Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

You're forgetting the bit about Raffaele also dropping her alibi.

Ah, yes, they got Raf to say that he couldn't be completely sure she was with him all night since conceivably she could have been gone while he was sleeping. That combined with their misinterpretation of the text and they were convinced Amanda had met up with Patrick that night. They were wrong. But they convinced themselves this was the correct scenario to the point where, when Amanda denied going out that night, they could only justify it by telling Amanda that she must have been traumatized and didn't remember being there. So they asked her to imagine herself there and what she would have heard and how she would have reacted.

 

[Malkmus]

There has been no hesitance here to disparage the conclusions of certain lab experts simply because their results appear to reflect upon the guilt of the defendants ("She sat at the prosecution's table."), even though their position could have as easily had their testimony benefiting the defense if the results had been different.

Why is that okay, but questioning the motives of someone whose chosen, voluntary alignment is with a clearly biased group is somehow not?

With lab experts there is a clear incentive: job, reputation, money... and the hazardous relationship between prosecutors and the lab has already been discussed and cited in the press. What is this person's incentive? FOA is not a paid organization.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks Fulcanelli, Im glad there is someone on here who can present the other side, because I honestly do not know enough details of this case to do so. What you said makes a lot of sense and I really hope the appeals process will start to clear alot of these misunderstandings up. Let's face it, someone has to be wrong, I hope we all find out who it is. If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, they should go free and the Perugian justice system should make sure they rectify their serious mistakes.

But like I said, I still highly doubtful they are innocent. At the end of the day, I have to wonder why their actions seem to match the evidence (whether it's contested or not, there is evidence).

Why didn't they attend Meredith's vigil?

Why was Amanda doing cartwheels and fooling around in a police station, while they are investigating the death of her *ahem* "dear friend"?

Why did she seem to revel in the attention she received at trial? That seems awfully narcissistic to me, and not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder. (Examples, smiling all the time, "All You Need is Love Shirt", laughing while testifying, and just a general nonchalant attitude) Although Ill admit, I haven't seen any footage of the whole trial, so I can't say for sure if she acted like this the majority of the time or part of the time or what, so I'll admit my judgement on this may not be correct.

Why did Raffaele lie and say he pricked Meredith with a knife while cooking?

Also, although I know this has been debated to death, why accuse Patrick? Why let it stand even while in the safety of her cell, when no cops were around to pressure her? I know you guys talk a lot about false confessions, but this is a false accusation.

Why can't they remember the simplest of things? She can't remember calling her mom in the middle of the night? Even after being reminded and told the details of the call? I used to use drugs in my young and crazy years, and I tried everything from marijuana to cocaine to "other things". I NEVER forgot as many things as they claim they did. There was one time where I did take so much alcohol and cocaine mixed together that for a period of 6 hours, I remembered nothing of what I did (this included going to different clubs, etc.) But not this nonsense of remembering some parts and not others, etc.

Is it true she sat there and blow dried her hair in the large bathroom, even though the feces was in there? Did she leave it there to keep her company? Even if she saw it when she was finishing up, why leave it there still?

Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?

Why say to suffering friend of Meredith's "**** happens" or "what do you think, she *********** bled to death?"

Why sit there and take a shower in a house where the door is open, and blood is visible? I know the excuses, that she thought someone might have taken out the trash and the door doesn't close properly, and that supposedly she assumed Meredith had menstrual issues, but it still doesn't sound right to me.

I know you guys have good questions too supporting the other side, and a lot of them I can't answer adequately. But I just wish people would stop acting like as if people who have questions like mine are crazy or conspiracy nuts. We're not, there is a lot for us to be suspicious of on this side of the fence as well.

Hi Solange305,
I too, like you and others, have done alot of drugs. My parents were hippies, so I have even smoked out with them before they died...
Growing up in Venice Beach in the late 60's and 70's, I've seen a lot more violence occur from alcohol useage then from smoking pot. Would you agree that alcohol is a more violent "drug" then pot?

Recently, I hung out and watched 2 surfer gal pals-(1 a registered nurse and the other a research scientist), high on pot cookies for a few hours and they were so far out there in their mellow, relaxed state of mind that I, who was drinking Jack and Coke even commented on.
But yet, give these 2 gals beers or heck, vodka, watch out, they get sooo loud and beligerant together!

I really believe that Amanda Knox, after being informed she DID NOT have to work that night, (and RS, after being told he did not have to give a ride to another friend), probably got high with her new "boyfriend" and just hung out with him. Fellow JREF member "Fine" pointed out AK said they even did the dishes after dinner. Sounds like they were having a mellow night at home that night, after smoking out...

Heck I wonder about the next day, for they were planning to head outta town for a short day trip. I wonder if they got high again that morning too. If so, they would have been coming down from a "buzz" when the cops showed up that day. If so, as I believe they are completely innocent of any involvement in Miss Kercher's brutal murder, that would have sucked dealing with the cops then...

You mentioned "Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?"
I too have wondered of this. AK went home to take a shower. But her hair looks messy in that photo of her and Raf. Did RS had his way with her when she came back home? I wonder. I know I have done this before with my girlfriend's after they had showered and gotten ready to go out on the town, they get mad sometimes, hahaha...

You mentioned "Why didn't they attend Meredith's vigil?"
I wondered this too, but then I read that Meredith's English gal pals, of whom she was waaay closer, either split town or did not attend this event also.
(Forgive me, for I do not have quotes/links in front of me.)
Amanda Knox, from what I have read, stayed in town to try to help the police. Maybe she just did not want to go to a vigil for MK...
Judge Claudia Matteini: "Your family lives in the Unitied States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote.
"The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant.", ETC.

Some have questioned why Amanda Knox didn't flush the feces down the toilet when she saw them. YUCK!
I am the oldest of 4 children and would have never done that!
I have also been "the Boss" before, and made the offender go clean it up themselves...
Did Amanda stay in that bathroom and dry her her? That's gross!

Some of the other points you bring up seem to me, at least, the sign of someone of that is totally innocent of the crime they are being charged with. However, I do think that Amanda Knox would have helped her case A LOT if she had dressed very conservatively for her court appearances and if she had chosen a local Perugian lawyer, such as Mr. Walter-(Valter?) Biscotti, who when he had his 50th birthday party, even had some of the local Perugian law enforcement and judicial members, who had just won a conviction against his client, Rudy Guede, show up tp socialize and party too....

Anyways, Solange305, this is just my opinion,
a longtime surfer from the beaches of L.A.
Peace out, RWVBWL

 

[Chris C]

But like I said, I still highly doubtful they are innocent. At the end of the day, I have to wonder why their actions seem to match the evidence (whether it's contested or not, there is evidence).

I'm gonna give you my opinion on these matters. First, there is alot of untested evidence in this case. Any attempt to have this untested evidence has been met with resistance. There is evidence that the prosecution has refused to give the defense. There is evidence that the prosecution has put witnesses on the stand that have given conflicting evidence to Prosecution theories, and other prosecution witnesses. Frankly the prosecution only thinks the evidence that points to guilt should be turned over to the defense. They dont think evidence that points to innocence is evidence. Just some fluke.

Why was Amanda doing cartwheels and fooling around in a police station, while they are investigating the death of her *ahem* "dear friend"?

She was asked to by the police.

Why did she seem to revel in the attention she received at trial? That seems awfully narcissistic to me, and not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder. (Examples, smiling all the time, "All You Need is Love Shirt", laughing while testifying, and just a general nonchalant attitude) Although Ill admit, I haven't seen any footage of the whole trial, so I can't say for sure if she acted like this the majority of the time or part of the time or what, so I'll admit my judgement on this may not be correct.

2 years is a long time not to smile. She wore that T-shirt on Valentines day.

Why did Raffaele lie and say he pricked Meredith with a knife while cooking?

There is a ton of articles on this. Ranging from he wasn't talking about pricking Meredith he was pricking Knox to he was just trying to explain to himself something he couldn't explain. If i remember correctly he was writing this in a diary.

Also, although I know this has been debated to death, why accuse Patrick? Why let it stand even while in the safety of her cell, when no cops were around to pressure her? I know you guys talk a lot about false confessions, but this is a false accusation.

Why can't they remember the simplest of things? She can't remember calling her mom in the middle of the night? Even after being reminded and told the details of the call? I used to use drugs in my young and crazy years, and I tried everything from marijuana to cocaine to "other things". I NEVER forgot as many things as they claim they did. There was one time where I did take so much alcohol and cocaine mixed together that for a period of 6 hours, I remembered nothing of what I did (this included going to different clubs, etc.) But not this nonsense of remembering some parts and not others, etc.

If you want to read the transcript, PMF has a translated copy.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
Her claims are she smoked pot. All the other hard drugs are claims by haters. The phone call was a misleading question that had no correct answer. They pretty much badgered her giving her misleading information about the calls. For instance they didn't even get the time of the phone call correct. In questioning they jump from one phone call to the next back to the other phone call trying to confuse her. They ask her about what was discussed in these phone calls and if she doens't remember she tells them she dont remember that call. Of course they now claim she is lieing about a phone call she can't remember having. However, how can she remember having a phone call about a conversation she dont remember having. Its a catch 22. If she admits to the phone call she admits to a conversation she says she didn't have. If she says she dont remember THAT call, then they claim she is lieing about a phone call that she can't remember.

Is it true she sat there and blow dried her hair in the large bathroom, even though the feces was in there? Did she leave it there to keep her company? Even if she saw it when she was finishing up, why leave it there still?

Never heard this before. However, do you clean up after everyone? If someone leaves their shoes on the floor of THEIR bathroom, do you pick them up? I'm not, its their bathroom.

Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?

Huh?

Why say to suffering friend of Meredith's "**** happens" or "what do you think, she *********** bled to death?"

Where you get this one at?

Why sit there and take a shower in a house where the door is open, and blood is visible? I know the excuses, that she thought someone might have taken out the trash and the door doesn't close properly, and that supposedly she assumed Meredith had menstrual issues, but it still doesn't sound right to me.

Its not like the place was covered in blood. She noticed a few strange things but continued doing what she went there for.

I know you guys have good questions too supporting the other side, and a lot of them I can't answer adequately. But I just wish people would stop acting like as if people who have questions like mine are crazy or conspiracy nuts. We're not, there is a lot for us to be suspicious of on this side of the fence as well.

 

[RWVBWL]

This is nonsense. Rudy wasn't trying to sell the computer or anything else, where's your evidence for that?

_________________________________________________________________
Hi Fulcanelli,
Do you know how Rudy Guede was paying his rent for the apartment he was living at at the time of Miss Kercher's death?

I saw a photograph of it on another website called Perugiamurderfile.org, not Perugiamurderfile.com though,
that a poster named "thoughtful" had shot and I wondered how he paid his rent, for it doesn't seem that Rudy Guede had a job then.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
RWVBWL

 

[tsig]

That's what door knockers and doorbells are for...amazing inventions those.

If he had done that he would have found out the door was open.

 

[quadraginta]

You're from England and you tell me about the American system?

My wife occasionally works the "murder hot line" here in Boston, Ma. The phone is attended 24-7 (all the time). If someone in the Boston area is accused of murder, an experienced lawyer is IMMEDIATELY appointed. Amanda would have had a lawyer BEFORE she talked to the police. The same for RS.

AK and RS would not have seen the inside of a jail or had to stand trial. Yet the court system in MA still would have easily prosecuted the "Craig's List" killer. He recently committed suicide in jail because the case against him was stronger than the case against Guede.

I think the system here sucks, but it seems to suck infinitely less than the Italian system!

I think the operative term here is "accused". Do Boston's Finest routinely assign lawyers to witnesses they choose to interview? LE in most jurisdictions in the U.S. (maybe even all of them) quite cheerfully plays fast and loose with the distinction in an effort to elicit unguarded statements. Sometimes those efforts become an issue in court, sometimes not. The general weight of precedence tends to favor LE.

Even at that, the example you cite is to be applauded. Such a practice is not a general one in other jurisdictions. Once having been informed of their rights it is the accused's responsibility to clearly elect to request legal representation, and to stay quiet until such assistance is forthcoming. This is another interpretive weakness which is taken advantage of by investigators in the U.S. Court opinion has been remarkably lenient towards the investigators when they venture too close to the line. Even the line itself is subject to quite a bit of debate.

 

[RWVBWL]

Anyone can do the math here. Obviously, it just doesn't serve your interests if Rudy has even a brief history of b&e or was desperate for money. But lets do the arithmetic here:

1. Computer is stolen from law office in Perugia - the town where Rudy resides.
2. Rudy is caught in Milan with computer as well as other items like a women's gold watch and a hammer used to break windows.
3. Rudy didn't have money for a hotel, so he squats in a nursery where he is caught by police.
4. Rudy is sent back to Perugia to return the stolen items to the lawyers. This is just two days before he breaks in to the cottage, rifles through Meredith's purse and takes the rent money which gets him to Germany, but isn't enough to last so he asks his friend over Skype to send him more.

_________________________________________________________________

Hi Malkmus,
Didn't the computer that Rudy Guede was caught with have a photograph of Giorgio Armani and himself on its screen saver?

If I was to sell a stolen computer, I would want to try and show potential buyers that the object was in fact mine, as it seems Rudy Guede might have done.
Flip side of that though, is that if RG planned to keep the computer, he might have done the same.
However, with apartment rent coming soon and no apparent source of income, 1 can surmise that Rudy Guede was planning to sell that laptop computer, though Fulcanelli and others might disagree.

I just found a little more about Rudy Guede, it seems the English newspapers liked to cover the story of him better than the Amarican newspapers did:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5034243.ece
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-When I read what "katy did" posted awhile back here on JREF where someone drank some juice from the refrig at the lawyers office the night it was burglarized, which also then happened at Miss Kercher's house the night she died, I recalled that Rudy Guede said he did drink from the orange juice carton/container while at MK's house. I now believe that Rudy Guede was involved and inside that law office when it was broken in to.
But was Guede alone? Did he know how to disconnect a burglar alarm?
Or did he have a partner, more skilled in B+E than he?

 

[quadraginta]

The key word here might be "voluntary" - unless you contend that he's deliberately taking a position which he doesn't believe to be true purely in order to make money somehow.

In a trial, the prosecution hire expert witnesses who are... shall we say.... disposed to say things things which are beneficial to the prosecution's case. Of course, exactly the same is true of the defence too - that's why it's the court's job to decide what is more credible and substantial. But be in no doubt that both sides choose experts who will support their position, and pay them accordingly. And that's why expert witnesses from either side can never really be counted upon to give a totally disinterested opinion - which is fine until and unless one presents the arguments of just one side as unimpeachable fact (viz. Rinaldi and the footprint evidence).

I suppose I could contend that, but I'm not, because I don't know enough about the man or how his relationship with the Knox family stands. That wasn't my assertion.

My point is that the inference of doubt by association has been commonly used here by both sides, and perhaps even less fairly when it has often and explicitly been used to cast aspersions on lab reports.

I don't know the exact nature of the relationship between labs and prosecutors in Italy, but here there are several different levels of association, and not all of them imply a subordinate or cooperative relationship between a prosecutor and the laboratory. A local DA can have evidence sent to any number of facilities which might have resources otherwise unavailable. If the results are favorable to a conviction that does not mean that the lab is "working" for the DA, any more than if the results are exculpatory would mean that the same lab was suddenly "working" for the defense instead.

For example, Stephanoni has been routinely dismissed and even reviled in these threads as a tool of the prosecution on the basis of the conclusions she drew and the seating placement of the courtroom. I have not seen anything yet which clearly establishes that she was a paid subordinate of the prosecution. It is one thing to disagree with her conclusions on a scientific basis, but another thing entirely to suggest that she distorted or falsified her conclusions in an overt effort to achieve a conviction.

Apparently this is okay with you when those who appear to support the conviction are being discussed, since I have not seen you offer any objection when this tactic has been employed against them, but less appropriate, by your standards, when the individuals in question are defending Knox.

Personally, I think it is wrong regardless of who is being discussed. If evidence of ulterior motive can be offered that is one thing. Other inferences are less persuasive.

 

[quadraginta]

With lab experts there is a clear incentive: job, reputation, money... and the hazardous relationship between prosecutors and the lab has already been discussed and cited in the press. What is this person's incentive? FOA is not a paid organization.

What is this "clear incentive" you speak of? Are you claiming that the job, reputation, and salary of a professional scientist is dependent on some prosecutor's good will? Is this true for all prosecutors? All labs? All scientists? All conclusions? How can we tell when it isn't?

What I have seen discussed about this topic in these threads has been more argument by anecdote, supporting still again the proposition that no one can be justly convicted anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances, for anything.

There is no aspect of trial law or practice which has not been demonstrated in this discussion by the "evidence" of unrelated examples to be completely unreliable. The only conclusion it can be reasonable to draw from this sort of "evidence" is that we have no business at all ever having any trials.

----------------------------

Free Casey Anthony! She's being railroaded by unscrupulous prosecutors and their laboratory minions.

 

[Chris C]

For example, Stephanoni has been routinely dismissed and even reviled in these threads as a tool of the prosecution on the basis of the conclusions she drew and the seating placement of the courtroom. I have not seen anything yet which clearly establishes that she was a paid subordinate of the prosecution. It is one thing to disagree with her conclusions on a scientific basis, but another thing entirely to suggest that she distorted or falsified her conclusions in an overt effort to achieve a conviction.

I think someone mentioned on here somewhere that Stefanoni's boss was either a paid consultant or sat at the prosecutions table during the trial. That might be where they are getting that paid subordinate part from.

 

[Justinian2]

I think the operative term here is "accused". Do Boston's Finest routinely assign lawyers to witnesses they choose to interview? LE in most jurisdictions in the U.S. (maybe even all of them) quite cheerfully plays fast and loose with the distinction in an effort to elicit unguarded statements. Sometimes those efforts become an issue in court, sometimes not. The general weight of precedence tends to favor LE.

Even at that, the example you cite is to be applauded. Such a practice is not a general one in other jurisdictions. Once having been informed of their rights it is the accused's responsibility to clearly elect to request legal representation, and to stay quiet until such assistance is forthcoming. This is another interpretive weakness which is taken advantage of by investigators in the U.S. Court opinion has been remarkably lenient towards the investigators when they venture too close to the line. Even the line itself is subject to quite a bit of debate.

True, Amanda was originally a "witness" (that's what she naively thought anyway). Although she was in love and thought everybody loved her and wished her only prosperity, there were others that thought otherwise. RS and his father were Italians and should have known enough about the system to have insisted immediately on lawyers. Others that immediately got lawyers never became suspects or got off easily (a roommate and the bartender).

When she made the transition to the "accused" she wasn't permitted a lawyer for a day or two and was subjected to the same methods used by "brainwashers" like sleep deprivation. Let's face it, AK and RS were brainwashed and tortured.

Experiments in a very prestigious university found that even the super bright could be manipulated into making confessions to things they didn't do.

In conclusion: Italy should have her license to hold criminal trials revoked.

 

[Antony]

(msg #6271)
But like I said, I still highly doubtful they are innocent. At the end of the day, I have to wonder why their actions seem to match the evidence (whether it's contested or not, there is evidence).

Solange, it's refreshing to see posts from someone who hasn't made up his mind and even coming from the "it looks like they're guilty" position is still open to arguments from both sides.

I believe that as you get to hear more about this case you will see that very little of the prosecution side is as it seems, and some of it is a complete invention. There was a massive media campaign of distortion against Amanda Knox particularly, and the stories of lies, changing alibis and inappropriate behaviour are largely down to that.

For instance the notorious "cartwheels" were because Amanda was kept waiting for long periods in the police station while Raffaele was giving a statement, and she started doing some stretching and yoga exercises to pass the time and ease the tension. Of course this was gift to the media circus.

Raffaele's alleged "lie" about pricking Meredith's finger with the knife was written in a private diary, when he was trying to make sense of reports that her DNA had been found on it. The passage was ambiguous, and doesn't make sense unless it refers to Amanda's finger (so secondary DNA transfer), not Meredith's - but it has been misrepresented as an "testimony" by him that the knife came into contact with Meredith, even though she had never been in his flat. As for the DNA, the test was improperly conducted and the positive reading almost certainly false, but the pro-guilt side will not acknowledge that.

Amanda's supposed "accusation" against Patrick arises from an all-night interrogation (5-6 November) in which there were no safeguards for her rights. Her statements on that night show the characteristics of a forced false confession. What happened to her during that interrogation is a matter of dispute between the 2 sides - but she is now facing a trial for slander merely because she said that she was slapped on the back of the head during the ordeal.

You repeat a point made by others that this was not a confession, but an "accusation" - which is a real distinction if you think the statement was made voluntarily. But of course statements are not made voluntarily in circumstances like this; and if the statement was coerced (as I believe), then the distinction disappears. Labelling it as an "accusation" does not mean that it was not coerced.

Why did she seem to revel in the attention she received at trial? That seems awfully narcissistic to me, and not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder.

This is one of the strangest things in your post, and it seems to me that you are falling into the trap that has apparently convinced many people of the accusations against her: it's "not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder." You say to yourself: "an innocent person wouldn't act like that." I say: "a guilty person wouldn't act like that."

She had spent 2 years in prison for something she didn't do and now there was a chance of the truth coming out; why should she not be cheerful and relaxed? Why should she not smile and wave to her family and supporters? Do you want her to sit quivering, biting her nails and staring at the floor throughout the year-long trial?

One of the things that characterises this discussion from some posters is that there seems to be an unspecified stereotype of innocence, and any deviation from that on the part of the defendants - and particularly Amanda Knox - is regarded as damning evidence against her. The reality is that people react to grief, stress and false accusation in different ways. Given the pressures, manipulation and unfairness endured by Amanda and Raffaele, nobody can say of them "an innocent person wouldn't do this." There are many, many points in this story where we can confidently say "this is not the action of a guilty person".

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

With all due respect, you are the one arguing against the findings of experts who testified in trial, unless I am misunderstanding. I find it hard to believe that the average person can trump the judgment of experts simply by finding literature online. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it seems kind of unrealistic to assume any of us (myself, Sherlock Homes, or you) can sit another world away, and determine the time of death of a body as opposed to an actual coroner or expert studying the body.

Hear, hear.

 

[Chris C]

With all due respect, you are the one arguing against the findings of experts who testified in trial, unless I am misunderstanding. I find it hard to believe that the average person can trump the judgment of experts simply by finding literature online. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it seems kind of unrealistic to assume any of us (myself, Sherlock Homes, or you) can sit another world away, and determine the time of death of a body as opposed to an actual coroner or expert studying the body.

Hear, hear.

Actually the coroner is the the one that said she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. There is no literature that disagrees with the coroners finding. Its those that disagree with the coroner that say Stomach Contents can't be reliable that are argueing against the coroner. All the factors that go into determining ToD based on Stomach contents are known, so it would only be unreliable if you didn't know when and what she had for her last meal. Since the factors are known, when and what. You know when to apply the 2 to 3 hour window. If they didn't know when Meredith ate then of course they would have no idea of where to place the ToD window. However, since Meredith ate between 6pm and 6:30pm, you do the math.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Raffaele's alleged "lie" about pricking Meredith's finger with the knife was written in a private diary, when he was trying to make sense of reports that her DNA had been found on it. The passage was ambiguous, and doesn't make sense unless it refers to Amanda's finger (so secondary DNA transfer), not Meredith's - but it has been misrepresented as an "testimony" by him that the knife came into contact with Meredith, even though she had never been in his flat. As for the DNA, the test was improperly conducted and the positive reading almost certainly false, but the pro-guilt side will not acknowledge that.

I do not believe this is true. It truly seems he is writing about actually pricking Meredith.

The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente].
So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy Guede - "police informant"?

Anyone can do the math here. Obviously, it just doesn't serve your interests if Rudy has even a brief history of b&e or was desperate for money. But lets do the arithmetic here:

1. Computer is stolen from law office in Perugia - the town where Rudy resides.
2. Rudy is caught in Milan with computer as well as other items like a women's gold watch and a hammer used to break windows.
3. Rudy didn't have money for a hotel, so he squats in a nursery where he is caught by police.
4. Rudy is sent back to Perugia to return the stolen items to the lawyers. This is just two days before he breaks in to the cottage, rifles through Meredith's purse and takes the rent money which gets him to Germany, but isn't enough to last so he asks his friend over Skype to send him more.

_________________________________________________________________

Hi Malkmus,
Re-reading your post, I wondered about something that seemed kind of odd, that I have heard before too:

Why was Rudy Guede not arrested with the stolen items that the police in Milan found on him, but instead told to return to Perugia to take the items back?
Why didn't the police just arrest him then and contact the owners of this personal property and return it to them?
I have never heard of a police force telling someone with stolen property to return it to the rightful owners, in a different city!
And lastly, after being told to return the items, why did he do it?
How would the cops in another city even know if he did or not?
Or care?

I wonder if Rudy Guede had a "get outta jail card" and used it in Milan.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Take a cup of coffee and make a coffee ring on the table. Then take it again and make a ring next to it. Take a cloth and clean one ring and leave the other. There, that was easy wasn't it?

Would your table happen to have dust on the surface as the floor did at the cottage? When you clean off the one ring as you suggest, you would also remove the dust from that area. This would leave evidence that you cleaned one area of the table.

There was absolutely no evidence showing any cleanup at the cottage. None at all.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Not unless Rudy was Super Rubber Man. See Thoughtful's recent photo of the wall, window and planter at the cottage on PMF. It's clear you can't reach the window from the planter.

Thoughtful is not the first person to photograph the wall. The wall would have been no challenge for Rudy Guede.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This is nonsense. Rudy wasn't trying to sell the computer or anything else, where's your evidence for that?

Great shot of the window, it shows all the undisturbed glass on the exact spot he would have had to clamber over to get his arm through the window and then climb in...yet not a single piece on the ground below.

He cut himself climbing in through the window? Genius. Where's his blood?

So after the window was broken from the inside, the glass was placed back up on the sill? That's not a very logical conclusion is it?

Take another look at the window and see how much of the sill is actually free from glass. Rudy had plenty of surface to work with. There is a good possibility that Rudy did cut his hand on the glass but I think it is more likely that his hand ran up on the blade of his knife when he was committing murder.