Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

I've looked a bit at the final ECHR cases pending before the CoM of two states with a low number of such cases, the UK and Germany (each has 7 pending cases before the CoM), to see how those states organized their Action Plans. I came across two cases - one from each country - that surprisingly had a few elements reminiscent of the Knox - Sollecito case. Unlike the Knox v. Italy case, however, where Italy has not provided an Action Plan indicating how the violations of the Convention would be redressed, the two cases had Action Plans with extensive discussion of the history of the case and a brief indication of how the violations of the Convention would be redressed.

The two cases are V.C.L and A.N. v. the United Kingdom 77587/12 16/02/2021 and Meng v. Germany 1128/17 16/02/2021. I'll write about the first case only in this post in the interests of brevity.

V.C.L and A.N. were two minors trafficked for their labor from Vietnam who were arrested in the UK in a police raid on a large house where cannabis was being grown illegally. The two minors were tending the plants. Because of confusion and delays in communication between the relevant UK agencies, the two were prosecuted, although as victims of trafficking, they should have been exempt from prosecution. Their state-appointed lawyers had advised them to plead guilty (a possible case of ineffective counsel), which they did. (This is an element that is somewhat similar to the improper revelation of her own alleged traumatic amnesia by the interpreter in the Knox case.) They were found guilty. On appeal, after their status as victims of trafficking had become clear to the prosecution and courts, the higher courts did not accept their change in pleas:

208. .... Although the applicants had relied on Article 4 [prohibition of slavery and forced labor] of the Convention [the Appeals Court] did not consider their cases through the prism of the State’s positive obligations under that Article. On the contrary, it restricted itself to a relatively narrow review; in dismissing the appeals by both applicants the Court of Appeal made it clear that a defendant was provided with one opportunity to give instructions to his or her legal advisers and that it would only be “in the most exceptional cases” that the court would consider it appropriate to allow the defendant to advance fresh instructions about the facts for the purposes of an appeal against conviction.... In the [ECHR's] view, such an approach would in effect penalise victims of trafficking for not initially identifying themselves as such and allow the authorities to rely on their own failure to fulfil their duty under Article 4 of the Convention to take operational measures to protect them. Consequently, the Court does not consider that the appeal proceedings cured the defects in the proceedings which led to the applicants’ charging and eventual conviction.

209. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that in respect of both applicants the proceedings as a whole could not be considered “fair”.

210. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The refusal of the UK appeals court(s) to conduct a fair evaluation of the information that the two minors had been trafficked also is suggestive of the failures of the Italian courts to fairly evaluate exculpatory evidence in the Knox case, including, for example, the testimony of the interpreter that she had, acting as a mediator, revealed her own alleged experience of traumatic amnesia, suggestive information that may have influenced Knox during the coercive interrogation, or to order an effective independent investigation of Knox's allegations that she had been subjected to misconduct by the police during the interrogation.

Sources:
ECHR judgment:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

CoM summary and status:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

Please quit the hypotheticals and what-ifs 'would, could, and should'.

Nothing I wrote was "hypotheticals and what-ifs 'would, could, and should'.
You accuse me then you immediately follow it with your own "hypotheticals and what-ifs 'would, could, and shoulds"

IF the phones were stolen by Guede, he WOULD have removed the SIM cards and passed the phones on to his stolen goods go between.

You mean fence phones that would have directly connected him to the murder? Not even Guede was that stupid.

IF Guede was going to steal a couple of cheap manky phones he WOULD have also taken the far more valuable three laptops and Filomena's expensive jewellery and camera openly lying around.

After killing Meredith, he grabbed her wallet, cash, and phones leaving his DNA in Kercher's blood on her purse. Then he got the hell out of Dodge. Or do you think his DNA got on her purse when he was looking for a phone to call 911 to help Meredith?

You don't know her jewelry was "expensive". She was a law intern having to rent share a rundown cottage with three other girls in a sketchy part of town. It's a perfect example of your "just make stuff up" habit.

He COULD have used one of her tote bags to carry the blag in, being of his ethnicity, a strong fit athletic type with criminal tendencies and likely ate cats and dogs, as per MAGA stereotypes, beloved of the PIP.

I hate to break it to you, but Guede was, in fact, "a strong fit athletic type with criminal tendencies". As for the rest of your comment, wtf is wrong with you?

Let's stick to known facts. Knox had a cocaine dealer on her speed dial.

OK, let's do stick to known facts:
1. Knox had "Cristiano's" number in her phone. She had met him on a train and interacted with him one day. You do NOT know that it was on "speed dial". That's yet another example of you just making things up with it suits your purpose.
2. There is no evidence Knox knew he was a drug dealer.
3. The phone records show she had NEVER dialed that number nor had she ever received a call from that number.
4. Knox's hair test was negative for any narcotics, including cocaine.

She was getting through up to €400 a day.

That is easily disproven by looking at her bank records:
Knox's bank record activity in US dollars from Oct.1 to Nov 5/6 (days of the interrogation and arrest). Irrelevant international transaction/withdrawal fees which ranged from under $1 to $8 have been left out which is why the balance amount is slightly off. Knox typically withdrew €150 or €250 at a time to avoid transaction fees.
Action Balance
Oct 1: -355.75 [€250] $3,593.38 (Rent money)
Oct 3: -354.52 [€250] $3,235.31
Oct 4: +2,052.30 $5,284.07 (Grandmother)
Oct 15: -355.29 [€250] $4,912.78
Oct 23: -355.79 [€250] $4,549.89
Oct 29: -215.90 [€150] $4,333.99 (Trip to Assisi)
Nov 5: -361,54 [€250] $3,9790.30
Nov 5: +562.00 $4,528.69 (paycheck)
Nov 5: -62.18 [€42.92] $4465.89
Nov 11: -8.00 (fee) $4457.89

The numbers don't lie.

Whilst Mez had €300 rent money missing, Knox had a similar amount remaining in her possession.

And her bank records show where it came from. It was HER money.

Both Knox and Sollecito bragged about being drug users. Both said after the murder they would never take drugs again.

LOL. The were stupid kids smoking weed. And since you seem to suffer from selective memory: BOTH tested NEGATIVE for any narcotics.

The fact is, Mrs Lana heard Knox ringing one of the phones dumped in her garden.

BREAKING NEWS! READ ALL ABOUT IT! KNOX CALLED KERCHER!
Gosh! Who knew?

She immediately took it to the police and to report threatening phone calls about her toilet blowing up.

Um, no. She had called the police the night before to report the "bomb" call.

The postal police promptly and efficiently identified the phone as being registered with Filomena (who had given it to Mez as being cheaper to use than her English phone). The postale police were so efficient, they sent a squad car with a couple of cops to hand the phone back in person*.

LOL. Yet more of your need for exaggeration. You're praising them for doing their job like it was really difficult to identify the owner through the SIM card. That didn't take Sherlock Holmes to do.

So, who do I believe, the postal police who caught the pair hanging around at the scene canoodling

"Caught"? LOL!! You mean they arrived to find them standing outside waiting for the carabinieri who they called BEFORE the postales arrived? Even your beloved Massei acknowledged that.
I'm surprised you didn't claim they were caught with a mop and bucket!
"Canoodling"? If you consider three quick pecks within 4 seconds by two somber and blank- faced people "canoodling" then you've got a very weird idea of what "amorous petting or caressing" is. That might explain the 3 divorces.

or a cunning convict who is now making a lot of money out of the dreadful crime?

You mean the convicted murderer who is now going to be tried on rape and beating up his former girlfriend?

Whilst the undercover cop Stasi-style secret police remnants of the old Mussolini fascist police state dictatorship lingers on in Italy, with its wire-tapping and ears to the wall furtiveness, and is to be looked upon with opprobrium by those of us who believe in transparency,

So you want to discuss Mignini now?

in this instance, it well demonstrates how covert intelligence gathering identified the key suspects very quickly. Obviously such undercover intelligence can't be used in court and the police still had to build an evidence-based case. The phone logs - or lack thereof - were very useful evidence here.

LOL! How did 'covert intelligence' identify the key suspects? Mignini admitted he suspected Knox almost immediately because 1) it was an 'inside job', 2) only a female would cover the body, 3) Sollecito dared to comfort Knox with 3 small pecks, 4) she broke down when taken back to the cottage.
That is hardly "covert intelligence". Hell, it's not even "intelligence" at all; it's jumping to wrong conclusions and tunnel vision.
The phone logs were useful evidence. They supported innocence when looked at logically.

*Imagine losing your phone and the cops bringing it round to you in person within the hour of it being handed in.

Imagine the postales doing their job!

 

[Stacyhs]

But after this experience, believe me Dad, I will never smoke another joint in my life. ~ Extract from Raffaele Sollecito's letter to his father -- Published in The Observer, Sunday November 25 2007

And? Is anyone denying he smoked weed? EVERYONE in that cottage smoked week including Meredith but it's your repeated pushing of the "cocaine" lie that's the issue.

I notice you ignore (as usual) that your 'the phone theft charges were later dropped' claim is also proved false.
I remember you've previously claimed a charge was never adjudicated when it was. Even after quoting and citing the judgement, you kept denying it. I forget which charge it was so maybe someone here does.

 

[SpitfireIX]

He COULD have used one of her tote bags to carry the blag in, being of his ethnicity, a strong fit athletic type with criminal tendencies and likely ate cats and dogs, as per MAGA stereotypes, beloved of the PIP.

I hate to break it to you, but Guede was, in fact, "a strong fit athletic type with criminal tendencies". As for the rest of your comment, wtf is wrong with you?

As you may suspect, this is a veiled accusation of racism, as part of a lame attempt to shame her detractors into muting their criticism. The implication, which we've seen from guilters before, is that if you think Rudy is guilty, but you think Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, it must be because Rudy is black, but Amanda and Raffaele are white. This obviously ignores the fact that there is no credible evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

As you may suspect, this is a veiled accusation of racism, as part of a lame attempt to shame her detractors into muting their criticism. The implication, which we've seen from guilters before, is that if you think Rudy is guilty, but you think Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, it must be because Rudy is black, but Amanda and Raffaele are white. This obviously ignores the fact that there is no credible evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.

Of course it's a none too veiled accusation. She tried to pull that on me, too. When I said it was Guede who played the race card with his "Black man found, black man guilty" nonsense in an attempt to paint himself as a victim of racism, she accused me of being racist.

Another bit of nonsense from many PGP is that Trump "got her off" when he wasn't even a declared candidate for POTUS the first time when Knox was acquitted in 2015. All he did was post one of his stupid tweets about boycotting Italy. Yeah, I'm sure that threat from a NY land developer made the Court of Cassation just quake in their robes.

Then there's the other dumb claim that the US State Dept. got her off. There's zero evidence of that but it's a go-to excuse for those who can't accept the acquittal. They can't argue the evidence so they resort to an excuse that can't be proved or disproved.

 

[Numbers]

I've looked a bit at the final ECHR cases pending before the CoM of two states with a low number of such cases, the UK and Germany (each has 7 pending cases before the CoM), to see how those states organized their Action Plans. I came across two cases - one from each country - that surprisingly had a few elements reminiscent of the Knox - Sollecito case. Unlike the Knox v. Italy case, however, where Italy has not provided an Action Plan indicating how the violations of the Convention would be redressed, the two cases had Action Plans with extensive discussion of the history of the case and a brief indication of how the violations of the Convention would be redressed.

The two cases are V.C.L and A.N. v. the United Kingdom 77587/12 16/02/2021 and Meng v. Germany 1128/17 16/02/2021. I'll write about the first case only in this post in the interests of brevity.

....

In this post I'm going to discuss the ECHR case Meng v. Germany 1128/17 16/02/2021. It's interesting because the German judicial system violated the European Convention on Human Rights in a way that the Italian courts attempted in the Knox - Sollecito case, but that attempt was blocked by the Marasca CSC panel judgment. The violation is one of the presumption of innocence. The method of the violation is to use a previous court judgment that convicted an alleged co-conspirator and also presented alleged evidence against another named person, without allowing that other person to present a defense in that trial. Then, in a trial for the named person, the alleged evidence presented against that person from the trial of the alleged co-conspirator is presented as a "judicial truth", or in a variant, a judge from the first trial presides over the trial of the named person.

As background, it's important to note that the German judicial system is an inquisitorial civil system - the judges ask the witnesses questions during the main part of the trial, followed by a part where the defense and prosecution can examine the witnesses, there is no jury, but there is a panel of professional and lay judges. For a criminal trial for murder, there are 3 professional judges and 2 lay judges.*

Here's the introductory paragraph of Meng v. Germany:

1. The present application raises the issue of whether the Regional Court, which convicted the applicant [Ms. Salina Meng] of murdering her husband out of greed, jointly with G.S., had been impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Regional Court in the applicant’s case was presided by judge M., who had been judge rapporteur in previous separate criminal proceedings conducted against G.S. alone. In these proceedings, G.S. had been convicted of murdering the applicant’s husband in a judgment which contained numerous references to the applicant, describing her participation in the offence.

Here's the ECHR's reasoning that led it to find a violation of Convention Article 6.1 in the trial and conviction of the applicant, Meng:

58. In determining whether the judgment against G.S. contained such findings prejudging the applicant’s guilt, the Court observes that the references to the applicant in that judgment, which speaks of “the accused and Salina Meng”, show that the applicant was not formally on trial in these proceedings; her procedural status as a third party (witness) in these proceedings was therefore clear.

59. However, in the judgment against G.S. the applicant was not mentioned only in passing. That judgment contained extensive findings of fact also concerning the applicant. It stated, in particular, that “[t]hey” – that is, G.S. and the applicant – “...decided to kill [M.M.]” and that the applicant, following a “plan made jointly with the accused to kill [M.M.] in order to get hold of his assets”, prepared the act as well as the acquisition of [M.M.]’s assets (see paragraph 7 above). It further assessed evidence taken at the trial also in respect of the applicant and found, in particular, that the fact that neither G.S. nor the applicant had asked about the cause of M.M.’s death could easily be explained in the circumstances “as they had committed the offence themselves or been involved in it” (see paragraph 8 above). Moreover, when legally classifying the killing of M.M. as murder, the Regional Court stated that “the reckless manner in which the accused and Salina Meng acted and by which they attempted, by the murder of [M.M.], to take over his business ... had to be particularly taken into account” (see paragraph 9 above).

60. The Court observes in this context that the Regional Court, in its judgment against G.S., presented its findings regarding the applicant as established facts and established legal qualification thereof, and not as mere suspicions. This was confirmed by the domestic courts themselves which had found this to have been necessary in order to establish comprehensively the relevant facts in respect of G.S. and to provide a full picture regarding the planning of, and motive for the offence (see paragraphs 14, 16 and 19‑ 22 above). The Federal Court of Justice, in particular, had confirmed that the Regional Court’s indications in its judgment against G.S. – that it was firmly convinced that the applicant was a co-perpetrator in the offence – had been necessary to establish the basis for G.S.’s conviction (see paragraph 22 above).

61. The Court cannot but note that the judgment against G.S. contained a detailed assessment of the precise role played by the applicant in the violent death of M.M. going beyond a factual account of the circumstances of the crime. It can be regarded as having established that the criteria necessary for the act to constitute a criminal offence were also met in respect of the applicant. The judgment described in detail not only the premeditated killing of her husband and the manner in which the joint plan with G.S. was carried out, but also the base motives of the applicant herself for acting in that manner, namely that she wished to acquire M.M.’s assets in a reckless manner. The Regional Court can thereby be seen to have made a legal assessment of the act also in respect of the applicant in that it found in substance that not only G.S., but also the applicant had acted out of greed and that the latter had thus participated in, and was equally guilty of, the murder of M.M. The Court cannot but note in that context that these findings and the assessment in respect of the applicant were made despite the fact that G.S. had been charged as a single perpetrator who was found to have acted alone at the crime scene and that the legal assessment of the applicant’s acts appears to go beyond what was necessary to legally qualify G.S.’s offence.

62. The applicant’s doubts that the Regional Court, including judge M., may already have reached a preconceived view on the merits of the applicant’s case in the judgment against G.S., prior to the applicant’s own trial, were also confirmed by the prosecution’s assessment after that judgment. The prosecution stated that “the judges of the Darmstadt Regional Court had clearly expressed their conviction – shared by the prosecution – that the applicant had incited G.S. to kill her husband” (see paragraph 10 above).

63. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that the applicant had a legitimate fear that judge M., in the light of the wording of the judgment against G.S., had already reached a preconceived view on her guilt. Therefore, the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the Regional Court in the present case were objectively justified.

64. The Court further recalls that a higher or the highest court might, in some circumstances, make reparation for defects that took place in the first‑instance proceedings (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86, and Kyprianou, cited above, § 134). However, the Federal Court of Justice, which had the power to quash the Regional Court’s judgment on the ground that the Regional Court had not been impartial, upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. Consequently, the higher court did not remedy the defect in question.

65. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

In the Meng case, we don't have any way to know from the ECHR judgment whether or not she was involved in the murder of her husband, but it is clear that the trial of the co-conspirator improperly prejudged her guilt. I am surprised that the German authorities did not try them together to avoid that problem.

In a 17 March 2024 Action Plan, Germany indicated the following individual measure to redress its violation of Convention Article 6.1:

On 14 March 2024, the Higher Regional Court ordered the reopening of the proceedings and the recommencement of the main hearing at the Kassel Regional Court, as well as the release of the applicant from prison. While the proceedings are ongoing, measures have already been taken to ensure that the applicant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal is respected: The proceedings were reopened at a different court, i.e. the Kassel Regional Court instead of the Darmstadt Regional Court. This will ensure that new judges decide on the applicant’s case as none of the judges who participated in either the proceedings against G.S. or the first set of proceedings against the applicant work at the Kassel Regional Court.

Conclusion: The ECHR cases V.C.L and A.N. v. the United Kingdom and Meng v. Germany show that even states with generally well-functioning judicial systems occasionally violate the Convention, in ways that the authorities in those states should have recognized before the domestic decisions became "final". Those well-functioning states tend to submit Action Plans and redress the violations relatively responsibly. Italy, unfortunately, commits such violations more frequently, suggesting, along with other evidence, that it has a relatively dysfunctional system. In another sign of dysfunction, Italy is relatively slow to submit Action Plans and to redress its violations of the Convention.

Thus, the final resolution of Knox v. Italy (the calunnia miscarriage of justice) and any compensation for her unjust detention may be years in the future. Similarly, the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy (for violations of Article 6.1 and 6.2 in the hearing for compensation for unjust detention), communicated to Italy in January 2022, has not yet reached judgment, and thus the year of its resolution is unknown.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany

Sources:
ECHR judgment

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

CoM Summary and Status

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Vixen]

Of course it's a none too veiled accusation. She tried to pull that on me, too. When I said it was Guede who played the race card with his "Black man found, black man guilty" nonsense in an attempt to paint himself as a victim of racism, she accused me of being racist.

Another bit of nonsense from many PGP is that Trump "got her off" when he wasn't even a declared candidate for POTUS the first time when Knox was acquitted in 2015. All he did was post one of his stupid tweets about boycotting Italy. Yeah, I'm sure that threat from a NY land developer made the Court of Cassation just quake in their robes.

Then there's the other dumb claim that the US State Dept. got her off. There's zero evidence of that but it's a go-to excuse for those who can't accept the acquittal. They can't argue the evidence so they resort to an excuse that can't be proved or disproved.

Please do not tell lies about me, thanks!

 

[Vixen]

As you may suspect, this is a veiled accusation of racism, as part of a lame attempt to shame her detractors into muting their criticism. The implication, which we've seen from guilters before, is that if you think Rudy is guilty, but you think Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, it must be because Rudy is black, but Amanda and Raffaele are white. This obviously ignores the fact that there is no credible evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.

For the record, it is an established fact that Guede was an accessory to the crime and hence guilty of the aggravated murder because of his sexual assault on the victim. This is the final view of the courts (Massei, Micheli, Giordani [Supreme]). In other words, arguing against facts established at a highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law means you are simply resorting to ignorant guesswork, which you call 'opinion' which you mistake as being superior to that of a court of law. It is also an established scientific and legal fact that it was Amanda Knox who killed Mez with a kitchen knife belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. This is final (Massei, Chieffi). The issue of the annulment of the sentences by Marasca-Bruno 2015 ruled that the bra clasp evidence against Sollecito was unsafe due to the possible tertiary contamination from Stefanoni's sterile latex glove after a period of six weeks. Hence, the 'insufficient evidence' final verdict against the pair. This ruling only helps Sollecito. It remains a fact that Knox killed Mez in a horrible, cruel and brutal manner, and Guede and Sollecito were her flying monkeys who enabled and encouraged her. Your insistence Guede is the sole perpetrator is not based on anything rational. Knox named one of her cats, Screams and her kids, Echo and Eureka. How much more does AK need to strongly hint [brag?] of her involvement?

 

[TruthCalls]

For the record, it is an established fact that Guede was an accessory to the crime and hence guilty of the aggravated murder because of his sexual assault on the victim. This is the final view of the courts (Massei, Micheli, Giordani [Supreme]). In other words, arguing against facts established at a highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law means you are simply resorting to ignorant guesswork, which you call 'opinion' which you mistake as being superior to that of a court of law.

Huh? We all agree Guede is guilty. Spitfire's post had to do with the accusations of racism when anyone argues the black guy (Guede) is guilty but the white people (Amanda, Raffaele) are not.

However, I have to chuckle a little when I think of Nencini's court as "highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law", but whatever. And BTW, it's Giordano, not Giordani.

It is also an established scientific and legal fact that it was Amanda Knox who killed Mez with a kitchen knife belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. This is final (Massei, Chieffi).

It is an established legal fact that Amanda and Raffaele were not responsible for the murder. This is final (Marasca). It's also an established fact the knife and bra clasp evidence was compromised and deemed unreliable. And BTW, Massei was overturned and irrelevant, and Chieffi did not establish legal facts, he returned the case back to the lower courts to decide.

The issue of the annulment of the sentences by Marasca-Bruno 2015 ruled that the bra clasp evidence against Sollecito was unsafe due to the possible tertiary contamination from Stefanoni's sterile latex glove after a period of six weeks. Hence, the 'insufficient evidence' final verdict against the pair. This ruling only helps Sollecito.

Nonsense. The clasp and knife evidence were deemed unreliable for clear and obvious gross violation of forensic protocols. The insufficient evidence dealt directly with the fact that there is no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room. They were BOTH definitively acquitted because of these facts.

It remains a fact that Knox killed Mez in a horrible, cruel and brutal manner, and Guede and Sollecito were her flying monkeys who enabled and encouraged her.

This might be true within the confines of your delusional mind, but it remains a legal fact, as established by one of those highly sophisticated and advanced criminal courts of law, that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

Your insistence Guede is the sole perpetrator is not based on anything rational. Knox named one of her cats, Screams and her kids, Echo and Eureka. How much more does AK need to strongly hint [brag?] of her involvement?

Our insistence of Guede as the sole perpetrator is based on the evidence, and the lack thereof of anyone else assisting. However, I can't help but enjoy the irony of you accusing us of forming opinions based on nothing rational, and then you throwing out the names of Amanda's children and cat as a 'strong hint' of her involvement.

I further enjoy the irony of your comment;

"In other words, arguing against facts established at a highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law means you are simply resorting to ignorant guesswork, which you call 'opinion' which you mistake as being superior to that of a court of law."

What you're really saying is the court is highly sophisticated and advanced when they rule according to your beliefs, but are somehow incompetent and bent when they don't.

 

[Vixen]

Huh? We all agree Guede is guilty. Spitfire's post had to do with the accusations of racism when anyone argues the black guy (Guede) is guilty but the white people (Amanda, Raffaele) are not.

However, I have to chuckle a little when I think of Nencini's court as "highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law", but whatever. And BTW, it's Giordano, not Giordani.

It is an established legal fact that Amanda and Raffaele were not responsible for the murder. This is final (Marasca). It's also an established fact the knife and bra clasp evidence was compromised and deemed unreliable. And BTW, Massei was overturned and irrelevant, and Chieffi did not establish legal facts, he returned the case back to the lower courts to decide.

Nonsense. The clasp and knife evidence were deemed unreliable for clear and obvious gross violation of forensic protocols. The insufficient evidence dealt directly with the fact that there is no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room. They were BOTH definitively acquitted because of these facts.

This might be true within the confines of your delusional mind, but it remains a legal fact, as established by one of those highly sophisticated and advanced criminal courts of law, that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

Our insistence of Guede as the sole perpetrator is based on the evidence, and the lack thereof of anyone else assisting. However, I can't help but enjoy the irony of you accusing us of forming opinions based on nothing rational, and then you throwing out the names of Amanda's children and cat as a 'strong hint' of her involvement.

I further enjoy the irony of your comment;

"In other words, arguing against facts established at a highly sophisticated and advanced criminal court of law means you are simply resorting to ignorant guesswork, which you call 'opinion' which you mistake as being superior to that of a court of law."

What you're really saying is the court is highly sophisticated and advanced when they rule according to your beliefs, but are somehow incompetent and bent when they don't.

Nobody is stopping you from having kneejerk feelings about who you believe to be responsible or not. What we are looking at here is scientific empirical objective facts versus MAGA-style prejudice based on 'gut feelings', which may or may not involve a perception of the individual's personal characteristics as being relevant. This is why we have trials in courts of law and not by villagers waving pitchforks.

Here are the facts of the case in respect of Guede.


What the courts ruled


Micheli re proof of multiple assailants

[275] That someone returned to the house, taking care to sketch out the pantomime of the clandestine ingress of thieves or other chance malcontents, has been equally affirmed, and it is once again sufficient to recall the precautionary custody order; in that same context, the authors of the falsification also intervened in the victim’s room, and perhaps removed the bra from MEREDITH’s body, if they had not already done so straight after the girl had fallen to the floor.

[277] Starting from the alteration, and therefore preceding in reverse, it is clear that the bra was being worn when the blows were received, otherwise it would not show the same point-like marks of blood as found on the girl’s breast; it is as much evident that it was removed from the victim after some time had passed, it is not known how much in quantifiable terms, but in any case sufficient for the production, on MEREDITH’s back, of some marks shown in photographs 268 and 770, corresponding to the shoulder straps. In any case, and with equal undeniability, those small point-like stains were able to be made only because the bra was the only item of clothing that the girl had on her chest, otherwise they would have stained her sweatshirt or one of the tops, which were instead rolled up, up to her neck. At the same time, it was staged that someone had introduced themselves in the house by means of the window in Ms ROMANELLI’s room (probably to rob, but they had possessed themselves neither of a laptop on the desk, nor of jewels easily accessible in a drawer) and effected a more or less rudimentary clean-up activity, sufficient to make totally vanish from the house, except for on a glass on the draining board, the fingerprints of a girl who was spending days and nights there.


[278] From which it follows that there indeed was an alteration, someone certainly having an interest in returning to the place (from which they had been determined to distance themselves in haste) to improvise artificial scenarios and to make any compromising trace vanish, but not sufficient to produce the result so as to dictate, by themselves, a conclusion that there had been sexual violence: that conclusion was already derivable from the context, since it would have been ascertainable in any case that the girl was semi-nude at the moment when she was being attacked. As well, taken the considerations from a few pages back up again, it is not clear why the unknown stagers, wanting to make all the suspicions converge right on that boy of colour that they had found on their path like a guilty party to offer up a bit like a sacrificial lamb, would have needed to force-feed a fiction of sexual violence: what did they know, themselves, that RUDY had gone to the bathroom struck by colitis after having intimate relations with MEREDITH, and that therefore the vaginal swab or other testing would have revealed evidence of a petting or something of the sort between the unfortunate and the deceased student, so as to render necessary corroboration of the thesis that it was a case of non-consensual sexual contact? Why would they not have been satisfied in making believe in a burglary gone bad, seeing that their fundamental interest was in any case steering the investigation towards subjects outside of the house?
<snip>
[287] RUDY was living a very short distance away from Ms KERCHER’s house, likewise from Corso Garibaldi, where Mr SOLLECITO was living, and from Via Sperandio; it had already happened to him that he had been invited to Via della Pergola (the evening of the little nap on the toilet, after OWEN’s birthday) or to pass by to have a look (on the 21st of October: meaning this is also a notorious fact, easily accessible via the web, is the date on which the last Formula One race of the season was held; incidentally, the England-South Africa rugby game was played the evening before, but on the 21st – despite the clear recall of the pleasant conversation he had had with MEREDITH – he didn’t drop by to say hello at all, neither before nor after the Grand Prix). Because of this there was the possibility of a meeting, and – as already adverted to – it is curious to note that he had not said the truth as regards his movements in the time period immediately prior to the murder, having been contradicted at root by Mr CRUDO and Mr MALY, with the sole consequence being having to hypothesize that the truth had not been said to hide something that was not to be permitted to be made known.


[288] At the same time, RUDY is not credible along the entire course of his reconstruction, included therein the particular of his ingress in the house with the blessing of Ms KERCHER, who would have acceded to a prior rendez-vous or perhaps only finding him in front of her then and there, by reason of the moment of tenderness and complicity shared the evening before: and, if it is not true that he heard an invite to him to come in from MEREDITH, if the signs of a break-in were after the death of the girl, if RUDY was in that case in the same context in which there was someone who would have then manifested an interest in making believe there was an ingress of low-life unknown persons, the only conclusion is that Mr GUEDE entered Number 7, Via della Pergola because someone else let him in, the holder of that interest just described (who can be no other than Ms KNOX).

<snip>

[316] In favour of the detainee there are: the prior clean record, in the face of a rather problematic personal experience; the circumstance that it was not him who was holding the knife that struck the girl; the possibility that Ms KERCHER was in any case being given aid, there being otherwise no explanation for the presence near the body of three towels more or less fully soaked with blood. At any rate, the clean record (apparently, seeing that only a few days before the fact Mr GUEDE was going around Milan with stolen merchandise) cannot constitute always and in any case a kind of bonus refund to present at the cash register, especially when crimes are being discussed which reveal an absolute lack of inhibitory brakes and tendency to overcome weaker subjects; RUDY’s personal vicissitudes are to be then read in parallel with the numerous occasions given to him, with no ulterior purpose, by various families disposed to help him, who already were offering him the possibility of redemption and of constructing a contributive and normal life, in respect of others, without at any rate finding any seriousness of intent in the accused; and the fact that it was not him who was wielding the knife is not enough to relegate him to second place at the scene of the crime, seeing that it was he himself at the same time offending against the sexual liberty of the young woman.

Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of the phones, as he rules that the phones were taken on return to the scene.


Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of cash and cards from Mez' bag.


It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this. This is the fact of the matter, and is not dependent on opinion or gut feelings. The claims Guede was a prolific burglar and drug smuggler simply is not factual but merely an attempt to 'defend' AK and RS by playing on people's prejudices MAGA-style.

Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.

The burglary was staged.

Amanda Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.

There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.

Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.

He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it ‘as soon as knives were produced’.

“Above all the certain facts include the presence of the three at the scene of the crime; they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

 

[Numbers]

Reading through the above posts, it occurs to me that the inquisitorial false "judicial facts" manufactured in many of the Knox-Sollecito case trials are like magic tricks performed by a magician of modest skills. The more educated or sophisticated in the audience see through the tricks, while the gullible or those wishing to believe are convinced that the magic is "real".

Of course, someone might pretend in statements to others that the magic is real to obtain explanations of the realities of the magic trick mechanisms from the skeptical observers who rely on reliable evidence.

 

[TruthCalls]

Nobody is stopping you from having kneejerk feelings about who you believe to be responsible or not. What we are looking at here is scientific empirical objective facts versus MAGA-style prejudice based on 'gut feelings', which may or may not involve a perception of the individual's personal characteristics as being relevant. This is why we have trials in courts of law and not by villagers waving pitchforks.

Here are the facts of the case in respect of Guede.


What the courts ruled


Micheli re proof of multiple assailants

[275] That someone returned to the house, taking care to sketch out the pantomime of the clandestine ingress of thieves or other chance malcontents, has been equally affirmed, and it is once again sufficient to recall the precautionary custody order; in that same context, the authors of the falsification also intervened in the victim’s room, and perhaps removed the bra from MEREDITH’s body, if they had not already done so straight after the girl had fallen to the floor.

[277] Starting from the alteration, and therefore preceding in reverse, it is clear that the bra was being worn when the blows were received, otherwise it would not show the same point-like marks of blood as found on the girl’s breast; it is as much evident that it was removed from the victim after some time had passed, it is not known how much in quantifiable terms, but in any case sufficient for the production, on MEREDITH’s back, of some marks shown in photographs 268 and 770, corresponding to the shoulder straps. In any case, and with equal undeniability, those small point-like stains were able to be made only because the bra was the only item of clothing that the girl had on her chest, otherwise they would have stained her sweatshirt or one of the tops, which were instead rolled up, up to her neck. At the same time, it was staged that someone had introduced themselves in the house by means of the window in Ms ROMANELLI’s room (probably to rob, but they had possessed themselves neither of a laptop on the desk, nor of jewels easily accessible in a drawer) and effected a more or less rudimentary clean-up activity, sufficient to make totally vanish from the house, except for on a glass on the draining board, the fingerprints of a girl who was spending days and nights there.


[278] From which it follows that there indeed was an alteration, someone certainly having an interest in returning to the place (from which they had been determined to distance themselves in haste) to improvise artificial scenarios and to make any compromising trace vanish, but not sufficient to produce the result so as to dictate, by themselves, a conclusion that there had been sexual violence: that conclusion was already derivable from the context, since it would have been ascertainable in any case that the girl was semi-nude at the moment when she was being attacked. As well, taken the considerations from a few pages back up again, it is not clear why the unknown stagers, wanting to make all the suspicions converge right on that boy of colour that they had found on their path like a guilty party to offer up a bit like a sacrificial lamb, would have needed to force-feed a fiction of sexual violence: what did they know, themselves, that RUDY had gone to the bathroom struck by colitis after having intimate relations with MEREDITH, and that therefore the vaginal swab or other testing would have revealed evidence of a petting or something of the sort between the unfortunate and the deceased student, so as to render necessary corroboration of the thesis that it was a case of non-consensual sexual contact? Why would they not have been satisfied in making believe in a burglary gone bad, seeing that their fundamental interest was in any case steering the investigation towards subjects outside of the house?
<snip>
[287] RUDY was living a very short distance away from Ms KERCHER’s house, likewise from Corso Garibaldi, where Mr SOLLECITO was living, and from Via Sperandio; it had already happened to him that he had been invited to Via della Pergola (the evening of the little nap on the toilet, after OWEN’s birthday) or to pass by to have a look (on the 21st of October: meaning this is also a notorious fact, easily accessible via the web, is the date on which the last Formula One race of the season was held; incidentally, the England-South Africa rugby game was played the evening before, but on the 21st – despite the clear recall of the pleasant conversation he had had with MEREDITH – he didn’t drop by to say hello at all, neither before nor after the Grand Prix). Because of this there was the possibility of a meeting, and – as already adverted to – it is curious to note that he had not said the truth as regards his movements in the time period immediately prior to the murder, having been contradicted at root by Mr CRUDO and Mr MALY, with the sole consequence being having to hypothesize that the truth had not been said to hide something that was not to be permitted to be made known.


[288] At the same time, RUDY is not credible along the entire course of his reconstruction, included therein the particular of his ingress in the house with the blessing of Ms KERCHER, who would have acceded to a prior rendez-vous or perhaps only finding him in front of her then and there, by reason of the moment of tenderness and complicity shared the evening before: and, if it is not true that he heard an invite to him to come in from MEREDITH, if the signs of a break-in were after the death of the girl, if RUDY was in that case in the same context in which there was someone who would have then manifested an interest in making believe there was an ingress of low-life unknown persons, the only conclusion is that Mr GUEDE entered Number 7, Via della Pergola because someone else let him in, the holder of that interest just described (who can be no other than Ms KNOX).

<snip>

[316] In favour of the detainee there are: the prior clean record, in the face of a rather problematic personal experience; the circumstance that it was not him who was holding the knife that struck the girl; the possibility that Ms KERCHER was in any case being given aid, there being otherwise no explanation for the presence near the body of three towels more or less fully soaked with blood. At any rate, the clean record (apparently, seeing that only a few days before the fact Mr GUEDE was going around Milan with stolen merchandise) cannot constitute always and in any case a kind of bonus refund to present at the cash register, especially when crimes are being discussed which reveal an absolute lack of inhibitory brakes and tendency to overcome weaker subjects; RUDY’s personal vicissitudes are to be then read in parallel with the numerous occasions given to him, with no ulterior purpose, by various families disposed to help him, who already were offering him the possibility of redemption and of constructing a contributive and normal life, in respect of others, without at any rate finding any seriousness of intent in the accused; and the fact that it was not him who was wielding the knife is not enough to relegate him to second place at the scene of the crime, seeing that it was he himself at the same time offending against the sexual liberty of the young woman.

Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of the phones, as he rules that the phones were taken on return to the scene.


Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of cash and cards from Mez' bag.


It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this. This is the fact of the matter, and is not dependent on opinion or gut feelings. The claims Guede was a prolific burglar and drug smuggler simply is not factual but merely an attempt to 'defend' AK and RS by playing on people's prejudices MAGA-style.

I don't appreciate your derogatory commentary. My conclusions are not based on kneejerk emotions, as you so ignorantly claimed, but on careful analysis of the "scientific empirical objective facts", to use your words.

Micheli's "proof" is nothing more than speculation and fabrication. In fact, it's classic circular reasoning. He speculates, and then uses that speculation to justify further speculation.

There is no proof of multiple assailants. The FACTS tell us only Meredith and Guede were in Meredith's room.

There is no proof of a clean-up. The FACTS tell us that clean-ups always leave tell tale signs of having happened. However, not only was there no tell tale signs of a cleaning, but far too much evidence was left behind, evidence that would not have been there if there had been a clean-up.

There is no proof Guede didn't take the cell phones. It's a fact Guede's DNA was on Meredith's handbag, and that tells us it was Guede who handled the bag. Given this is likely where Meredith kept her phones, money, credit cards, and keys, I'd say the evidence strongly supports Guede as the one who took these items.

Guede DID break into the school in Milan. Guede DID break into Christian Tramontano's apartment as witnessed by both Christian and his girlfriend. Guede DID break into the law office as there is no other explanation for him being possession of stolen items from there. Guede likely was responsible for the burglary and arson of his neighbor's apartment, given he was found with a woman's gold watch consistent with the one stolen from his neighbor's apartment. And Guede DID break into the cottage. You can be in denial all you want, but these are the facts and the only logical interpretation of those facts.

It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this or not. These are the facts of the matter, as deduced from the known facts, not some unsubstantiated theory presented by the prosecution, one which Micheli was more than happy to follow. And no, Amanda and Raffaele don't need defending, as the highest court in the land definitively acquitted them of all crimes, calunnia notwithstanding.

Personally, I find Micheli's reasoning both misguided and offensive. He literally fabricates his own narrative to justify his own narrative. That you are now quoting Micheli tells me you've really hit rock bottom.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please do not tell lies about me, thanks!

Nothing I said in that comment was a lie. Thanks!

 

[Stacyhs]

I guess I need to point out that Micheli and Giordano were both issued before the 2011 Hellmann trial when the 'smoking gun' evidence of the bra hook and kitchen knife were believed to be scientifically reliable and thus strong evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved. It was a case of false info in, false deductions out.

 

[Vixen]

Reading through the above posts, it occurs to me that the inquisitorial false "judicial facts" manufactured in many of the Knox-Sollecito case trials are like magic tricks performed by a magician of modest skills. The more educated or sophisticated in the audience see through the tricks, while the gullible or those wishing to believe are convinced that the magic is "real".

Of course, someone might pretend in statements to others that the magic is real to obtain explanations of the realities of the magic trick mechanisms from the skeptical observers who rely on reliable evidence.

By that criteria, I'm probably more sceptic than thou.

 

[Vixen]

I don't appreciate your derogatory commentary. My conclusions are not based on kneejerk emotions, as you so ignorantly claimed, but on careful analysis of the "scientific empirical objective facts", to use your words.

Micheli's "proof" is nothing more than speculation and fabrication. In fact, it's classic circular reasoning. He speculates, and then uses that speculation to justify further speculation.

There is no proof of multiple assailants. The FACTS tell us only Meredith and Guede were in Meredith's room.

There is no proof of a clean-up. The FACTS tell us that clean-ups always leave tell tale signs of having happened. However, not only was there no tell tale signs of a cleaning, but far too much evidence was left behind, evidence that would not have been there if there had been a clean-up.

There is no proof Guede didn't take the cell phones. It's a fact Guede's DNA was on Meredith's handbag, and that tells us it was Guede who handled the bag. Given this is likely where Meredith kept her phones, money, credit cards, and keys, I'd say the evidence strongly supports Guede as the one who took these items.

Guede DID break into the school in Milan. Guede DID break into Christian Tramontano's apartment as witnessed by both Christian and his girlfriend. Guede DID break into the law office as there is no other explanation for him being possession of stolen items from there. Guede likely was responsible for the burglary and arson of his neighbor's apartment, given he was found with a woman's gold watch consistent with the one stolen from his neighbor's apartment. And Guede DID break into the cottage. You can be in denial all you want, but these are the facts and the only logical interpretation of those facts.

It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this or not. These are the facts of the matter, as deduced from the known facts, not some unsubstantiated theory presented by the prosecution, one which Micheli was more than happy to follow. And no, Amanda and Raffaele don't need defending, as the highest court in the land definitively acquitted them of all crimes, calunnia notwithstanding.

Personally, I find Micheli's reasoning both misguided and offensive. He literally fabricates his own narrative to justify his own narrative. That you are now quoting Micheli tells me you've really hit rock bottom.

That is not correct. In addition, when I spoke of appealing to people's prejudices 'MAGA-style', I wasn't saying YOU were. I was saying you were using those tools. And you are doing it again. It is not a fact re the school in Milan. The school proprietor TESTIFIED under oath that RG did not break in. He was given the tip by someone whom he met at a party who worked there as he had nowhere to stay that night. It cannot be breaking and entering if you are let in. Likewise the law office. Whilst it is a fact RG was in possession of stolen goods - as he was duly convicted in due course - there is zero record of a burglary conviction. Had he broken into the solicitors office, it doesn't explain how he knew exactly how to switch off the burglar alarm nor why the intruder seemed to be searching for specific legal documents (as per the resident solicitors under oath). The person/s who broke into the solicitors' office did so via a low balcony at the back of the building. Exactly similar as the one leading to the downstairs entrance at via Pergola 7, the boys' entrance which had a terraced balcony easy to access on the first floor, not over twelve feet high with a sheer wall, as with Filomena's. As RG had been there on at least two occasions, he would have known of this relatively easy access and would have used it if it had been his MO (but there is zero evidence) - contrary to your claim of it being a fact that he was a burglar. Ditto, the Christian Tramontano claim. He only 'reported' it in retrospect, didn't bother reporting it at the time and thus it was disallowed as relevant evidence. Again not a fact, as you claim. Both claims are pure conjecture by AK/RS supporters and stated as being facts to try to stir up prejudice in the unwary person. Likewise his current DV charge may or may not have any relevance as to whether AK/RS were involved int he murder of MK. DV is an extremely common crime and hardly restricted to rapists/killers. So, yeah, it is straying from the facts of the case to claim the court findings of fact are all wrong and that people should take on board your conjecture instead,

 

[Stacyhs]

Nobody is stopping you from having kneejerk feelings about who you believe to be responsible or not.

Everyone here knows this case well so your claim our position is a result of our "kneejerk feelings" is laughably wrong.

What we are looking at here is scientific empirical objective facts versus MAGA-style prejudice based on 'gut feelings', which may or may not involve a perception of the individual's personal characteristics as being relevant. This is why we have trials in courts of law and not by villagers waving pitchforks.

The irony of you claiming the bolded when it's YOU who ignores scientific empirical objective facts and denis:
1) The negative TMB tests prove the luminol revealed prints were NOT in blood,
2) The negative hair tests prove the pair were NOT using narcotics,
3) Kercher's alleged DNA on the knife is not scientifically supported,
4) Only bleach could remove all traces of blood on the knife and would destroy any DNA,
5) Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook is likely contamination due to several egregious anti-contamination protocol violations,
et al.

"MAGA-style prejudice based on 'gut feelings'". Stop with this pathetic attempt to connect us to MAGA. You know damn well from the other ISF thread that I cannot abide that POS and his MAGA cultists and I've seen no PIP member here even mention Trump or his cult.
Ironic that you accuse us of "gut feelings" when it was officer Armando Finzi who selected the knife from the cutlery drawer based on his "investigator's instinct" because it was so clean. It was Mignini whose knee jerk reaction assumed the motive was 'satanic', the break-in was fake, that only a woman would cover the body, and that it was an "inside job".

Here are the facts of the case in respect of Guede.


What the courts ruled


Micheli re proof of multiple assailants

[275] That someone returned to the house, taking care to sketch out the pantomime of the clandestine ingress of thieves or other chance malcontents, has been equally affirmed, and it is once again sufficient to recall the precautionary custody order; in that same context, the authors of the falsification also intervened in the victim’s room, and perhaps removed the bra from MEREDITH’s body, if they had not already done so straight after the girl had fallen to the floor.

[277] Starting from the alteration, and therefore preceding in reverse, it is clear that the bra was being worn when the blows were received, otherwise it would not show the same point-like marks of blood as found on the girl’s breast; it is as much evident that it was removed from the victim after some time had passed, it is not known how much in quantifiable terms, but in any case sufficient for the production, on MEREDITH’s back, of some marks shown in photographs 268 and 770, corresponding to the shoulder straps. In any case, and with equal undeniability, those small point-like stains were able to be made only because the bra was the only item of clothing that the girl had on her chest, otherwise they would have stained her sweatshirt or one of the tops, which were instead rolled up, up to her neck. At the same time, it was staged that someone had introduced themselves in the house by means of the window in Ms ROMANELLI’s room (probably to rob, but they had possessed themselves neither of a laptop on the desk, nor of jewels easily accessible in a drawer) and effected a more or less rudimentary clean-up activity, sufficient to make totally vanish from the house, except for on a glass on the draining board, the fingerprints of a girl who was spending days and nights there.


[278] From which it follows that there indeed was an alteration, someone certainly having an interest in returning to the place (from which they had been determined to distance themselves in haste) to improvise artificial scenarios and to make any compromising trace vanish, but not sufficient to produce the result so as to dictate, by themselves, a conclusion that there had been sexual violence: that conclusion was already derivable from the context, since it would have been ascertainable in any case that the girl was semi-nude at the moment when she was being attacked. As well, taken the considerations from a few pages back up again, it is not clear why the unknown stagers, wanting to make all the suspicions converge right on that boy of colour that they had found on their path like a guilty party to offer up a bit like a sacrificial lamb, would have needed to force-feed a fiction of sexual violence: what did they know, themselves, that RUDY had gone to the bathroom struck by colitis after having intimate relations with MEREDITH, and that therefore the vaginal swab or other testing would have revealed evidence of a petting or something of the sort between the unfortunate and the deceased student, so as to render necessary corroboration of the thesis that it was a case of non-consensual sexual contact? Why would they not have been satisfied in making believe in a burglary gone bad, seeing that their fundamental interest was in any case steering the investigation towards subjects outside of the house?
<snip>
[287] RUDY was living a very short distance away from Ms KERCHER’s house, likewise from Corso Garibaldi, where Mr SOLLECITO was living, and from Via Sperandio; it had already happened to him that he had been invited to Via della Pergola (the evening of the little nap on the toilet, after OWEN’s birthday) or to pass by to have a look (on the 21st of October: meaning this is also a notorious fact, easily accessible via the web, is the date on which the last Formula One race of the season was held; incidentally, the England-South Africa rugby game was played the evening before, but on the 21st – despite the clear recall of the pleasant conversation he had had with MEREDITH – he didn’t drop by to say hello at all, neither before nor after the Grand Prix). Because of this there was the possibility of a meeting, and – as already adverted to – it is curious to note that he had not said the truth as regards his movements in the time period immediately prior to the murder, having been contradicted at root by Mr CRUDO and Mr MALY, with the sole consequence being having to hypothesize that the truth had not been said to hide something that was not to be permitted to be made known.


[288] At the same time, RUDY is not credible along the entire course of his reconstruction, included therein the particular of his ingress in the house with the blessing of Ms KERCHER, who would have acceded to a prior rendez-vous or perhaps only finding him in front of her then and there, by reason of the moment of tenderness and complicity shared the evening before: and, if it is not true that he heard an invite to him to come in from MEREDITH, if the signs of a break-in were after the death of the girl, if RUDY was in that case in the same context in which there was someone who would have then manifested an interest in making believe there was an ingress of low-life unknown persons, the only conclusion is that Mr GUEDE entered Number 7, Via della Pergola because someone else let him in, the holder of that interest just described (who can be no other than Ms KNOX).

<snip>

[316] In favour of the detainee there are: the prior clean record, in the face of a rather problematic personal experience; the circumstance that it was not him who was holding the knife that struck the girl; the possibility that Ms KERCHER was in any case being given aid, there being otherwise no explanation for the presence near the body of three towels more or less fully soaked with blood. At any rate, the clean record (apparently, seeing that only a few days before the fact Mr GUEDE was going around Milan with stolen merchandise) cannot constitute always and in any case a kind of bonus refund to present at the cash register, especially when crimes are being discussed which reveal an absolute lack of inhibitory brakes and tendency to overcome weaker subjects; RUDY’s personal vicissitudes are to be then read in parallel with the numerous occasions given to him, with no ulterior purpose, by various families disposed to help him, who already were offering him the possibility of redemption and of constructing a contributive and normal life, in respect of others, without at any rate finding any seriousness of intent in the accused; and the fact that it was not him who was wielding the knife is not enough to relegate him to second place at the scene of the crime, seeing that it was he himself at the same time offending against the sexual liberty of the young woman.

Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of the phones, as he rules that the phones were taken on return to the scene.

Marasca CLEARS AK and RS of theft of the phones.

Micheli CLEARS Rudy of theft of cash and cards from Mez' bag.

Marasca CLEARS AK and RS of theft of cash and cards from Meredith's bag

It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this. This is the fact of the matter, and is not dependent on opinion or gut feelings.

It doesn't matter whether YOU agree with this. This a fact of the matter, and not dependent on opinion or gut feelings.

The claims Guede was a prolific burglar and drug smuggler simply is not factual but merely an attempt to 'defend' AK and RS by playing on people's prejudices MAGA-style.

So, it's not factual that Guede was caught with stolen items from the law office and with a large knife stolen from the school kitchen? He wasn't caught with a woman's gold watch that he had no plausible means to obtain except by theft? He wasn't caught burglarizing Tramontano's apartment? His friends didn't claim he stole things from girls' purses?

Who said he was a "drug smuggler"? Or is that yet another of your exaggerated claims?

Stop with the "MAGA" nonsense unless you'd like to have your own MAGA-style nonsense pointed out.

 

[Numbers]

That is not correct. In addition, when I spoke of appealing to people's prejudices 'MAGA-style', I wasn't saying YOU were. I was saying you were using those tools. And you are doing it again. It is not a fact re the school in Milan. The school proprietor TESTIFIED under oath that RG did not break in. He was given the tip by someone whom he met at a party who worked there as he had nowhere to stay that night. It cannot be breaking and entering if you are let in. Likewise the law office. Whilst it is a fact RG was in possession of stolen goods - as he was duly convicted in due course - there is zero record of a burglary conviction. Had he broken into the solicitors office, it doesn't explain how he knew exactly how to switch off the burglar alarm nor why the intruder seemed to be searching for specific legal documents (as per the resident solicitors under oath). The person/s who broke into the solicitors' office did so via a low balcony at the back of the building. Exactly similar as the one leading to the downstairs entrance at via Pergola 7, the boys' entrance which had a terraced balcony easy to access on the first floor, not over twelve feet high with a sheer wall, as with Filomena's. As RG had been there on at least two occasions, he would have known of this relatively easy access and would have used it if it had been his MO (but there is zero evidence) - contrary to your claim of it being a fact that he was a burglar. Ditto, the Christian Tramontano claim. He only 'reported' it in retrospect, didn't bother reporting it at the time and thus it was disallowed as relevant evidence. Again not a fact, as you claim. Both claims are pure conjecture by AK/RS supporters and stated as being facts to try to stir up prejudice in the unwary person. Likewise his current DV charge may or may not have any relevance as to whether AK/RS were involved int he murder of MK. DV is an extremely common crime and hardly restricted to rapists/killers. So, yeah, it is straying from the facts of the case to claim the court findings of fact are all wrong and that people should take on board your conjecture instead,

There's more than one deviation from known facts in this post.

It's important to note that neither the owner and operator of the nursery school, Maria del Prato, nor anyone on her staff gave Rudy Guede permission to enter the school or sleep there. His entry into the school was therefore unauthorized. According to this news account*, del Prato called the police when she found him in the school. She did not believe his story that he was in the school only to sleep, as she testified*:

The owner of a Milan nursery school took the stand Saturday in the ongoing murder trial of U.S. college student Amanda Knox and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in Perugia, Italy, telling the court that Rudy Guede, convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering British student Meredith Kercher Nov. 1, 2007, had broken into her school and stolen a big kitchen knife.

Nursery school owner Maria del Prato testified in court today... that she had stopped by her school Saturday Oct. 27, when it was closed, and came upon Guede in her office.

"I asked him who he was," she told the court, "and he replied perfectly calmly, even though I had caught him red-handed." Del Prato said he told her he was "a kid from Perugia" who had arrived the night before and had nowhere to sleep.

Del Prato doubted his story, as her locker had been opened, and she said she believed Guede was looking for something to steal. Some small change was missing, and Del Prato noticed Guede had a laptop, but he told her it was his.

When police arrived at the school, they searched Guede's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen.

Guede was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released.

It was those fingerprint records that eventually nailed Guede to the scene of Meredith Kercher's murder. His bloody palm print was found on a pillow under Kercher's dead body.

The legal justification for Guede's release is not mentioned in the ABC News article. It's not clear how the release was justified under Italian law.

In 2014, Guede was convicted for two thefts (one being the laptop he had on 27 October 2007) that occurred or were detected in Milan on 27 October 2007. The sentence of 1 year and 4 months was to be served concurrently with the murder/rape conviction.**

* https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7946289

** https://www.milanotoday.it/cronaca/rudy-guede-condannato-furti-milano.html
https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/cronaca/rudi_guede_furto_milano_perugia_delitto-366191.html

 

[Stacyhs]

That is not correct. In addition, when I spoke of appealing to people's prejudices 'MAGA-style', I wasn't saying YOU were. I was saying you were using those tools. And you are doing it again.

Don' t try and gaslight us. "... as per MAGA stereotypes, beloved of the PIP," is an obvious attempt at connecting us, the PIP, to MAGA nonsense. It isn't working so stop embarrassing yourself.

It is not a fact re the school in Milan. The school proprietor TESTIFIED under oath that RG did not break in.

It doesn't matter whether he "broke in" or not. The fact remains that he entered the school without permission, helped himself to food, spent the night there illegally, stole a 16" kitchen knife, and had other stolen items in his possession.

He was given the tip by someone whom he met at a party who worked there as he had nowhere to stay that night. It cannot be breaking and entering if you are let in.

No, Guede claimed he paid 50 euros to a "South American" man he met at the train station:

I said to myself I’ll go to Milan Central Station and wait for the train. However it must have been about two… And so stupidly what did I do? I met… I was there and naively I spoke with anybody and I met this South American person and I explained my problem that here in Milan even the one star hotels cost so much and this person said to me “it’s dangerous to say here the night at the Central Station, I work in a place and you can stay there until the morning that way you are safe” however you have to give me 20 Euros. I gave him this money. He took me to this, in this that turned out to be a nursery school… when I saw it… I naively said “ok I’ll stay here” and I stayed there until the next morning and this person had said to me “in the morning I’ll come don’t worry and then you can leave.”

At the very least he illegally trespassed and stole the kitchen knife which is burglary.

Likewise the law office. Whilst it is a fact RG was in possession of stolen goods - as he was duly convicted in due course - there is zero record of a burglary conviction.

He would have been convicted if the Milan police had been able to charge him instead of being told to let him go. He was caught red-handed.

Had he broken into the solicitors office, it doesn't explain how he knew exactly how to switch off the burglar alarm nor why the intruder seemed to be searching for specific legal documents (as per the resident solicitors under oath).

He didn't need to as Brocchi testified it wasn't turned on that night:

DEFENSE - Attorney Maori - Is your property alarmed?
WITNESS – The property was equipped with an alarm system that however was not activated that evening, because, I also reconstructed the story, it had just been installed. That evening I went out at about twenty thirty and I remember perfectly that I did not activate thealarm system. The strange thing that I can highlight in this regard is that I noticed that the alarm system the next day, when we entered, was not damaged because the light cell it was always on, even if it was deactivated, and the person or persons who entered did not damage the alarm, but only deactivated the telephone dialer, thus demonstrating a minimum level of competence, in any case a certain level of competence in the field of alarms, electronics, because I would not be able to deactivate a telephone dialer without damaging the alarm, even though I am the owner, so I would not have this competence.

The person/s who broke into the solicitors' office did so via a low balcony at the back of the building. Exactly similar as the one leading to the downstairs entrance at via Pergola 7, the boys' entrance which had a terraced balcony easy to access on the first floor, not over twelve feet high with a sheer wall, as with Filomena's.

A "low balcony" that was "3 (9'10") to 4 (13'1") meters" off the ground according to testimony.

As RG had been there on at least two occasions, he would have known of this relatively easy access and would have used it if it had been his MO (but there is zero evidence) - contrary to your claim of it being a fact that he was a burglar.

Burglars will use whatever entrance means they can depending on ease of access and ease of escape. By throwing the rock through the window from the parking parapet, he had an easy escape right up the driveway. Once the window was broken providing an access, why go around to the other side and have to break-in there? I took this photo from the parking garage across the street:

Ditto, the Christian Tramontano claim. He only 'reported' it in retrospect, didn't bother reporting it at the time and thus it was disallowed as relevant evidence. Again not a fact, as you claim.

It was verified by his girlfriend who was also present when Guede broke in. Let me guess...she is also 'bent' and was only trying to help him out just like Altieri and Popovic were trying to help out two people they didn't know at all or barely knew by lying to the police.

He tried to report it but the lines at the police station were too long.

Both claims are pure conjecture by AK/RS supporters and stated as being facts to try to stir up prejudice in the unwary person.

It is a FACT that Guede was a burglar, or do you think that nursery school knife jumped into his backpack all by itself?
What a coincidence that he just happened to run into the same guy in the MILAN train station who ripped off the law office in PERUGIA (over 220 miles away and a train ride of 3.5 hours plus) and bought the stolen laptop and phone from him.

It is not "pure conjecture" that Tramontano and his girlfriend went to the police and identified Guede as the man who broke into their apartment.

Likewise his current DV charge may or may not have any relevance as to whether AK/RS were involved int he murder of MK. DV is an extremely common crime and hardly restricted to rapists/killers.

His current charges are not just for Domestic Violence as he is also charged with repeated rape.

So, yeah, it is straying from the facts of the case to claim the court findings of fact are all wrong and that people should take on board your conjecture instead,

The Marasca SC...the final word in the murder case... found many of the early 'court findings' to be wrong as detailed in their MR.

 

[Numbers]

....
It doesn't matter whether he "broke in" or not. The fact remains that he entered the school without permission, helped himself to food, spent the night there illegally, stole a 16" kitchen knife, and had other stolen items in his possession.

At the very least he illegally trespassed and stole the kitchen knife which is burglary.

He would have been convicted if the Milan police had been able to charge him instead of being told to let him go. He was caught red-handed.
....

Part of the issues here is the confusion of the use of English or American legal elements terminology crimes that are in some cases under Italian law defined differently in their elements and in their terminology.

For example, "breaking and entering" in US law may be a term (previously) used for the more current term "burglary". The current term burglary or "breaking and entering" is a crime that consists of any entry into a building, day or night, without permission, and with the intention to commit a crime while inside. The entry does not necessarily need to be “forced” to be considered criminal.*

In Italian law there are several laws relating to burglary and illegal or unauthorized entry. The elements of these laws may differ in Italy from those in the US. There's also a translation issue: for example, the Italian "furto" translates to "theft", "robbery", "burglary", and "break-in", among other related terms.** Google Translate typically translates "furto" to "theft", but in a short Italian news article containing that word, it is difficult to be sure whether the appropriate translation is "theft" or "burglary". Of course, in some cases it may make no difference, but a burglar who enters residences may be more dangerous to people.

In fact, there is a specific Italian criminal law against the entry of a dwelling: CP Article 314***:

Art. 614. Violation of domicile

Whoever enters another's home, or another place of private residence, or the appurtenances thereof, against the express or tacit will of the person who has the right to exclude him, or enters clandestinely or by deception, is punished with imprisonment from one to four years.The same penalty applies to anyone who remains in the said places against the express will of the person who has the right to exclude him, or remains clandestinely or by deception.The penalty is from two to six years if the act is committed with violence against property, or against people, or if the guilty party is clearly armed.The crime is punishable upon complaint of the injured party. However, the prosecution is carried out ex officio when the act is committed with violence against people, or if the guilty party is clearly armed or if the act is committed with violence against property against a person who is incapable, due to age or infirmity.

However, in Italian criminal law, the term "furto" alone is used specifically for crimes of theft:****

Art. 624. Theft

Whoever takes possession of another's movable property, taking it from the person holding it, in order to gain profit for himself or others, is punished with imprisonment from six months to three years and with a fine from 154 to 516 euros.

For the purposes of criminal law, electricity and any other energy that has an economic value are also considered movable property.

The crime is punishable upon complaint by the injured party. However, proceedings are carried out ex officio if the injured party is incapable, due to age or infirmity, or if one of the circumstances referred to in article 625, numbers 7, unless the act is committed on things exposed to public faith, and 7-bis.

But there is another use of "furto" in conjuction with entry into a building:****

Art. 624-bis.
Theft in a dwelling and theft by snatching.

Anyone who takes possession of another's movable property, taking it from the person holding it, in order to gain profit for himself or for others, by entering a building or other place intended in whole or in part for private residence or in the appurtenances thereof, is punished with imprisonment from four to seven years and with a fine from 927 to 1,500 euros. ....

* https://legaldictionary.net/breaking-and-entering
** https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/furto
*** https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/28/dei-delitti-contro-la-persona
**** https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/22/dei-delitti-contro-il-patrimonio