Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

This is where I side with you CJ. I don't doubt that you can find minor issues with some of the PIP early memes. Some that even hung around for a while. I was always troubled with the descriptions of Rudy as a drifter, foreigner and drug dealer. To me a drifter is rootless, someone who drifts from town to town. As for a foreigner, technically true, but I wouldn't say it is accurate. That would be like referring to me as from out of state, when I've lived here for 90 percent of my life. As for being a drug dealer. Was he really? I've known people that have sold an ounce or 2, while technically they could be called dealers, in reality they weren't. I mean it wasn't their profession.

Well saying Mignini announced at the presser that they had receipts for bleach and proof she cleaned the cottage isn't minor and he said it on March 7,2015.

I think there is evidence that Rudi was a seller of drugs from students. I may have it wrong but Thoughtful's son in law was one IIRC.

I'm sure few here have read Rudi's stuff from Germany or his interview with Mig and Nappy but I think they give some insight (not incite right LJ ) into who he was. He wasn't a drifter at all. He had a number of jobs up to the murder. He knew a lot of people and very few spoke ill of him.

 

[Dougm]

This is where I side with you CJ. I don't doubt that you can find minor issues with some of the PIP early memes. Some that even hung around for a while. I was always troubled with the descriptions of Rudy as a drifter, foreigner and drug dealer. To me a drifter is rootless, someone who drifts from town to town. As for a foreigner, technically true, but I wouldn't say it is accurate. That would be like referring to me as from out of state, when I've lived here for 90 percent of my life. As for being a drug dealer. Was he really? I've known people that have sold an ounce or 2, while technically they could be called dealers, in reality they weren't. I mean it wasn't their profession.

I see quite a bit of reference to "early FOA memes", and if those were accurate or not. I don't think that is what Grinder is talking about -- and Moore and Clemente were not involved early on. I think this is more of a discussion of expanded ideas that have evolved as the case has gone on.

That said, although I can't disagree with Grinder about the statements in the videos to be inaccurate, I also only think it matters if someone takes those statements and runs with them, making a big story about Rudy being an informant, or some other issue that is not proven. I've spoken to Steve Moore about this, and, based on his experience in the way cops work, he thinks there is something very fishy about the way Rudy was treated in the time leading up to the crime. I think Clemente has similar views -- they don't see how so many "mistakes" could have been made by experienced cops and prosecutors. So, their experience tells them that a lot of these "mistakes" were not mistakes at all, but purposeful.

Also, I have found every single person who has commented on this case, including every journalist, etc., has made factual errors when they report or talk about it. It doesn't make me discredit their whole account. Do factual errors (like the Moore statement about the press conference) make me discount that person's POV? It depends on what that POV is, and how much it fits into the facts that we know. Although I am personally doubtful about Steve Moore's hypothesis that Rudy was an informant, I believe he is sincere in that belief, has a lot of experience with law enforcement, and how they do their jobs. I tend to agree there is something fishy about Rudy being caught, in a nursery school of all places, and not being arrested. Maybe that is how they do things in Italy? All I can say is, try doing that in your locality, and see if the police let you go. I don't care if you "break in", or how you want to define being in a school for young children, with stolen goods and a knife in your possession, but just try it and see if you get arrested. I know he was ultimately prosecuted for possession of the stolen goods, but that could be to counter this "they treated Rudy with kid gloves" idea.

I also think there are a wide range of opinions about this subject from people in the PIP camp, and not all think in lockstep. Yes, Moore and Clemente have gotten some facts wrong occasionally. But their basic premise that the case was a travesty, and the police and prosecution actions smell to high heaven, is valid. It's not the same as Barbie Nadeau saying they must have been high on hard drugs, when she has no evidence of that at all. Or people who have speculated that Amanda is some sort of wild sex killer, when her sexual life was tame compared to many students her age.

I agree we should hope that people don't make factual errors, but the types of errors matter, IMO.

 

[acbytesla]

Well saying Mignini announced at the presser that they had receipts for bleach and proof she cleaned the cottage isn't minor and he said it on March 7,2015.

I think there is evidence that Rudi was a seller of drugs from students. I may have it wrong but Thoughtful's son in law was one IIRC.

I'm sure few here have read Rudi's stuff from Germany or his interview with Mig and Nappy but I think they give some insight (not incite right LJ ) into who he was. He wasn't a drifter at all. He had a number of jobs up to the murder. He knew a lot of people and very few spoke ill of him.

I definitely think Steve Moore exaggerated. He liked being on TV and was good for the quick soundbite of today's news. I think he's a lot like many of us. He quickly realized that the prosecution story about this young woman was a total farce and was compelled to act. I don't think he is or ever was a good source for the details. I also think he conflated events and facts, which in this case was dam easy to do. But I think he cared less about small details then he did about rallying the troops and changing opinions.

I see Nina has a true reporter and writer. Caught between the two worlds of writing. I believe she was at times in her career a plain old newspaper reporter. But she also knows how to write something that sells. She did her homework and actually talked to people. Prato I think said she was one of only 2 reporters that interviewed her. I also thought she was a bit flowery in her descriptions. The Dickens reference was a bit much for me, she probably was trying to do something similar with the pounds of pasta.

 

[Grinder]

I can't agree that what Moore said on March 7, 2007 was a little error. He could be sued for it and I wouldn't doubt that Mignini if aware of might not just do it and he would win.

Here's a snip from a GR article by Denver - In the last article, AMERICA’S HYPOCRISY , we disclosed a new theory developed by two distinguished, retired FBI agents. What was disclosed is the highly probable conclusion that all the “mistakes” in the persecution of Amanda (and Raffaele as her alibi) were deliberate tactics as a strategy to protect a police informant.

Let’s look at the possibility that Rudy Guede was a police informant through the eyes of DUALITY.

First, how and why would Rudy have been a police informant?

As we have all heard, and as released by the prosecutor’s office, the “official” story was that Rudy was a drifter, a small time thief and a minor league drug dealer.

This was one of over 8000 hits using guede and informant.

Here's an IIP snip by Waterbury:

Rudy Guede, whom the overwhelming evidence points to as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, was a police informant.

In an article in the British newspaper The Daily Express, Bob Graham reveals the stunning news that Rudy Guede committed an entire series of crimes in the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher, crimes that were deliberately ignored by Italian authorities.

“It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing.

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

It is a well known fact that police often overlook crimes committed by informants, and it is a well known fact that one of the marks of an informant is that they can get away with crimes. From the Wikipedia entry on informants:

yet elsewhere: Injustice Anywhere has no opinion one way or another if Rudy Guede was a police informant as some have speculated but a legitimate question worth asking

As Clemente says the job of the defense is to get their clients off - they are off so now I'd like to dispense with the BS.

 

[Ken Dine]

This description actually fits Hicham Khiri rather than Lumumba - he is, or was at the time, a chef in a Perugia restaurant, and is North African (unlike Lumumba, who I think would be described as Southern African, or at any rate not North African).

Khiri was interviewed twice, on Nov 3rd and Nov 4th, apparently as a result of being mentioned by Sophie Purton, but Amanda also mentioned Khiri to Rita Ficarra on Nov 5th (if not earlier). I think Sophie was even dating Khiri at the time.

Khiri’s alibi wasn’t that good since he did admit to being near the cottage around 12:20 am the night Meredith was murdered - Khiri apparently had dropped a friend off at the parking garage across from the cottage, so the police would have had him on tape from the same CCTV security cam that had captured many other people that night (except, Amanda & Raffaele, of course). 12:20 am was within the time-frame the police were then working under.

Khiri also knew Amanda, but likely Khiri didn’t have kinky hair like they found at the crime scene, so the police lost interest in Khiri early on.

If Khiri’s straight hair didn’t exclude Khiri from suspicion, then what else could it have been? Affidavits that Khiri had good bathroom habits, or that he wasn’t a practicing throat-slitting Muslim?

The police obviously had found an African man’s hairs at the crime scene, as proved by Stefanoni’s later testimony. Since an African’s hair is so distinctive, it doesn’t take any extensive testing to determine that the police were dealing with an African suspect early on, so an African suspect was on their radar from Day-1.

The boys downstairs likely mentioned Guede by Nov 3rd since by then the police were clearly already focused in on non-Italian African suspects since they were asking Sophie (and the other English girls), Amanda, as well as the 4 boys, about dark non-Italian men who may have been hanging around Meredith. Of course, Sophie wouldn’t have known about Guede, but Amanda and the 4 boys knew about Guede, and they all mentioned Guede to the police in response to police questions about dark non-Italian men.

Also, Google image search Algerians or Moraccans and a minority of North Africans have frizzy African hair.

The police seem to have been pretty fixated on Khiri up until the 5th November, when according to the recently available documents his boss went into the police station and gave him an alibi. Perhaps not a coincidence that the 5th is also when they turned their attention to Amanda and Raffaele...

I’ve never seen a picture of Khiri, but assuming he has straight hair, the police had likely excluded Khiri back on Nov 3rd during his first interview (at least, as their main suspect). The police did interview Khiri a 2nd time the next day, but that doesn’t mean that they were suspicious of Khiri on the 4th, and by the 5th the police were clearly focused in on Lumumba and Amanda.

By Nov 5th the police were already tapping Amanda’s phone and they were tailing Amanda, which is how the police knew that Amanda had bumped into Lumumba in the afternoon of Nov 5th as they chatted for a few minutes in the center of town.

On Nov 5th (if not earlier) Amanda had also told Rita Ficarra about a ‘Black’ basketball playing friend of the 4 boys, but she didn’t know Guede’s name. In that same interview Amanda also mentioned Lumumba to Ficarro, along with 3 or 4 other "dark non-Italian men”.

Guede would only later become a suspect after DNA had cleared Lumumba. On Nov 6th when the police had their victorious ‘Case Closed’ news conference to announce they had caught the 3 perps, Guede certainly wasn’t on their minds that day, otherwise they wouldn’t have announced ‘Case Closed’!

That the police didn’t interview Lumumba earlier than Nov 6th doesn’t mean he wasn’t a suspect and being watched. Indeed, some of the senior police had argued in the morning of Nov 6th to keep watching Lumumba instead of immediately arresting him since Lumumba would be entitled to a lawyer at that point, but saner heads didn’t prevail that morning.

 

[carbonjam72]

Big Picture and Small Picture of Rudy, as lone killer, seem to align

Tesla: This is where I side with you CJ. I don't doubt that you can find minor issues with some of the PIP early memes. Some that even hung around for a while. I was always troubled with the descriptions of Rudy as a drifter, foreigner and drug dealer. To me a drifter is rootless, someone who drifts from town to town. As for a foreigner, technically true, but I wouldn't say it is accurate. That would be like referring to me as from out of state, when I've lived here for 90 percent of my life. As for being a drug dealer. Was he really? I've known people that have sold an ounce or 2, while technically they could be called dealers, in reality they weren't. I mean it wasn't their profession.

I doubt they are here as they are very good at their games.

The informer theory was discussed and someone used Moore as the source with the appeal to authority to bolster. I found or was directed to the vids and found huge mistakes. Clemente may have a case for only meaning the knives in the drawer but his statement remains highly deceptive as it implies they only checked the kitchen knife from Raf's which isn't true. He also says the prosecution's forensic expert admitted or said it wasn't the murder weapon. Now we know that wasn't true but Clemente might say that there were murder weapons so it wasn't THE murder weapon and I say BS.
So if people are going to base their claim that Rudi was an informant on Moore's word I think they should get the backing or drop the contention.

As I have said earlier, now that the kids have been found not guilty we should be freed up even more than before to challenge PIP talking points to further getting to the truth.

I think you correctly anticipated Clemente's actual meaning here, but choose not to accept it.
I agree that Clemente doesn't accept that there was a second knife, and so when he refers to the knife being inconsistent with the knife wounds, he means the two knife wounds that are consistent with a single small blade entering to a consistent depth and plunged to the hilt causing bruising on the surrounding flesh.

Since the major wound would be consistent with any sharp object, including a shard of glass, its pretty clear Clemente isn't giving the theory of multiple knives any credibility to respond to. For that reason, Clemente's statement is absolutely correct.
There's one set of foot prints in wet blood, only significant traces of one person at the crime scene, Rudy Guede, in DNA, fingerprints, palmprints, footprints, and Rudy admits being there and had previously said Amanda was not and he didn't know Raf. There's no reason to believe a second person was with Rudy, and no reason to believe a second knife was used.

Its only by twisting irrelevant minor details into false discrepancies that Clemente's plain meaning can be misunderstood, imo.

The fact that you wish to pursue a hypothesis that trained crime scene analysis experts like Moore, Clemente and Douglas have already thoroughly discredited, simply has no basis in established fact that I've seen put forward to date.

But you're not alone here, RWBL I believe is also fascinated by the possibility of multiple assailants.

Regarding the theory that Rudy was an informant, I've heard Moore's analysis on this, both from some video appearances, and also in the chapter he wrote in the book; "Rudy Guede, The Forgotten Killer" (not sure if I got the title correct).

Also, Bob Graham also wrote an article interviewing Mignini, and Mignini himself appeared to concede that Guede may have been an informant since he had a background that police would normally look to for such people.

I think the 'Rudy was a drifter/ Rudy had jobs' dispute is a false dichotomy. I think Rudy had both. He had been adopted by a wealthy family who loved him and supported him as far as they could, but eventually had to separate from him. Even so, I've seen it reported that the adoptive mother still helped him get his apartment in Perugia.

We don't know how much continuing financial support Rudy received from the family, but we do know Rudy had a job as a waiter that ended when the restaurant closed.

We also know that Rudy portrayed himself as a South African, and specialist at IT working for Armani, and that he was an inveterate and fanciful liar.

So we have a picture of two Rudy(s): One the socially able long term resident of Perugia, capable of winning friends albeit with fanciful tales of fake professions; and second, Rudy the small time burglar/criminal/drug dealer, scratching out a living through petty theft, and as Tesla has described it, luxuriating at the crime scenes, making himself at home, cooking pasta and helping himself to food, and recreating the imaginary home life he no doubt craves. Nina Burleigh wrote about Rudy's blackout fugue states, waking up miles from home, or assuming alternate personalities like "a dog, or a professor".

These two versions of Rudy are not mutually exclusive, they both appear to be true.

Once again, as the Italians tried to paint Amanda as having a "double nature", its a projection of the true killer Rudy Guede, who in point of fact did have this "double nature".

If you doubt every source that contradicts your pet theory of multiple assailants, and falsely defending/covering Rudy's amply demonstrated dark side, its just hard to have a debate on the merits.

(Patially Ninja'd by DougM, and particularly interested that Doug actually had a chance to discuss the 'Rudy informant' theory with Moore.)

 

[sept79]

I can't agree that what Moore said on March 7, 2007 was a little error. He could be sued for it and I wouldn't doubt that Mignini if aware of might not just do it and he would win.

.
.
.

As Clemente says the job of the defense is to get their clients off - they are off so now I'd like to dispense with the BS.

Why don't you just give it a rest ?

 

[carbonjam72]

It seems she did. Del Prato didn't mention it in her testimony and you'd think she would have since she was asked questions about the theft. I also think it's odd she didn't report it to police. 2000 euros of stolen tuition is a lot of money for a small nursery.

But I don't think it really matters about Burleigh's book. It's just a book. My opinion on innocence certainly isn't based on it.

I guess I just disagree with the logical step you're making here, as I have with grinder previously.

The 'pounds of pasta' is a small detail, and one that Nina apparently fished out through dogged investigation, the kind journalists are supposed to do.

You're assumption that because the detail isn't in Prato's testimony (taking your word on this), is pretty thin proof that the fact isn't accurate. Maybe Nina got it from some of the investigating police, for example?

And the story of little bowls being set out in the nursery, the "feast" at the fire/burglary of his neighbor and missing woman's gold watch - with a woman's gold watch also being found on Rudy at the Milan nursery, and the recurrent 'making himself at home' theme at the lawyers office break-in and at the Kercher scene, and Rudy's black-out fugue states, and Rudy the harasser of women - these details are all of a piece. They paint a picture, and have a consistency, imo.

Sure, you can question any particular account. But telling a professional journalist they have engaged in career ending fraud, on the basis of your expectations of what would be said in testimony, just seems awfully thin.

So I guess we agree to disagree. But thanks for all the great work you guys do on IIP.

 

[Grinder]

By Nov 5th the police were already tapping Amanda’s phone and they were tailing Amanda, which is how the police knew that Amanda had bumped into Lumumba in the afternoon of Nov 5th as they chatted for a few minutes in the center of town.

On Nov 5th (if not earlier) Amanda had also told Rita Ficarra about a ‘Black’ basketball playing friend of the 4 boys, but she didn’t know Guede’s name. In that same interview Amanda also mentioned Lumumba to Ficarro, along with 3 or 4 other "dark non-Italian men”.

That the police didn’t interview Lumumba earlier than Nov 6th doesn’t mean he wasn’t a suspect and being watched. Indeed, some of the senior police had argued in the morning of Nov 6th to keep watching Lumumba instead of immediately arresting him since Lumumba would be entitled to a lawyer at that point, but saner heads didn’t prevail that morning.

Do you gave the link handy to this interview? I've thought they had Lumumba's name before the night of the 5th.

ETA - I can't find a 5th interview or Lumumba mentioned on tyhe 2nd, 3rd or 4th. I really want to find it as it has been a long time point here.

 

[Numbers]

Only saying "Hiliting" added bugs me more than the hilited above.

I doubt you will find me saying vested interest concerning Hellmann during his court trial. I said he has become an advocate for his court's decision. He made that decision without being an advocate, which is the important aspect. He made his decision with the other judges based on the evidence as they saw it.

Later when under attack he defended the verdict and in that sense became an advocate for the VERDICT.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

What is your opinion of his defending his court's verdict? Do you believe that is appropriate or inappropriate, and why in either case? Do you believe that it is inappropriate for someone to be an advocate for one side or the other in this case, or are your concerns with false information generated by advocates or others? When you identify a particular piece of false information, do you consider whether it is relevant to the case, and to what degree, in light of the totality of information?

Suppose for example that Rudy Guede had committed no known crimes prior to the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher, and for the sake of argument assume that all the evidence of his guilt for those crimes against Kercher is valid (no errors by Stefanoni, etc.). What difference does any previous crime matter? In a US court, any previous prejudicial history may not even be admissible as evidence, since a person must be judged only on the particular crime he was indicted for.

 

[Ken Dine]

Do you gave the link handy to this interview? I've thought they had Lumumba's name before the night of the 5th.

Detective Rita Ficarra’s testiomony from a ‘Guilter’ website:

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rita_Ficarra%27s_Testimony

Which essentially matches Detective Rita Ficarra’s testiomony from a pro-Amanda website, so take your pick:

amandaknoxcase.com/detective-rita-ficarra/

Revisiting the Interrogation

If we only had the testimony of the Perugian police to go on, the answer would be settled over Amanda's interrogation. They treated her like a queen, gave her chamomile and cookies, and out of the blue for no reason, because the police were treating her so nicely, she decided to give them the gift of falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith Kercher.

At least this was the testimony of Perugian officers Monica Napoleoni, Lorena Zuaringi, and Rita Ficarra. However, it is worth noting that their recollection of the final interrogation before Amanda's arrest materially contradicts the testimony of not only Amanda, but of the lead investigator from Rome, Edgardo Giobbi (you might remember him from this video here).

knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/01/co-prosecutor-manuela-comodi-confirms.html

Since I’m new here I can’t post complete URLs yet, so add the HTTP yourself.

ETA - I can't find a 5th interview or Lumumba mentioned on tyhe 2nd, 3rd or 4th. I really want to find it as it has been a long time point here.

Since it was the Italian police fantasy that Amanda had surprised them with a “spontaneous” accusation about Lumumba in the wee hours of Nov 6th (with no undue prodding by them), the police obviously would never admit that Lumumba was on their radar before that time.

If you BELIEVE (as I do) that the police had found an African man’s hair around Meredith’s body early on, coupled with the police admission that Amanda became a suspect early on (as Edgardo Giobbi admitted on camera in the above linked video), then since the police spent several days looking into Amanda prior to Nov 6th, how could anyone with a functional B$-meter seriously believe that the police were not aware of Lumumba prior to Nov 6th?

 

[Numbers]

Detective Rita Ficarra’s testiomony from a ‘Guilter’ website:

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rita_Ficarra%27s_Testimony

Which essentially matches Detective Rita Ficarra’s testiomony from a pro-Amanda website, so take your pick:

amandaknoxcase.com/detective-rita-ficarra/



Since I’m new here I can’t post complete URLs yet, so add the HTTP yourself.




Since it was the Italian police fantasy that Amanda had surprised them with a “spontaneous” accusation about Lumumba in the wee hours of Nov 6th (with no undue prodding by them), the police obviously would never admit that Lumumba was on their radar before that time.

If you BELIEVE (as I do) that the police had found an African man’s hair around Meredith’s body early on, coupled with the police admission that Amanda became a suspect early on (as Edgardo Giobbi admitted on camera in the above linked video), then since the police spent several days looking into Amanda prior to Nov 6th, how could anyone with a functional B$-meter seriously believe that the police were not aware of Lumumba prior to Nov 6th?

In her Nov. 2 witness statement, Amanda stated near the beginning of the document that not only was she studying at the University for Foreigners, but she worked on a part-time basis two day a week at a pub called Le chic. She did not mention Lumumba's name in the document (which is actually a police summary of what they considered relevant in what may have been a long interview), but the police would surely have known, or quickly found out, the names of the proprieter of Le chic and of any other employees there. Remember, Giobbi stated in his testimony that the police were focusing their attention on those who might have a personal link to Meredith as the murderer. The police, by believing that the break-in was staged, were able to limit their investigation to "convenient suspects" and did not need to consider the possibility of, for example, a stranger breaking into the flat and attacking Meredith in the course of a burglary, or of lying in wait for her with the intent of rape.

 

[davefoc]

...Clemente's statement about the knife being ruled out by the prosecution expert is false.

...

...
btw, Jim Clemente referring to Raf's kitchen kjnife being excluded because it didn't match the wounds on Kercher, it was pretty clear to me he was referring to the wounds that were consistent with a single knife. The 3rd major wound to the neck, was said (by Moore and Clemente) to be consistent with any sharp object including a shard of glass. To suggest that it was a lie to say Raf's kitchen knife was not compatible with Kercher's wounds, is again, just being obtuse. I think its obvious what Jim Clemente meant, and it consistent with the prosecution's view. (Because the prosecution concedes for Raf's knife to have been used in the murder, it had to be a second knife - precisely because it didn't match the other wounds).

carbonjam72 seems to have presented evidence here that you are doing the same thing you accuse Steve Moore of. You're attempting to build a case that they made misstatements based on their zeal to prove a view they were advocating.

Your statement about what they said about the knife comes very close to doing the same thing. They were pretty clear that the wounds that the shape of the blade could be inferred from were inconsistent with the knife taken from Sollecito's apartment but that a slashing type wound existed from which no inference about the shape of the blade could be drawn.

This is a Steve Moore quote from an article he wrote that is on Injustice in Perugia:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The prosecution had to change their original theory that the kitchen knife was the only weapon used to kill Meredith when it was shown that the knife was too large to cause most of Meredith's wounds. [/FONT]

Perhaps Steve Moore crossed the Grinder boundary when he stated that the knife in Sollecito's apartment was not the murder weapon, but for me that falls into give me a break territory. The notion of two knives is fanciful especially given the blood stain evidence. Perhaps in a world where anything is possible it can't be ruled out, but it is wildly unlikely and the leap between wildly unlikely and it didn't happen is small enough that criticizing Steve Moore for that looks like silly nitpicking to me. And even if you don't agree and believe that it is reasonable to criticize Moore for his leap, fairness would require that the person making this criticism point out what a small leap of logic that Moore made with his statement. But perhaps fairness was not your goal, your goal seems to have been to prove your point that Moore made misstatements in his zeal to support his view about the innocence of AK/RS and to accomplish that in your zeal to prove your view you made a statement that misrepresented the facts.

 

[Grinder]

What is your opinion of his defending his court's verdict? Do you believe that is appropriate or inappropriate, and why in either case?

It is fine that he defends his verdict. How could it be inappropriate especially after the ISC ruled. I suppose being their verdict it could be looked at like lobbying but he no way did he put forward his personal speculation.

Do you believe that it is inappropriate for someone to be an advocate for one side or the other in this case, or are your concerns with false information generated by advocates or others?

Of course someone can be an advocate for one side or the other. I think an advocate's output should be looked at with a bit of skepticism particularly when there is a dearth of corroborating accounts.

When you identify a particular piece of false information, do you consider whether it is relevant to the case, and to what degree, in light of the totality of information?

Sure I do Bayesian analysis on every point.

Suppose for example that Rudy Guede had committed no known crimes prior to the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher, and for the sake of argument assume that all the evidence of his guilt for those crimes against Kercher is valid (no errors by Stefanoni, etc.). What difference does any previous crime matter? In a US court, any previous prejudicial history may not even be admissible as evidence, since a person must be judged only on the particular crime he was indicted for.

If the person brings character into his defense then history is admissible. I guess you should ask the people that focused on his history such as Nina and all over at any PI site. I understand that while the case was in limbo the defense and many supporters did anything to get the kids found not guilty. I doubt what has been said here has had any influence on the courts. Some of attacks in the media, justified or not, may have served the kids badly.

So no it doesn't change the evidence against Rudi and the non evidence against the kids. So why was it important for the defense and the PIP?

 

[Dougm]

So no it doesn't change the evidence against Rudi and the non evidence against the kids. So why was it important for the defense and the PIP?

I don't see the standard for people commenting to be that they have to drop every point that cannot be definitively proven. I don't think any of us know if Rudy was an informant, or not. Several commenters that have had past involvement in law enforcement seem to be pretty convinced that he must have been. I don't know, and I don't think it is that important to my main interest, which is deciding who committed the murder and who should be punished for same.

