Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Any evidence Guede was involved in the drugs trade?
Any evidence that knox bought drugs from anyone in Italy?

Perugia was swimming with drugs. All three defendants admitted recreational use. After the murder, both Raf and Amanda swore they would never take drugs again.

I don't know why anyone bothers asking you questions. You never answer them, instead you give glib answers.

Meredith's death must be one big joke to you.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. A wedding ring may well possess sufficient identifying characteristics to be capable of being reunited with its owner and, in appropriate circs, it should be handed in. If, however, it's just a featureless ring and there is no reason to suppose the owner will imminently return looking for it, then you can just hang onto it. Sue me if this turns out badly for you. If you find the ring under 6 inches of sand while beach combing with your new metal detector, just keep it, unless it's of Saxon vintage and worth a king's ransom when different rules apply.

But pray, tell me the last time you found a pound (or any) coin on the street and handed it in. Who exactly would you hand it to and how would the true owner prove it was his in order to secure its return?

I lost a pound-coin outside the British Museum in 2001. I accosted a fellow in the Underground at Tottenham Court Road who I saw paying for some crisps with a pound-coin. The police predictably took his side, as you Brits stick together like glue. Buggers.

 

[Grinder]

The prank calls about the "bomb in the toilet" is a similarly weird detail that begged an explanation. The fact that they found the prank caller and got an explanation, permits the issue to be dropped from consideration as not relevant to the kercher case.

It never seemed a big deal to me. A few went on here about the probability of the prank call being to a place where phones were dumped but there was no substance to the speculation.

Rudy's prior relationship to the police, their familiarity with him as a burglar in Perugia, the failure to prosecute Rudy for his crimes and his release (or assistance received by Perugia) from Milan, the similarity of the kercher crime scene to Rudy's previous burglaries and whether police recognized Rudy's MO as Judge Nencini believed - all of these questions come up repeatedly, and are as yet unexplained. And this feels to me like a big piece of the puzzle.

I don't believe any of the above is at all proven. I looked in Nencini for the statement that the police recognized Rudi's MO but only found this:

In particular, the Supreme Court pointed out how the District Court dwelled longer on the evaluation of Rudy Hermann Guede's personality, on his proven mastery of burglarizing property by entering through windows, while completely neglecting to assess other significant circumstances, some of which were highlighted, above all, by the conviction sentence of Guede, which is now definitive. In relation to such specific reason of weight, the Supreme Court considered as valid the [18] claim of error, highlighted the violation made by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia regarding the interpretive criteria for assessment of proof.​

It seems it Hellmann accepting his proven mastery of burglarizing but regardless this most of Nencini is thought to be Nonsecini (Nonsense) it seems disingenuous to cherry pick what one likes. There used to be someone that would do that with Massei.

Rudy as a low-level informer, whose crimes are "owned" by the police for allowing him to roam free, explains a lot. There has to be paper work on it, especially if Rudy was getting paid. Or maybe allowing Rudy to commit petty crimes WAS his pay. Maybe this is why Rudy's case file is still sealed, under the cover of some other bogus inquiry. (Mignini kept secret the testimony of an associate of Carlizzi against Spezi, using a terrorism/mafia law designed to protect witnesses. Maybe Mignini is playing the same game with Rudy, claiming his on-going work in a drug case or some such excuse? - my speculation)

Yes speculation. Is it known that Rudi's file is sealed? Is that unusual in Italy?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, but isn't the Daily Mail in particular famous for just making things up, like fabricating entire event and fictitious quotes?

Patrick was paid by them was he not? And IIRC, it was in the range of 10s of thousands of euros?

Well, they did with George Clooney. They fabricated a story about his wife's family being upset with her marrying the American actor. They also did with Amanda's noise ticket. It was very clear that the Daily Mail basically took the police report and then exaggerated it. I know for a fact that the officer who wrote the ticket never even talked to the reporter. The article gets the general information from the report and then adds juicy quotes from an unnamed partygoer. How the hell would the reporter from the UK know who any of the party goers from a party 5000 miles away that took place 4 months earlier? Especially when he never even talked to the only name he had, the cop.

 

[Kauffer]

So we are all agreed Rudy was not "without any means of support"?

No we are not. There is no evidence for it.

 

[Kauffer]

If Rudy as a resident is entitled to the same benefits as other Italians then it moots the point "he had no means of support so therefore had to be a burglar" whether or not he claimed his entitlement.

Well, no, actually. You would have an argument if all you had to do in Italy is say "I have no money and I'm not working, give me some money".

I've put up an OECD study. Why don't you interrogate that document. I'm sure you will be able to see that unemployment payments are made for a limited time based on previous taxable employed earnings. There was no money for Guede from these arrangements.

 

[bagels]

This study tested blood stains cleaned with various methods including testing with luminol followed by TMB. It looks like it's very possible to get luminol positive and TMB negative results from blood, but it depends on the surface tested and method of cleaning.

But it also concludes, "luminol does not have an adverse affect on sub-sequent DNA typing using PCR." So it seems odd to me they weren't able to pull any DNA from the stains if they were blood.

For me the luminol stains are one of the mysteries of the case. I can't believe the prosecution didn't do more to prove they were blood.

 

[Kauffer]

I know all about the Schengen agreement without having to look it up or read ithere, thanks.

Well you do now.

 

[Kauffer]

As Rudy was educated and worked in Italy without a visa, we can assume he was entitled to, as at least a longterm resident.

So we can agree then that Guede was entitled as a resident to claim whatever payments under the Italian benefits system were due to residents of his status.

And the amount in Guede's case was nothing.

 

[Grinder]

This study tested blood stains cleaned with various methods including testing with luminol followed by TMB. It looks like it's very possible to get luminol positive and TMB negative results from blood, but it depends on the surface tested and method of cleaning.

But it also concludes, "luminol does not have an adverse affect on sub-sequent DNA typing using PCR." So it seems odd to me they weren't able to pull any DNA from the stains if they were blood.

For me the luminol stains are one of the mysteries of the case. I can't believe the prosecution didn't do more to prove they were blood.

Oh oh, Chris won't like this

I've long believed that your assessment is correct and that Luminol is more sensitive than TMB. I've speculated the prints could be from old prints left after a shower with minuscule amounts of blood in the water. The prints didn't match anyone and were at best compatible with Amanda.

It is interesting that they couldn't get anything from the prints in the DNA.

 

[Numbers]

No. The point is that he {Rudy Guede} 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 {by the police as suspicion of the} to indicate commission of the burglary by the possessor of the stolen goods.

I have modified my earlier post which caused confusion, especially perhaps to me.

I maintained that the evidence of Guede in the nursery was of trespass (an element of burglary) and could be interpreted as an interrupted burglary.

My earlier wording about possession of stolen goods was ambiguous. Mere possession of stolen goods is not sufficient evidence for a conviction BARD on a charge of burglary. It may be sufficient evidence to rightfully trigger police suspicion, which may or may not lead to probable cause to arrest on a charge such as possession of stolen goods or burglary.

In the case of the break-in of the lawyers' office in Perugia, where the laptop was stolen, tying anyone to the crime for the purpose of convicting of burglary could include, for example, fingerprints. But did the police investigate that crime to the level of taking fingerprints or doing other forensic work? And did that crime match an MO of any other criminal the police were aware of? Did the police not consider the crime of much importance since no harm to the body of a person or death resulted? These are AFAIK unanswered questions.

 

[Grinder]

Anyone know whether Guede was formally adopted?

Don't think so.

Roger Guede settled in Perugia, the regional capital of Umbria, and found work as a building site labourer.
After a decade he decided to return to West Africa, leaving the teenage Rudy in the care of a wealthy Italian family, who informally adopted him

By Nick Squires, Perugia5:05PM BST 02 Oct 2011

 

[Dan O.]

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. A wedding ring may well possess sufficient identifying characteristics to be capable of being reunited with its owner and, in appropriate circs, it should be handed in. If, however, it's just a featureless ring and there is no reason to suppose the owner will imminently return looking for it, then you can just hang onto it. Sue me if this turns out badly for you. If you find the ring under 6 inches of sand while beach combing with your new metal detector, just keep it, unless it's of Saxon vintage and worth a king's ransom when different rules apply.

But pray, tell me the last time you found a pound (or any) coin on the street and handed it in. Who exactly would you hand it to and how would the true owner prove it was his in order to secure its return?

Having been there and done that, finding the owner of the wedding ring is personally more rewarding than finding the ring itself. Turning in the overstuffed wallet found between the seats of the shuttle van outside the casino, the driver had to carry the wallet all the way to security at the back or the casino holding it high above her head. Spotting the $100 bill on the floor in front of the casher, You have to be careful with these because it has been used as a distraction by pick pockets. But I called out loud enough for anyone in the local vicinity to hear including the casher before picking it up. After having my father recount the cash he just received to verify it wasn't his I turned it in. Returning the extra dollar the automated checkout stand at Walmart spit out revealed a level of stupidity in this world of which I had been previously unaware. The supervisor charged with watching over these machines fed the dollar back to the machine instead of trying to track down the previous customer who left in a huff after being unable to find anyone to resolve her problem.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well, here are the conditions for Italian citizenship based on naturalisation that could apply to Guede:

10 years' residence, no criminal record and sufficient financial resources

7 years' residence for children adopted by Italian citizens

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union#Acquisition]

So if he wasn't formally adopted, the second doesn't apply. The first may or may not apply, depending on his financial resources and criminal record to that point.

That answers the point about citizenship as far as any of us are likely to know with current information about Guede's background.

His entitlement to benefits therefore looks unlikely, especially if he mostly worked cash in hand.

In any case, as I said above, even if he was claiming benefits, it may not have been enough to cover his socialising and drug use.

 

[Sonia]

I'll make a comment. I assumed that it wouldn't be possible to prove that Guede wasn't an Italian citizen from publicly available sources and that Vixen was at least right that it was possible.

Alas it appears that you have proven both Vixen and I me wrong. You have produced documentation that for practical purposes seems to exclude the possibility that Guede was an Italian citizen.

It is a surprising fact to me. I figured that if he was adopted by a well off family they would have done the legal things necessary to make him one. Clearly I don't understand some things here.

ETA: I went back and forth on whether it should be "Alas it appears that you have proven both Vixen and me wrong" or "Alas it appears that you have proven both Vixen and I wrong".

For first idea was that it should be Vixen and I because it sounded right, then I thought that I was the object of the phrase and as such me would be correct. Now after further consideration I think I was correct because in the phrase, "you have proven both Vixen and I wrong" I is not an object. The phrase is a shortened form of you have proven that both Vixen and I were wrong. I in this phrase is actually the subject and therefore the nominative form of the pronoun should be used.

Rudy was not formally adopted by the Caporali family. It was an informal arrangement in which they took him under their wing and guided him and provided for him. Formal adoption would have entailed inheritance rights and so forth.

 

[Dan O.]

This study tested blood stains cleaned with various methods including testing with luminol followed by TMB. It looks like it's very possible to get luminol positive and TMB negative results from blood, but it depends on the surface tested and method of cleaning.

But it also concludes, "luminol does not have an adverse affect on sub-sequent DNA typing using PCR." So it seems odd to me they weren't able to pull any DNA from the stains if they were blood.

For me the luminol stains are one of the mysteries of the case. I can't believe the prosecution didn't do more to prove they were blood.

The very print we saw above in the Luminol image contained visible blood from Meredith tracked by Rudy's shoe that was expertly scrubbed away by the forensics team on November 3. The Luminol shows the clear image where the blood was and the TMB test was positive for this one trace but not any of the others that contained only the footprints. This calibration point shows that the TMB was working and could detect minute quantities of blood that are invisible to the unaided eye. The clear result is that there was no blood associated with the bare footprints as the TMB would have detected it.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy was not formally adopted by the Caporali family. It was an informal arrangement in which they took him under their wing and guided him and provided for him. Formal adoption would have entailed inheritance rights and so forth.

Really? Don't they have wills in Italy? That a family could adopt someone and yet be clear that the adoptee would not be an heir in their wills?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

2013 study of luminol

"Abstract
Luminol is a presumptive test reagent used for the location of latent bloodstains. Various formulations are used by different forensic practitioners and commercial products are also widely available. There is little concurrence between authors with regards to the sensitivity limits of luminol which can vary significantly depending upon the substrate. We evaluated the sensitivity and stability of five different luminol formulations on a range of blood dilutions. All formulations showed an overall decrease in performance over 24 h though the effect was more gradual on a nonporous surface compared to porous. We found that Blue-Star® Magnum showed the greatest sensitivity compared to other formulations and detected 50 μl of 1/100,000 blood dilutions on both porous and non-porous surfaces. Two formulations of luminol were selected based on the result of the sensitivity and stability study and were assessed for their impact on the DNA profiling process. There was a statistically significant improvement in DNA profile peak area from luminol-treated samples when compared to control samples of neat blood stains. However, at the weaker blood dilution of 1/1,000, the difference between control and luminol-treated samples was dependent on the substrate type with porous (fabric) samples showing a significant difference and non-porous (tile) swabbed samples requiring further work to conclusively ascertain the effect."

Gnyaneshwari Patel & Andy Hopwood "An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling" Int J Legal Med (2013) 127:723–729
DOI 10.1007/s00414-012-0800-9

The ability to detect blood that was diluted 10,000-100,000-fold is impressive, but TMB has about the same lower limit of detection.

 

[Grinder]

"Abstract
Luminol is a presumptive test reagent used for the location of latent bloodstains. Various formulations are used by different forensic practitioners and commercial products are also widely available. There is little concurrence between authors with regards to the sensitivity limits of luminol which can vary significantly depending upon the substrate. We evaluated the sensitivity and stability of five different luminol formulations on a range of blood dilutions. All formulations showed an overall decrease in performance over 24 h though the effect was more gradual on a nonporous surface compared to porous. We found that Blue-Star® Magnum showed the greatest sensitivity compared to other formulations and detected 50 μl of 1/100,000 blood dilutions on both porous and non-porous surfaces. Two formulations of luminol were selected based on the result of the sensitivity and stability study and were assessed for their impact on the DNA profiling process. There was a statistically significant improvement in DNA profile peak area from luminol-treated samples when compared to control samples of neat blood stains. However, at the weaker blood dilution of 1/1,000, the difference between control and luminol-treated samples was dependent on the substrate type with porous (fabric) samples showing a significant difference and non-porous (tile) swabbed samples requiring further work to conclusively ascertain the effect."

Gnyaneshwari Patel & Andy Hopwood "An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling" Int J Legal Med (2013) 127:723–729
DOI 10.1007/s00414-012-0800-9

The ability to detect blood that was diluted 10,000-100,000-fold is impressive, but TMB has about the same lower limit of detection.

Tetramethylbenzidine
Blood-stained filter paper, cloth, and blood solutions with dilutions of 1:10 000 gave
an immediate (l-s) positive reaction. Stained filter paper, cotton cloth, and blood solutions
responded positively within 20 s at a dilution of 1:1 000 000. However, it was discovered
that unstained cotton cloth and cotton swabs will produce an interference color, which
may appear to be a positive result, within a period of 15 to 20 s when tetramethylbenzidine
solution and hydrogen peroxide are added to the test material.

 

[Sonia]

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

Rudy was not an EU citizen. As stated in Massei, he was an Ivory Coast citizen who was a resident of Perugia.