Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken Dine said:
They may not clarify that and just leave it hanging? After all, I doubt (hopefully) that the Italian police will suddenly start beating the bushes and snair two more innocent victims to fit Mignini's sexual fantasy since everyone pretty much knows by now that Guede was the lone killer.

I'm interested in seeing if they'll finally bless Hellmann's earlier exoneration of Amanda & Raffaele?

I doubt if they'll reverse Amanda's slander conviction, but that would be nice if they did.
Click to expand...

"SNAIR"?? I meant "snare" ...there's another good example of a wasted education.
:)
 
Vixen said:
  • a Self review.
  • b Giving motivations before they've been sealed.
  • c An official giving newspaper interviews as though a celebrity.

So unethical.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
He's said very little. That which he has said we already know.

How did you feel about Nencini's statements to the press before his report was published?

And on the subject of unethicality, if that is your beef, you should consider the multiple, indisputable violations of the defendants' rights with regard to procedure, discovery and process. We have Nencini once again - this time ignoring the Gemelli court's ruling, using Amanda's coerced statements (a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR) against her with regard to the murder charge.
Click to expand...

ALL the judges gave interviews immediately after their verdicts. The issue is not, and never has been, that they gave brief, verbal summaries of their reasons for convicting/acquitting.....

Of them all, it was only Nencini who crossed a line - one that attracted a formal investigation into his statements.

Two lines, actually.

  • He made a highly inflammatory statement about Raffaele which could be interpreted as an infraction on Raffaele's right to a fair trial. Basically he speculated that if Raffaele had testified in his own defence, and further testified against Amanda, then things may have worked out better for Raffaele.
  • He said that a juror had come to him confused about the things being heard in the courtroom, being so different from the things heard in the media and in conversation. His explanation of how this was resolved could be interpreted as unduly influencing a poplar-judge.

Nencini was cleared of any wrong-doing at the end of the investigation. But there was "probable cause" to send him to be formally examined on those points.

It is simply disingenuous to criticize Marasca, Hellmann, or for that matter Massei, for simply making comments to the press after a ruling - not waiting in total silence until the MR is out.

The issue is and always has been if those statements trespass on someone's rights - as they feared Nencini had done, particularly with Raffaele.

I mean, think about it. Was Raffaele convicted by Nencini on the evidence, or was he convicted because he refused to rat-out Amanda? If he'd ratted out Amanda, would the allged DNA-evidence suddenly disappear? What could Raffaele possibly have said on the stand, particularly under cross-examination, which would have made his situation better than having the full load of a murder charge thrown at him?

It is simply silly to call out Marasca, esp. given the experience of Nencini's silliness.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
He was mistaken IMV. Had to answer to a disciplinary board. Thanks to avv Bongiorno reporting him. Luckily for him, he was cleared.
Click to expand...

He was mistaken for vary narow reasons, reasons that put him in front of an investigative board. Pay attention to the reasons Nencini, and Nencini alone, was so sanctioned (and eventually cleared) and you have the answer to your question.

Marasca did nothing wrong, except in the minds of guilters, who will not give up on suspect-centrism. In this case, you find Marasca guilty of some imagined trespass simply because you can accuse him so - and because you're predisposed to guilt for AK/RS regardless.
 
Vixen - can you answer a question no other guilter has even tried to answer....

What could Raffaele have possibly said to the Nencini court which would have made his situation "better"?
 
Vixen said:
  • a Self review.
  • b Giving motivations before they've been sealed.
  • c An official giving newspaper interviews as though a celebrity.

So unethical.
Click to expand...

The weirdest thing about this comment, is how blind it is.

A judge saying a defendant is guilty, pollutes the trial process by prejudicing the public and the potential jury pool, and impairs the defendant's ability to get a fair hearing.

A judge commenting that a defendant is innocent, because the prosecution had zero evidence, who does that hurt?

How does it hurt anyone to say that innocent people are actually innocent?

You could argue that silence and decorum should be observed in any event, but the two situations it seems to me are quite different.

A convicted person needs to have had a fair trial, to be correctly convicted.

While innocent people need to be recognized as wrongly accused, and recover their good names and reputations.

The prerogative of slander is one more element of entitlement among the guiltard hate filled bullies I just don't get. It's like they're another species.
 
MichaelB said:
English translation of Rudy Guede's 1st trial Milan motivation report.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...trial-Milan-motivation-report-18-Feb-2013.pdf

So it was definitely a break-in at the nursery and he got in via forcing the front door. The key story was all BS. And he changed story about buying the stolen goods at a 2nd hand market in Milan to buying them in Perugia.
Click to expand...

thanks. I disagree on the break-in as it is described in this translation as has been said all along. The door didn't lock properly (is this another example of Italian incompetence?) and he was able to open it. He didn't break in in the sense of a window or even breaking the door or lock. It is consistent with him being directed to the place.

The individual in question, who was still present, was then identified as being Rudy Hermann Guede (today’s defendant); he, who had a backpack with him, was found in possession of a large kitchen knife, a portable computer (Sony brand, Vaio model), a mobile phone (Nokia brand), a hammer for breaking glass in emergencies and a woman’s wristwatch apparently made of gold. The knife, recognized as hers by Salvadori del Prato, was returned to her, while the other objects were seized (record of seizure 27.10.2007, in the court records).
Regarding the portable computer (complete with battery and power adaptor) and the mobile phone, the checks carried out on these goods led to the verification of their illegal origin, which was the burglary perpetrated on 13 October 2007 at a lawyer’s office in Perugia, as reported on 15.10.2007 at the Police station of Perugia by Paolo Brocchi; who, having been contacted by telephone by the operators, confirmed goods had been stolen, stating that the computer was the property of his colleague Matteo Palazzoli and was easy to use because entry of a password was not required for access.

The computer and mobile phone were then taken in by the Perugia Prosecutor’s office, following the seizure order issued by that office in the proceedings for the murder of Meredith Kercher, which occurred in the night between the 1st and 2nd November 2007 in Perugia (a crime for which Guede was then convicted with the sentence 22.12.2009 of the Assizes Court of Appeal of Perugia, then finalized on 16.12.2010).

she opened the front door which was partly damaged due to a burglary that had occurred a few days previously which allowed it to be opened with a strong push –

he would show him of a place where he could sleep and then he had accompanied him to this nursery school opening the door with the keys that he had in his possession. Salvadori del Prato in her complaint said in her report that she had checked the place and there was no obvious sign that the man had slept there inside the nursery school and in fact no tables had been placed next to each other and the mattresses in the gymnasium were all in their original places. Salvadori del Prato also noticed that that the lock of the cabinet was in a different position from how she had left it – even though then after a later check nothing was found to be missing
Interesting stuff - the cost is back up to 50 Euro. One way or the other he was directed to the nursery and was able to easily enter with only a push on the door. He didn't seem to be stealing anything. The gold watch was "apparently" gold and a wristwatch. Because it was Diaz's mother's watch I had always thought it was a pocket watch.

Michael I didn't peruse it. Did I miss where he admitted breaking in.

This seems to be his story:

Finally, in the “spontaneous statements” written by the defendant, Guede stated that in October 2007 he was going through a difficult family period and he came to Milan for the weekend with the intention of going to Lecco where his Aunt lived, to speak with her and receive advice. When he arrived by train in Milan, he decided to take a little break going to some local bars to listen to music; it became late and he didn’t feel like taking the train to Lecco, so he decided to stay in Milan. Not having enough money for a hotel, he accepted the offer of a South American person who had told him that he could put him up; this man accompanied him to via Plinio and had opened the gate with keys in his possession, but then, instead of going to one of the buildings that overlooked the courtyard, he went towards the nursery school and here, still using his keys he was able to – even though with some difficulty – to open the door. Realizing that it was a nursery school, he complained that it didn’t seem correct to sleep there, but the South American calmed him down, saying that his partner worked at the nursery school and he could use it and he had already accommodated people there on other occasions. He had slept on the floor of the office indicated to him by the South American (who had gone away) and the next morning, hearing someone arrive and thinking it was him, he went towards him; instead it was the headmistress, in the company of a child, to whom he tried to explain what happened and who called the Police. With regards to the items in his possession, Guede stated that he bought the computer and the telephone at a second hand market; at that time, to the Police, maybe for the stress of the moment, maybe realizing these were items coming from illegal actions, he said that he had bought them in Milan, but now, thinking it over, he is certain that he bought them in Perugia. Regarding the watch, it was a souvenir given to him by a female friend. Seeing as he had heard mention of the lawyer Brocchi in the Police Offices, when he returned to Perugia he looked for him to explain to him why he was in possession of his computer and mobile phone. Finally Guede affirmed that he hadn’t entered the nursery school to steal, and he stated that he realized that he had made a mistake in accepting the invitation of the South American and of having bought items without being sure where they came from, which he had done out of naivety.
 
Vixen said:
He was mistaken IMV. Had to answer to a disciplinary board. Thanks to avv Bongiorno reporting him. Luckily for him, he was cleared.
Click to expand...
Vixen, without beating about the bush, I suggest you read thoroughly the Guede break in and burglary motivation report at the kindergarten, a new and damning report that implicates ILE in negligence leading to homicide at best, and malfeasance at worst, and realise you have been grievously misled by ignorant people. The data points that tell you this have been comprehensively posted.
 
Last edited:
The small hammer and the watch that were seized are to be confiscated, given the nature of the former and the criminal origin of the latter, without it being possible to identify a legitimate owner of the latter.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
The small hammer and the watch that were seized are to be confiscated, given the nature of the former and the criminal origin of the latter, without it being possible to identify a legitimate owner of the latter.
Click to expand...

Regarding the watch, it was a souvenir given to him by a female friend.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...trial-Milan-motivation-report-18-Feb-2013.pdf

Grinder, why do you think the police did not accept Guede's account of why he had the watch? Could he have forgotten the name of his female friend? Or was it a conspiracy against Rudi? Or some other reason?
 
MichaelB said:
English translation of Rudy Guede's 1st trial Milan motivation report.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...trial-Milan-motivation-report-18-Feb-2013.pdf

So it was definitely a break-in at the nursery and he got in via forcing the front door. The key story was all BS. And he changed story about buying the stolen goods at a 2nd hand market in Milan to buying them in Perugia.
Click to expand...

The story of Guede being let in with keys by some South American man, is BS, another typical Guede lie.

But Maria Del Prato says in this video, clearly saying Rudy had "a set of keys" in his back pack, yet the police and court doc don't mention a set of keys as being in his possession or if they were given back to him or kept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

For some reason I'll take her word over the police report and court doc. Probably the keys werent of interest to the police? The keys arent mentioned as her own either.

If Rudy was lead to the Nursery by a fellow burglar in Milan, it seems logical. A burglar crowd of thieves, to share a low importance/ low cash value building to hit again. Possible the Milan burglar guy who would know the daycare was low risk and easy to get into. Or maybe Rudy just knew the Daycare was a place to rob, a place to break into?

For Maria the break in was, and is, probably a memorable event in her life; she probably remembers it more vividly. Thats why I side with her that there were keys seen in his backpack.

For a police officer, who sees hundreds, to thousands of these small burglary events, they dont recall as well and miss details, probably like a mechanic doesnt recall which car he worked on.

The set of keys could possibly have been Rudys? to his apartment etc..? someone elses home he burglarized?

Maybe why the key story got started? I dont know mainly because Rudy never seems to be able to tell the truth about anything.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Regarding the watch, it was a souvenir given to him by a female friend.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...trial-Milan-motivation-report-18-Feb-2013.pdf

Grinder, why do you think the police did not accept Guede's account of why he had the watch? Could he have forgotten the name of his female friend? Or was it a conspiracy against Rudi? Or some other reason?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the story was a cover for how he really got it. But I doubt it was Diaz's alleged stolen one.
 
JREF2010 said:
The story of Guede being let in with keys by some South American man, is BS, another typical Guede lie.
Click to expand...

The complex where the nursery was located had a gate to the inner court and the location of it's entry door. Rudi description of the guy unlocking the gate and then fumbling with the door sounds consistent with the door lock not working properly.

But Maria Del Prato says in this video, clearly saying Rudy had "a set of keys" in his back pack, yet the police and court doc don't mention a set of keys as being in his possession or if they were given back to him or kept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

For some reason I'll take her word over the police report and court doc. Probably the keys werent of interest to the police? The keys arent mentioned as her own either.
Click to expand...

Rudi having keys means what exactly? They weren't the nursery keys.

If Rudy was lead to the Nursery by a fellow burglar in Milan, it seems logical. A burglar crowd of thieves, to share a low importance/ low cash value building to hit again. Possible the Milan burglar guy who would know the daycare was low risk and easy to get into. Or maybe Rudy just knew the Daycare was a place to rob, a place to break into?
Click to expand...

Someone he knew or met was aware a place to crash. Maybe someone he had sold some loot to or just met out at a club. It seems improbable that Rudi knew the nursery.

For Maria the break in was, and is, probably a memorable event in her life; she probably remembers it more vividly. Thats why I side with her that there were keys seen in his backpack.
Click to expand...

Sure but she gets stuff wrong as well. In the video the workers are locksmiths, in Nina's they are plumbers and in her testimony to the court in the murder trial they came to fix a step in the garden.

Nina also has Rudi claiming HE was a South American which always seemed odd, now we know he claim his guide was SA.

ETA - From Massei trial Prato- WITNESS - October 27 was a Saturday and that morning I went to my nursery school because I had an appointment with a metal worker as I wanted him to install some steps in the garden and there was the metal worker and a representative with him.
 
Last edited:
MichaelB said:
Tomorrow at the latest apparently.
Click to expand...

Fridays are always good. But the dark side says Marasca was pro guilt and outvoted so he will write a motivation that will be unacceptable.

AFAIK they have 90 but no penalty for going over. I think Rose had an example of a motivation that was waaaaaaay late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom