Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Fixed it

yup, thnx

 

[RoseMontague]

Guede admits he was in the small bathroom.

What was the story? Was it he had tried to stop the bleeding and went into the bathroom to get towels? Might have needed a light to find them and his hands probably had blood on them.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, apparently you don't get it. Or you wouldn't refer to Mignini as a successful detective. You wouldn't be referring to claims by Mignini as if they were indisputable facts.

I wish you got it. Just like I wish creationists and global warming deniers "got it". But alas....sigh.

Mignini a "successful detective".... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But it does actually speak to something which I've long thought is an institutionalised structural problem in Italian criminal justice. It's something that is near-ubiquitous in inquisitorial systems (e.g. France - still, unbelievably), but Italy should have fundamentally restructured it when it switched to a predominantly adversarial system. It's the fact that a criminal investigation is nominally and practically controlled by a member of the judiciary.

One can see how this at least makes sense in an inquisitorial system (though it also shows just why the inquisitorial system is so horribly flawed in principle). But it makes no sense at all in an adversarial system. Even worse though, it puts a member of the judiciary essentially into the dual role of conductor of the investigation and partisan prosecutor. It doesn't take levels of genius to see how this might (and does) throw up massive conflicts of interest - the most obvious one being the fundamental dissonance between a) the want/need to "win" a case by getting the defendant(s) convicted, and b) the pretence of still performing a judicial role with total disinterest and non-alignment.

I think that in Italy, characters such as Mignini (and I strongly suspect there are many more like him) have taken the chance to play the muddled, schizophrenic Italian criminal justice system to their own benefit. I think they realise that they can easily build "winning" and very powerful careers by making sure they can play the system to their advantage. This entails the dual strategy of making sure that most of the judges in your jurisdiction are favourable to your cases (and remember, judges effectively can control judicial panels), together with getting the local police to work exactly in the way you want them to do.

I can't help thinking that Italy really desperately needs to restructure things radically to make things fit for purpose. I think that the whole concept of "Prosecuting Magistrate" needs to be abolished. I think that the police should be the only investigative body (except for perhaps in very rare exceptional circumstances), and the charging decision and court presentation should be done by a Prosecution Authority that is totally separate from both the police and the judiciary. To me, that's the only way of even attempting to ensure that only the right people are prosecuted for the right reasons. The Knox/Sollecito prosecution fiasco is a very vivid illustration of just how broken the system currently is, for sure.

 

[LondonJohn]

What was the story? Was it he had tried to stop the bleeding and went into the bathroom to get towels? Might have needed a light to find them and his hands probably had blood on them.

That was indeed his story. And I strongly suspect that this was one more case of Guede trying to second-guess the forensic evidence the police might have against him, and then incorporating an explanation for it in his "innocent" narrative.

In this case, it's not hard to reason that if Guede had indeed factually gone into the small bathroom after the murder with blood on his hands, and if he'd retrieved towels from that bathroom and brought them into Kercher's room, then he might be justifiably worried that the police might well find forensic evidence of both of these things. Therefore, he made sure that both things featured in his narrative.

Of course, not even Guede could have predicted the grotesque and comical-if-it-wasn't-so-serious ineptitude of Stefanoni and her team of semi-trained crime scene technicians. They messed up their analysis of the small bathroom spectacularly, and - worse still - stored the blood-soaked towels (which might well have contained critical evidence) in a pile so that they grew mould and rotted. Disgusting malpractice and incompetence.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, apparently you don't get it. Or you wouldn't refer to Mignini as a successful detective. You wouldn't be referring to claims by Mignini as if they were indisputable facts.

I wish you got it. Just like I wish creationists and global warming deniers "got it". But alas....sigh.

But he did come up with the Masonic ritual thing, so he deserves some credit for his fine detective work.

 

[RoseMontague]

That was indeed his story. And I strongly suspect that this was one more case of Guede trying to second-guess the forensic evidence the police might have against him, and then incorporating an explanation for it in his "innocent" narrative.

In this case, it's not hard to reason that if Guede had indeed factually gone into the small bathroom after the murder with blood on his hands, and if he'd retrieved towels from that bathroom and brought them into Kercher's room, then he might be justifiably worried that the police might well find forensic evidence of both of these things. Therefore, he made sure that both things featured in his narrative.

Of course, not even Guede could have predicted the grotesque and comical-if-it-wasn't-so-serious ineptitude of Stefanoni and her team of semi-trained crime scene technicians. They messed up their analysis of the small bathroom spectacularly, and - worse still - stored the blood-soaked towels (which might well have contained critical evidence) in a pile so that they grew mould and rotted. Disgusting malpractice and incompetence.

I'm sorry but that makes too much sense.

 

[carbonjam72]

But he did come up with the Masonic ritual thing, so he deserves some credit for his fine detective work.

Mignini came up with the Masonic ritual claim in this case, but it was a virtual replica of the claims he made in his Narducci trail cases, the excesses for which he had just then been indicted for along with Michel Giuttari.

And Mignini's description of a "rite related to Halloween" is a virtual copy of giuttari s explanation from his book on the purpose of the MOF serially killer stealing women's sex organs as a "sacrificial rite" called a mors lusti, which was most effective if the victim was killed at the moment of sexual orgasm. So basically, a "B" horror movie scenario.

But it was Giuttari who made a cottage industry out of the fraudulent hoax that a satanic sect was responsible for the Monster of Florence murders, based on the testimony of Giuttari's 'algebraic witnesses', which were also used by Mignini again in his Narducci trail case against the pharmacist Calamandrei, a case which was falling to pieces in ridicule in Florence at the time of the Kercher killing.

But the origin of the satanic sect theory came from the 'algebraic witness Gamma', who was a homeless end-stage alcoholic prostitute named Gabriella Ghiribelli, polished with esoteric trimmings of the self-styled psychic medium Gabriella Carlizzi (who got her "illuminations from a dead Vatican priest and exorcist Father Gabriel and who had died in 1984?), and of course Giuttari's own voluminous "research".

The vendetta of Mignini and Giuttari against journalist Mario Spezi was nothing but a conflict of Giuttari and Mignini being able to continue to peddle their fraudulent hoax, and profit from their association with, and claim to having solved the infamous Monster of Florence murders.

The greatest irony of all, is that Spezi was (and may still be) prosecuted for naming the Monster of Flroence serial killer as Antonio Vinci (in the book he wrote with Doug Preston, MOF), while the man very likely to be the actual serial killer, Vinci, is protected by the Justice system because his "good name" has been insulted.

It's an incredible story really. But the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito never had anything to do with them, imo. It was always about the professional convenience of Giuliano Mignini. Guittari really seems to have escaped criticism and consequences, but the truth is, both Mignini and Giuttari need to forfeit any and all of their proceeds of their fraudulent hoax, and spend several years in prison for their crimes.

 

[acbytesla]

But he did come up with the Masonic ritual thing, so he deserves some credit for his fine detective work.

Yes, he did. I'd like to say you couldn't write this stuff, because nobody would believe it. But clearly some people believe just about anything.

 

[Grinder]

This is the first use of Foxy Knoxy I can find

Foxy Knoxy: Inside the twisted world of flatmate suspected of Meredith's murder
By COLIN FERNANDEZ and BETH HALE
CREATED: 12:51 EST, 6 November 2007
On her Myspace website page, under the nickname 'Foxyknoxy', American student Amanda Knox said: "I'm actually at one of my happiest places right now."
But closer examination of the site gives a worrying insight into the bizarre life which has led the 20-year-old brunette to an Italian police cell.
In a series of meandering short stories, she outlines a string of scenarios which includes two brothers discussing the drugging and rape of a young girl.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suspected-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz3dYifLGTs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[zotz]

That was indeed his story. And I strongly suspect that this was one more case of Guede trying to second-guess the forensic evidence the police might have against him, and then incorporating an explanation for it in his "innocent" narrative.

Guede is an expert liar stemming from years of practice. He knew he had to admit to the things that could be proven in order to make his story as believable as possible to those that wanted to believe him but he was not sure how much evidence there was. He said that Meredith's murder happened around 9:20. Rudy had no reason to lie about this and every reason (for his own credibility) to tell the truth. The prosecution has never been able to counter this pro-defense argument. Why would Rudy lie about the time of death? If Mignini had allowed the coroner to take Meredith's body temperature as soon as he arrived at the scene then there would never had been a case against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Strozzi]

I challenge anyone to conduct this social experiment: find a similar place where people tend to walk down a confined path intended for cars and see how often they look back when the sound of a car behind them can be heard.





There was no positive identification of Rudy on any CCTV tape. Rudy himself provides the times of his arrival and departure from the cottage which are compatible with his guilt. Yet he claims the CCTV images are not him. I tend to believe this as there is no reason for him to lie about it.

The police also claimed the same images belonged to Patrick's friend and alibi Usi. They will make whatever claim suit them at the time. It is clear they are pathological liers. Never believe what the police and prosecutors say. Make them produce the evidence.






These discriptions of a chair turned over, a sweatshirt taken off and left on a chair in the kitchen, papers knocked from the shelf and the drying rack upset come only from Rudy's statements. There's is no physical or forensics evidence to support them except for a free papers on the floor in the hall.





The three exits from the cottage are: the front door which was likely locked with a key, Meredith's window (a 3+ meter drop in the dark) and the patio.

The bloody shoeprint trail from the murder room stops at the far end of the kitchen table (where Rudy says he left his sweatshirt), there is a partial step towards the front door then backs away without compleating that step and finally steps in front of the couch and paces in place while always facing towards Meredith's room and the other exits. In is my beliefe that Rudy at this point is contemplating how to get out of the cottage and ultimately decides to return to Meredith's room to find the keys.

I don't recall reading or seeing photos of any physical evidence in Filomena's room that indicate her room was searched by the burglar. I believe that when Rudi entered her room through her window, the room was very dark (lights off) and that he passed through the room immediately to the common area, probably with the intent of returning later to Filomena's room to search for valuables. He may initially have moved around the common area (sitting/dining area and kitchen area) in the dark without yet turning on a light, and could have bumped into and knocked over a dining chair in the dark (if in fact a chair was overturned?). Without more evidence of a disturbance or chase in the common area, I can't conclude that that a chase or struggle occurred.

I think it is more likely that Rudy, initially in the bathroom when Meredith returned home, pulled out his knife while on the toilet to defend himself as he quietly stood up and attached his pants, not knowing who or how many people had just entered through the front door. He most likely stood silently in the bathroom with his knife in hand, ready to jab anyone who walked in on him. He waited a little while and then tried to sneak out the front door but found that exit locked. I think he then felt trapped, and decided to attack Meredith.

The evidence that she was attacked by her bed is consistent with her being at it unaware of his presence outside her room. Otherwise, if she was aware of someone's presence or if he chased her into her room, I think she would have grabbed her chair or lamp or other objects to defend her position (a barrier) or her self. Her furniture was not out of position, if I remember correctly.

I believe Rudi charged into her room and surprised her as she was sitting on or standing at her bed, bursting through her door and moving in on her in 2 -3 seconds with his knife in hand, cornering her by her bed. As she stood and turned from him he quickly managed to get his body in back of hers, with a hand over her mouth and knife at her throat (neck). He may not have intended in that motion to cut her, just immobilize her. She tried to twist and pull away and the knife sliced the side of her neck, drawing blood, heightened panic, and more struggle. He then stabbed her as she struggled.

 

[Strozzi]

There you have it! If Mignini had just blamed Meredith's murder on aliens, lots of time and money would have been saved. The real killer would still be free, but since he showed little concern about that ...

He did blame it on aliens! . Two out of three. Knox and Guede.

 

[Ken Dine]

I don't recall reading or seeing photos of any physical evidence in Filomena's room that indicate her room was searched by the burglar. I believe that when Rudi entered her room through her window, the room was very dark (lights off) and that he passed through the room immediately to the common area, probably with the intent of returning later to Filomena's room to search for valuables. He may initially have moved around the common area (sitting/dining area and kitchen area) in the dark without yet turning on a light, and could have bumped into and knocked over a dining chair in the dark (if in fact a chair was overturned?). Without more evidence of a disturbance or chase in the common area, I can't conclude that that a chase or struggle occurred.

I think it is more likely that Rudy, initially in the bathroom when Meredith returned home, pulled out his knife while on the toilet to defend himself as he quietly stood up and attached his pants, not knowing who or how many people had just entered through the front door. He most likely stood silently in the bathroom with his knife in hand, ready to jab anyone who walked in on him. He waited a little while and then tried to sneak out the front door but found that exit locked. I think he then felt trapped, and decided to attack Meredith.

The evidence that she was attacked by her bed is consistent with her being at it unaware of his presence outside her room. Otherwise, if she was aware of someone's presence or if he chased her into her room, I think she would have grabbed her chair or lamp or other objects to defend her position (a barrier) or her self. Her furniture was not out of position, if I remember correctly.

I believe Rudi charged into her room and surprised her as she was sitting on or standing at her bed, bursting through her door and moving in on her in 2 -3 seconds with his knife in hand, cornering her by her bed. As she stood and turned from him he quickly managed to get his body in back of hers, with a hand over her mouth and knife at her throat (neck). He may not have intended in that motion to cut her, just immobilize her. She tried to twist and pull away and the knife sliced the side of her neck, drawing blood, heightened panic, and more struggle. He then stabbed her as she struggled.

That sounds as plausible as any reconstruction I've heard.

 

[Strozzi]

Here's another angle:

[qimg]http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/b/b7/Cottage_back.jpg[/qimg]

One can see the skylight between some leaves.

Please see the photo in the link above. Looking at the guys' downstairs flat, you notice bars on the door and window preventing entry. Look at the door on the balcony. If it were night, could you tell if the balcony door has bars to prevent entry?

Mignini is sure the balcony is the logical entry point for a burglar, rather than through Filomena's window. However, if it is dark as it would be in the evening of Nov. 1, I am not sure Rudi could from the ground see the balcony door and know whether or not it has bars.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't recall reading or seeing photos of any physical evidence in Filomena's room that indicate her room was searched by the burglar. I believe that when Rudi entered her room through her window, the room was very dark (lights off) and that he passed through the room immediately to the common area, probably with the intent of returning later to Filomena's room to search for valuables. He may initially have moved around the common area (sitting/dining area and kitchen area) in the dark without yet turning on a light, and could have bumped into and knocked over a dining chair in the dark (if in fact a chair was overturned?). Without more evidence of a disturbance or chase in the common area, I can't conclude that that a chase or struggle occurred.

The chair and disturbance in the hall comes primarily from Rudy's description of the fight with the stranger. I consider this a transposition of Rudy's initial fight with Meredith and devised to explain any possible forensics evidence that might have been deposited in the fight.

I think it is more likely that Rudy, initially in the bathroom when Meredith returned home, pulled out his knife while on the toilet to defend himself as he quietly stood up and attached his pants, not knowing who or how many people had just entered through the front door. He most likely stood silently in the bathroom with his knife in hand, ready to jab anyone who walked in on him. He waited a little while and then tried to sneak out the front door but found that exit locked. I think he then felt trapped, and decided to attack Meredith.

I agree mostly with this but Rudy disagrees with the hilighted bit. He claims his pants fell to his ankles in the altercation.

The evidence that she was attacked by her bed is consistent with her being at it unaware of his presence outside her room. Otherwise, if she was aware of someone's presence or if he chased her into her room, I think she would have grabbed her chair or lamp or other objects to defend her position (a barrier) or her self. Her furniture was not out of position, if I remember correctly.

There is little evidence that the initial attack was at the bed. The blood at the head of the bed is just drips and not splatter from action. I believe this is where Rudy stood in shock immediately after the attack. Rudy mentions writing on the wall.

The alternative to grabing a weapon is to grab a phone, especially if the intruder is recognized.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please see the photo in the link above. Looking at the guys' downstairs flat, you notice bars on the door and window preventing entry. Look at the door on the balcony. If it were night, could you tell if the balcony door has bars to prevent entry?

Mignini is sure the balcony is the logical entry point for a burglar, rather than through Filomena's window. However, if it is dark as it would be in the evening of Nov. 1, I am not sure Rudi could from the ground see the balcony door and know whether or not it has bars.

Depending on how much light a half-moon casts (and whether it was overcast), the balcony faces to the southeast, and may have been lit by the moon. On the other hand, the side of the cottage where Filomena's window was, would be in complete darkness.

 

[Strozzi]

Depending on how much light a half-moon casts (and whether it was overcast), the balcony faces to the southeast, and may have been lit by the moon. On the other hand, the side of the cottage where Filomena's window was, would be in complete darkness.

A person going to the guys' flat, descending the outside steps along the side of the cottage and then walking on the sidewalk to the downstair flat's door, could not from that position see the upper flat's balcony door. It is not visible. To see it, a person would have to move away some distance from the side of the building. At night, it is much more obscure. Mignini looked at it in daylight.

Does anyone recall if the balcony door's green wood shutters were open or shut the night of the attack?

 

[Antony]

He did blame it on aliens! . Two out of three. Knox and Guede.

Actually Knox and Lumumba. The switch from PL to RG wasn't at Mignini's choice.

 

[LondonJohn]

Guede is an expert liar stemming from years of practice. He knew he had to admit to the things that could be proven in order to make his story as believable as possible to those that wanted to believe him but he was not sure how much evidence there was. He said that Meredith's murder happened around 9:20. Rudy had no reason to lie about this and every reason (for his own credibility) to tell the truth. The prosecution has never been able to counter this pro-defense argument. Why would Rudy lie about the time of death? If Mignini had allowed the coroner to take Meredith's body temperature as soon as he arrived at the scene then there would never had been a case against Amanda and Raffaele.

I fully agree. I have long believed (and have expressed several times in these threads) that Guede constructed his narrative very carefully in order to minimise the chance of his being contradicted or caught out by evidence.

And I think, just as you say here, he did just this with regard to the time of death. Or, more accurately, the time of Kercher's loud scream. I strongly believe that Guede was aware that anyone outside close to the cottage at the time of the scream would very possibly have heard it fairly clearly - indeed, Guede makes interesting reference to the scream being "loud enough to be heard from the street". Therefore, Guede was smart enough to realise that his baloney story had to include that scream at that time, in case decent witnesses came forward to report that they'd heard the scream at that time.

To illustrate: imagine if Guede had claimed that he'd been with Kercher, that they'd done the sexual fumbles between around 9.10 and 9.20, but that they'd then just cooled down and talked for another 45 minutes or so and that he'd left at around 10pm. If somebody then came forward and said they'd heard a loud, terrified woman's scream at around 9.20pm, this would immediately destroy the entire credibility of Guede's story.

Guede therefore (IMO) knew he HAD to account for the scream. And since he'd placed himself in the girls' cottage at that time, he had to invent a scenario where some third party/parties had entered the house and committed the foul act while he was innocently sitting on the toilet. Fortunately for him, he had a ready-made story available, since he was able to reuse and repurpose the (IMO) very probable fact that he had been sitting on the toilet when Kercher returned home at around 9pm. All he had to do was convert this episode into something that happened some 20-30 minutes later, and it gave him the handy ability to claim he was "there but not there" at the time of the scream.

 

[Samson]

I fully agree. I have long believed (and have expressed several times in these threads) that Guede constructed his narrative very carefully in order to minimise the chance of his being contradicted or caught out by evidence.

And I think, just as you say here, he did just this with regard to the time of death. Or, more accurately, the time of Kercher's loud scream. I strongly believe that Guede was aware that anyone outside close to the cottage at the time of the scream would very possibly have heard it fairly clearly - indeed, Guede makes interesting reference to the scream being "loud enough to be heard from the street". Therefore, Guede was smart enough to realise that his baloney story had to include that scream at that time, in case decent witnesses came forward to report that they'd heard the scream at that time.

To illustrate: imagine if Guede had claimed that he'd been with Kercher, that they'd done the sexual fumbles between around 9.10 and 9.20, but that they'd then just cooled down and talked for another 45 minutes or so and that he'd left at around 10pm. If somebody then came forward and said they'd heard a loud, terrified woman's scream at around 9.20pm, this would immediately destroy the entire credibility of Guede's story.

Guede therefore (IMO) knew he HAD to account for the scream. And since he'd placed himself in the girls' cottage at that time, he had to invent a scenario where some third party/parties had entered the house and committed the foul act while he was innocently sitting on the toilet. Fortunately for him, he had a ready-made story available, since he was able to reuse and repurpose the (IMO) very probable fact that he had been sitting on the toilet when Kercher returned home at around 9pm. All he had to do was convert this episode into something that happened some 20-30 minutes later, and it gave him the handy ability to claim he was "there but not there" at the time of the scream.

I find it one of the most fascinating aspects that Guede could fool so many people for so long. Even the Kercher family, and judges and prosecutors. I am also not sure what is lost in translation, but he seems to have command of lyrical turn of phrase.
I hope he understands that he is now painted into a corner at last.