The former law enforcement people, like Moore and Clemente, tend to be interested in the idea of purposeful malfeasance on behalf of the PLE, prosecution, etc. Through their lens, there is something very fishy here, and they think they would have zeroed in on Rudy immediately. They also think he is a guy that local law enforcement either was watching, or should have been watching, and if they had been, Meredith Kercher would still be alive.

As I said, I don't personally push that point of view because I don't know, and care less about it than those folks do. But I think they have every right to say that is their view, and to try to prove it if they can. What I would disagree with would be when people declare things to be true without knowledge or proof.

Moore, Clemente, and Waterbury basically agree: Rudy was either an informant, or the cops, Mignini, et al are completely incompetent and/or stupid. I personally don't know that answer (which is basically the position IIP has taken), but given the opinion of people who know law enforcement better than I do, I can't rule it out. I also, however, realize that Perugia law enforcement might do things differently than LE in the US, so maybe Rudy was just another face in the crowd to them.

 

[Grinder]

carbonjam72 seems to have presented evidence here that you are doing the same thing you accuse Steve Moore of. You're attempting to build a case that they made misstatements based on their zeal to prove a view they were advocating.

Your statement about what they said about the knife comes very close to doing the same thing. They were pretty clear that the wounds that the shape of the blade could be inferred from were inconsistent with the knife taken from Sollecito's apartment but that a slashing type wound existed from which no inference about the shape of the blade could be drawn.

It was Clemente that said the prosecutions own expert said it wasn't the murder weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wiW2iphA4

Go to 9 minutes. Listen until he says that the prosecutions expert admitted it was too big to cause the WOUNDS and couldn't have been the murder weapon and that in fact was absolutely ruled out as the murder weapon.

This is a Steve Moore quote from an article he wrote that is on Injustice in Perugia:

The prosecution had to change their original theory that the kitchen knife was the only weapon used to kill Meredith when it was shown that the knife was too large to cause most of Meredith's wounds.

Perhaps Steve Moore crossed the Grinder boundary when he stated that the knife in Sollecito's apartment was not the murder weapon, but for me that falls into give me a break territory.

I don't remember the prosecution ever saying it was the only knife used. Maybe, but when would they have said that as the knife outline came out early and the no match by Raf's knife to that was out there early. The police early leaks said a pen knife, so one would think they knew some/most of the wounds came from a small knife.

Moore crossed the line twice by saying Mignini at the "case closed" presser said they had bleach receipts showing Amanda bought bleach in the morning and that they knew she used it to clean the cottage. I was directed to the video by someone trying to prove the police claimed receipts. So that's the part I watched.

The notion of two knives is fanciful especially given the blood stain evidence. Perhaps in a world where anything is possible it can't be ruled out, but it is wildly unlikely and the leap between wildly unlikely and it didn't happen is small enough that criticizing Steve Moore for that looks like silly nitpicking to me. And even if you don't agree and believe that it is reasonable to criticize Moore for his leap, fairness would require that the person making this criticism point out what a small leap of logic that Moore made with his statement. But perhaps fairness was not your goal, your goal seems to have been to prove your point that Moore made misstatements in his zeal to support his view about the innocence of AK/RS and to accomplish that in your zeal to prove your view you made a statement that misrepresented the facts.

You missed the point or someone you quoted did. Moore said the stuff about Mignini and Clemente said the stuff about the knife.

In both cases the relevant parts start at about 9:00.

Moore video and the Clemente

Moore - report on Mignini

Clemente - knife absolutely ruled out.

 

[Numbers]

....
1. Of course someone can be an advocate for one side or the other. I think an advocate's output should be looked at with a bit of skepticism particularly when there is a dearth of corroborating accounts.

2. Sure I do Bayesian analysis on every point.

3. If the person brings character into his defense then history is admissible. I guess you should ask the people that focused on his history such as Nina and all over at any PI site. I understand that while the case was in limbo the defense and many supporters did anything to get the kids found not guilty. I doubt what has been said here has had any influence on the courts. Some of attacks in the media, justified or not, may have served the kids badly.

So no it doesn't change the evidence against Rudi and the non evidence against the kids. So why was it important for the defense and the PIP?

1. But shouldn't all accounts be looked at with a bit of skepticism? And advocates' accounts should be closely examined. But ...

2. Without doing a Bayesian analysis or any other statistical method, I believe that the relevance of many statements about the case can be evaluated. I don't think that Steve Moore's statements about the bleach receipts being mentioned in the police press conference and attributing that mention directly to Mignini, whether correct or not (and I believe they are not) are at all relevant to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecitio. They may be evidence that Moore got some details confused. He was certainly correct in stating that there was no forensic or other evidence of a clean-up of the crime scene. And bleach receipts only entered the case as false rumors apparently fed to the media by the police and/or prosecution in the days after the press conference. But the point Moore was making was that this contradiction between rumors of a clean-up, supposedly supported by the (rumored) bleach receipts, and the actual forensic evidence of no clean-up, convinced him that the police and prosecution were building a dishonest (and/or incompetent?) case.

My concern with your emphasis on the apparently erroneous irrelevant aspects of Moore's statements shows an apparent failure to judge his statement and position in its entirety. It's the equivalent of negatively criticizing a post because it has misspellings or typos, while ignoring the meaning of the content.

3. The prosecution - Dr. Mignini - actually used the expression "poor Rudi", IIUC, in some of his AK-RS trial statements. He also said to the court words to the effect that "don't let the black boy suffer alone", IIUC. Guede's fast-track trial and appeal falsely portrayed Rudy Guede as a participant in the murder-rape of Kercher with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and directed by Knox. I believe the interest in Guede's criminal background, some of which background is indeed not clearly established, was justifiably generated by the role given by the prosecution to Guede in this miscarriage of justice against Knox and Sollecito.

I find your attempts to be Rudi's lawyer on ISF, pointing out the uncertainties in some of the allegations against him, praiseworthy. But even if Rudy had not broken into the Perugian lawyers' office and swiped their laptop, his DNA was inside Meredith Kercher and on her clothes and purse and shoeprints in her blood that matched his shoes were found in the murder room and the cottage. And he admitted being with Meredith at the cottage at the time of her death. The only evidence of a murderer-rapist at the scene is that pointing to Rudi Guede. His previous criminal acts, insofar as the public can be sure of them, are not legally valid indications of Rudy Guede's guilt in the Kercher murder-rape.

 

[carbonjam72]

Incompetence, corruption, and/or cognitive dissonance?

I don't see the standard for people commenting to be that they have to drop every point that cannot be definitively proven. I don't think any of us know if Rudy was an informant, or not. Several commenters that have had past involvement in law enforcement seem to be pretty convinced that he must have been. I don't know, and I don't think it is that important to my main interest, which is deciding who committed the murder and who should be punished for same.

The former law enforcement people, like Moore and Clemente, tend to be interested in the idea of purposeful malfeasance on behalf of the PLE, prosecution, etc. Through their lens, there is something very fishy here, and they think they would have zeroed in on Rudy immediately. They also think he is a guy that local law enforcement either was watching, or should have been watching, and if they had been, Meredith Kercher would still be alive.
As I said, I don't personally push that point of view because I don't know, and care less about it than those folks do. But I think they have every right to say that is their view, and to try to prove it if they can. What I would disagree with would be when people declare things to be true without knowledge or proof.

Moore, Clemente, and Waterbury basically agree: Rudy was either an informant, or the cops, Mignini, et al are completely incompetent and/or stupid. I personally don't know that answer (which is basically the position IIP has taken), but given the opinion of people who know law enforcement better than I do, I can't rule it out. I also, however, realize that Perugia law enforcement might do things differently than LE in the US, so maybe Rudy was just another face in the crowd to them.

I agree with this completely, and the highlighted portion is why I think its so important. Meredith died because the Mignini & the police didn't stop Rudy, and they apparently had several opportunities immediately prior to his killing Ms Kercher.

As to the second hilite, I believe Paul Ciolino said of Mignini, "he believes his own lies".
That to me shows a type of familiarity with aberrant personalities that is only gained by sustained interaction with the criminal classes. Its a hard thing to wrap your head around, but mere incompetence, and overt corruption aren't the only options here, nor is it a continuous spectrum between the 2 extremes.

As other have commented, there is a dimension of cognitive dissonance, a Mignini who vacillates between states of differing internal and conflicting realities, that has to be raised as another option. A madman having a public dispute with himself, because that's the lie he needs to tell himself and the world, to keep his life and career on track. And he may well be the last to know it.

For Mignini not to be a crazed maniac, Amanda and Raf had to be guilty - In his mind. That's why he couldn't let them go, and why he tried to thoroughly destroy Amanda, imo.

And that's why Mignini must ultimately go to jail for what he did. He knew what he was doing, or should have known it, and did it anyway. (Obviously IMO & YMMV.)

The outcome of the last cases of defamation & libel against amanda and RAf will be a telling judgement on the Italian justice system's appraisal of Giuliano Mignini. Will they let the cases whither quietly from statute of limitations, or reject the claims outright in a rebuke to the prosecutor of Perugia? Now that's a horse race.

 

[Grinder]

1. But shouldn't all accounts be looked at with a bit of skepticism? And advocates' accounts should be closely examined. But ...

Yes but more with an advocate. Same with an enemy.

2. Without doing a Bayesian analysis or any other statistical method, I believe that the relevance of many statements about the case can be evaluated. I don't think that Steve Moore's statements about the bleach receipts being mentioned in the police press conference and attributing that mention directly to Mignini, whether correct or not (and I believe they are not) are at all relevant to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecitio. [/quote]

Your point here would be great if I had ever said in any way shape or form that they were relevant to guilt or innocence.

They have been found not guilty maybe even innocent. This started with Rudi being fingered as an informant as part of a factoid filled meme and the credibility of that claim.

[quote[They may be evidence that Moore got some details confused. He was certainly correct in stating that there was no forensic or other evidence of a clean-up of the crime scene.[/quote]

Yes and when he joined in that was already a well know fact by even the people in the peanut gallery.

And bleach receipts only entered the case as false rumors apparently fed to the media by the police and/or prosecution in the days after the press conference. But the point Moore was making was that this contradiction between rumors of a clean-up, supposedly supported by the (rumored) bleach receipts, and the actual forensic evidence of no clean-up, convinced him that the police and prosecution were building a dishonest (and/or incompetent?) case.

I think you need to change the tense. He joined in when all the above was well known. I'm not sure when the bleach receipts entered the picture and how they showed up. Do you?

My concern with your emphasis on the apparently erroneous irrelevant aspects of Moore's statements shows an apparent failure to judge his statement and position in its entirety. It's the equivalent of negatively criticizing a post because it has misspellings or typos, while ignoring the meaning of the content.

Why mention it, if it is irrelevant. I don't think you appreciate the media battle going on in 2008-2011.

3. The prosecution - Dr. Mignini - actually used the expression "poor Rudi", IIUC, in some of his AK-RS trial statements. He also said to the court words to the effect that "don't let the black boy suffer alone", IIUC. Guede's fast-track trial and appeal falsely portrayed Rudy Guede as a participant in the murder-rape of Kercher with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and directed by Knox. I believe the interest in Guede's criminal background, some of which background is indeed not clearly established, was justifiably generated by the role given by the prosecution to Guede in this miscarriage of justice against Knox and Sollecito.

Interest versus fabricating are two different things. The mentions of the kids were often done incorrectly as far as I'm concerned. I have said repeatedly that I understand the defense strategy.

I find your attempts to be Rudi's lawyer on ISF, pointing out the uncertainties in some of the allegations against him, praiseworthy. But even if Rudy had not broken into the Perugian lawyers' office and swiped their laptop, his DNA was inside Meredith Kercher and on her clothes and purse and shoeprints in her blood that matched his shoes were found in the murder room and the cottage. And he admitted being with Meredith at the cottage at the time of her death. The only evidence of a murderer-rapist at the scene is that pointing to Rudi Guede. His previous criminal acts, insofar as the public can be sure of them, are not legally valid indications of Rudy Guede's guilt in the Kercher murder-rape.

Rudi doesn't need a lawyer for what I'm discussing unless he can sue for defamation but the statute of limitations has probably run out.

He was there. He was involved. He may have had accomplices that were not A and R.

My interest about the court cases is limited to the coming motivations report. I don't believe it was as simple as PIP believe.

If Rudi were guilty of all he has been accused of including being an informant then that would affect my thinking,

 

[Numbers]

Why?

I don't see the standard for people commenting to be that they have to drop every point that cannot be definitively proven. I don't think any of us know if Rudy was an informant, or not. Several commenters that have had past involvement in law enforcement seem to be pretty convinced that he must have been. I don't know, and I don't think it is that important to my main interest, which is deciding who committed the murder and who should be punished for same.

The former law enforcement people, like Moore and Clemente, tend to be interested in the idea of purposeful malfeasance on behalf of the PLE, prosecution, etc. Through their lens, there is something very fishy here, and they think they would have zeroed in on Rudy immediately. They also think he is a guy that local law enforcement either was watching, or should have been watching, and if they had been, Meredith Kercher would still be alive.

As I said, I don't personally push that point of view because I don't know, and care less about it than those folks do. But I think they have every right to say that is their view, and to try to prove it if they can. What I would disagree with would be when people declare things to be true without knowledge or proof.

Moore, Clemente, and Waterbury basically agree: Rudy was either an informant, or the cops, Mignini, et al are completely incompetent and/or stupid. I personally don't know that answer (which is basically the position IIP has taken), but given the opinion of people who know law enforcement better than I do, I can't rule it out. I also, however, realize that Perugia law enforcement might do things differently than LE in the US, so maybe Rudy was just another face in the crowd to them.

Why did the police and prosecution arrest, or wage a long, wrongful prosecution against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? There are several possibilities, and only one of these possibilities seems to have been emphasized by Moore and Clemente and some others. Here is a brief listing, as I understand the possibilities:

1. The police, seeing the break-in involved a rock thrown through a window and a climb to a second story, recognized the MO of Rudy Guede, a (supposed) police informant (or person otherwise protected, such as by his (former?) relationship to the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia. Therefore, they sought to direct attention to Meredith's close associates as suspects.

2. The search for convenient suspects. The police saw the break-in and decided it would be a troublesome effort to attempt to solve the case by seeking anyone who might actually have committed the crime that way. So they recognized, as amoral, unprofessional police do, that they should concentrate on finding someone close to Meredith who would be vulnerable to suspicion, for example, by having a relatively weak alibi, and/or by being liable to be portrayed as "strange" or "evil" or "just a foreign slut".

3. The police had reason to suspect Amanda Knox of the crime because of her odd behavior. She apparently, according to Dr. Giobbi (see his testimony), wiggled her hips while putting on shoe-covers. She cried and/or she didn't cry. She had an Italian boyfriend who she had known for only a little more than a week, and stayed overnight with him, and he seemed interested in her, even coming to the police station to see her. Only the boyfriend was her alibi for the night of the murder. And she had the keys to the apartment. (Some of this may seem like case #2.)

4. The police were just really incompetent and lazy.

5. As a corollary, the prosecution had to continue to protect the police from being accused of a criminal act (CP 377-bis. punishment 2-6 years in prison) because of the "special methods" they used to extract a statement from Amanda Knox during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007, when they "knew" she was guiltly of something. Evidence that the police and prosecution were certain Amanda was accusing them of a criminal act: She was accused of calunnia against the police by Dr. Mignini in 2009. "Calunnia" as a legal term in Italy means to falsely accuse - to the police or a judicial authority - someone of committing a crime.