Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Rudy was not prosecuted for stealing a computer. He claims he bought it from someone else, why do you not believe him?

The news reports said the computer was stolen from a law office Rudy was known to have broken into, and it was in his possession when he broke into the nursery.

I suppose he could have bought it from someone else. Did he give a name?

 

[stilicho]

I have said several times it was not a conspiracy.

Well, I guess in some alternate universe you could get away with saying breaking, entering and burglarizing are not violent crimes, so I will let that one rest. As has been argued a number of times before in this thread, though, the kind of murder that killed Meredith is statistically most likely to be committed by someone who has a history of criminal behavior.

Property crimes are devastating to anyone who has suffered from one. What was stolen from the nursery again? And didn't it turn out that Rudy had goods that were stolen from an office but was only identified upon returning them? I haven't really paid much attention to these incidents because they weren't entered as evidence.

 

[Fine]

Hi Mary H,
I was just reading your recent post, and that does indeed make sense, well to me at least. From what I have read, it was a bit cold in the apartment that morning, so I bet that any bathroom window was not opened at the time Miss Knox showered. Hence, the bathroom steam effect could have been really, really good. I think I recall reading something about Miss Knox luving to taking long hot showers, and that wasn't cool, for some reason that I forget. A steamy bathroom on a cold Novemebr morning can be easy to visualize.
If Miss Knox was indeed dragging that bathroom mat around after exiting the shower, there probably would have been some kind of possible "clean-up" unintentionaly done from someone who might not have been involved in a murder.
Excellant point, in my opinion.
Have a nice rest of the day,
RWVBWL

__________________

The bathroom has no window.

 

[uk_dave]

What do you think the key to her innocence is then?

I believe it may have been stated by someone on this thread in a previous post that their gut feeling was that Amanda just didn't look like the sort who would.

Or something.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The news reports said the computer was stolen from a law office Rudy was known to have broken into, and it was in his possession when he broke into the nursery.

I suppose he could have bought it from someone else. Did he give a name?

That's odd, my understanding is that Rudy was suspected of breaking in only because he had the laptop in his possession when he was arrested in the nursery. He claimed, when arrested, that he had bought the laptop off someone else, discovered it was stolen, and was attempting to return it to it's rightful owner(s).

Possession of stolen property would, of course, raise suspicions regarding Rudy's involvement in the crime - but he was never charged for either A) breaking into the law office or B) possession of stolen property.

So, again, I ask, Why don't you believe Rudy's story?

 

[Mary_H]

That's odd, my understanding is that Rudy was suspected of breaking in only because he had the laptop in his possession when he was arrested in the nursery. He claimed, when arrested, that he had bought the laptop off someone else, discovered it was stolen, and was attempting to return it to it's rightful owner(s).

Possession of stolen property would, of course, raise suspicions regarding Rudy's involvement in the crime - but he was never charged for either A) breaking into the law office or B) possession of stolen property.

So, again, I ask, Why don't you believe Rudy's story?

It's not so much that I disbelieve Rudy as that I believe the news reports. As I said earlier, it's human nature to believe what we read in the paper, until we have taken the time to reflect on it and think about it.

I actually don't give Rudy a lot of thought and have never reflected on whether or not I believe this particular story. I would doubt his word, though, based on other reports about him -- how he initially denied being at the crime scene, etc. -- that suggest he is not known for his veracity. Also, it is pretty common among thieves to claim they bought stolen property from someone without knowing it was stolen.

It's a fair question. I have asked many people in various threads why they don't believe Amanda and Raffaele.

I wouldn't use the fact that he wasn't prosecuted for his crimes as evidence that he didn't commit them.

 

[stilicho]

It's like you're trying to argue a case for reverse discrimination. You lump Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy into a homogenous group -- "She's right there in the same league of irresponsible young adults along with Rudy and Raffaele" -- as if everything in their lives has been equal up to this point. That is a one-dimensional view, not an analytical one.

As Bob has pointed out, carrying a knife has a different meaning depending on who is carrying the knife. Amanda's noise citation does not have the same meaning as Rudy stealing a computer from a law firm. It is not useful to compare the suspects from such a shallow point of view.

Again, we live in very different worlds. I've known people like Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy and some of their behaviours are instantly recognisable from my own young adulthood. I asked Kevin previously if he'd ever talked to troubled young adults and he didn't think it was relevant--something about having a poor world-view.

I think it is relevant. It might be that most of those who post at the JREF have lived particularly insulated lives and were career-driven from the time they entered adolescence. That's the only way I can account for it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Notice that it's not enough for them that one or two pieces of evidence implicate or convict Knox and Raffaele. From a rational perspective that's all you need and maybe all you expect. To them everything is evidence of Knox's and Raffaele's guilt. The way she hops on a bathmat is proof of her guilt, the way she pauses in the cleaning products aisle is proof of her guilt, the way she made a ludicrously false confession that could not possibly have been true while under interrogation is proof of her guilt (as opposed to proof she was browbeaten into a false confession), and so on and on.

Wait...you people really need to make your minds up. One moment you are screaming 'THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!' against the pair....now you're claiming we're providing 'too much'??? So either way, if there's only two pieces of evidence against them they're innocent...if there's a lot of evidence against them they're innocent. Not that you like to play with a rigged game or anything.

Similarly, we've just seen clear evidence that the footprints which were supposed to be slam-dunk evidence of Raffaele's guilt were in fact ambiguous, to put it mildly. Confronted with the evidence of his own eyes, Fulcanelli decides to put more faith in the court's judgement, despite the fact that the specific issue was never contested in court. (The argument, immediately echoed, that a 3mm size difference in the suspect's feet meant several shoe sizes difference was particularly humorous).

You've seen no clear evidence at all. In fact, I don't think you'd know what clear evidence was if it smacked you one right between the eyes. The evidence was examined in court. Sollecito and Knox were defended each by an elite team of the best lawyers and experts in the land. We are not talking about a couple of youngsters from the ghetto with nothing better then a two bit attorney each. Yet all the same, they were unable to unseat the evidence against them and were convicted in a unanimous verdict.

This is both false and an ad hominem attack by association, hence totally irrelevant. I am not a member of any pro-Amanda group nor have I more than glanced at the FOA site, so clearly the point that the evidence placing Amanda and Raffaele at the murder scene is very weak is not sole property of FOA members, nor is the observation that the prosecution's theory is ludicrous their sole property.

However it doesn't matter, because whether or not it's an "FOA talking point" is irrelevant to whether it's true or false. Fulcanelli can't engage with the actual evidence or arguments on these points so he finds a way to dismiss the whole issue without discussing it.

I'm sorry...is this the same person who thinks it's perfectly normal standard activity to slalem naked around communal houses on blood covered bath mats and applauds the citing of this activity as a wonderful explanation for Amanda's bloody footprints being where they've no right to be, the same one calling the prosecution scenario 'ridiculous'?

As for the FOA...one doesn't require a laminated membership card to be a groupie.

Here is yet another straw man with a bonus accusation of racism: a new low, I think.

By people like Rudy I mean known criminals with a history of harassing women, a history of carrying knives while committing crimes, a history of housebreaking including using a rock through a window to gain access to a property and so on. Criminals with established M.O.s consistent with the crime.

As opposed to student lovers with absolutely no history of violent crime, and no motive.

Perhaps then when you made the comment you should have explained it at the time, instead of assuming we'd somehow get beamed what you were meaning via our crystal balls?

And as it happens (no need to spoil a perfectly bad record) you are utterly wrong. Rudy Guede was not a known criminal, had no criminal record and had no history of violence or of harassing women, or a history of housebreaking with rocks or anything else either. But you're right though...unlike the other two, at the time he wasn't a student...but I'm sure that's enough for you to send him to the gallows.

This is straightforwardly false. We've been posting to each other about the lack of physical evidence in the murder room and whether or not this is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were not present, so you cannot be unaware of that issue.

And equally, it has been pointed out to you a good number of times that the crime scene is not limited to Meredith's room, the cottage is the crime scene and the case against them is not limited to a three metre radius around Meredith's body.

Rubbish. Total rubbish. The whole point of this thread is analysing whether or not the courts got it wrong in this case. Courts to get it wrong sometimes, so it's a perfectly valid question to ask. The argument that the court must be right in this case because courts are right in most cases is blatantly question-begging.

Except, your 'examination' of it seems to have been limited to trying to find twisted arguments to support a pre-arranged mind set that the case against them was non-existent. You happily ignore the bulk of the evidence against them and instead, insist that only what is in Meredith's room is valid and at the end of the day, all that really matters is motive. Indeed, it would appear from your attitude there shouldn't have even been any trial at all....that the court should have merely looked at Amanda and Raffaele and seen they were 'student lovers with no record of violence', concluded they couldn't possibly have had a motive and then thrown out the whole case since no evidence in the world could stand in the face of that first observation of the pair.

This is yet another of your straw men. Nobody has ever stated that this is their position, or that your (imaginary) "score card" system should be used in assessing guilt or innocence.

You keep trying to find easy ways to dismiss this argument because there simply is no sensible answer to it. There is no plausible way that Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele could have ganged up to kill Meredith in such a way that Rudy leaves slam-dunk evidence of his guilt all over the room and the body yet Amanda and Raffaele leave absolutely nothing. Nor is there any way that Amanda and Raffaele could have cleaned up the murder room so as to eliminate all trace of their presence yet leave copious evidence to convict Rudy. Nor would it make any sense to postulate that they just got amazingly lucky in the murder room, and knew they got amazingly lucky, so they cleaned up the evidence outside the murder room and left the murder room intact knowing that nothing in there could convict them.

If you were more honest you could have said "Well, I have no answer to that question. It's a problem all right, and I don't know how that happened. But I still think the totality of evidence is enough to convict Knox and Solecito". That would not be a position I would agree with but it would at least be somewhat reasonable.

But it is YOU that has been keeping a score card and using it as an argument. Therefore, I stand by my label.

And there you go again with that 'motive' obsession it again, putting it at the top of your list of requirements (despite the fact that there are indeed several quite viable motives for the pair anyway).

Actually, How Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy got together has been very well explained, just as it was well explained some time back here (and not only limited to the once) of exactly why and how Rudy left more evidence then the other pair and why he left the kind of evidence that he did. Just as it has been well argued why the other two did not leave much evidence in the room. And it seems to me you are trung to invent new scientific laws based solely on Rudy's evidence (Rudy left lots of evidence, so the other two should have left lots of evidence in the room also). The whole premise is false. But, if you ask me, U'll explain it all again for you if you like.

You're technically correct. In theory someone other than Rudy could have murdered Meredith and then later Rudy could have come in, cut her bra off, molested her corpse, touched her blood and left bloody hand and finger prints, cut himself on the hand in a fashion consistent with an amateur stabbing someone using a small knife with no hand guard and then nicked off. I don't think it's very likely though.

The argument that there is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were in the room at the time does not, in my view, reach even the level of being more probable than not. The argument that there is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele stabbed Meredith is in my view completely ridiculous - Meredith's wounds are consistent with a single attacker with a single, small blade (as seen in the bloody knife-print on the sheet) attacking from behind, and Rudy's wounded hand is consistent with that story as well. Whereas there is no proper evidence at all Amanda or Raffaele ever held a knife - just the highly suspect "second murder weapon" which doesn't match the victim's wounds.

Utterly false. The injuries to Meredith's body show clearly they were made by two different knives, just as her injuries show she was attacked by multiple attackers. I do highly reccomend you read the Massei Report when it's published, it makes this very clear.

Yeah...your nice little college student Raffaele who'd never be interested in playing with knives:

RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S KNIVES

 

[Fulcanelli]

n/d Double Post

 

[Amazer]

It's not so much that I disbelieve Rudy as that I believe the news reports. As I said earlier, it's human nature to believe what we read in the paper, until we have taken the time to reflect on it and think about it.

That is why I usually read a couple of newspapers... preferably with opposing editorial outlooks.

I actually don't give Rudy a lot of thought and have never reflected on whether or not I believe this particular story. I would doubt his word, though, based on other reports about him -- how he initially denied being at the crime scene, etc. -- that suggest he is not known for his veracity. Also, it is pretty common among thieves to claim they bought stolen property from someone without knowing it was stolen.

It's rather unusual for thieves to keep stolen goods on their person for extended periods of time.

It's a fair question. I have asked many people in various threads why they don't believe Amanda and Raffaele.

Maybe you'll gain some insight when you reflect on your reasons for not believing Rudy, and then apply those reasons to Amanda and Raffaele.

I wouldn't use the fact that he wasn't prosecuted for his crimes as evidence that he didn't commit them.

I don't

 

[stilicho]

I seriously doubt that Amanda regaining her memory in and by itself will be sufficient. If her memories of the events of that evening can be supported by someone (not one of the co-accused obviously) or something then there is a good chance her innocence can be proven.

Are we even allowed to ask Kevin what he would require to show she was guilty? I think you might have already tried a couple times or maybe it was tsig or Quadraginta.

I think the memory recovery is an important first step. If you have nothing to conceal there's nothing to lose by filling in those blanks. Even if she is guilty, the filled-in blanks create a sense of credibility that "too smoked up to remember" just doesn't do as well.

I wonder if LashL is still around to answer that: I've asked other lawyers whether they would ever want their client to take the stand and say "don't know, can't remember" so much during their testimony.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sure, it's possible. But they aren't the ones who are bringing up Rudy Guede's 'criminal record' at the drop of a hat.

As such they are under no obligation to provide that evidence, even if it's in their possession.

Well...in regard to this 'crime' of Rudy's they are spouting about, I think I have a very good idea what they are talking about and if it's what I think it is, it certainly isn't what they seem to think it is, but then they do have a wonderful knack of twisting things around. However, I won't comment further since that would be to jump the gun. I'll wait and see exactly what it is they think they've got, if and when they ever decide to share.

 

[Amazer]

Well...in regard to this 'crime' of Rudy's they are spouting about, I think I have a very good idea what they are talking about and if it's what I think it is, it certainly isn't what they seem to think it is, but then they do have a wonderful knack of twisting things around. However, I won't comment further since that would be to jump the gun. I'll wait and see exactly what it is they think they've got, if and when they ever decide to share.

Well, I've got no idea what they are on about... but their stubborn refusal to disclose what they have tells me they themselves aren't too sure of it's strength.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I provided the link to the relevant wikipedia page with citations before, but I guess you're not going to admit they exist unless I cut and paste everything by hand for you.

From Times online:

Weak, weak, weak. First of all Rudy has no criminal record, as declared by the court in his recent appeal and it was the main reason he was granted a sentence discount for mitigation of 6 years.

Secondly, all the newspaper stories referring to Rudy as a 'known drug dealer' and 'small time criminal' all stem from rumour that certain papers ran with in the early days of the case. And the media, being lazy and cash strapped that it is never bothered to fact check and nepotistically simply copied the same line from each other and before you knew it it became entrenched as a standard Rudy descriptor in the Anglo stories thereafter.


Interestingly, after a few months of this, Rudy Guede's lawyers lost patience and selected one Anglo Newspaper to make an example of...filing suit in Italy for slander against the Seattle Times for it's labelling of Rudy as a petty criminal and small time drug dealer. Amusingly, it seemed that the Anglo media took note and within a few days they were no longer referring to Rudy with the old label but were now describing him as 'part time gardener', here are a couple of examples:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uede-fears-being-framed-by-former-lovers.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/07/4


Of course, it only took a couple of papers not to have got the message and apply the old label and then everyone else started to copy them and then once Rudy was convicted for murder nobody cared any longer anyway and so to this day, the small time drug dealer/petty criminal label is applied as a standard, even though it has no basis in fact whatsoever and all arose from a rumour circulated in the early days of the case.

A little case history lesson for you

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, we had it gauged the other way around with you people set in the 9/11 denier mould. After all, for you people, no evidence is evidence of wrongdoing, let alone of murder. Indeed, had Amanda 'Pollyanna' Knox been discovered standing over a prostrate Meredith clutching a dripping bloody knife screaming "I've killed Meredith", you'd be jumping up and down irately shouting about how it's not in the slightest was valid evidence and how dare we be so bloody mean to poor oppressed diddykums Amanda, all the while offering some asinine pathetic display of mental gymnastics excuse to explain it all away and then insist we give Amanda some reward, simply because 'she's so wonderful'.

You do have a vivid imagination. If at some later point you want to act like a reasonable adult and engage with what I've actually written, instead of posting your fevered fantasies about what I'd do in hypothetical situations of your own devising, come right back. Until then go sit under a bridge with the other trolls.

As for you doing the bath mat boogie all the time and your account of how far you'd go with your shuffling antics, I don't believe you. Sorry, but no. Indeed, it's one of the most ridiculous things I've read here in a long time.

If your opinion in and of itself was important to me, I'd be concerned. Since it isn't, come on back if you want to engage with the actual discussion instead of just proclaiming that you don't believe it.

And as for evidence...damn right it is. Everything is evidence, it's a murder case. And I would remind you, 'our' case has been tested and validated by not just one, but nine courts of law in this case while yours has been defeated by the same number.

Appeal to authority, failure to engage with the actual arguments.

Wait...you people really need to make your minds up. One moment you are screaming 'THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!' against the pair....now you're claiming we're providing 'too much'??? So either way, if there's only two pieces of evidence against them they're innocent...if there's a lot of evidence against them they're innocent. Not that you like to play with a rigged game or anything.

Yet another straw man. Nobody ever said that.

My point, which I stand by, is that your behaviour is symptomatic of irrational partisanship. You find reasons to attack everything stated by Amanda-is-innocent people, even if your attacks make no sense and are irrelevant to Amanda's innocence or guilt. You take everything to be obvious evidence of Amanda's guilt, even if the matter is manifestly irrelevant as we can see with the bathmat business.

It's very much like the moon landing conspiracy theorists who think that everything about the moon videos is evidence that it's all faked.

You've seen no clear evidence at all. In fact, I don't think you'd know what clear evidence was if it smacked you one right between the eyes. The evidence was examined in court. Sollecito and Knox were defended each by an elite team of the best lawyers and experts in the land. We are not talking about a couple of youngsters from the ghetto with nothing better then a two bit attorney each. Yet all the same, they were unable to unseat the evidence against them and were convicted in a unanimous verdict.

Appeal to authority, failure to engage with the actual arguments. If we believed that courts were infallible we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't believe the Italian court system to be infallible. Get over it.

I'm sorry...is this the same person who thinks it's perfectly normal standard activity to slalem naked around communal houses on blood covered bath mats and applauds the citing of this activity as a wonderful explanation for Amanda's bloody footprints being where they've no right to be, the same one calling the prosecution scenario 'ridiculous'?

As for the FOA...one doesn't require a laminated membership card to be a groupie.

Don't let mere facts get in the way of labelling people and dismissing their arguments based on an appeal to association.

Perhaps then when you made the comment you should have explained it at the time, instead of assuming we'd somehow get beamed what you were meaning via our crystal balls?

I (incorrectly) assumed that you were familiar with Rudy's documented background, and that of Amanda and Raffaele. Mea culpa. You acted like you knew something about the case, so I guess I was fooled.

And as it happens (no need to spoil a perfectly bad record) you are utterly wrong. Rudy Guede was not a known criminal, had no criminal record and had no history of violence or of harassing women, or a history of housebreaking with rocks or anything else either. But you're right though...unlike the other two, at the time he wasn't a student...but I'm sure that's enough for you to send him to the gallows.

I already posted the citations and quotations for Bob, who tried this line on us. Sorry, but the evidence is there in black and white.

I do wonder what drives you people to defend Rudy though. Everyone here, as far as I know, agrees that he raped and murdered Meredith Kercher, we just differ on whether or not he had accomplices when he did so. We all should therefore agree that he's an evil piece of garbage who should rot in jail for the rest of his life. Yet you vigorously defend him to the point of accusing mainstream news sources of lying (or in Bob's words spewing twisted hearsay)... just because rehabilitating Rudy's reputation makes Amanda look a little bit worse in your eyes. I find that really weird and frankly disturbing.

And equally, it has been pointed out to you a good number of times that the crime scene is not limited to Meredith's room, the cottage is the crime scene and the case against them is not limited to a three metre radius around Meredith's body.

One more time: The evidence outside the bedroom doesn't prove that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith. The evidence inside the bedroom should prove that they killed Meredith, if they did so, but there's not a skerrick of good evidence to be had.

Except, your 'examination' of it seems to have been limited to trying to find twisted arguments to support a pre-arranged mind set that the case against them was non-existent. You happily ignore the bulk of the evidence against them and instead, insist that only what is in Meredith's room is valid and at the end of the day, all that really matters is motive. Indeed, it would appear from your attitude there shouldn't have even been any trial at all....that the court should have merely looked at Amanda and Raffaele and seen they were 'student lovers with no record of violence', concluded they couldn't possibly have had a motive and then thrown out the whole case since no evidence in the world could stand in the face of that first observation of the pair.

More fantasising. Please don't waste electrons on this rubbish, it contributes to global warming and makes intelligent discussion harder to track.

But it is YOU that has been keeping a score card and using it as an argument. Therefore, I stand by my label.

And there you go again with that 'motive' obsession it again, putting it at the top of your list of requirements (despite the fact that there are indeed several quite viable motives for the pair anyway).

More straw. Will you please stop misrepresenting the posts of everyone you talk to?

Motive is not top of the list by any means, but when the prosecution's story about motive is manifestly loopy and no more sane alternative can be found it's cause for serious concern about their narrative.

Actually, How Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy got together has been very well explained, just as it was well explained some time back here (and not only limited to the once) of exactly why and how Rudy left more evidence then the other pair and why he left the kind of evidence that he did. Just as it has been well argued why the other two did not leave much evidence in the room. And it seems to me you are trung to invent new scientific laws based solely on Rudy's evidence (Rudy left lots of evidence, so the other two should have left lots of evidence in the room also). The whole premise is false. But, if you ask me, U'll explain it all again for you if you like.

Feel free, but you had better provide proper citations for every factual claim at every step of the way. Based on your track record I'm through trusting your word about any factual matter pertaining to this case, because you've been caught misrepresenting the provable facts far too often now.

("Raffaele's" footprint, the bra clasp DNA, Rudy's background... need I go on? I'm sure I could find more).

Utterly false. The injuries to Meredith's body show clearly they were made by two different knives, just as her injuries show she was attacked by multiple attackers. I do highly reccomend you read the Massei Report when it's published, it makes this very clear.

That's the prosecution's story, however other credible sources maintain that one knife of the type shown by the bloodstain on the sheet could perfectly well have inflicted all three wounds, thus there is no need for a second knife to explain the wounds. Similarly the claim that her bruises show multiple attackers is as far as I can tell perfectly consistent with one attacker attempting to restrain her from behind.

Yeah...your nice little college student Raffaele who'd never be interested in playing with knives:

RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S KNIVES

Oh please... I've already responded to this knife business, you clearly aren't even reading the thread.

Are we even allowed to ask Kevin what he would require to show she was guilty? I think you might have already tried a couple times or maybe it was tsig or Quadraginta.

I'm generally ignoring the stupider contributions to this thread, but since you're harping on it, here's my response:

Stick to the facts and the arguments. I know you'd love to derail the thread into a discussion of whether I personally am irrational or not, but I decline to play your game. The question of what hypothetical evidence I would accept as proof of Knox's (and Raffaele's) guilt is irrelevant and I am not interested in discussing it. I'm interested in discussing the evidence that does exist. If you don't like it, too bad.

I think the memory recovery is an important first step. If you have nothing to conceal there's nothing to lose by filling in those blanks. Even if she is guilty, the filled-in blanks create a sense of credibility that "too smoked up to remember" just doesn't do as well.

I wonder if LashL is still around to answer that: I've asked other lawyers whether they would ever want their client to take the stand and say "don't know, can't remember" so much during their testimony.

I am not a lawyer but if I had to take a guess I'd say they would tell their client: "Regardless of what the truth is, changing your story again at this point won't help you. Shut the hell up and let us win this one with the forensic evidence where we've got the facts on our side".

 

[Fulcanelli]

Will Barbie Nadeau do?

Quote:
Late on the night of October 13, 2007, a couple of blocks from the house where Kercher was murdered, Guede broke into a law office and stole a Nokia cellphone and Sony Vaio computer. He smashed a window about 10 feet above the ground with a large rock, then scaled the wall, unlatched the window and crawled in. Two weeks later, the computer was in his possession when he was found in a nursery school in Milan. There, Maria Antonietta Salvadori del Prado, the school administrator, discovered him asleep in her office. "He was very serene and explained that he had been told that for €50 he could sleep here for the night," she told the court. She also testified that along with the computer, he had a kitchen knife, a woman’s watch, and a small hammer in his backpack. "I was shocked to find him there. I was more shocked when I discovered he was wanted for Meredith Kercher's murder."

And don't say they are not crimes because he was not arrested.[/qyote]


All the same, Barbie is incorrect on this one. Rudy was simply found in possession of a couple of items that came from that burglary. It doesn't make him responsible for the burglary. And there is no evidence linking Rudy to and certainly, the evidence indicates he had nothing to do with it...since it was a professional job, the burglar alarm was professionally disabled. Rudy Guede was certainly no professional burglar. Nobody knows 'who' committed the burglary.

 

[stilicho]

However, I won't comment further since that would be to jump the gun. I'll wait and see exactly what it is they think they've got, if and when they ever decide to share.

I feel like I'm stuck in a permanent loop of an Inspector Gadget cartoon. I guess the sleepover in the nursery and the non-theft of a laptop weren't sufficient to scare everyone.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Weak, weak, weak. First of all Rudy has no criminal record, as declared by the court in his recent appeal and it was the main reason he was granted a sentence discount for mitigation of 6 years.

Secondly, all the newspaper stories referring to Rudy as a 'known drug dealer' and 'small time criminal' all stem from rumour that certain papers ran with in the early days of the case. And the media, being lazy and cash strapped that it is never bothered to fact check and nepotistically simply copied the same line from each other and before you knew it it became entrenched as a standard Rudy descriptor in the Anglo stories thereafter.


Interestingly, after a few months of this, Rudy Guede's lawyers lost patience and selected one Anglo Newspaper to make an example of...filing suit in Italy for slander against the Seattle Times for it's labelling of Rudy as a petty criminal and small time drug dealer. Amusingly, it seemed that the Anglo media took note and within a few days they were no longer referring to Rudy with the old label but were now describing him as 'part time gardener', here are a couple of examples:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uede-fears-being-framed-by-former-lovers.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/07/4


Of course, it only took a couple of papers not to have got the message and apply the old label and then everyone else started to copy them and then once Rudy was convicted for murder nobody cared any longer anyway and so to this day, the small time drug dealer/petty criminal label is applied as a standard, even though it has no basis in fact whatsoever and all arose from a rumour circulated in the early days of the case.

A little case history lesson for you

Do you have evidence to contest any of the claims made in mainstream media sources that I quoted and cited for you? Your word is no good at this stage.

In any case, even if he's not a drug dealer (and I'm happy to be agnostic on that point) the accusations of breaking and entering, carrying knives while doing so and using a rock to break a window to gain entry stand in mainstream sources.

 

[Moss]

Or Ghirga finally managed to convince them to keep quiet.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And yet, in the end, all three were convicted of the murder. I don't know why you constantly bring up the "lamer" term. I stand by the evidence that I posted. I am sure you stand by yours. None of it matters because they weren't convicted for their chequered pasts or their knife fetishes. They were convicted because of the evidence.

Yet Kevin retreads FOA talking points that cannot be supported by anything more than hearsay. Whereas we have the citation, we have the photos of the replica combat knives, we know about the stranger Amanda brought to the cottage, and so on.

I don't doubt that Rudy also had a troubled past. The rumours are too persistent to handwave away. But to present these as though they count while Amanda's and Raffaele's issues don't is dishonest.

One might even say that it's "lame".

Well, one thing that is clear is that all these problems arise because few have actually bothered to get to know the past Rudy Guede. They aren't interested, preferring to sling labels and accusations about.

The fact is, Rudy had always either studied in college or worked, he'd only been unemployed for a month. He quit that job (in a bar) because he didn't like the things that were going on there or how the women were treated. He had worked as a part gardener as well, but before that he worked for almost a year as a carer for a 100 year old lady.

But for an insight into Rudy beyond the labels, here's an interview with one of the female teachers who helped bring him up, translated by Jools:

A BOY WITHOUT A FAMILY

"A boy without a family."

Says Mrs. Marcella, mother of a classmate that had him (RG) stayed over in their home. "Rudy was divided between the teachers and parents of friends."
A hard life for Rudy Guede has been greatly helped by Mrs. Marcella and teachers.

“He has always lived in difficulty. In an uphill struggle. Every stages of his life. But those who know him like me and so many of us in Ponte San Giovanni and Pieve di Campo, can not believe that Rudy could be blame for the horrendous murder he is charged.”

Mrs. Marcella can speak with good reason: not only that she knows Rudy since the elementary second grade, as he went to the same school as her eldest son, but because for a long period of time, between January and June of 2004, she even had him staying in her house. Her son, Nicholas, has obtained today his university degree.

She doesn’t avoid, when contacted, to spare some of her time, on such important day for her entire family to speak of this young man, currently under the weight of a heavy sentence. “I met Rudy when he was 7 years old and attending the second grade. I knew he was living a heavy family situation. His father worked up to 17-18 hrs in the afternoon. So as not to leave him alone, we, the teachers alternating took him in every day in our homes. He ate with us, did his homework and played with our children until the moment he could return to be with his father. Initially, we had enrolled him -I talk in plural because as well as me there were others also involved who took an interest in his case, the teachers Ivana and Marisa in addition were the parents of some of the children- at the Pontevecchio football club. Afterwards he went, always in the same club, to basketball. He was very good, one of the best. Always correct, never aggressive. I remember it was funny to see them in the street, my son blond and him dark brown, together...” Rudy was divided between several families: those of the teachers, the parents of his friends from school or basketball. Everyone liked him and he reciprocated. “I remember when he had his first communion in the church of San Bartolomeo, officiated by Don Annibale Valigi, now sadly gone. Problems surfaced for the dress attire, but were settled by the friends families. The practical problems, small change, materials we solved them for him. He was also a guest in the home of teacher Mancini. That’s how it was until, at age 17, he found the foster family.”

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped as per Rule 4 regarding long cut & paste of material available elsewhere.

By:Elio Clerio Bertoldi

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=29

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=44154#p44154