Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Methos said:
Not another "wordgame"/"definition battle" here, please (English isn't my first language, as you know, and French is off my radar...). As my google-fu sensei Rose says: "I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right." ;)
Click to expand...


Ah sorry - I wasn't meaning to snipe or nitpick. It's just that the term "remand" has a very specific meaning in English judicial language: it concerns the retention of a person in custody (usually prison). On the other hand, the term "remit" means to send the case back to trial in a lower court.

And since there was talk that if the Marasca SC had remitted the case back to another appeal level trial, Sollecito (and, theoretically at least, Knox) might have been remanded back into custody pending that new trial, I just wanted to avoid any confusion. In the event of course, the SC was sentient and sage enough to throw the whole case out on its (abject lack of) merits, so the question of remand never needed to arise.
 
Vixen said:
...

ETA * It doesn't explain away how a star defect on the heel matched Raff's trainer.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
Once again: if this were true and reliable, it would beyond doubt have featured very prominently in the prosecution case in court.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
As we discussed, Massei accepted Papa Raff's desperate theory.
Click to expand...

Strozzi said:
[/hilite]

Actually, Judge Massei accepting that the shoeprint is not Raffaele's really means that Massei rejected Mignini's desperate theory that the print is Raffaele's.
Click to expand...

A thought about this exchange:
LJ's point has been made several times. Two courts have found AK/RS not guilty, many books about the case take a pro-innocence stand, many experts from disparate fields have argued that the two are innocent. In short, if AK/RS are guilty, the case is not obvious, thus any claims of very strong evidence of their guilt are almost certainly wrong. That evidence would have been a prominent part of any trial and that evidence would have almost certainly prevented trial outcomes that found them not guilty. And the various experts that have weighed in on this case would almost certainly not have argued that AK/RS are innocent if overwhelming evidence of their guilt existed.

Some of Vixen's posts suggest either that he/she has not considered this line of reasoning or that he/she has rejected it. If he/she has rejected it perhaps he/she could explain why? If he/she hasn't rejected it perhaps Vixen could explain how it is possible that reliable evidence of Sollecito's presence at the crime scene at the time of murder like a bloody shoe print that can be identified as his exists but nobody including the prosecutors seem to be aware of it.
 
Bill Williams said:
The shocking thing in reading trial transcripts is the sheer volume of theatrics and shouting amoung lawyers. I can't imagine Mignini being cross-examined by Brizzioli but would pay teal money to witness it!
Click to expand...

Teal money? IS that money issued in Tealland?
 
Methos said:
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2015GMaoriComplaint.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow, May 16, 2015 and these idiots are taking offense? It's like watching Hitler devising an offensive strategy from the bunker.

It's actually unfair. People this stupid make too easy targets. They are so done, they are all going to jail. Not because of what they did, but because of their stupidity after the fact. They are forcing authorities to handle their buffoonery. If they'd just shut up and lay low, they might have held on and got away with it. It's madness and delusion. I have to look away.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
How do you know the above?



And you're point is? Of course, he tried to come up with a story. What aliases? Baron or Byron?




Fine, find the evaluation. Yes they feared being sued by a convicted murderer that had no means to fund a suit. :rolleyes: All his cases were fast track.

There is no doubt Rudi told lies. That doesn't mean he always lied or that some truth isn't in the statements. I thought his first Skype when he said Amanda wasn't there was the truth.

Btw, do you have a sequence of statements. Where in the order did the "I was there 3 days before" come? Real question.

He admitted being there in his first Skype. Don't find three days in the diary.

ETA - Must be in the second Skype
Click to expand...



He did use aliases.

Do you have any pseudo-names?
No.
Ok, I meant, Baron?
Yes because seeing as it came out that they called me the Baron, none of the people that I know and that know me has ever called my with that nickname.
Understood, however has anybody ever called you by this nickname?
Yes I’ve heard...

He obviously can't be relied on even for even trivial answers. He also pretended to have lived in the US which of course couldn't work with an English speaker. The Spanish friends remarked that he told lies for no obvious reason.

