simply nothing anywhere that documents any of this happening.