Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Guede either brought a 40cm kitchen knife to the nursery or stole one from the nursery. Whichever the case, he had it with him there in his backpack.

He didn't bring it along and had no pocket knife. He took it from the kitchen. Not like CT's story at all.

ETA - oops you cut off this from the report

The witness explained that the knife was in the kitchen; it was not locked and Rudy Guede could have taken it from that location.

 

[Bill Williams]

No one has ever presented a reasonable motive for the police to frame the kids before the 6th of November or shortly thereafter. I believe that someone might have helped Raf's DNA find it's way to the clasp. BTW, the evidence gathering in December was streamed AFAIK to defense people in a van outside somewhat explaining the show and tell.

The PLE had plenty to be suspicious about the two kids before the interrogation gave them enough "hard" evidence to declare them suspects and arrest them. They didn't need to list all the suspicious things on the arrest document.

If ECHR is to be cited, please put behind a spoiler as any reference has nothing to do with my points.

Did they? The key event that derailed the investigation was the early dismissal of the burglary as a fake. Then there's the cascade effect that follows. They're almost immediately all standing around at Via Pergola trying to be mentalists and don't understand Amanda's singular combination of grief, stress and desire to be helpful. Everything she does after this, all the behavioural "clues" confirm to these amateur psychs that she must be involved. They were blind, of course, to everyone else's behaviour, so they had no control.

Put all that nonsense together with some real police work which discovers that everyone else has an alibi and was some distance from the cottage, she has keys and was 10 mins away and she and Raffaele are each other's alibis (and therefore Raffaele is at least involved to the extent of covering for her) and she's doomed.

Before the body was found, the postale police thought the break in was an insurance fraud.

But I agree with you that there's no evidence of a frame up taking place before the 6th. They didn't know Amanda was innocent and tried to fit her up. They really thought she was involved. Between the 2nd and 5th, the police were just barking mad incompetent idiots. But all that took on a more sinister hue later.

With all due respect, Kauffer, really?

This is what I mean by taking what Mignini knew, and when he knew it, and putting it to a timeline.

There is nothing, early on, about the staging of a break-in - that I can see, anyway. Whereas I slightly disagree with Grinder - in fact the PLE had nothing reasonable to suspect the kids; but probably suspected them anyway....

....... just where exactly does the first mention of the "staging" make it into the judiciary lore?

 

[Sonia]

He didn't bring it along and had no pocket knife. He took it from the kitchen. Not like CT's story at all.

ETA - oops you cut off this from the report

The witness explained that the knife was in the kitchen; it was not locked and Rudy Guede could have taken it from that location.

OK. That makes me wonder why Guede felt the need to steal a 40cm knife from the nursery kitchen and stash it in his backpack to take away. What did he want it for?

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect, Kauffer, really?

This is what I mean by taking what Mignini knew, and when he knew it, and putting it to a timeline.

There is nothing, early on, about the staging of a break-in - that I can see, anyway. Whereas I slightly disagree with Grinder - in fact the PLE had nothing reasonable to suspect the kids; but probably suspected them anyway....

....... just where exactly does the first mention of the "staging" make it into the judiciary lore?

But the fact that all this was in fact just a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from further circumstances. From the photos taken by the personnel of the Questura (photos 47 to 54 and 65 to 66) one can perceive an activity which appears to have been performed with the goal of creating a situation of obvious disorder in Romanelli's room, but does not appear to be the result of actual ransacking, true searching for the kind of valuable objects that might tempt a burglar. The drawers of the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened (photo 51 and declarations of Battistelli who noted that Romanelli was the one who opened the drawers, having found them closed and with no sign of having been rifled: see p. 66 of Battistelli's declarations, hearing of Feb. 6, 2009). The objects on the shelves in photo 52 appear not to have been touched at all; piles of clothes seem to have been thrown down from the closet (photo 54) but it does not seem that there was any serious search in the closet, in which some clothes and some boxes remained in place without showing any signs of an actual search for valuable items that might have been there (photo 54). It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened (photo 65) in a search for valuable items. And indeed, no valuable item (cf. declarations of Romanelli) was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the - at this point we can say phantom - burglar. One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room. This circumstance, which also reveals an activity of simulation, although it is not decisive because it does not actually exclude that the phantom burglar first broke the window and then made the mess in the room, was rejected by the Defence of the accused, which showed photographs that did not show glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around Romanelli's room, and observed that the documentary and crystallisation value of a specific situation as realised [42] through a photo should prevail over witness statements sworn into the record.
This claim is not held to be sustainable, since it does not take into account the events and their succession and chronology. On the subject of the contrast between the testimony and the documents (photographs of Filomena's room that do not show pieces of glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around), Romanelli's own declarations are significant and decisive. In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41), and she noticed this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: "It was really a stupid burglar; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was actually on top of the things" (p. 41). As she is usually very orderly, the witness also stated that she entered into her own room and searched around to see if anything was missing, and during that search she moved objects, thus changing the position of some pieces of glass. At that moment, however, only the Postal Police officers were present, and they were there to understand why two mobile phones had been

 

[Numbers]

Did they? The key event that derailed the investigation was the early dismissal of the burglary as a fake. Then there's the cascade effect that follows. They're almost immediately all standing around at Via Pergola trying to be mentalists and don't understand Amanda's singular combination of grief, stress and desire to be helpful. Everything she does after this, all the behavioural "clues" confirm to these amateur psychs that she must be involved. They were blind, of course, to everyone else's behaviour, so they had no control.
....

From VAQ Dr. Giobbi's court testimony (Google translated):

I think the day after 3 I think, always in his presence we returned to the villa, especially on the outside to do some sort of inspection along with Amanda Knox in that moment I remember at one point I asked her to be able to get downstairs, for ask her if she had news of something, because in the meantime the boys had informed me that there was a cat that was bleeding from one ear, cat who frequented the house and who was bleeding from the ear, in that while I remember these leggings I call it, the plastic Knox and I began to look into the leggings then Knox if he had actually worn the Knox looked at me and made the move, move with the famous sway your hips and voila doing and laughing, I at that point I was puzzled for a moment because given the situation, given that I'm going to let her in an apartment where there are blood stains, as we were at the crime scene, there something I went then to constitute a further step compared to what they had said the girls over and over what I had told my men, who had seen the night in the police station, and I say to this point, this kind of attitude allows me to have an intuition Investigative going attenzionare more particularly the Amanda Knox.

{Emphasis added.}

Previously, in his testimony, VAQ Dr. Giobbi states that he had walked about the cottage and decided that the break-in was not done from a rational entry point and was, IIUC, by his investigative intuition, faked from the interior.

Later in his testimony he states that there were glass shards on top of the scattered clothes in Filomena's room. Was there any photographic evidence to support that statement? The only photo I have seen shows the glass shards on the floor adjacent to the clothes.

ETA: VAQ Dr. Giobbi also stated, near the end of his testimony where he was questioned about the relatively large amounts of blood in the downstairs flat, and its distribution, especially on the light switch, that the blood on the switch was there because the cat jumped. IMO (my investigative intuition), his statements are thus not to be regarded as anything more than a frivolous cover-up of what the police really considered. Among the most telling is that the police suppressed the DNA profiles of the "cat" blood stains that were obtained with primate-specific PCR technology.

 

[Grinder]

OK. That makes me wonder why Guede felt the need to steal a 40cm knife from the nursery kitchen and stash it in his backpack to take away. What did he want it for?

He spent the night there. His story was that he paid for the location where he could sleep. It seems reasonable that he was directed to the location since he didn't break in but rather either had a key or the trick to enter. He feared for his safety in that others could also be given the location or his tipster could show up later to do him harm. He clearly didn't steal the knife for its value.

 

[carbonjam72]

One sign of a frame prior to Nov. 5/6 was the police planning an interrogation, in accordance with VAQ Dr. Giobbi's testimony, that would be questioning both Amanda and Raffaele at about the same time and overnight. This required attention to police schedules, and probably had to be planned a day or two ahead. One might object that this was merely planning for a routine police interrogation of suspects (one of whom had been perceived by VAQ Dr. Giobbi to have wiggled her hips, and therefore was a prime object of investigation, according to his court testimony). However, the way the interrogation was conducted, in violation of Italian procedural laws CPP Articles 63, 64, and 96 (and 188, although that wording is also in 64), is IMO confirmatory of bad faith = intent to frame.

The people close to Meredith were identified immediately, according to VAQ Dr. Giobbi's testimony, as potential suspects, and Amanda had the weakest alibi. And she had a key to the flat. Therefore, IMO the break-in could be concluded by the police and prosecutor to be staged. VAQ Dr. Giobbi in his testimony states that glass shards from the window were observed on the clothes scattered in Filomena's room.

Is there photographic evidence to support VAQ Dr. Giobbi's testimony on this distribution of the glass shards, or do the photographs show instead that the glass shards are on the floor, adjacent to the clothes? Perhaps Dan O. or anyone else with a strong knowledge of the evidence could comment on this.

Either Candac Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, or both reported that when the photos were finally shown, there was no evidence of glass on top of clothes, and IIRC, Hellman said there was both glass both on top of and below the clothes (but I'd have to re-check Hellman on this). And of course Hellman notes the glass fragment in Rudy's shoeprint in wet blood, but that cam later.

Point is Giobbi is just back filling his testimony, IMO. What counts is who said what at THAT time, when they first investigated.

The reasons given for thinking a break-in was staged, may have been honest, or trumped up. I'd be careful about making assumptions in this regard, there's too many other elements in play.

 

[Bill Williams]

But the fact that all this was in fact just a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from further circumstances. From the photos taken by the personnel of the Questura (photos 47 to 54 and 65 to 66) one can perceive an activity which appears to have been performed with the goal of creating a situation of obvious disorder in Romanelli's room, but does not appear to be the result of actual ransacking, true searching for the kind of valuable objects that might tempt a burglar. The drawers of the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened (photo 51 and declarations of Battistelli who noted that Romanelli was the one who opened the drawers, having found them closed and with no sign of having been rifled: see p. 66 of Battistelli's declarations, hearing of Feb. 6, 2009). The objects on the shelves in photo 52 appear not to have been touched at all; piles of clothes seem to have been thrown down from the closet (photo 54) but it does not seem that there was any serious search in the closet, in which some clothes and some boxes remained in place without showing any signs of an actual search for valuable items that might have been there (photo 54). It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened (photo 65) in a search for valuable items. And indeed, no valuable item (cf. declarations of Romanelli) was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the - at this point we can say phantom - burglar. One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room. This circumstance, which also reveals an activity of simulation, although it is not decisive because it does not actually exclude that the phantom burglar first broke the window and then made the mess in the room, was rejected by the Defence of the accused, which showed photographs that did not show glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around Romanelli's room, and observed that the documentary and crystallisation value of a specific situation as realised [42] through a photo should prevail over witness statements sworn into the record.
This claim is not held to be sustainable, since it does not take into account the events and their succession and chronology. On the subject of the contrast between the testimony and the documents (photographs of Filomena's room that do not show pieces of glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around), Romanelli's own declarations are significant and decisive. In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41), and she noticed this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: "It was really a stupid burglar; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was actually on top of the things" (p. 41). As she is usually very orderly, the witness also stated that she entered into her own room and searched around to see if anything was missing, and during that search she moved objects, thus changing the position of some pieces of glass. At that moment, however, only the Postal Police officers were present, and they were there to understand why two mobile phones had been

In other words.....

As John Follain said in two places in, A Death in Italy, Filomena herself was given plenty of time to (his word) rummage in her room by the Postal Police, well before the grisly discovery.

Ok, where our favourite True Crime author screwed up, was in his choice of term: "rummage around." Your description above could very well be seen as Filomena herself trying to return the room to some sense of order. Maybe even a slightly panicked sense of order, since it is a violation of one's space which someone can feel which distrubs them deeply.

So maybe Filomena unwittingly "staged" it, in that her actions (rummaging or otherwise) was what masked that it was a genuine break-in.

Either Candac Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, or both reported that when the photos were finally shown, there was no evidence of glass on top of clothes, and IIRC, Hellman said there was both glass both on top of and below the clothes (but I'd have to re-check Hellman on this). And of course Hellman notes the glass fragment in Rudy's shoeprint in wet blood, but that cam later.

Point is Giobbi is just back filling his testimony, IMO. What counts is who said what at THAT time, when they first investigated.

The reasons given for thinking a break-in was staged, may have been honest, or trumped up. I'd be careful about making assumptions in this regard, there's too many other elements in play.

The room was hopelessly forensically-compromised before those photos were taken, as per above.

 

[Vixen]

LJ, you basically gave her the answer to my question to her - which was do you Vixen know where Curatolo went after he belatedly had his memory influenced by a persistent local journalist. The answer is: Curatolo went to Capanne Prison.

In other words, once he became useful to the prosecution, the prosecution had him picked up on a 5 year old drug charge and imprisoned so they could control him and keep him away from neutral journalists or defense attorneys who would want to talk with Curatolo in plain air.

Imagine what Curatolo's value to Mignini would have been if he were allowed to continue to sit on his park bench and a reporter were to sit down beside him, share a bottle, and chat with a tape recorder running. I suggest a recording might have shown that eagle-eyed Curatolo talked gibberish about many things, revealing his general disorientation about events. He might have even repudiated having seen the defendants at any time. Mignini couldn't allow that to happen to his crack witness So, 5 years after engaging in a drug transaction heroin-addict Curatolo was picked up and put in the freezer. Never to speak again freely to a passing journalist. Or defense attorney.

The common sense explanation is that he was a witness for the prosecution AND he went to jail for drug charges, with no causal connections between the two events.

 

[Kaosium]

The common sense explanation is that he was a witness for the prosecution AND he went to jail for drug charges, with no causal connections between the two events.

So he was a 'witness' for the prosecution with drug charges hanging over his head when he testified in three murder trials?

 

[Sonia]

He spent the night there. His story was that he paid for the location where he could sleep. It seems reasonable that he was directed to the location since he didn't break in but rather either had a key or the trick to enter. He feared for his safety in that others could also be given the location or his tipster could show up later to do him harm. He clearly didn't steal the knife for its value.

I don't believe he paid 50 EU to at a train station to sleep on the floor in the nursery. He just figured out a way to get in; he wasn't expecting anyone to come in at all. He was surprised by the owner while charging his laptop in the owner's office.

I agree he didn't steal the knife for its value. He stole it because it's a handy weapon to have when committing a string of burglaries. Likely Guede threw away the knife he brandished at CT in September and needed a new one.

 

[Vixen]

No, he didn't.

Judges have the advantage of seeing witnesses testify but that is only an edge where their demeanour in the witness box is concerned. That may be very important, or even decisive, but when considering the coherence and consistency of oral evidence both internally and with other evidence and its inherent credibility we don't need to see and hear the testimony live. I can judge the value of Kokomani's evidence, for example, well enough without seeing him give it.

This discussion thread solved most of the problems in this case about 5 years before Italy (before I joined in, it so happens) without seeing or hearing anything live and that did not happen through the sort of excessive deference to authority you advocate. Incidentally, the problems for the prosecution in the Dewani case were not only foreseeable but were actually foreseen right here on the relevant thread which you can find in the Trials and Errors sub-forum.

English law dates way back to Anglo Saxon law based on eye-for-eye bartering. For example, you take my eye out, I'll take your flock of sheep, etc. Italian law, based on the Inquistion. But nonetheless, the principles have been developed over many centuries.

A respect for the due process of law is therefore, not, "excessive deference to authority".

You claim to be a lawyer, but you do not respect the court?

 

[Grinder]

The common sense explanation is that he was a witness for the prosecution AND he went to jail for drug charges, with no causal connections between the two events.

In response to questions from assistant judge Massimo Zanetti, Curatolo confirmed he was presently in prison, on drug charges, he thought. "I haven't quite understood why yet," Curatolo said. According to press reports Curatolo is serving a sentence for dealing heroin – a charge dating back to 2003.​

So he was hanging out doing heroin in the park for 7 plus years and was only taken in 2011 just as Hellmann's court was convening, but you see no connection...hmmmm.

The pending charges never were mentioned during the trial of the first instance.

The common sense explanation is that Curatolo was a go to witness and they locked him away just at a time he would be interviewed for the new trial.

 

[Vixen]

Hmm, wrong again, at least in the jurisdiction you claim to hail from.

10.1 Prosecuting counsel should not attempt to obtain a conviction by all means at his command. He should not regard himself as appearing for a party. He should lay before the Court fairly and impartially the whole of the facts which comprise the case for the prosecution and should assist the Court on all matters of law applicable to the case.

Read more here

The Bar Standards are for barristers. It has no connection with Crown Prosecution Service who are the body in England & Wales who decide whether there is a case to answer (cause). This is presented on behalf of the prosecutors for the police.

The barristers enter the picture only once the case is listed.

 

[Numbers]

Either Candac Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, or both reported that when the photos were finally shown, there was no evidence of glass on top of clothes, and IIRC, Hellman said there was both glass both on top of and below the clothes (but I'd have to re-check Hellman on this). And of course Hellman notes the glass fragment in Rudy's shoeprint in wet blood, but that cam later.

Point is Giobbi is just back filling his testimony, IMO. What counts is who said what at THAT time, when they first investigated.

The reasons given for thinking a break-in was staged, may have been honest, or trumped up. I'd be careful about making assumptions in this regard, there's too many other elements in play.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I will rephrase your statement a bit:

The reasons given by the police for thinking a break-in was staged, may have been honest but incompetent, or trumped up. I'd be careful about making assumptions in this regard, there's too many other elements that the police have suppressed in part, lied about, or not at all disclosed but which are in play.

{Italicized text added.}

I strongly agree with your statement, especially when combined with the small but important additions I have inserted.

 

[Vixen]

Quoting CouldsonUK:

I am not framing anything and as I have posted before the Supreme Court will not be looking at evidence and the only logic and reason that they will be reviewing is in the context of the whether the prosecutions appeal has any legal merit and ensuring that Massei and Hellmann trials were tried in accordance with their criminal procedure codes. It is a fact that the first trial found them guilty whilst the second trial acquitted them, now I call that opposing verdicts you can call what you like. As I have said before I do not know whether the prosecutions appeal is a last desperate throw of the dice or has legal merit.
- End of CouldsonUK's quote.

The above is a post that CouldsdonUK wrote on Jan 22, 2013. See how she spells that arcane British word "whilst" that an American like me, who was expelled from a fine Cambridge, England kindergarten, never heard before.

All English ppl say "whilst."

Your logic that CoulsdonUK must be me because we share a common English word reeks of paranoia.

"Into your life it will creep" - Stephen Stills FWIW

 

[RWVBWL]

$20 Euro

I don't believe he paid 50 EU to at a train station to sleep on the floor in the nursery. He just figured out a way to get in; he wasn't expecting anyone to come in at all. He was surprised by the owner while charging his laptop in the owner's office.

I agree he didn't steal the knife for its value. He stole it because it's a handy weapon to have when committing a string of burglaries. Likely Guede threw away the knife he brandished at CT in September and needed a new one.

Hiya everyone,
We've covered most everything before, ya just gotta search!

Here's a link to an old post of mine from last year, mucho details in it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10042022&postcount=7539

Here's some info from that old post linked above:
Rudy Guede paid $20.00 Euros to stay at the nursery school.
I find it odd that "Poor Rudy" spent his last Euros to sleep somewhere...

Thanks for the discussion on Rudy Guede's Milan adventure, folks,
for to me, something just doesn't jive with what told PM Mignini that he did when there:

Guede - Yes I can recount it without problems.
Seeing as, and this is something that happened before these days,
that I found myself in a nursery school in Milan and here I should… basically I had gone to Milan
Pros. Mignini - When was this?
Guede - On the 24th if I’m not wrong
Pros. Mignini - Of October
Guede - Of October, I had gone to Milan because it was a friend’s birthday
that I had got to know in Milan, anyway of a guy that I knew and I
went to… because there was this party and we were to go dancing
together and I was to spend a few days in Milan. Then it happened
that the last day which would be between the night of 26 and 27, I
found myself basically, well I couldn’t stay at this friend’s house and
also because we had gone to the discotheque and there I lost sight
of him… what did I think? I said to myself I’ll go to Milan Central
Station and wait for the train. However it must have been about
two… And so stupidly what did I do? I met… I was there and naively I
spoke with anybody and I met this South American person and I
explained my problem that here in Milan even the one star hotels
cost so much and this person said to me “it’s dangerous to say here
the night at the Central Station, I work in a place and you can stay there until the morning that way you are safe” however you have to give me 20 Euros. I gave him this money. He took me to this, in this
that turned out to be a nursery school… when I saw it… I naively said
“ok I’ll stay here” and I stayed there until the next morning and this
person had said to me “in the morning I’ll come don’t worry and then
you can leave.” 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…

This too:
"At a nursery school in Milan a week later, director Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato, walked in on a Saturday and found Guede sitting at her desk, she told me in an interview. She called police. They found the stolen laptop and a knife in his pack. Del Prato suspected he might have gotten a key to the nursery school from one of her employees who frequented the Milan club scene. Del Prato told me she believed he spent a night on the children's cots and cooked a pot of pasta in the kitchen, then placed it in little bowls around the room."

* * *

And from elsewhere,
linked here:
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=4642


On October 27, Maria Del Prato along with a locksmith and his assistant went to the nursery and found Rudy Guede unhooking a computer cable in order to plug it into his laptop. She called the police immediately. The police went through his back pack and found a large knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, the stolen laptop and phone belonging to Paolo Brocchi , stolen keys, a little hammer used for breaking glass and a woman’s gold watch.

* * *

Rudy apparently did not break in to the lil' kids school,
he probably had, or someone else had, a key.

Probably a reason why Maria Del Prato had that locksmith with her,
to finally change the door locks, right?

Especially when you recall this:
On October 8, nursery school owner Maria Del Prato went to her school on a Monday morning and found the kitchen was a total mess. Someone had prepared a vast quantity of food, pasta and frozen spinach and left the debris all over the room, in the sink and all over the tables. Also the pallets where the children take their naps were disarrayed and had been slept on. 2000 euros, the tuition she’d accepted from parents the previous Friday had been stolen...
RW

 

[Vixen]

Vixen

I must repeat Grinder's question. Could you please list the books you have read on the case, aside from WTBH and HB? I ask because you parroted the falsehood that they called the cops after the posties arrived. You could have got that from Nadeau (Loc 477) or Follain (Loc 984) but this error is addressed in Burleigh (Loc 4337) and Fisher (Loc 1792) and probably elsewhere too. I haven't checked Demspey or Waterbury or any further because it seems obvious to me that either you aren't very intelligent after all or you are lying about your knowledge of the literature. An intelligent reader would wish to get to the bottom of these divergent accounts, after all, rather than parroting erroneous falsehoods here.

So, once more, please list your reading and, assuming you have in fact read Burleigh and Fisher, explain why you rejected their accounts and what further enquiry you made to satisfy yourself they are wrong.

Thanks in advance.

IIRC It was in Nencini, after having fully assessed the defense argument it was before, and dismissing it, based on evidence, including cctv, wherein the carabinieri are captured arriving circa 13.26, thus resetting the times for all other times.

 

[Grinder]

I don't believe he paid 50 EU to at a train station to sleep on the floor in the nursery. He just figured out a way to get in; he wasn't expecting anyone to come in at all. He was surprised by the owner while charging his laptop in the owner's office.

I agree he didn't steal the knife for its value. He stole it because it's a handy weapon to have when committing a string of burglaries. Likely Guede threw away the knife he brandished at CT in September and needed a new one.

First of all it was considerably less that he claimed - read the transcript not True Crime Books. Milan is a big big city but he just found a place with a compromised lock - sure that's mensa logic.

Ah yes he threw away the knife and waited a month to steal one from a nursery.

CT's testimony is highly questionable.

 

[Kauffer]

With all due respect, Kauffer, really?

This is what I mean by taking what Mignini knew, and when he knew it, and putting it to a timeline.

There is nothing, early on, about the staging of a break-in - that I can see, anyway. Whereas I slightly disagree with Grinder - in fact the PLE had nothing reasonable to suspect the kids; but probably suspected them anyway....

....... just where exactly does the first mention of the "staging" make it into the judiciary lore?

It's straightforward, Bill. It comes from Battistelli, the first cop on the scene, who testifies about Romanelli's room as follows:

"...it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing. I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken, so…"

McCall's wiki summaries Battistelli's evidence and claims he testified that he told Raffaele the burglary was "simulated" and in HB while Raffaele doesn't state this, he reports, obviously knowing as he writes what Battistelli stated in testimony, that he was suspicious that valuables had not been taken.

Of course, the really really funny thing about Battistelli is that he tells the court in a slightly different way the same thing that Raffaele told the Carabinieri on the phone - that nothing was stolen.