Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

It surprises me after following this case all this time that there are still significant details that I don't know about. From this site:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/



Probably almost everybody posting here is aware of this site and the page linked to above, but this page is the most comprehensive list of the overwhelming evidence for Guede's guilt that I've seen. The wounds on Guede's hands that are consistent with wounds that would have occurred from stabbing somebody and having one's hands slip from the hilt on to the blade is something I've haven't seen before.

This is a link to the video I was referring to:
The part where Moore starts blaming the Perugia police of intentionally not seeking out Guede and knowingly prosecuting innocent people begins at about the 24 minute mark.

I think I've seen the arguments on both sides of the issue and it appears to me that neither possibility is all that likely which is problematic since one of the two possibilities must be true. In these situations I rely on Grinder and since Grinder thinks it's unlikely that the police conspired to convict people that they knew to be innocent I'll go with that until I see some compelling evidence one way or the other.

Note I'd use the word frame here but in this situation I don't think it would annoy Grinder so I think it was correct not to use the term here.

Dave, I agree with Grinder. I think Steve Moore is wrong. I don't believe the police recognized the rock to be Rudi's MO. I don't believe they made a connection on day one between the rock on Filomena's floor and the breakin at the lawyers' office. I also don't believe Rudi was an important police source to be protected as others maintain.

Remember the stress and anger the police must have felt against the killer of the English student as they bent over her wounded body. If Napoleoni and her squad had thought that that African did this they would have quickly learned his address and within minutes of that kicked in his door.

 

[Strozzi]

Strozzi if you want to agree with Tesla you will have to believe they can frame a guilty person.

I absolutely and completely believe they can and have framed a person innocent of the crime charged.

Being a 2nd city sort of guy I would expect you would understand framing

I'm sure the Chicago cops also fabricated evidence against usual suspects that may well have been guilty.

Yes, I believe cops can fabricate evidence against guilty people as well as innocent people. They can fabricate it against both. Framing is framing. .

ETA: When done against a guilty person, it is for the purpose of getting him convicted and to demonstrate to the guilty person that the cops are all powerful and can play hardball. When done to an innocent person it is to justify having made the arrest, or to cover up police impropriety (unnecessary roughness?) in the arrest, or to show someone they don't like who they may believe is troublesome or who has gotten away with other things that we can get you, and also for the purpose of closing an inconvenient criminal case.

 

[christianahannah]

Article

Esplora il significato del termine: ROME - A new process could not ascertain the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. The ROME - A new process could not ascertain the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. The "proof used was so contradictory," it is impossible to overcome the doubts and inconsistencies. Therefore, after eight hours of discussion, the judges of the fifth section of the Court of Cassation, were all agreed on canceling the sentence to 28 years and six months for Amanda Knox and Raffaele 25 years "without referral." "Absurd," This is the shared line, it would be "to have a new trial relying on clues so fleeting."

I don't know how but I missed this article from March after the acquittals. Being that it is Fiorenza (of Amanda diary book fame) who has written this article I imagine she has solid sources (and with quotes) who have confirmed this as so. Thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, I believe cops can fabricate evidence against guilty people as well as innocent people. They can fabricate it against both. Framing is framing. .

Grrrrrrr

 

[carbonjam72]

To clarify, from memory the meeting was 7 hours and at the end Biscotti said Rudy did not name anyone because there was no one to name. Someone may do better than this, I think it was 17 11 07

Thought this was the interview with Guede and his lawyer Biscotti, and Mignini and Judge Matteini. And was held when Guede was first returned from Germany on Dec 7, 2007. (IIRC).

btw, Guede's case file is still under seal for some reason, but may come out eventually.

 

[carbonjam72]

give a theory its due, before you try to knock it down

Dave, I agree with Grinder. I think Steve Moore is wrong. I don't believe the police recognized the rock to be Rudi's MO. I don't believe they made a connection on day one between the rock on Filomena's floor and the breakin at the lawyers' office. I also don't believe Rudi was an important police source to be protected as others maintain.

Remember the stress and anger the police must have felt against the killer of the English student as they bent over her wounded body. If Napoleoni and her squad had thought that that African did this they would have quickly learned his address and within minutes of that kicked in his door.

Rudy being an "important source" isn't necessary to the idea that he was a source, he did receive assistance from perugia police both before and after the kercher crime, and that one or more police did recognize Rudy's break-in MO on day one - which Steve Moore asserts, and Judge Nencini appears to concede in his motivation report.

Rudy doesnt need to be a secret agent, to be an embarrassment.

