Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

That's interesting. Why was he waiting for her? How did he know she would show up? When and how did they make that arrangement? What time did he arrive? What time did she arrive?

We are aware of Kokomani's testimony. Why is it credible? Did Amanda have large gaps between her teeth after all? An American uncle who visited her in Perugia?

Even today in the electronic age, people still just knock on people's door. No RFID or Pathway Technology needed.

 

[Vixen]

That's interesting. Why was he waiting for her? How did he know she would show up? When and how did they make that arrangement? What time did he arrive? What time did she arrive?

We are aware of Kokomani's testimony. Why is it credible? Did Amanda have large gaps between her teeth after all? An American uncle who visited her in Perugia?

Many people do have more than one phone. The person who said Rudy likely threw his phone away shortly after the murder, is probably warm. People use disposable phones for drug deals, crime, illicit affairs or when it's wise to be anonymous.

Koko was an eyewitness. He wilfully botched his testimony and was heavily disguised, many believing he'd been warned off. "Omerta" and all that stuff.

 

[Vixen]

No. The point is that he had committed a trespass, and was apparently armed. In fact, the nursery incident appears to have the elements of an interrupted burglary, of the kind where the burglar settles into the residence or building for a period of time (overnight, for example). This is not a pattern of professional burglars who concentrate on potential financial gain and avoid contact with residents or others. Thus, it may have those similarities to the burglary of the cottage flat. It obviously differs by the method of entry.

However, Guede can be presumed to have burglarized the Perugian lawyers' office by breaking in. His possession of a laptop and other items from their office is evidence. In the US, such possession without evidence to the contrary (such as a pawn shop receipt, or a sound alibi) would be taken to indicate commission of the burglary by the possessor of the stolen goods.

Why would Rudy bother to visit the lawyer to apologise for having acquired his stolen laptop?

 

[Grinder]

However, Guede can be presumed to have burglarized the Perugian lawyers' office by breaking in. His possession of a laptop and other items from their office is evidence. In the US, such possession without evidence to the contrary (such as a pawn shop receipt, or a sound alibi) would be taken to indicate commission of the burglary by the possessor of the stolen goods.

Really in the US one must prove innocence? Who knew? It might be an indication of burglary but not BARD. It is very difficult to convict people of car theft often because being in the car doesn't prove the theft of said car.

Just to double check, if I find a valuable on the street and pick it up and then get stopped by the cops I need proof I just found it. Wow.

 

[Grinder]

Many people do have more than one phone. The person who said Rudy likely threw his phone away shortly after the murder, is probably warm. People use disposable phones for drug deals, crime, illicit affairs or when it's wise to be anonymous.

Koko was an eyewitness. He wilfully botched his testimony and was heavily disguised, many believing he'd been warned off. "Omerta" and all that stuff.

I'm sure you checked Amanda's phone logs for the disposable numbers at the right times. What controls do the Italians have on pre paid phones?

Why do you think Koko came forward in the first place?

 

[acbytesla]

Even today in the electronic age, people still just knock on people's door. No RDIF or Pathway Technology needed.

Sure, anything is possible. But you need to PROVE IT. Which you can't. Your whole scenario is based on Rudy stumbling upon not only his victim but his co-conspirators. You have Rudy meeting Amanda and Meredith meeting Rudy 11 days before the murder. And Amanda who barely spoke Italian and Rudy who barely spoke any English somehow stumbling upon each other and then killing Meredith along with Raffaele. Do you have any idea just how stupid this sounds? Pretty damn stupid.

 

[Wattson]

Really in the US one must prove innocence? Who knew? It might be an indication of burglary but not BARD. It is very difficult to convict people of car theft often because being in the car doesn't prove the theft of said car.

Just to double check, if I find a valuable on the street and pick it up and then get stopped by the cops I need proof I just found it. Wow.

No, but if you're caught red handed inside a building you're not supposed to be in with stolen goods from that very building, that's good indication you're a burglar. Add to that, you're also in possession of stolen goods from a burglary in your town of residence and guess what...you're a burglar.

 

[Numbers]

Really in the US one must prove innocence? Who knew? It might be an indication of burglary but not BARD. It is very difficult to convict people of car theft often because being in the car doesn't prove the theft of said car.

Just to double check, if I find a valuable on the street and pick it up and then get stopped by the cops I need proof I just found it. Wow.

The police and prosecutor take that a person is in possession of the goods stolen in a burglary as evidence of that person's participation in that burglary. One in possession would then be (very likely) charged with burglary and possession of stolen goods. Then it would be up to a court trial to determine whether or not the individual caught with the goods had committed the burglary, had legitimately acquired them, or was trading in stolen goods. This is where the defense arguments - such as, I found that laptop computer on the sidewalk, and took it with me - would become important.

Only in your imagination has the conviction occurred, since such defenses as having found the stolen objects or even that one that you are scorning, that there was a pawn shop receipt verifying a purchase with legitimate intent, must be considered at trial. I am sure that finding a (stolen) laptop or a diamond ring on the sidewalk - and not it turning in to authorities - would be a great defense in some jurisdictions. You tell me where, though.

 

[Grinder]

No, but if you're caught red handed inside a building you're not supposed to be in with stolen goods from that very building, that's good indication you're a burglar. Add to that, you're also in possession of stolen goods from a burglary in your town of residence and guess what...you're a burglar.

I believe if you check Numbers was referring to the lawyers' burglary. I could be wrong but pretty sure.

So he wasn't caught in the lawyers' building.

In the nursery he had the knife and maybe some change from petty cash. Clearly he isn't averse to breaking the law and most certainly knew the laptop and phone were stolen.

I don't believe his reason for being in the nursery was to burgle it, but rather as a place to sleep.

 

[Kauffer]

Many people do have more than one phone. The person who said Rudy likely threw his phone away shortly after the murder, is probably warm. People use disposable phones for drug deals, crime, illicit affairs or when it's wise to be anonymous.

Koko was an eyewitness. He wilfully botched his testimony and was heavily disguised, many believing he'd been warned off. "Omerta" and all that stuff.

You have, as usual, produced no evidence for any of your claims about the events of Nov 1st. You stated that Guede was waiting for Amanda and hypothesise disposable phones to make arrangements but have not a shred of proof. Guede living close to Raffaele provides you with proof of mutual knowledge.

This is story telling without facts - not fit for this forum let alone a court. Events are whatever you want them to be. There isn't even an attempt to reference the timeline. Yet you require proof of a negative on the other hand - it must be shown that Guede was not an Italian citizen or you will conclude that he was in receipt of benefits and therefore had no motive to burgle and therefore did not burgle. It's a double standard approach.

If evidence doesn't matter to you, what are you doing here?

 

[Grinder]

The police and prosecutor take that a person is in possession of the goods stolen in a burglary as evidence of that person's participation in that burglary. One in possession would then be (very likely) charged with burglary and possession of stolen goods. Then it would be up to a court trial to determine whether or not the individual caught with the goods had committed the burglary, had legitimately acquired them, or was trading in stolen goods. This is where the defense arguments - such as, I found that laptop computer on the sidewalk, and took it with me - would become important.

Only in your imagination has the conviction occurred, since such defenses as having found the stolen objects or even that one that you are scorning, that there was a pawn shop receipt verifying a purchase with legitimate intent, must be considered at trial. I am sure that finding a (stolen) laptop or a diamond ring on the sidewalk - and not it turning in to authorities - would be a great defense in some jurisdictions. You tell me where, though.

I don't think you understand how difficult it is to convict people for crimes. If the person were found with stolen merchandise but there was nothing else to tie him to burglary it would be a tough conviction. If they had an ID on the car or the people that's different. If they could get prints from the heist that would be different.

Being close to the prosecution here I know it is a struggle.

 

[Wattson]

I believe if you check Numbers was referring to the lawyers' burglary. I could be wrong but pretty sure.

So he wasn't caught in the lawyers' building.

In the nursery he had the knife and maybe some change from petty cash. Clearly he isn't averse to breaking the law and most certainly knew the laptop and phone were stolen.

I don't believe his reason for being in the nursery was to burgle it, but rather as a place to sleep.

He had stolen keys too.

 

[Strozzi]

I think they had bigger fish to fry and since Rudy was facing far more serious charges in Perugia, they probably decided it wasn't worth the time or money.of course, we cannot prove that Rudy took the 2000 Euros the month before. Still coincidences seem to surround Rudy. But of course we can't convict him of coincidences.

Actually, in Italy they can convict you on coincidences. According to Machiavelli, three coincidences make a judicial fact!

 

[Numbers]

Really in the US one must prove innocence? Who knew? It might be an indication of burglary but not BARD. It is very difficult to convict people of car theft often because being in the car doesn't prove the theft of said car.

Just to double check, if I find a valuable on the street and pick it up and then get stopped by the cops I need proof I just found it. Wow.

The police and prosecutor take that a person is in possession of the goods stolen in a burglary as evidence of that person's participation in that burglary. One in possession would then be (very likely) charged with burglary and possession of stolen goods. Then it would be up to a court trial to determine whether or not the individual caught with the goods had committed the burglary, had legitimately acquired them, or was trading in stolen goods. This is where the defense arguments - such as, I found that laptop computer on the sidewalk, and took it with me - would become important.

Only in your imagination has the conviction occurred, since such defenses as having found the stolen objects or even that one that you are scorning, that there was a pawn shop receipt verifying a purchase with legitimate intent, must be considered at trial. I am sure that finding a (stolen) laptop or a diamond ring on the sidewalk - and not it turning in to authorities - would be a great defense in some jurisdictions. You tell me where, though.

In summary, there is a difference between "probable cause" (justifying arrest and possibly enough information for a criminal charge) such as possession of stolen goods as an indication that the possessor obtained them through, for example, a burglary, and "conviction" meaning a court trial has found BARD that the person had committed a burglary.

It is this "subtle" difference that perhaps I did not fully explain, or that you have chosen to ignore.

ETA: And in my original post, I stated that there could be defenses to the charge of burglary. If the charge of burglary did not stick, the charge of possession of stolen goods might.

 

[Vixen]

Really in the US one must prove innocence? Who knew? It might be an indication of burglary but not BARD. It is very difficult to convict people of car theft often because being in the car doesn't prove the theft of said car.

Just to double check, if I find a valuable on the street and pick it up and then get stopped by the cops I need proof I just found it. Wow.

Technically speaking, in England, if you see a coin on the ground, pick it up and keep it, it is theft.

Police will ask a suspected burglar for receipts. IIRC They have the power.

 

[Vixen]

I'm sure you checked Amanda's phone logs for the disposable numbers at the right times. What controls do the Italians have on pre paid phones?

Why do you think Koko came forward in the first place?

Sometimes things are straightforward. It's likely he was traced on CCTV.

What motive would he have to lie?

 

[Vixen]

The police and prosecutor take that a person is in possession of the goods stolen in a burglary as evidence of that person's participation in that burglary. One in possession would then be (very likely) charged with burglary and possession of stolen goods. Then it would be up to a court trial to determine whether or not the individual caught with the goods had committed the burglary, had legitimately acquired them, or was trading in stolen goods. This is where the defense arguments - such as, I found that laptop computer on the sidewalk, and took it with me - would become important.

Only in your imagination has the conviction occurred, since such defenses as having found the stolen objects or even that one that you are scorning, that there was a pawn shop receipt verifying a purchase with legitimate intent, must be considered at trial. I am sure that finding a (stolen) laptop or a diamond ring on the sidewalk - and not it turning in to authorities - would be a great defense in some jurisdictions. You tell me where, though.

My friend who recently had laptops stolen by a burglar he caught in the act. He was unable to ID him. However, police found his fingerprint and that was enough.

In Rudy's case, whilst he was in possession of stolen goods, his fingerprints were not matched.

Can't just prosecute on a whim.

 

[Wattson]

My friend who recently had laptops stolen by a burglar he caught in the act. He was unable to ID him. However, police found his fingerprint and that was enough.

In Rudy's case, whilst he was in possession of stolen goods, his fingerprints were not matched.

Can't just prosecute on a whim.

He was also caught red handed in a building where he was not supposed to be in possession of stolen goods from that very building.

 

[Vixen]

You have, as usual, produced no evidence for any of your claims about the events of Nov 1st. You stated that Guede was waiting for Amanda and hypothesise disposable phones to make arrangements but have not a shred of proof. Guede living close to Raffaele provides you with proof of mutual knowledge.

This is story telling without facts - not fit for this forum let alone a court. Events are whatever you want them to be. There isn't even an attempt to reference the timeline. Yet you require proof of a negative on the other hand - it must be shown that Guede was not an Italian citizen or you will conclude that he was in receipt of benefits and therefore had no motive to burgle and therefore did not burgle. It's a double standard approach.

If evidence doesn't matter to you, what are you doing here?

Lots of evidence. Italian tv produced a cctv video of Rudy following Amanda (or possibly Mez) into the cottage. The image is grainy, but the jacket the sinister figure is wearing, matches the quilted jacket Rudy was wearing when caught in Germany.

His travelling freely in the EU indicates EU citizenship, ipso facto, Italian residency at least.

 

[Strozzi]

Why would Rudy bother to visit the lawyer to apologise for having acquired his stolen laptop?

Rudi didn't know how much real trouble he might be in in Perugia from the police or lawyers after they learned that he had the lawyer's stolen laptop, as well as a small hammer designed to be used to break window glass and a stolen knife. Rudi went to the lawyer to try to contain or reduce potential trouble.