Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kermit]

You Rock

Second storeys were Rudy's MO. As an athletic guy with those handy security grilles to climb on, he was able to break in to the windows without grilles on the second storey.

Obviously he's going to check if anyone is in downstairs first.

.
Your friend Justinian2 thinks not.

Maybe Justinian2 thinks the boys downstairs always had loud music on, and wouldn't hear the breaking of the window (SMASH!), or the thump of the rock landing on the floor.

Now, you bring up a good point, Withnail. If Rudy is going to check if anyone is in the downstairs flat, wouldn't he use the same modus operandi as for the upstairs flat and throw a rock through the boys' window?

Or does Rudy have 2nd floor modus operandi which are different from 1st floor modus operandi?

Wouldn't it be easier just to ring the doorbells to see if someone is home?

 

[Withnail1969]

.
Your friend Justinian2 thinks not.

i wouldn't know, i've had Justinian2 on ignore for weeks now.

 

[katy_did]

The prosecutor in the case is now Giancarlo Costagliola

Aren't both Mignini and Comodi assisting him in the appeal?

 

[Kermit]

i wouldn't know, i've had Justinian2 on ignore for weeks now.

Ahh.... Say no more.

 

[platonov]

Second storeys were Rudy's MO. As an athletic guy with those handy security grilles to climb on, he was able to break in to the windows without grilles on the second storey.

Obviously he's going to check if anyone is in downstairs first.

How, did he throw a rock thru the window ?? - that has been suggested as his MO upstairs by several of the FOAkers earlier in this thread.

ETA I see Kermit beat me to it.

.

 

[platonov]

Ahh.... Say no more.

Not just Justinian2 - there's a long list which you may be joining soon

.

 

[Kermit]

Hurrah for PMF

Aren't both Mignini and Comodi assisting him in the appeal?

It's amazing how PMF provided translations and news make it here and to other forums in real-time!

Thank you PMFers for all your hard work!! You do make a difference bringing light to the shrouds of darkness.

 

[Antony]

Rose,

The prosecution has already met the burden of proof. Hence the conviction in the first trial.

It's no good continually referring back to the verdict, when this discussion is about whether the verdict was correct. The conviction was a wrongful one because the prosecution manifestly did not meet the burden of proof.

 

[Justinian2]

Ahh.... Say no more.

And I've had Withnail1969 on my invisible list for two weeks. I usually agree with him, but his signature line messes up my search for replies.

 

[daydreamer]

There exists different angle if I recall that still shows both the nail and the missing nail. I will try to locate it when I get a chance, it may be tonight. If someone else has a better view in the meantime?

I think is the one you are talking about:

 

[katy_did]

It's amazing how PMF provided translations and news make it here and to other forums in real-time!

Thank you PMFers for all your hard work!! You do make a difference bringing light to the shrouds of darkness.

Heh, well I heard it from Frank back in June, so I wasn't exactly relaying information 'in real-time'...

Only the prosecutor has been chosen --according to corridor rumors-- in the person of Prosecutor General Giancarlo Costagliola with the complement of --guess who?-- Mignini and Comodi.

But yes, PMF's translation efforts are certainly much appreciated.

 

[Kaosium]

Let me tell you, Withnail1969, there is a great amount of empathy in Italy for Meredith and the Kerchers.

I personally don't believe that the media influences the very structured and procedural based legal process which Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele are in. However, if there is any "seepage" of opinion from the media and all mass-communication supports, including Internet forums like this one, then if it isn't obvious to you already, I should say that it isn't a good idea to refer to Meredith's personal, private life.

Luciano Ghirga has already had to apologise to Mignini for the spirited PR campaign and trans-Atlantic noise. While I don't think that at this point that the ongoing noise will make much difference, if the possibility is there, it's that the difference will be negative.

I think you're wrong. I suspect that in the final analysis the outrage over the bungling of the investigation of her death will prevail, and the blame focus on the one mostly responsible for that. I think the man who spread her lifestyle across the tabloids and came up with a pornographic fantasy of her death and then failed to provide any legitimate evidence of his theory will face sublime condemnation. I think the fact he gained a conviction anyway by going far beyond the bounds of propriety, thus ensuring the issue lasted years instead of months, will reflect poorly on the Italian court system.

If there has been any 'seepage' in this case, it's not gone to Italy, being as they speak Italian and all, but to the media of the English-speaking world. I suspect that every messageboard and comments section trolled speaks volumes on the 'merits' of the case for guilt, and reveals the intellectual and moral vacuum of that propaganda effort. I suspect that's one small reason why these days media outlets have become pretty skeptical of the decision across the board, they see firsthand that venal behavior and implicit dishonesty.

The other is to most any objective observer who spends some time on the issue these days it becomes mind-bogglingly obvious they're innocent. All you have to do is go through it with the presumption that they might be innocent and you come to the inescapable conclusion that they are innocent. I don't think you realize how little actual 'evidence' there is left, and just how much the 'evidence' collected for the first trial points directly at the police and prosecutor in Perugia. I think perhaps at one time there was a better case for guilt, but time and effort revealed that so much of what could be argued was specious at best.

 

[Machiavelli]

Aren't both Mignini and Comodi assisting him in the appeal?

They won't take active part in the appeal, I don't think that's going to happen. Costagliola can have their assistence (or of one of them), since it appears he asked for this, but in the courtroom he is the proscuting authority, and in any situation anyway he is the leader. I don't know in what their assietence may consist, I suppose this would take place in his office rather than in court hearings. Comodi or Mignini could be present in the courtroom since they filled an appeal themselves. They cannot interfer with Costagliola decisions though.

 

[Withnail1969]

They won't take active part in the appeal, I don't think that's going to happen. Costagliola can have their assistence (or of one of them), since it appears he asked for this, but in the courtroom he is the proscuting authority, and in any situation anyway he is the leader. I don't know in what their assietence may consist, I suppose this would take place in his office rather than in court hearings. Comodi or Mignini could be present in the courtroom since they filled an appeal themselves. They cannot interfer with Costagliola decisions though.

English translation:- Mignini controls the appeal, just as he has controlled everything else in this case so far. The defendants don't have a cat in hell's chance until their final appeal.

 

[platonov]

From the time he arrived at the cottage (by his own testimony and the car park video) till the time Meredith arrived (from Sophie's testimony and the car park video), there is plenty of time to have searched through most of the house.

This is a long holiday weekend. If Rudy needs quick cash (perhaps to pay his rent like everybody else), he may know that he won't be able to find a fence if they too are taking the holiday off. Also, he just had an encounter with the police in Millan so he's not going back there to try and fence anything anytime soon.

Before Meredith returned, Rudy may have already found Meredith's readily spendable cash. And there is evidence that someone had been searching Laura's room too. He is making himself at home in the girls cottage and helped himself to some juice from the fridge. Is he fantasizing about having a date with Meredith while alone in her room?

It is really difficult to conceive of any of those activities taking place after Meredith is murdered when Rudy's only thoughts are getting away and not being noticed.

As has been explained several times It is really difficult to conceive a ToD of 9.05 or 9.15 [as per KL & LJ - the early ToD is vital or was ] and correlate this with RG hanging around till 10.13 *
AND yet failing to wipe his prints
OR flush
OR check the other rooms for cash/ jewelry
OR why he fled straight from the bedroom with blood on his shoes
OR where the phones were between 10.13 & 12.15

Even leaving aside all the other evidence - the staged break-in for example.

* If we allow that those pings were made as the phone left the cottage which is not what the evidence shows.

.

 

[katy_did]

They won't take active part in the appeal, I don't think that's going to happen. Costagliola can have their assistence (or of one of them), since it appears he asked for this, but in the courtroom he is the proscuting authority, and in any situation anyway he is the leader. I don't know in what their assietence may consist, I suppose this would take place in his office rather than in court hearings. Comodi or Mignini could be present in the courtroom since they filled an appeal themselves. They cannot interfer with Costagliola decisions though.

Thanks for the information. However, I think they must at least be playing some role for the prosecution, otherwise there would seem to be little point in naming them as Costagliola's assistants at all.

It's a mistake, in my view - in a case like this, justice needs to be seen to be done, and re-appointing such a controversial prosecutor (himself awaiting a final appeal for his own conviction) really doesn't help in that respect.

 

[Justinian2]

.
Ummm... Let's imagine the scene from inside the boys' flat downstairs if Rudy thought better to not disturb them. They hear a clanging on the metal grate in their window and look out:
[qimg]http://www.asafehome.net/more_products_files/burglar-lurking_1.jpg[/qimg]

Keep trying.

I don't know why any second story man/cat burglar would break into an upper floor, but they do.

Have you seen the YouTube pictures? That shadow would be a blur.

Anyway, Guede could have escaped via the second floor relatively unseen - a mere shadow in the darkness.

Doubly strange is the prosecution theory that the break-in was staged. If it is unlikely that someone would break into the second floor, it's even more strange that someone would 'stage' a break-in on the second floor.

The answer is in Guede's proven MO.

By the way, hotlinks like that picture will get you a warning. I learned that the hard way...

 

[Machiavelli]

Not exactly, I think that system provides too much power and latitude to one person. How many charges/arrests have been made in this tragic break-in so far? Solely to 'protect' the nutty prosecutor from the 'shadowy forces' arrayed against him? Or to allow the system to be manipulated so he could bypass the decisions of higher courts to the detriment of his victims, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?


BTW, speaking of British tabloids, a while back Treehorn claimed that the 'Streets of Bagdad' Daily Mail piece about that noise violation actually made it into the court and was used against Amanda. Is that actually true?

You are still going around the point. The "system provides too much power" again avoids to consider what power actualy he has and what the other people have. Do you realize that Micheli had the power to quit the investigation or not? That Comodi had the same power Mignini had? That Matteini and Ricciarelli choud have quit the investigation or set the defendants free? And Massei and Cristiani and Stefanoni all take orders from Mignini.
You avoid to answer these questions. You mistake the key decisions and authorities in the case, and you mistake Mignini's role, if you think in terms of higher courts. Higher courts are not "dribbled" in this case and in particular they are not dribbled by Mignini. Their decision on usability of documents does not have a real effect in a system of charges like the one issued by Judge Micheli.

 

[Machiavelli]

English translation:- Mignini controls the appeal, just as he has controlled everything else in this case so far. The defendants don't have a cat in hell's chance until their final appeal.

In your nightmare Mignini will ever control everything whenever he is present, so any rational picture based on arguments of reality is worthless.

 

[Antony]

.
Ummm. No, Rudy has had his first level appeal, and the standard reductions have been applied for the abbreviated process and appeal he went through.

Amanda and Raffaele have gone through the long trial format, and haven't yet had their appeals heard.

I don't know how you can compare the current situation of Rudy with the other two. They are different in timing, in charges, and in sentencing norms.

Now you transform that into some sort of "persecution" by the prosecutor. Prosecutor Mignini (I assume you refer to him, he's the designated Bad-Guy in this case, as per FOAKers) has nothing to do with sentencing nor reductions nor appeals.
===================================

Was Raffaele a friend of Meredith? You seem to imply that's the case. Do you think they cooked together once in the few days that Amanda went out with Raffaele before the crime for which they have been convicted?

I see no reason to doubt that Amanda and Meredith were close friends (certainly not the libellous gossip that has been put about by the character assassination campaign against Amanda). Young women like that would also have been on good terms with each other's boyfriends, so it's quite justified to describe them as "2 of Meredith's friends". Whether they had taken the opportunity to cook and eat together in the short time she and Raffaele had been together, I don't know.

As for the conviction, it's the theme of this discussion that it was a wrong decision - so it referring to it doesn't add to your argument.