 

[Desert Fox]

Rudy being an "important source" isn't necessary to the idea that he was a source, he did receive assistance from perugia police both before and after the kercher crime, and that one or more police did recognize Rudy's break-in MO on day one - which Steve Moore asserts, and Judge Nencini appears to concede in his motivation report.

Rudy doesnt need to be a secret agent, to be an embarrassment.

There have been a number of cases of police informants doing some pretty horrendous crimes.

 

[Numbers]

Thought this was the interview with Guede and his lawyer Biscotti, and Mignini and Judge Matteini. And was held when Guede was first returned from Germany on Dec 7, 2007. (IIRC).

btw, Guede's case file is still under seal for some reason, but may come out eventually.

Rudy being an "important source" isn't necessary to the idea that he was a source, he did receive assistance from perugia police both before and after the kercher crime, and that one or more police did recognize Rudy's break-in MO on day one - which Steve Moore asserts, and Judge Nencini appears to concede in his motivation report.

Rudy doesnt need to be a secret agent, to be an embarrassment.

I think that Rudi's case file remaining under seal is an important clue - not necessarily to Rudy being a police source - but to the police and prosecution suppression of evidence to promote their official misconduct against Amanda and Raffaele. Revealing what the authorities knew about Rudi's involvement in the case (not that they necessarily recognized his break-in MO) from his friends' and Rudy's own statements would have damaged the fabricated case against Amanda and Raffaele and embarrassed the police and prosecution.

 

[Grinder]

Rudy being an "important source" isn't necessary to the idea that he was a source, he did receive assistance from perugia police both before and after the kercher crime, and that one or more police did recognize Rudy's break-in MO on day one - which Steve Moore asserts, and Judge Nencini appears to concede in his motivation report.

Rudy doesnt need to be a secret agent, to be an embarrassment.

There is nothing that shows they "knew" his MO if he even had one. Nencini writing only is in the context of the defense assertions.

He didn't receive assistance from the PLE. Read the Prato account of why he was released.

This stuff has no more basis in reality than the mixed blood found at the cottage.

How does Moore know what the police knew? Did he quote Follain or Nina?

Since it is also the PIP meme that Rudi was broke and needed money for rent do you and Moore contend that Rudi did his informing pro bono?

What was he informing about? Why do you think not one person he was informing on has sold his story?

 

[carbonjam72]

I think that Rudi's case file remaining under seal is an important clue - not necessarily to Rudy being a police source - but to the police and prosecution suppression of evidence to promote their official misconduct against Amanda and Raffaele. Revealing what the authorities knew about Rudi's involvement in the case (not that they necessarily recognized his break-in MO) from his friends' and Rudy's own statements would have damaged the fabricated case against Amanda and Raffaele and embarrassed the police and prosecution.

Why did they go so hard after Patrick Lumumba, so early? Media pressure to solve the case? Ok. So the decision to continue the case against knox and Raf was what then?

Mignini couldn't let go of his prize criminal/media sensation (knox), because it confirmed his satanic orgy theories for which he was himself then being prosecuted?

I can go either way on Guede being an informant. It just requires so many errors by police - on day one - that are hard to believe were just coincidence.

The reasons for believing a staged break-in made no sense, and don't sound true. imo. we've been over this before.

So I agree with your point about Guede's case being under seal not necessarily pointing to his being an informant. Nor though can it be excluded.

We just need more data. No way around it.

 

[Mary_H]

Dave, I agree with Grinder. I think Steve Moore is wrong. I don't believe the police recognized the rock to be Rudi's MO. I don't believe they made a connection on day one between the rock on Filomena's floor and the breakin at the lawyers' office. I also don't believe Rudi was an important police source to be protected as others maintain.<snip>

I agree. Rudy didn't have an MO.

 

[carbonjam72]

There is nothing that shows they "knew" his MO if he even had one. Nencini writing only is in the context of the defense assertions.

He didn't receive assistance from the PLE. Read the Prato account of why he was released.

This stuff has no more basis in reality than the mixed blood found at the cottage.

How does Moore know what the police knew? Did he quote Follain or Nina?

Since it is also the PIP meme that Rudi was broke and needed money for rent do you and Moore contend that Rudi did his informing pro bono?

What was he informing about? Why do you think not one person he was informing on has sold his story?

First lets acknowledge that you and I are not dealing with the same data set. You don't accept Burleigh, Dempsey or other journalists' research as legitimate, without complete documentation. I don't think that's a reasonable approach, but that's your choice.
Second, IIRC, Nencini uses the police's familiarity with Rudy's signature break-in style in his motivation report, to conclude that Rudy didn't stage the break-in, since Nencini has assumed that the break-in was staged (following the cassation 2013 ruling as he saw it). Nencini was arguing that Rudy wouldn't stage a break-in in his own style, because the police would know it was him. Its a crazy argument. If Rudy had a recognizable style, you would think he would change it, but that's Nencini.

Third, I haven't had a chance to read Del Prato's testimony, but I will, so thanks for reminding me. BUT, IIRC, someone pointed out that Del Prato described a lady's gold watch found in Rudy's backpack? Is that true that she said that? Because i seem to recall you doubting that fact upthread. Wondering if her testimony, if that's what it is, changes your mind on this point? Fourth, I don't know Mr Moore. He doesn't consult with me. But you're being facetious, right? Concerning what Rudy was informing on, how he was paid, etc, I would rely on people experienced in law enforcement for more insight - people like Steve Moore.

How would anyone know Rudy had informed on them, have a story to tell, or want to admit they were a criminal in the first place? Doesn't seem likely to me, but your welcome to speculate.

Raf reported in his book that Rudy left town and skipped out on his rent. Do you have any basis for your belief that Rudy was not basically unemployed, destitute, and dependent on drug sales and petty crime to finance his clubbing, drug taking & drinking life-style. (HINT: Your zero evidenced belief that Rudy was a fence and therefore was financially well off, constitutes circular reasoning).

 

[Numbers]

Why did they go so hard after Patrick Lumumba, so early? Media pressure to solve the case? Ok. So the decision to continue the case against knox and Raf was what then?

Mignini couldn't let go of his prize criminal/media sensation (knox), because it confirmed his satanic orgy theories for which he was himself then being prosecuted?

I can go either way on Guede being an informant. It just requires so many errors by police - on day one - that are hard to believe were just coincidence.

The reasons for believing a staged break-in made no sense, and don't sound true. imo. we've been over this before.

So I agree with your point about Guede's case being under seal not necessarily pointing to his being an informant. Nor though can it be excluded.

We just need more data. No way around it.

They let Lumumba go but kept him under pressure, for example by keeping his pub closed as a crime scene for months. Otherwise, he could have pursued charges under CP Art. 377-bis against the police for their mistreatment of him (beating, threats) when he had been arrested.

Mignini kept the case against Amanda (and thus Sollecito) because of his obsessions. But both Mignini and the police commanders needed to keep the case going to prevent being charged with mistreatment of Amanda during her interrogation (CP Art. 377-bis).

 

[Bill Williams]

There is nothing that shows they "knew" his MO if he even had one. Nencini writing only is in the context of the defense assertions.

It's hard to know why Nencini wrote anything in that mess of a motivations report. Everything that Luca Cheli wrote about it when it was released in April 2014 has (apparently) come true, giving that the ISC has annulled it.

If Nencini wrote about Rudy have an M.O. which was known by the PLE, and if Nencini got this from "defence assertions", that makes Neninci's reasons for anything even more suspect. It suggests that Nencini, as a judge, simply cannot track assertions and their origins. Think about it; why would he take a defence assertion to buttress a point that no one, really, is making....

...... that it was Rugy Guede himself who staged a crime scene to look like his own M.O.?

Perhaps the Hellmann motivations report is "officially" annulled, but for sure both the Massei as well as Nencini motivations reports ARE officially and with finality annulled. Reading through Cheli's observations IMO is a good roadmap for why the latter was trashed. There are parts of it which simply make no sense.

I can't remember if Cheli wrote it in his piece, or as further commentary on IIP, but there are sections where Nencini starts to develop a point, and then simply drops it without resolving it. This led to Cheli surmising that maybe the report had multiple authors, and there was no compiler to read it through one last time to check for things like that.

It also led others to opine that maybe Nencini thought that AK and RS were factually innocent, but had been directed, in essence, to convict by the 2013 ISC. The way he fixed the situation was to find them guilty and write a completely nonsensical motivations report, leaving the final ISC section no choice but to acquit.

Sound crazy? What about this 7 1/2 year odyssey has not been crazy.

 

[Strozzi]

Why did they go so hard after Patrick Lumumba, so early? Media pressure to solve the case? Ok. So the decision to continue the case against knox and Raf was what then?
. . .

Carbonjam, the PLE went hard after Lumumba at dawn because Amanda just identified him in the 1 am interrogation and the PLE felt heavy pressure from the public and the media to solve the vicious crime. Napoleoni would not have told many others just how she and her assistants got Amanda to believe the recipient of her "see you later" text was the killer, or how they after 2 hours of hostile interrogation they led Amanda to believe she was at the cottage during the crime although Amanda had no memory of it and in fact for the first two hours insisted she was at Raffaele's.

The interrogation was hostile, nasty, and manipulative which is why the police did not want a recording - even though the interrogation's purpose was to extract compromising statements which a prosecution would normally want recorded. (Police would normally have wanted the statements recorded; just not what they did to extract (create) them.)

 

[acbytesla]

I see the act of planting evidence to incriminate someone as "framing". From Grinder's perspective it is only "framing" if that someone is actually innocent. Otherwise it is only good policework. Right Captain Dudley Smith?

 

[Grinder]

First lets acknowledge that you and I are not dealing with the same data set. You don't accept Burleigh, Dempsey or other journalists' research as legitimate, without complete documentation. I don't think that's a reasonable approach, but that's your choice.

Dempsey if a journalist at all, is only just barely. Nina has been shown to have inaccuracies in her novel.

But it is hilarious that I'm accused of the fallacy of authority for quoting mainline dictionaries but you can even begin to quote song and verse from books that aren't even sourced.

Second, IIRC, Nencini uses the police's familiarity with Rudy's signature break-in style in his motivation report, to conclude that Rudy didn't stage the break-in, since Nencini has assumed that the break-in was staged (following the cassation 2013 ruling as he saw it). Nencini was arguing that Rudy wouldn't stage a break-in in his own style, because the police would know it was him. Its a crazy argument. If Rudy had a recognizable style, you would think he would change it, but that's Nencini.

I read it that Nencini was repeating a defense assertion and then saying if they were right about his well known pattern then he wouldn't use that well known MO for a stage. Even if I misread it why in the world in the maze of things he totally got wrong would you believe this one. Do you have any evidence that the court was ever informed of the police knowing his MO? I followed the trials and don't remember a Vogt, Nadeau, Dempsey, Burleigh, Pisa, or anybody reporting the police or prosecutors discussing the known MO. So if Nencini did say what you think he said then he disclosed a very significant sensitive item.

Third, I haven't had a chance to read Del Prato's testimony, but I will, so thanks for reminding me. BUT, IIRC, someone pointed out that Del Prato described a lady's gold watch found in Rudy's backpack? Is that true that she said that?

Yes that has been known for a long time. It was in the Massei Report.

Because i seem to recall you doubting that fact upthread. Wondering if her testimony, if that's what it is, changes your mind on this point?

The doubt is that Nina's account of the alleged break in, fire, severely damaged house and dead cat was accurate. Since the watch was known years before the Nina claim, that very fact is part of why I doubt Nina.

Fourth, I don't know Mr Moore. He doesn't consult with me. But you're being facetious, right? Concerning what Rudy was informing on, how he was paid, etc, I would rely on people experienced in law enforcement for more insight - people like Steve Moore.

You like the authority thing don't you? Moore AFAIK had no experience in Italy at all and spent very little time in the FBI dealing with this type of crime. He was a pilot and did some lead on anti-terrorism before going to work at Pepperdine. Did Moore detail the workings of the Rudi/PLE arrangement? How much was he paid? Whom did he inform on?

How would anyone know Rudy had informed on them, have a story to tell, or want to admit they were a criminal in the first place? Doesn't seem likely to me, but your welcome to speculate.

Well when they bust you, you might just figure it out. They would sell their story for plenty and it's not like they aren't known to be criminals after the Rudi caper got them.

Raf reported in his book that Rudy left town and skipped out on his rent. Do you have any basis for your belief that Rudy was not basically unemployed, destitute, and dependent on drug sales and petty crime to finance his clubbing, drug taking & drinking life-style. (HINT: Your zero evidenced belief that Rudy was a fence and therefore was financially well off, constitutes circular reasoning).

Proof that he wasn't destitute, no. Do you have proof that he was? It's just so hard to keep track of all the FOA PIP theories. Rudi knew the nursery was available because he had just stolen 2000 Euro there circa Oct. 13 but didn't pay his rent and was destitute. Or he didn't know the place but found it by walking around Milan looking for the unlocked door. When you read the Prato interview you will learn the door opened with a push and all the staff knew it. You have him stealing things all over Perugia, working as an informant for the PLE but making little or no money. Being a fence doesn't make one well off. You and one other seems to think there is a significant barrier to entry in the fencing business. Some guys steal. Some guys sell. Some do both. I'm guessing you haven't read Rudi's interview either where he lists his job history.

 

[acbytesla]

Dempsey if a journalist at all, is only just barely. Nina has been shown to have inaccuracies in her novel.

But it is hilarious that I'm accused of the fallacy of authority for quoting mainline dictionaries but you can even begin to quote song and verse from books that aren't even sourced.



I read it that Nencini was repeating a defense assertion and then saying if they were right about his well known pattern then he wouldn't use that well known MO for a stage. Even if I misread it why in the world in the maze of things he totally got wrong would you believe this one. Do you have any evidence that the court was ever informed of the police knowing his MO? I followed the trials and don't remember a Vogt, Nadeau, Dempsey, Burleigh, Pisa, or anybody reporting the police or prosecutors discussing the known MO. So if Nencini did say what you think he said then he disclosed a very significant sensitive item.



Yes that has been known for a long time. It was in the Massei Report.



The doubt is that Nina's account of the alleged break in, fire, severely damaged house and dead cat was accurate. Since the watch was known years before the Nina claim, that very fact is part of why I doubt Nina.



You like the authority thing don't you? Moore AFAIK had no experience in Italy at all and spent very little time in the FBI dealing with this type of crime. He was a pilot and did some lead on anti-terrorism before going to work at Pepperdine. Did Moore detail the workings of the Rudi/PLE arrangement? How much was he paid? Whom did he inform on?



Well when they bust you, you might just figure it out. They would sell their story for plenty and it's not like they aren't known to be criminals after the Rudi caper got them.



Proof that he wasn't destitute, no. Do you have proof that he was? It's just so hard to keep track of all the FOA PIP theories.

Rudi knew the nursery was available because he had just stolen 2000 Euro there circa Oct. 13 but didn't pay his rent and was destitute. Or he didn't know the place but found it by walking around Milan looking for the unlocked door. When you read the Prato interview you will learn the door opened with a push and all the staff knew it.

You have him stealing things all over Perugia, working as an informant for the PLE but making little or no money. Being a fence doesn't make one well off. You and one other seems to think there is a significant barrier to entry in the fencing business. Some guys steal. Some guys sell. Some do both.

I'm guessing you haven't read Rudi's interview either where he lists his job history.

I'm not sure I believe that Rudy was an informant, I also agree withave Grinder that there is no way we should expect that Rudy had a tell tale signature that would make his burglaries standout. But I still think that Grinder's pet theory that Rudy was a fence is a castle in the air. Nowhere does anyone other than Grinder suggest that he is a fence.

I also don't find it strange that Rudy skipped out on the rent since he went on the lamb. That is really only logical. I do think there is a good possibility that he was the one who stole the 2000 Euros the month before...but I know that is just speculation. I also don't think Rudy had to be broke to steal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Carbonjam, the PLE went hard after Lumumba at dawn because Amanda just identified him in the 1 am interrogation and the PLE felt heavy pressure from the public and the media to solve the vicious crime. Napoleoni would not have told many others just how she and her assistants got Amanda to believe the recipient of her "see you later" text was the killer, or how they after 2 hours of hostile interrogation they led Amanda to believe she was at the cottage during the crime although Amanda had no memory of it and in fact for the first two hours insisted she was at Raffaele's.

The interrogation was hostile, nasty, and manipulative which is why the police did not want a recording - even though the interrogation's purpose was to extract compromising statements which a prosecution would normally want recorded. (Police would normally have wanted the statements recorded; just not what they did to extract (create) them.)

The real disconnect is that Mignini described Knox as a liar and a consummate actress, then said he was in favour of going out to arrest Lumumba because, "Amanda accused him."

You tell me - there's stuff in the PLE's behaviour/accountings that simply do not add up.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Fourth, I don't know Mr Moore. He doesn't consult with me. But you're being facetious, right? Concerning what Rudy was informing on, how he was paid, etc, I would rely on people experienced in law enforcement for more insight - people like Steve Moore.

<snip>You like the authority thing don't you? Moore AFAIK had no experience in Italy at all and spent very little time in the FBI dealing with this type of crime. He was a pilot and did some lead on anti-terrorism before going to work at Pepperdine. Did Moore detail the workings of the Rudi/PLE arrangement? How much was he paid? Whom did he inform on? <snip>

Steve Moore did not originate the theory that Rudy was an informer. I believe the first person to write about it was English journalist Bob Graham:

But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer.

Mark Waterbury then ran with that story, calling it "information" instead of "speculation." Did Steve Moore agree? I don't know. If he has ever said anything about it, someone should provide a citation.

To this day, there is no evidence Rudy was a police informant.