Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Chasing Mignini's lies? Just stop doing it...

Why do You think that Richard Owen reported in good faith? Do you know him? You are familiar with how much back checking he does on his reports. You know that him
and the editorial staff at the Times have no interest in selling the advertising that comes with a salacious story.

As for policemen I think your perspective is way off base. One, you don't even know if Owen's source is a police officer. Two, the source isn't "framing" anyone since trials don't take place in the papers. Three, what does he care what Owen writes in an English language paper?

You act as if any of these people are actually held accountable for their inaccuracies.

Just responding here on the issue of the bleach.

The bleach story is just a lie by the police/prosecution to explain away the fact that there is only evidence of one person committing the Kercher murder.

One person's footsteps in blood. Just one DNA profile along with Kercher's in the murder room. A break-in committed in the style of Rudy Guede, which while some may argue when Police knew that, they certainly knew if the break-in were real, then it obviously wasn't "staged".

A clean-up of footsteps in blood would leave swirls on the floor, not footsteps. So it should be apparent that there was no clean-up of footsteps in blood at the murder scene.

The story of bleach purchases is therefore irrelevant to the crime. It's not probative, because it wasn't used.

Neither DNA nor fingerprints were cleaned up because that's a scientific impossibility, not even with a "lamp". The suggestion is idiotic and childish.

Even if they had bought bleach, or even dunked Raf's sneakers in bleach that morning for whatever reason, it still wouldn't correspond to any evidence found at the crime scene.

All these lies from the police and prosecutor are designed to explain away the absence of evidence that any more than one person, Rudy Guede is responsible for the murder.

Bleach receipts don't matter, and it is quite obvious they were never real.

And I wouldn't be surprised if John Kercher were behind some of the "leaks".

Amanda and Raf suffered enormously, and for no legitimate reason, just Mignini deciding he needed to spin one more satanic orgy story to save his miserable carcass.

Amanda and Raf get back their good names in the court of public opinion when Mignini goes to jail. Nothing less will do. Mignini's criminal assault on two people he knew to be innocent must be recognized.

 

[Planigale]

I believe that financially the callunia conviction is quite huge. Amanda Knox (and the Knox family) does not receive false imprisonment payments from Italy since she served four years for the callunia conviction. Also, how fair is it living one's life having been convicted of a felony for which four years were spent in incarceration?

It also leaves her with the civil liabilities. Whilst not enforceable in the states, it is a potential issue if she wished to spend anytime out of the US. So i agree she is likely to pursue this as it would result in expunging her 'criminal' conviction, allow her to claim damages from Italy for wrongful imprisonment and legal expenses, and avoid paying damages.

 

[Kauffer]

I don't disagree at all, but compared to a murder charge it is small potatoes. I was just wildly speculating. I have no knowledge or any real understanding of the ECHR process or European politics. My sincere hope is that it is overturned and Italy writes a big check to both Knox and Sollecito.

Again, it isn't the charge that determines the ECHR's response. It's the implications of the rights violations with regard to the outcomes of the actions against her. In this case, but for these violations, the case could not have proceeded. It is not a merely technical claim.

Additionally, the court will also be aware that the entire criminal case, covering a multiplicity of charges against Amanda Knox, including the murder case, was predicated on the statements she made. From small errors, mighty oaks of prosecutorial misconduct are grown. Judgements of the ECHR do not speak solely to the charge.

The issue is the vitality of procedural rights as an essential protection against the possibility of miscarriages of justice. It wouldn't matter much if all Amanda was convicted of was the theft of a candy bar.

 

[Kauffer]

It also leaves her with the civil liabilities. Whilst not enforceable in the states, it is a potential issue if she wished to spend anytime out of the US. So i agree she is likely to pursue this as it would result in expunging her 'criminal' conviction, allow her to claim damages from Italy for wrongful imprisonment and legal expenses, and avoid paying damages.

I'm not sure that the civil liability is much of a restrictive issue, but the criminal conviction certainly is. The non custodial consequences of a conviction are the hidden costs in a miscarriage of justice. They can affect applications for credit, to purchase insurance, to enter certain jurisdictions and to obtain employment. The stink of this case will stick to Amanda Knox for some considerable time, which is why an exoneration is such an important goal aside from the triggering of damages payments to her.

 

[Methos]

Could somebody help a bit with the Google translation of this sentence from the article Methos quoted from?
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/se...a3/fidanzato-meredith/fidanzato-meredith.html

Google translates it as the yellow of Perugia

Giallo seems to be some sort of Italian slang but I couldn't figure out what it means after looking around the web a bit. In one place it was translated as murder. The title of the article is "Giallo Perugia, in casa di Sollecito nessuno scontrino del 2 novembre", Perugian murder sort of makes sense maybe. So perhaps the expression, il giallo di Perugia perde uno dei tasselli, means something like the murder case of Perugia lost a piece...?

The thing that got me going on this was that the translation contains the phrase, he had spoken of, and I tried to figure out who he referred to. Could anybody help with that as well?

Giallo in Italy is also the term used for the literary genre of (criminal) mystery and triller. The term derives from the yellow cover of the series "Il Giallo Mondadori" published since 1929. So I'd say "il giallo di Perugia" could be translated as "the mystery of Perugia".

bing translates the other part as:

Of those two receipts there was talk as one of the heaviest clues at the expense of the young man who is in prison along with Amanda Knox and Patrick Lumumba Diya, a proof of purchase in a supermarket in Perugia two bottles of bleach used to get rid of all traces of the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just responding here on the issue of the bleach.

The bleach story is just a lie by the police/prosecution to explain away the fact that there is only evidence of one person committing the Kercher murder.

One person's footsteps in blood. Just one DNA profile along with Kercher's in the murder room. A break-in committed in the style of Rudy Guede, which while some may argue when Police knew that, they certainly knew if the break-in were real, then it obviously wasn't "staged".

A clean-up of footsteps in blood would leave swirls on the floor, not footsteps. So it should be apparent that there was no clean-up of footsteps in blood at the murder scene.

The story of bleach purchases is therefore irrelevant to the crime. It's not probative, because it wasn't used.

Neither DNA nor fingerprints were cleaned up because that's a scientific impossibility, not even with a "lamp". The suggestion is idiotic and childish.

Even if they had bought bleach, or even dunked Raf's sneakers in bleach that morning for whatever reason, it still wouldn't correspond to any evidence found at the crime scene.

All these lies from the police and prosecutor are designed to explain away the absence of evidence that any more than one person, Rudy Guede is responsible for the murder.

Bleach receipts don't matter, and it is quite obvious they were never real.

And I wouldn't be surprised if John Kercher were behind some of the "leaks".

Amanda and Raf suffered enormously, and for no legitimate reason, just Mignini deciding he needed to spin one more satanic orgy story to save his miserable carcass.

Amanda and Raf get back their good names in the court of public opinion when Mignini goes to jail. Nothing less will do. Mignini's criminal assault on two people he knew to be innocent must be recognized.

Like so many items contained in the phrase, "all the other evidence," following the way the bleach entered this narrative, and the way it has been used......

....... is an entry point in understanding how the whole thing went wrong - until the March 2015 ISC decided, enough is enough.

There never was anything forensicly interesting about "the bleach", or any receipts connected to them. The import of them is that the cops could tell journalists something - journalists hungry to get paid for that day's lurid submission to a tabloid somewhere.

Sex on a train, cartwheels, saying "Ta-da" while in little paper shoes, eating pizza, saying "she ***** bled to death", Rudy was Knox's drug dealer, exhaustively agreeing to share imaginings about Lumumba with translator/mediator/diplomat Donnino at interrogation, the lamp, the pseudo-impossibility of the break-in, being heard saying "I was there", Quintavalle, Curatolo, Nara......

None of those things and the hundreds of similar disappearatudes never amounted to anything - they were just made-up to see if they would stick in an endless supply.

And as Grinder has noted - three of these compatibilities in the (pre-March 2015) judicial mind meant a judicial fact.

To repeat: my introduction to all this was in the weeks before the Oct 2011 acquittals by Hellmann - and I scoured places like TJMK for reasons why there was a case against AK and RS once the DNA-evidence had collapsed. (The newspaper accounting of the collapsing DNA-evidence was the very first thing I remember before saying to mayself, "I'll see what this is all about on the Internet!" Meanwhile, three 1/2 years later.....)

So pick one - you've got "the bleach" and/or the requisite non-receipts! I don't know of any other of the "all the other evidence" which similarly does not end up down a rabbit-hole of someone's overactive imagination.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, it isn't the charge that determines the ECHR's response. It's the implications of the rights violations with regard to the outcomes of the actions against her. In this case, but for these violations, the case could not have proceeded. It is not a merely technical claim.

Additionally, the court will also be aware that the entire criminal case, covering a multiplicity of charges against Amanda Knox, including the murder case, was predicated on the statements she made. From small errors, mighty oaks of prosecutorial misconduct are grown. Judgements of the ECHR do not speak solely to the charge.

The issue is the vitality of procedural rights as an essential protection against the possibility of miscarriages of justice. It wouldn't matter much if all Amanda was convicted of was the theft of a candy bar.

How do I say this clearly? I THINK you are 100 percent right. That said. I do not know. I am by no means an expert on European law or politics. My post is probably the ignorant concerns of an over imaginative mind.

 

[Kauffer]

How do I say this clearly? I THINK you are 100 percent right. That said. I do not know. I am by no means an expert on European law or politics. My post is probably the ignorant concerns of an over imaginative mind.

I get your imagination but it has something of a rational basis. You say:

a) the calunnia conviction "is small potatoes" and "is a minor offense",
B) that "the ECHR has a large backlog" and
C) you "also think that they might not always want to be overturning different countries legal decisions."

What I have tried to demonstrate is that a) maybe true but isn't relevant b) is true but isn't relevant and c) is true but is not what the court does.

But I don't think I have succeeded. If you really thought I was "100% right", I would likely have persuaded you, but I don't think I have.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again, it isn't the charge that determines the ECHR's response. It's the implications of the rights violations with regard to the outcomes of the actions against her. In this case, but for these violations, the case could not have proceeded. It is not a merely technical claim.

Additionally, the court will also be aware that the entire criminal case, covering a multiplicity of charges against Amanda Knox, including the murder case, was predicated on the statements she made. From small errors, mighty oaks of prosecutorial misconduct are grown. Judgements of the ECHR do not speak solely to the charge.

The issue is the vitality of procedural rights as an essential protection against the possibility of miscarriages of justice. It wouldn't matter much if all Amanda was convicted of was the theft of a candy bar.

This is a very important point in regard to Knox's criminal slander conviction. Many cases that are successfully brought to the ECHR concern human rights abuses that can be separable from the actual judicial verdict. For example, a man in Greece accused of raping a child might be legally (and factually) guilty of the crime, but if the police decided to beat the living daylights out of him during his interrogation on account of their disgust at his crime, this (if proven to the satisfaction of the ECHR) would constitute a human rights abuse, and the victim would be entitled to restitution (in this case, probably financial damages). However, neither the ECHR nor the state concerned (here, Greece) would deem it necessary to retry the man.

In Knox's case however, the alleged human rights abuses are central to the entire case of criminal slander - and they also have material impact on the rest of the case against Knox (and even Sollecito). If (when) the ECHR rules that Knox was maltreated in that police interrogation and that she made statements under duress (and without proper access to legal representation to which she was undoubtedly entitled), then it will order Italy to apply full remedy.

The only full remedy for Italy will be twofold: firstly, it will be required to pay financial damages to Knox for its abuse of her human rights; but secondly - and more importantly - Italy will have to exclude all evidence related to the human rights breach. So it will have to exclude Knox's various statements from the night of 5th/6th November. And since these are (obviously) materially critical to the criminal slander charge and conviction, there will necessarily have to be a vacation of the criminal slander conviction.

Now, Italy could still choose to retry Knox on the criminal slander charge, but in reality it obviously would not do so, since it would essentially now have no evidence upon which to base a prosecution.

In short, therefore, if (when) the ECHR rules that Knox's human rights were violated around the time when she made the "confession/accusation" statements on 5th/6th November 2007, this will set in place an inevitable mechanism which will have to result in Italy annulling Knox's criminal slander conviction and announcing that there will be no retrial. There is, in practice, no other possible option for Italy to take (other than withdrawing as a signatory to the Convention, and renouncing its membership of the Council of Europe).

 

[Grinder]

Since the prosecution and the PGP have always maintained that the absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence (various people at various time s have made the assertion that even without the DNA they are guilty), it could also be true for other accomplices not just the kids. I've never understood why PIPs and the defense never grabbed onto to this opening which answers so many of the issues that "prove" they did it, in particular multiple assailants.

Koko has never made any sense to me. Not his babbling testimony but that he came forward and what was he doing there anyway? Why would a guy involved in the underworld, specifically drug dealing, come forward at all? Why would he tell them he had two phones? Since non of you, save Vixen, believes he saw Amanda, Raf and Rudi why did he tell this tale? By the time he returned from Albania, it would seem that he would know they weren't looking for anybody else. (He could have someone read him Owen to get the inside info.) But by giving this tale he explained his phone presence, if the cops even noticed and helped convict the targets.

On another note, I was checking Nina's story of Diaz to see if her words would lead me to a new search on the subject. That didn't come to fruition but a couple of things were of some interest. She knew Rudi primarily from seeing him outside making calls on his cell phone, which somehow she or Nina knew was because of bad reception in his flat. Nina also reported that the skinny little house was "nearly destroyed" but the firemen were able to determine the fire started when a scarf was thrown over a lamp. I find it odd that in the room where a fire started that "nearly destroyed" the house, they were able to know that a scarf started the fire.

It seems very clear that Rudi was frequent cell phone user as she saw him "every day" when dog walking. I tend to believe this part of the story because we have corroboration from several sources.

I doubt the fire story and even if true there is no tie to Rudi. I wouldn't rely on the phone account without other sources.

I think we can safely say he had phone access during this time period.

 

[acbytesla]

I get your imagination but it has something of a rational basis. You say:

a) the calunnia conviction "is small potatoes" and "is a minor offense",
B) that "the ECHR has a large backlog" and
C) you "also think that they might not always want to be overturning different countries legal decisions."

What I have tried to demonstrate is that a) maybe true but isn't relevant b) is true but isn't relevant and c) is true but is not what the court does.

But I don't think I have succeeded. If you really thought I was "100% right", I would likely have persuaded you, but I don't think I have.

It's not that you aren't persuasive Kauffer. In fact you are.

It's my own built in cynicism and skepticism about human institutions and the unknown. I'd wager that you are right, but I would have wagered that Hellmann would have been confirmed. Maybe the ECHR is more predictable and you and Numbers have been very good presenting a case that they are.

 

[JREF2010]

Since the prosecution and the PGP have always maintained that the absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence (various people at various time s have made the assertion that even without the DNA they are guilty), it could also be true for other accomplices not just the kids. I've never understood why PIPs and the defense never grabbed onto to this opening which answers so many of the issues that "prove" they did it, in particular multiple assailants.

Koko has never made any sense to me. Not his babbling testimony but that he came forward and what was he doing there anyway? Why would a guy involved in the underworld, specifically drug dealing, come forward at all? Why would he tell them he had two phones? Since non of you, save Vixen, believes he saw Amanda, Raf and Rudi why did he tell this tale? By the time he returned from Albania, it would seem that he would know they weren't looking for anybody else. (He could have someone read him Owen to get the inside info.) But by giving this tale he explained his phone presence, if the cops even noticed and helped convict the targets.

On another note, I was checking Nina's story of Diaz to see if her words would lead me to a new search on the subject. That didn't come to fruition but a couple of things were of some interest. She knew Rudi primarily from seeing him outside making calls on his cell phone, which somehow she or Nina knew was because of bad reception in his flat. Nina also reported that the skinny little house was "nearly destroyed" but the firemen were able to determine the fire started when a scarf was thrown over a lamp. I find it odd that in the room where a fire started that "nearly destroyed" the house, they were able to know that a scarf started the fire.

It seems very clear that Rudi was frequent cell phone user as she saw him "every day" when dog walking. I tend to believe this part of the story because we have corroboration from several sources.

I doubt the fire story and even if true there is no tie to Rudi. I wouldn't rely on the phone account without other sources.

I think we can safely say he had phone access during this time period.

Same reason Curatolo got involved.....he was probably coerced into it, a deal.

Of course I have no evidence to prove this, so it must be true per the PGP mentality.

Too bad Toto died in police custody all of a sudden...maybe he could have offered more information of why he got involved and how his testimony came about.

 

[acbytesla]

Since the prosecution and the PGP have always maintained that the absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence (various people at various time s have made the assertion that even without the DNA they are guilty), it could also be true for other accomplices not just the kids. I've never understood why PIPs and the defense never grabbed onto to this opening which answers so many of the issues that "prove" they did it, in particular multiple assailants.

Koko has never made any sense to me. Not his babbling testimony but that he came forward and what was he doing there anyway? Why would a guy involved in the underworld, specifically drug dealing, come forward at all? Why would he tell them he had two phones? Since non of you, save Vixen, believes he saw Amanda, Raf and Rudi why did he tell this tale? By the time he returned from Albania, it would seem that he would know they weren't looking for anybody else. (He could have someone read him Owen to get the inside info.) But by giving this tale he explained his phone presence, if the cops even noticed and helped convict the targets.

On another note, I was checking Nina's story of Diaz to see if her words would lead me to a new search on the subject. That didn't come to fruition but a couple of things were of some interest. She knew Rudi primarily from seeing him outside making calls on his cell phone, which somehow she or Nina knew was because of bad reception in his flat. Nina also reported that the skinny little house was "nearly destroyed" but the firemen were able to determine the fire started when a scarf was thrown over a lamp. I find it odd that in the room where a fire started that "nearly destroyed" the house, they were able to know that a scarf started the fire.

It seems very clear that Rudi was frequent cell phone user as she saw him "every day" when dog walking. I tend to believe this part of the story because we have corroboration from several sources.

I doubt the fire story and even if true there is no tie to Rudi. I wouldn't rely on the phone account without other sources.

I think we can safely say he had phone access during this time period.

There are a lot of holes with Rudy. The phone he had in Milan was stolen from the law office, but supposedly the SIM belonged to Rudy? That would mean he had an account. But, I have never seen a phone bill for Rudy. Or was it a SIM for a pre-paid account. But even that should be have phone records associated with it.

I think Rudy was a small time fledgling burglar. The association with Koko is strange. He certainly didn't help the prosecution with his testimony. Why would he testify against Raff and Amanda? Seems like there had to be a deal with the cops.But that seems too conspiratorial to me.

 

[Matthew Best]

Only a court of law can ascertain guilt or not thereof.

I don't know if you noticed but that is exactly what happened in this case. The result: not guilty.

 

[Grinder]

Same reason Curatolo got involved.....he was probably coerced into it, a deal.

Of course I have no evidence to prove this, so it must be true per the PGP mentality.

Too bad Toto died in police custody all of a sudden...maybe he could have offered more information of why he got involved and how his testimony came about.

Curatolo came out later at the urging of Fois. He was a witness in two other trials. His testimony at least made some sense, in that seeing the two in the plaza didn't involve garbage bags or Amanda threatening him with a large knife.

IIRC he knew Rudi casually, at least. He left right after for Albania and upon return went to a lawyer that arranged a meeting with Mignini.

I don't see any coercion compatibility.

Occam's requires inclusion of all known variables. Bayesian requires considering Koko IMO. What are the chances a drug dealer was parked outside the cottage at the time of a murder by another drug dealer that he knew having nothing to do with the crime.

If the crack ICSI had reported all the unidentified DNA an d prints in detail. What if the semen stain was not Rudi, not Giacomo and not Raf then what?

The ICSI IMO would not have reported a 4th man's DNA.

 

[Grinder]

There are a lot of holes with Rudy. The phone he had in Milan was stolen from the law office, but supposedly the SIM belonged to Rudy? That would mean he had an account. But, I have never seen a phone bill for Rudy. Or was it a SIM for a pre-paid account. But even that should be have phone records associated with it.

I think Rudy was a small time fledgling burglar. The association with Koko is strange. He certainly didn't help the prosecution with his testimony. Why would he testify against Raff and Amanda? Seems like there had to be a deal with the cops.But that seems too conspiratorial to me.

You must believe Diaz's reporting of frequent cell use outside his apartment, correct?

IIRC the Spanish kids said he had two phones but didn't give them a number. Why would that be? Saving minutes for more important business?

Who would have acquired a phone bill of Rudi's and made it public? I would imagine his bill if known would be with his case file. Have you even looked for it? If not, maybe that's why you have never found it. Could he have used stolen SIM cards that couldn't be traced? Maybe that's why he didn't give out his number to non business contacts.

Perhaps one of the phones Koko had was Rudi's.

Why would Koko make a deal? What sort of deal? When was it arranged? Before in went to Albania or after? If the PLE were involved, wouldn't the story have been a little better?

 

[Grinder]

From RW post-

Rudy Guede had a SIM #.
Here's some info about it, from when he was busted in Milan:

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…
Pros. Mignini: Do you remember the number?
Guede: My SIM number yes
Pros. Mignini: The one they seized in Milan
Guede: The SIM was mine but not the cell phone
Napoleoni: Can you tell us the number of the SIM
Guede: 329.1819627 and from that moment I never had a cell phone again
Napoleoni: Sorry Rudy, this SIM card, do you remember when you used it?
Guede: Since a long time… it was actually in my name…

Link to my old post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=9293
* * *

Rudy Guede called Carlos,
1 of the Spanish students on Halloween to meet up with them that night.
It is from this call from Rudy Guede that the cops tracked down 2 of the Spanish students and had them return from Switzerland to Perugia for questioning.


I quote from a post I wrote that I had titled Rudy had a phone?:

We find out about the happened by means of the Police of Perugia. The newspapers had done to themselves echo of the brutal murder of one Erasmus Englishwoman, but nobody between the Spanish we relate the event to Guede. «Come to Police station immediately». Carlos and Carolina were in Switzerland when they received the call of the agents. At its arrival to Perugia they accompanied them to the Police station. The call of Guede to Carlos the day of Halloween had been the culprit of the subpoena.


Link to my post which has link to a newpaper article written in Spanish
by 1 of the Spanish Erasmus students, named Nacho Azparen:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=6032

I'd be curious to find out when Carlos and Carolina were called by the Perugian police and asked to come back to Perugia, for it appears that ILE had Rudy Guede's phone # or SIM #.
See ya,
RW

http://www.lne.es/sucesos/2011/10/05/copas-asesino-perugia/1138272.html


From the article:

Guede shared with the Spanish electricity costs of the building. The level of intimacy among neighbors Carolina enabled him to see the house of Guede. "I had a very small room full of computers. I was surprised because we had no internet there. He explained that in addition to Armani worked in something related to computers, as his father did, "she says her neighbor in 2007. The Ivorian lifestyle attracted attention. It was common to stay away from home for several days. In his absence, Guede said he traveled to Milan, to account for his work for Armani. The use of Ivorian course was to prepare the lighting systems in presentations and walkways. "Ever he taught us photos hugged Giorgio Armani. But something did not fit, "underscores Carolina.

 

[Grinder]

ETA - from article:

We find out what happened by Perugia police. The newspapers had echoed the brutal murder of an English Erasmus, but nobody among Spaniards relate the event with Guede. "Come to the police station immediately." Carlos and Carolina were in Switzerland when they received the call from the agents. On arrival at Perugia they accompanied them to the police station. Guede call Carlos on Halloween was to blame for the subpoena.

Someone saw phone records

 

[Bill Williams]

Same reason Curatolo got involved.....he was probably coerced into it, a deal.

Of course I have no evidence to prove this, so it must be true per the PGP mentality.

Too bad Toto died in police custody all of a sudden...maybe he could have offered more information of why he got involved and how his testimony came about.

Treason never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers none dare call it treason.

Same with a police conspiracy.

 

[acbytesla]

You must believe Diaz's reporting of frequent cell use outside his apartment, correct?

IIRC the Spanish kids said he had two phones but didn't give them a number. Why would that be? Saving minutes for more important business?

Who would have acquired a phone bill of Rudi's and made it public? I would imagine his bill if known would be with his case file. Have you even looked for it? If not, maybe that's why you have never found it. Could he have used stolen SIM cards that couldn't be traced? Maybe that's why he didn't give out his number to non business contacts.

Perhaps one of the phones Koko had was Rudi's.

Why would Koko make a deal? What sort of deal? When was it arranged? Before in went to Albania or after? If the PLE were involved, wouldn't the story have been a little better?

I have looked at most of the documents at IA. I haven't seen it there. They have few documents from Rudy's fast track trial. But there isn't a bill as far as I know.

All, your questions about Rudy and Koko are good. I just don't have any of the answers.