I got the (questionable) quotation from Ron Hendry. If it's wrong then I certainly want to know that. It is remarkable that this quote got repeated so many times without being challenged. It seems that the falsities and the truth are mixed together. No source is the pure truth.

I got the bit about Rudy being thought of as a burglar by the court from the Massei MR,

"That is [Di consequenza]: a burglar (who had actually been caught on other people’s property on a few days before with items that were not his, with the police being called) simulating a theft in order to deflect suspicion from himself seems absolutely implausible — all the more so when one considers that there was no particular reason that suspicion should have been directed toward him [to begin with]." [Rudi il simulatore?, pp. 44-49]

Biscotti became aggressive with reporters if he didn't like their articles. He apparently saw his pay off in the publicity, not in fees. Again, this is from Nina and Barbie so you will probably say they aren't credible. The point is some lawyers work pro bono but they have other kinds of profit in mind.
 
Was Dempsey full of crap?

Grinder said:
Once again you brought up Dempsey to prove me wrong but in fact she was wrong.

“Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that,” Rudy told a friend during a long
Skype call on Nov. 19, 2007, several weeks after Kercher’s brutal slashing. He was sleeping rough in Germany, where he’d fled after the murder. Even though police had found his bloody handprint on the victim’s pillow, he insisted: “I’ve been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn’t do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn’t there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.”

The above is wrong and disingenuous. Even if Rudi had claimed in the Skype call what Dempsey claimed, he wouldn't have done it knowing they had found his palm print. She writes bull and it bothers me.
Click to expand...


Hi Grinder,
I've got a few minutes to goof off as I work editing surfpix right now,
so I dug around for some info,
here ya go.

I posted that Candace Dempsey wrote of the Skype call with Giacomo Beneditti being 3 hours long.
It was, and Dempsey appears to be correct.

Nov 19: A fourth suspect is named as Rudy Hermann Guede, 20, a resident of Perugia originally from the Ivory Coast. The police record a three hour Skype conversation between him and Giacomo Beneditti.
Nov 16: The police visit Rudy Guede’s apartment with Giacomo Beneditti.
Click to expand...
Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-timeline/


You also keep harping on the statement in your post above, stating that Candace Dempsey made it up.

I found this:
Rudy Guede's friend, Giacomo Benedetti, spoke to him by Skype in November 2007, when Guede was on the run in Germany. Unbeknown to Guede, his friend was calling from a police station and the whole conversation was recorded. Part of the recording was made public by La Stampa.
(see multimedia.asp?p=217&pm=1&IDmsezione=9&IDalbum=13208&tipo=#mpos).
This partial recording was translated by 'Thoughtful'. Please note that La Stampa only included part of the recording in their publication. The remainder is not in the public domain.


GB:
Ciao Rudy, how are you?

RG:
Not too well.

GB:
Where are you?

RG:
I'm in Dusseldorf and I have no money.

GB:
Where are you staying?

RG:
I'm living in a barge on the Rhine and sleeping on trains, without paying for a ticket. It's tough, I can't do this any more.

GB:
Would you like me to send some money?

RG:
Well, that would be useful.

GB:
OK, look, I'll send you 50 Euros through Western Union, then you can pick it up.

RG:
Thanks, but it’s already late in the evening.

GB:

They're talking about you here [in Perugia].

RG:
I know what happened in Perugia, but they're making a mistake. I am not “The Baron”, I'm called Byron after Scott Byron, the famous basketball player.

GB:
But they are saying other things.

RG:
Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.
GB:
But your photo is everywhere.

RG:
I've seen it, the police were wrong to put my photo around like that. I'm not how they describe me. I have nothing to do with that night.

GB:
But if you have nothing to do with it why don't you come back? I'll help you to find a good lawyer who can clear things up.

RG:
I'm afraid. But I don't want to stay in Germany, I'm black and if the police catch me I don't know what they might do to me. I prefer Italian jails.

RG:
In the newspaper they’re writing that I was drunk and slept on the toilet. That’s crap. In that house we were smoking joints, we smoked and so did those girls, everyone did. After that I said to the guys, who are men of their word, "Listen, guys, I'm tired, I can't walk now, can I sleep over here?" So I slept on their sofa. I was only ever at their place twice. After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub, at Lumamba’s pub, whatever his name is.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Source:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Skype_Conversation
There is much more info from the Skype call in there.


Was Dempsey correct,
Rudy in Dusseldorf?

Was Dempsey correct,
Giacomo going to wire him 50 Euro thru Western Union?

Did Rudy Guede say:
"I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening."
:confused:


Was Thoughtful's translation of the partial, publicly released Skype video from La Stampa correct?

Is Candace Dempsey wrong and making **** up?
It appears Dempsey was correct from reading above.
RW
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Hi Grinder,
I've got a few minutes to goof off as I work editing surfpix right now,
so I dug around for some info,
here ya go.

I posted that Candace Dempsey wrote of the Skype call with Giacomo Beneditti being 3 hours long.
It was, and Dempsey appears to be correct.


Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-timeline/


You also keep harping on the statement in your post above, stating that Candace Dempsey made it up.

I found this:


Source:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Skype_Conversation
There is much more info from the Skype call in there.


Was Dempsey correct,
Rudy in Dusseldorf?

Was Dempsey correct,
Giacomo going to wire him 50 Euro thru Western Union?

Did Rudy Guede say:
"I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening."
:confused:


Was Thoughtful's translation of the partial, publicly released Skype video from La Stampa correct?

Is Candace Dempsey wrong and making **** up?
It appears Dempsey was correct from reading above.
RW
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT. BTW...much better avatar
 
carbonjam72 said:
Wow, May 16, 2015 and these idiots are taking offense? It's like watching Hitler devising an offensive strategy from the bunker.

It's actually unfair. People this stupid make too easy targets. They are so done, they are all going to jail. Not because of what they did, but because of their stupidity after the fact. They are forcing authorities to handle their buffoonery. If they'd just shut up and lay low, they might have held on and got away with it. It's madness and delusion. I have to look away.
Click to expand...

What a trainwreck Mignini is. All he is saying is that Maori and Laganà committed defamation towrds him because of the obviousness of the case he presented to Massei in 2009 - that Curatolo is reliable, the break-in was obviously staged, and that Knox's calunnia against Lumumba can only have one explanation.

Oh yes, that the end of the Rudy process proved multiple attackers. And that Conti and Vechiotti proved nothing.

He rolls out stuff which betrays the origin of Machiavelli's themes - that Hellmann was fraudulently appointed to the first 2nd-grade trial. That Section 5 of the ISC went beyond its powers.

It just would have been nice if Mignini had rolled out something new, rather than simply rearguing the obviousness of the case from his point of view.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Grinder,
I've got a few minutes to goof off as I work editing surfpix right now,
so I dug around for some info,
here ya go.

I posted that Candace Dempsey wrote of the Skype call with Giacomo Beneditti being 3 hours long.
It was, and Dempsey appears to be correct.


Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-timeline/


You also keep harping on the statement in your post above, stating that Candace Dempsey made it up.

I found this:


Source:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Skype_Conversation
There is much more info from the Skype call in there.


Was Dempsey correct,
Rudy in Dusseldorf?

Was Dempsey correct,
Giacomo going to wire him 50 Euro thru Western Union?

Did Rudy Guede say:
"I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening."
:confused:


Was Thoughtful's translation of the partial, publicly released Skype video from La Stampa correct?

Is Candace Dempsey wrong and making **** up?
It appears Dempsey was correct from reading above.
RW
Click to expand...

So I ate crow for nothing? That really annoys me.:mad: But why do so many accounts of the Skype chat leave out that conversation that we quoted? Something is wrong here. I did not see a reference to it in court documents so I am confused. You guys have been arguing this stuff for five years and something this basic has not yet been figured out...weird!

If that conversation is right it means Rudy told a massive whopper and he isn't as great a liar as we thought. He comes across as panicked and stupid.
 
Last edited:
zotz said:
So I ate crow for nothing? That really annoys me.:mad: But why do so many accounts of the Skype chat leave out that conversation that we quoted? Something is wrong here. I did not see a reference to it in court documents so I am confused. You guys have been arguing this stuff for five years and something this basic has not yet been figured out...weird!

If that conversation is right it means Rudy told a massive whopper and he isn't as great a liar as we thought. He comes across as panicked and stupid.
Click to expand...

I never suggested that Rudy told convincing lies. Only that he told many lies. This is why I have always been flabbergasted that Grinder believes that Rudy was at the nursery to sleep. There is nothing at all that points to that conclusion except Rudy's story. The court did not believe nor Ms. Prato.
 
Dougm said:
Can't refute what you say. I will say I think Dempsey's book is probably the best straightforward delivery of the facts that was done, from the ones I read. She didn't do a lot of editorializing, if I remember correctly. My comparison would be to the others I read, which are Nadeau, Nina B, and Follain.
Click to expand...

Dempsey's book is still by far and away the best. Considering how early it was published that's really remarkable in my opinion. Burleigh's book was interesting with the addition of a lot of information on the Masons and Nadeau had some interesting things to say about the journalists covering the case and how information was bartered and exchanged.

I refuse to buy Follain's book, he is a mouthpiece for the prosecution.
 
acbytesla said:
I never suggested that Rudy told convincing lies. Only that he told many lies. This is why I have always been flabbergasted that Grinder believes that Rudy was at the nursery to sleep. There is nothing at all that points to that conclusion except Rudy's story. The court did not believe nor Ms. Prato.
Click to expand...

Guede was obviously a burglar. If you don't believe that then what was the business with the rock in Filomena's room? Who broke into the lawyer's office? Rudy's assertions are as meaningless as his claim to have lived in the US. In the prison diary he admits that he is a liar (but he is telling the truth now). This is supposed to convince us of his sincerity. This works only on very credulous people. He lies about trivial things, so would such a person tell the truth when his freedom is at stake?

One thing he said in the Skype chat I found interesting. He said he didn't want to go to prison but if he had to he preferred to go to an Italian prison. This is not how a person that believed himself to be innocent would talk IMO.
 
Is there anyone who Mignini has NOT brought charges against? Like most bullies, he appears very insecure.

How can anyone defend this man?
 
zotz said:
So I ate crow for nothing? That really annoys me.:mad: But why do so many accounts of the Skype chat leave out that conversation that we quoted? Something is wrong here. I did not see a reference to it in court documents so I am confused. You guys have been arguing this stuff for five years and something this basic has not yet been figured out...weird!

If that conversation is right it means Rudy told a massive whopper and he isn't as great a liar as we thought. He comes across as panicked and stupid.
Click to expand...


Hi Zotz,
I gather from reading abit today that we only get to read or hear about 11 minutes of a 3 hour long recorded Skype call.

3 hours!?!

I really want to read an English translation of what Rudy Guede said over 3 hours!

Add this to my request to someday read an English translation of Rudy's 7 hour long 1st Italian Interrogation from Dec. 7, 2007, after he was extradited from Germany.


Listen to the Skype call,
you can tell it's been edited and is missing parts.
But you can't really tell this just by reading the transcribed Skype call transaltions.


Heck, the part that Grinder was harping about has Guede saying he wasn't even there,
yet then soon afterwards, he's describing his date with Meredith.

Giacomo must have coaxed it out of him:
"Come on Rudy, everyone knows you were there, quit lying" or something like that.

Listen also to his tone of voice,
he's yackin' away as he tries to explain things, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq7c7SjxYA&feature=youtu.be

Maybe much of the recorded and partially released call that we the public get to listen to is from later on during the 3 hour talk. For the dude doesn't sound that scared to me at all.
My opinion only,
RW

PS - By the way,
welcome to The Group!
:)
 
Last edited:
It helps for those of us who are a little slow if somebody summarizes these little Grinder driven exchanges.

I will attempt one here but I may not quite get it.

1. Grinder is critical of Candance Dempsey (CD) because even though she is pro-innocence he believes that she has been "loose with the truth".

2. The general consensus (excluding perhaps Grinder and by inference, definitely Vixen) amongst people that have read multiple books on this case is that she is the most accurate of all the authors.

3. Grinder put forth the claim that CD was wrong when she claimed that Guede said that he wasn't in apartment on the night of the murder.

4. It appears that Grinder was wrong because Guede did say he wasn't in the apartment on the night of the murder in the Skype call. However Grinder was mislead by the fact that Guede in same call did admit to being in the apartment on the night of the murder.

5. In the ten point must right/wrong scale (10 is completely right and 0 is completely wrong) I have awarded Grinder a four and everybody else that had anything to say about this a six based on my understanding of the facts as described above, although the scoring for zotz was difficult given his flip flopping. But to keep things simple I gave zotz a six also.

Quote from the Skype call English transcript from RWVBWL post:
"I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening."
Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...case-timeline/


Quote from the Skype call English transcript from Grinder post:
Rudy Hermann says: (7:01:43PM) I was there when it happened.
I added the highlighting to the quote from the RWVBWL post.


 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
Wow, May 16, 2015 and these idiots are taking offense? It's like watching Hitler devising an offensive strategy from the bunker.

It's actually unfair. People this stupid make too easy targets. They are so done, they are all going to jail. Not because of what they did, but because of their stupidity after the fact. They are forcing authorities to handle their buffoonery. If they'd just shut up and lay low, they might have held on and got away with it. It's madness and delusion. I have to look away.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is a real catch all.
"Against those responsible for the conduct described in the current document, that is Advocate Luca MAORI, Alberto LAGANA’ and Bruno BRUNORI, in their roles above indicated, to identify fully and against anyone who may have been an accessory in the publication of the article"
I note this includes a criminal case so those named and anyone else is potentially subject to imprisonment, as well as damages. Mignini certainly generates a lot of collateral court places. I wonder if this is usual in Italy or if he is an outlier.

The problem is court cases are expensive. The magazine may feel it is cheaper to strike a deal rather than fight. Even if they do fight it, given how slow the court system flows it may be a long time before we see Mignini on the stand nice as it would be to see him subject to a detailed examination.

This really strikes me as a petulant self justification. The danger for Mignini is it lays him open to examination and will allow the defendants to claim access to lots of documents around the process of the examination. The other danger is that the media will pile in against Mignini, since all these allegations can be reported.

It is interesting how much weight Mignini puts on the fast track trial of Guede to justify the case against Sollecito and Knox;
"proceedings have concluded with the conviction of Rudy for offence in company with another two subjects (in the judgment Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are themselves indicated) in the murder and other matters but not in the staging of the offence." Even a student lawyer should be able to see the danger of using a case in which individuals are not defendants to justify a criminal conviction.
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Hi Zotz,
I gather from reading abit today that we only get to read or hear about 11 minutes of a 3 hour long recorded Skype call.

3 hours!?!

I really want to read an English translation of what Rudy Guede said over 3 hours!

Add this to my request to someday read an English translation of Rudy's 7 hour long 1st Italian Interrogation from Dec. 7, 2007, after he was extradited from Germany.


Listen to the Skype call,
you can tell it's been edited and is missing parts.
But you can't really tell this just by reading the transcribed Skype call transaltions.


Heck, the part that Grinder was harping about has Guede saying he wasn't even there,
yet then soon afterwards, he's describing his date with Meredith.

Giacomo must have coaxed it out of him:
"Come on Rudy, everyone knows you were there, quit lying" or something like that.

Listen also to his tone of voice,
he's yackin' away as he tries to explain things, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq7c7SjxYA&feature=youtu.be

Maybe much of the recorded and partially released call that we the public get to listen to is from later on during the 3 hour talk. For the dude doesn't sound that scared to me at all.
My opinion only,
RW

PS - By the way,
welcome to The Group!
:)
Click to expand...
RWVBWL, or anyone, do we know the 7 hour conversation was
1. recorded and/or
2. a transcription made of.

It must be the key to discovering whether Mignini is a fool or a crook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom