Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lane99]

In glancing through the past few pages it seems at least one devoted acolyte continues to preach the "smoking mop" theory. Which struggles to keep it's nose above water by some flailing contortions directed towards somehow making it it incriminating that there was *not* (yes, I said "not")anything found on the mop that would suggest it was used to cleanup a murder scene.

And speaking of avoiding common sense in pursuit of reinforcing one's bias, am I correct in saying that one of the articles of faith amongst the "Band of Strangers" conspiracy theorists is that the more people that attack a victim, the LESS injuries that victim might be expected to have?

 

[Withnail1969]

Why didn't the killers just throw the bathmat and any bloodsoaked clothing into the washing machine, and then dry it out on the radiators. After all, they had all night.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Amanda's lawyers asked that her hard drive be released to Toshiba to see if the contents could be recovered, with the cost borne by the defense. So far, their request has been refused. This is where the photographs of Meredith and Amanda would be. Do you agree with the defense that the hard drive should be sent out?

I have no problem with the defense request in this instance, but I fail to see its relevance as a possible source of exculpatory evidence for Knox (or Sollecito).

And until such time as the contents of her laptop are conclusively established, any speculation as to its contents remains just that - speculation. This was the reason for my reply to RWVBWL's assertion about its contents as "hearsay and speculation".

 

[Fuji]

You may mean 'hearsay and speculation' there. Whatever you suspected, I doubt if it was 'heresay and specultation'.

You are correct. I did indeed intend to type "hearsay and speculation". Thank you for the correction.

Do you have any substantive reply to the content of my post, or is your only objection typographic in nature?

 

[Danceme]

Danceme,

I have a question. Do you support releasing the drive to Toshiba?

Yes I do. I also support having the stain on the pillowcase tested and the fsa files released. I seek the truth and hope to eventually get it whether it indicates guilt or innocence.

Naturally. Why would Sollecito track his blood-soaked naked footprints from the murder-room to the bathroom, then stand on the bathmat. Why would you stand on the mat during the cleanup, knowing that it's going to cause you major problems later? And if you did do it, why wouldn't you clean it up?

The additional haphazard blood stains on the bathmat make me think something bloody was laid down or accidentally dropped on the mat, like a small towel, a rag, or article of thin clothing, and it was stepped on leaving the print where the foot stepped and the other stains where different parts of the bloody article touched the mat.

 

[Danceme]

Why didn't the killers just throw the bathmat and any bloodsoaked clothing into the washing machine, and then dry it out on the radiators. After all, they had all night.

Perhaps they already had it filled and started with the clothing that was found there. It may have been meant for a second load.

 

[Justinian2]

The Monster of Perugia –The Framing of Amanda Knox

In justifying a guilty verdict for Amanda and Raffaele, the Court was faced with an elephant in the room: Rudy Guede is clearly guilty of the murder. He had a history of repeated break-ins; he knew that the students would have rent money, in cash, on that day of the month; he was in desperate need of money since he likely faced imminent eviction; he was known to carry large knives (and small ones too); his presence at the scene of the crime was indisputable; and he fled the country shortly after. The case against Rudy Guede was overwhelming. How then, to diminish Rudy’s role and substitute Amanda – a kid who had no criminal or violent history and no motive – as the architect of this horrific crime?

Anyway, pages 45 and 46 of the Massei report discusses Guede’s three recent break-ins that had elements similar to those of the fatal night. It’ll be interesting to see why the book claims Guede is made of Teflon; why he has repeatedly avoided much of the blame and punishment for what he did.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi all....new poster here. Been following this case for quite awhile and have been enjoying all of your posts.

This may be a stupid question but, are plea bargains allowed in the Italian justice system? Forgive me for not searching the forum before asking, but I'm guessing that the answer is "no" since I've never seen it discussed in any article. I'm asking because I'm assuming that if AK or RS were guilty, one of them would have turned on the other.

From what I have read, in the Italian system one can choose a 'fast track' trial which is often rewarded with a large reduction in the sentence. Neither Amanda or Raffaele chose this route, while Rudy Guede did, and he has since had his sentence cut about in half.

 

[RWVBWL]

I have no problem with the defense request in this instance, but I fail to see its relevance as a possible source of exculpatory evidence for Knox (or Sollecito).

And until such time as the contents of her laptop are conclusively established, any speculation as to its contents remains just that - speculation. This was the reason for my reply to RWVBWL's assertion about its contents as "hearsay and speculation".

Greetings from Los Angeles, Fuji!
The only reason I brought up Miss Knox's laptop, which was then "fried" by the police investigators, was that,
IIRC the Knox Family has said there were photographs of Amanda and Meredith together while at the Chocolate Festival on it,
and that might indeed show some other clothing outfit that Amanda Knox had worn before Meredith Kercher's murder.

If so, and if any of this clothing outfit was then missing, I, an innocentisti, might wonder what had happened to that clothing.
And to help get down to the truth of what really happened that night Miss Meredith Kercher was brutally stabbed to her death,
I might have possibly even entertained the thought:
"Did Amanda Knox kill her housemate and friend Mereith Kercher in the bedroom next to her own and then discard the probably bloody clothing she was wearing,
which might have included a clothing item she also wore while at the Chocolate Festival?"

But the cops "fried" the computer, and do not seem to want to give it up.
I wonder why?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Malkmus]

Hi all, I noticed there was again some discussion over the last week regarding the infamous interrogation of Amanda from December 2007 in which she supposedly nearly gave herself up. I had this debate with Fulcanelli some time back, in which I disagreed that this was at all the case since we DO have recording of that session. I'm posting it again for all here to see that Amanda again sticks to her same story and that there is no way to deduce from it that she was about to "come clean".

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html

P.S. I've noticed Safari doesn't play nice with this video. Firefox should work.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

colonelhall,

Glad to hear it. I am still nursing my rotator cuff injury.

A lawyer told me that an alibi is just an account of where one was (this is a paraphrase). I am not sure what you mean by the lack of an alibi. Amanda said that she was at Sollecito's flat.

LJ posted this link the other day:

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/secrets-of-interrogation-admission-of-guilt/

This guy did exactly what Amanda did. He started out by saying he had nothing to do with the murder, but after a couple hours of aggressive cops getting in his face, he said, "OK, I was there."

Then they checked out his alibi and discovered he was in Brazil. What would have happened to this guy if he hadn't had a provable alibi?

 

[Brooktrout]

The Lamp

This article from today's news about a case up in Canada caught my attention:

"Col. Williams brought lamps from other parts of Ms. Lloyd's home to improve the lighting. " [for filming his attacks]

A long stretch, sure, but a possibility nevertheless?

 

[Kestrel]

Perhaps they already had it filled and started with the clothing that was found there. It may have been meant for a second load.

Time for a reality check.

The washing machine contained Meredith's clothes, but nothing she was wearing the night of the murder. Contrary to persistent rumors, it was not running or warm when the police arrived the following day. All indications are that Meredith loaded the machine before visiting her English friends, intending to unload it when she came back home.

The state of the washing machine is another indication that Meredith was killed shortly after she arrived home at 9 PM.

 

[samba]

From what I have read, in the Italian system one can choose a 'fast track' trial which is often rewarded with a large reduction in the sentence. Neither Amanda or Raffaele chose this route, while Rudy Guede did, and he has since had his sentence cut about in half.

Thanks for your reply. Does the Italian justice system also offer a reduced sentence for testifying? I would assume in this case (being that the defendants only knew each other for six days), that either AK or RS would have agreed to this to save their own hide. Of course this assumes that they were actually guilty and had something to testify about.

 

[RWVBWL]

I wish to ask Fulcanelli something before I split for the day...

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

First comment...you wouldn't allow your list to be used as arguments or evidence to convict Amanda or Raffaele of any crime, but then we know how low you've set the bar in the case of Rudy.

1) Yes...along with 100,000 other people.

2) If possession of stolen goods is enough to convict someone of burglary, then there would be no such thing as a charge of procession of stolen goods. Rudy could have bought it from anybody. You don't need a little hammer to break windows. Little hammers can have many uses. There's no evidence the watch was stolen. He could have bought it, been given it a gift or keepsake.

3) Who said he didn't have money for a hotel? He said he couldn't stay in one because he arrived late at night. 'Money' wasn't the reason.

4) Rudy was sent back to Perugia on the train for which he bought a ticket. Not bad for supposedly having no money. The items were confiscated...he wasn't sent back to return them. It was proven in his trial that he didn't take the money from Meredith's purse...he was acquitted of the theft...remember? The break-in at the office was not the same as that at the cottage in any way...read Massei. That's aside from it being completely staged as shown by the evidence and proven in court TWICE...in two separate trials.

Rudy wasn't on "holiday" in Milan, he'd gone to see his aunt who lives in Milan.

Hi Fulcanelli,
When you get back from vacation,
can you please elaborate a little more on this posting, since I was recently reading on Dr. Mark Waterbury's website Science Spheres, and it says this:
Rudy Guede later went to the attorneys to return the laptop that was stolen from that office, claiming to have purchased it legally. Why he did that is a mystery – one of many strange things Rudy did that seem to make no sense whatever. And why was he allowed to keep the stolen computer in the first place after being caught with it during a break-in? None of this makes sense unless there was something else going on that we don’t know about.
(bolding mine)

Fulcanelli, I keep getting conflicting information here.
Did Rudy Guede return the stolen laptop to the lawyer from whom it was originally stolen from
or did the police in Milan confiscate it and return the laptop to the lawyer themselves?
If the police did confiscate that stolen laptop, will you please provide me with a reference link also?

Thanks in advance,
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps they already had it filled and started with the clothing that was found there. It may have been meant for a second load.

It was Meredith's clothing in the washer/dryer though, wasn't it? And it's potentially further indication that Meredith was confronted, attacked and killed very shortly after getting through the front door. She put a load of washing on before she went to her English friends' house, and it would seem strange that she would leave her completed laundry in the machine, remaining damp and creased, for a couple of hours after getting home.

EDIT: I see that Kestrel made the very same points in response, before I posted mine. Apologies for the duplication!

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for your reply. Does the Italian justice system also offer a reduced sentence for testifying? I would assume in this case (being that the defendants only knew each other for six days), that either AK or RS would have agreed to this to save their own hide. Of course this assumes that they were actually guilty and had something to testify about.

I have read that, though I do not recall exactly how it works. What I find interesting is that I cannot recall ever reading that Rudy Guede testified against his 'co-conspirators.' I do however recall reading that before the trial, and again recently, he was reported as saying that they weren't involved, though in the latter case it was through the proxy of a cellmate.

I have seen speculation that the prosecution rewarded Rudy with a lower sentence for recanting his early story that Raffaele and Amanda weren't involved.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi all....new poster here. Been following this case for quite awhile and have been enjoying all of your posts.

This may be a stupid question but, are plea bargains allowed in the Italian justice system? Forgive me for not searching the forum before asking, but I'm guessing that the answer is "no" since I've never seen it discussed in any article. I'm asking because I'm assuming that if AK or RS were guilty, one of them would have turned on the other.

Welcome, samba. I agree with your point, which I see Kaosium already answered. Along the same lines, I have always found it telling that neither defendant has "finally cracked" after being imprisoned for almost three years and suffered many emotionally torturous indignities along the way. For two kids who led normal, healthy lives before all this happened, I would think the pressure of maintaining such a terrible lie would be too much to bear.

 

[Kestrel]

I wish to ask Fulcanelli something before I split for the day...

_________________________________________________________________





Hi Fulcanelli,
When you get back from vacation,
can you please elaborate a little more on this posting, since I was recently reading on Dr. Mark Waterbury's website Science Spheres, and it says this:
Rudy Guede later went to the attorneys to return the laptop that was stolen from that office, claiming to have purchased it legally. Why he did that is a mystery – one of many strange things Rudy did that seem to make no sense whatever. And why was he allowed to keep the stolen computer in the first place after being caught with it during a break-in? None of this makes sense unless there was something else going on that we don’t know about.
(bolding mine)

Fulcanelli, I keep getting conflicting information here.
Did Rudy Guede return the stolen laptop to the lawyer from whom it was originally stolen from
or did the police in Milan confiscate it and return the laptop to the lawyer themselves?
If the police did confiscate that stolen laptop, will you please provide me with a reference link also?

Thanks in advance,
RWVBWL

The police in Milan confiscated the laptop. Rudy showed up at the lawyers office and claimed he had purchased the stolen items, but doesn't appear to have returned them.

Brocchi said the man spoke perfect Italian with a Perugia accent and told him that he had been caught with some things that Brocchi had reported as stolen, and just wanted to tell Brocchi that he had bought those things and paid for them at the Milan train station.

"I told him, 'look, I have no idea who you are'," said Brocchi in court. "And he answered, 'I don't know who you are, either.'" Brocchi then told the young man he just wanted his things back, and shut the door.

Days later, Brocchi said he recognized Guede as the man who had visited him when Guede's picture appeared in newspapers reporting his arrest.

The interesting question is how did Rudy know where the items were stolen from?

 

[Gaspode]

Some more posts moved to AAH.

Remember to keep on-topic and to address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode