Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

If they run out of time, doesn't that mean Raffaele and Amanda go free? I thought I recalled reading that was considered a viable strategy in Italian Courts. Isn't that how Raffaele's lawyer earned her reputation, running out the clock in that former PM's appeal?

Well I think it's up to Judge Hellmann to decide as to when time has run out and whenever that happens then it's up to the jury to decide if the pair go free.

I will say on Aviello's alleged future plans what I've said many times before regarding this case: you couldn't make this up! There are so elements of this case that are already so 'Hollywood' they're going to need to take some of it out to make the plot believable to most in the movie!

I agree....and again, truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[platonov]

Seriously Platonov, what is 'strong' about this case?

The case against Rudy Guede was 'strong,' it was not airtight but it was a powerful case.



What makes you think a reasonable person might not have doubt all three of those things are evidence of murder?



What gives Rudy Guede more credibility than the three that testified he told them Raffaele and Amanda weren't involved? Do you think a reasonable person would conclude all three of them have more motivation to lie than Rudy Guede?



What would you have said in court today were you Raffaele or Amanda?

Kaosium

Stop already

London John made an argument that, for once, I didn't regard as risible (it was a statement of the blindingly obvious mostly) so I developed it and added a comment on the impact of today's testimony.

Your response doesn't address the points I made and furthermore if you think that the 'jury'/court didn't regard RG's testimony as being more important that the various cons* I can be of no further assistance.

Indeed on this* - it certainly didn't do the defence any favours but the actual evidence is more of a problem.

 

[Danceme]

Another thought:

It was rather miserable that they walk in their superwitness Guede to bring the "crushing accusation" and he just clams up and sits there, while mignini has to read his lousy letter.

Rudy was disappointing to say the least. He didn't confess to being the lone wolf and he didn't offer proof of the other's involvement either. He was very wishy washy and only said he had long thought Amanda and Raffaele did it, hardly the testimony either side was hoping for.

What material is that large effigy of a man positioned right next to you made out of again? It looks from over here like it's the dried stalks of cereal plants, but I can't be entirely certain.....

Ha! Very funny

Do they contain good spelling? That's very important to me.
.

Funny too, you're on a roll thanks for the chuckles, it's usually so grim around here.

There are so elements of this case that are already so 'Hollywood' they're going to need to take some of it out to make the plot believable to most in the movie!

Ain't that the truth! Right from day one!

 

[pipelineaudio]

You think that Giulia Bongiorno (I assume that it's her you're referring to) is really the best criminal defence lawyer for a murder defendant in Italy, do you? Care to list how many murder defendants she's defended in her entire career before Sollecito? (Hint, the answer is less than 1 but greater than -1). Care to list the previous clients she's defended, and what they were charged with? (Hint: it's not even crimes of violence). Care to tell us what proportion of her time and energy she's been able to devote to defending Sollecito to date?

pwnt

 

[Kevinfay]

But its not quite that simple.

The prosecution can possibly ?? afford to 'lose' on 2 of the 3 items - say Curatolo and the knife for arguments sake and the case is still pretty strong but definitely weakened and the other issues when then be the focus of intense scrutiny by the court.

The defence however cant afford not to win on at least 2 of these items.

C is a dealbreaker - he has to go.
Same with the knife.
Same with the bra clasp.

On top of all that today RG who has been convicted* of the murder has confirmed 'the letter'.
The evidence from his trial had already been entered into this case a few months back.

Today was a new addition - and not good for the defence. Exactly how bad is open to conjecture but potentially disastrous. All this talk of 'trial de novo' is all very well but things just got worse !

Arguments from incredulity on his changing/developing 'story' wont fly in court. The concept of 'thieves hanging together or they will definitely hang apart' is not unknown to most rational observers. [see AK & RS for example - although that may have been a close run thing ]

I strongly suspect the Italian jurists will have no problem understanding it -- the perplexity it causes in some quarters may not be universal !!

I'd agree 100% with that assessment.

I'd add that for the TOD to clear Knox and Raff, the conclusion would have to be almost impossibly precise ... between 21:00 and when? What will the jurors conclude after hearing experts from both sides?

 

[Kevinfay]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

This is, in my opinion, a poor argument based on emotion rather than logic. The logical first questions you should ask are these: How did that DNA get there? Why are there other profiles on the bra clasp? What is the possibility of contamination?

In my view, wading straight in with boots and fists is....erm......far from a rational reaction. Just my opinion though

Well, you've got me thinking now? ... just told her I'm buying one of these DNA machines to check the clasp on her bra every time she comes home ... girls like you to be jealous !!

 

[platonov]

I'd agree 100% with that assessment.

I'd add that for the TOD to clear Knox and Raff, the conclusion would have to be almost impossibly precise ... between 21:00 and when? What will the jurors conclude after hearing experts from both sides?

But it wont come to that.

This 'early and precise ToD' is Scooby Doo/Nancy Drew nonsense

Seriously !

See my recent 'telling the time' posts for example (here's one) - responses were thin on the ground

 

[Kevinfay]

For me, the most intelligent (and mocked) poster on PMF, Thoughtful, has seen the famous video, which the Sun seems to be using now:

Just listened to the Sun video. UNBELIEVABLE!!

It's roughly ok up until the sentence "lui sa che non c'entriamo" which literally means "he knows we didn't enter [into it]", i.e. "he knows we weren't involved", and suddenly translates this as "he knows we got drunk that night". Why??? What is she hearing???

Next Amanda says "I don't know what happened on that evening" which she translates as "I don't know what happened to him on that evening". But then the strangest bit is "I don't know what we did other than go out that evening. I'm after the truth." In fact, Amanda kind of mumbles the beginning of this sentence, so I'm not quite sure whether she actually said "I wish I could tell him" or "I'm sorry I can't [or wasn't able to] tell him" (Clander?) but then she goes on to say "mistakes are remedied by telling the truth".

This has to be the close to the worst reporting/translating I have ever heard. It's absolutely hilarious. And annoying.

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

On reflection, I'd better go easy on Sky tomorrow ...... why risk meeting rock stars, film stars at Cannes and especially Champions League tickets, just for LondonJohn?

At the French TV festival in St Tropez, the UK Sky people at the next table gave us a load of caviar for free.

But really, Thoughtful is right, Knox does mumble a little bit, but there is absolutely no possiblity of what she said being interpretated the way it was .... UNBELIEVABLE indeed.

Still gonna find out what happened ... Sky seem to be a pretty ruthless outfit ... had she been given notice and wanted to take revenge?

 

[Kevinfay]

Anybody wanting to complain about the video can email TALKBACK@THE-SUN.co.uk

I just sent them Thoughtful's post, noting that if the translation was correct, the case would be effectively over. Also asked whether the girl had been given notice and was out for revenge.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the DNA on the clasp

Halides1

Sorry you lost me just after “Perhaps Katody meant” as you are clearly speculating then extrapolating Katody post. Katody clearly stated that Raffaele’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp! I look forward to Katody’s clarification.

CoulsdonUK,

Now I am the one that is lost. Why would it be a big deal to acknowledge that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp? I have long had some problems with the conclusion that his profile on the clasp, not the least of which is that it is in the low template number range and therefore should be tested twice, according to the protocol adopted by the Crown Forensic Service. I also think that Dr. Tagliabracci made a good case for Dr. Stefanoni's using a problematic suspect-centered approach, rather than a sequential unmasking approach, in her analysis. Particularly the former problem might cause me to say that the second highest profile on the clasp fails to clear a reasonable bar to constitute Raffale's profile in a legal sense (a rough analogy to a partial fingerprint is possible here). However, there is also the YSTR analysis that suggests that Raffaele's DNA is present, and so I will proceed on the assumption that his DNA is indeed present. The question is how did his DNA get there.

The biggest problem with the clasp as evidence against Raffaele is the presence of the other three profiles. A second major problem is that it was collected so late and with such poor technique as to disqualify it as evidence on those grounds alone. Either of these problems is severe enough to discount the clasp almost completely as evidence. Put both together and include the fact that it cannot be retested and one has evidence of little or no value.

As far as what Katody Matrass might have meant, I would only add that even if the profiles on the clasp do not belong to ILE personnel, they might have been responsible for contaminating it with DNA from other people due to their parsimony with respect to gloves and whatnot.

How do you think that all that DNA was deposited on the clasp?

 

[platonov]

CoulsdonUK,

Now I am the one that is lost. Why would it be a big deal to acknowledge that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp? I have long had some problems with the conclusion that his profile on the clasp, not the least of which is that it is in the low template number range and therefore should be tested twice, according to the protocol adopted by the Crown Forensic Service. I also think that Dr. Tagliabracci made a good case for Dr. Stefanoni's using a problematic suspect-centered approach, rather than a sequential unmasking approach, in her analysis. Particularly the former problem might cause me to say that the second highest profile on the clasp fails to clear a reasonable bar to constitute Raffale's profile in a legal sense (a rough analogy to a partial fingerprint is possible here). However, there is also the YSTR analysis that suggests that Raffaele's DNA is present, and so I will proceed on the assumption that his DNA is indeed present. The question is how did his DNA get there.

The biggest problem with the clasp as evidence against Raffaele is the presence of the other three profiles. A second major problem is that it was collected so late and with such poor technique as to disqualify it as evidence on those grounds alone. Either of these problems is severe enough to discount the clasp almost completely as evidence. Put both together and include the fact that it cannot be retested and one has evidence of little or no value.

As far as what Katody Matrass might have meant, I would only add that even if the profiles on the clasp do not belong to ILE personnel, they might have been responsible for contaminating it with DNA from other people due to their parsimony with respect to gloves and whatnot.

How do you think that all that DNA was deposited on the clasp?

But you also have long had problems with AK doing cartwheels - something she herself admitted in court. See also the OP.

Given this, another ill-informed layman's opinion (yours) on DNA ( I am also a layman in this field) is hardly of much relevance.
Let's leave it to the experts.

As it happens, last time 'we' looked into this I had the court report/testimony in my corner while you seemed to be doing a book review. You also seemingly thought 'LCN' had something to do with 'visibility to the naked eye'
Probably best to give it up.


Is there any particular reason you repeat this argument (for the 119th time) today.
What did you think of RG's testimony - or did you miss that ?

 

[souldonut]

Thoughtful over on PMF translated the Skype conversations, a day or two ago.

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

Guede's defense was that the fought with a guy who fitted the description of RS, down to his accent ... not local, not northern (i.e. southern like RS).

He claimed to have heard AK's voice and see her at the front door and again saw her 'outline' at the gate (from Filomena's window).

Vague, but enough to finger AK and RS as being present at the crime scene.

In the Skype conversation, when Giacomo asked whether Knox killed Meredith, he said 'No, non c'entra un cazzo' ... No, she had sod all to do with it.

AK retreating to the front door and then the gate, fits her claim that she was in the kitchen with her fingers in her ears as the murder happened. RS has never said anything, but the DNA suggests that only Guede and Solletico were in the murder room.

KevinFay -

What is your interpretation of Guede's skype conversation, in terms of what happened the night of the murder? I can start with a couple possibilities:

[a] The story was not inherently fabricated. RG was stating that he was not involved, and that it was some other person who actually committed the murder. (perhaps corroborating Aviello or Alessi's story). Thus RG is innocent

The story was not inherently fabricated. RG was stating that he was not involved, and that it was really AK-RS who committed the murder. Thus RG is innocent, AK-RS are guilty.

[c] The story was completely fabricated (to dodge incriminatory evidence?); RG was involved in the murder, alone or with someone else. (a friend? someone he feels necessary to cover for).

[d] The story was completely fabricated; RG-AK-RS were part of a conspiracy. Somehow RG broke apart from the conspiracy, pooped, fled to Germany, etc. yet is still covering for his ex-co-conspirators AK-RS, while AK-RS stuck around to clean up and are still covering for their ex-co-conspirator RG. Everyone needs to keep quiet about the conspiracy they had, after all they were such good friends for such a long time. It's all part of a big act, and they're all exceptionally good at keeping their mouths shut about the underlying conspiracy. I.e. RG is guilty, as well as AK and RS.

[e] ??? more ideas.

------

I kind of believe [a] or [c], but am leaning towards [c] due to the exceptional weight of the incriminatory evidence against RG, and the lack of evidence implicating someone else in a bloody murder scene. However, given the forensics team's knack for suppressing evidence from the defense, I'm not really sure. I would not be surprised the slightest if they found additional DNA in that room which was subsequently ignored. I sort of believe that the semen stain was already tested, and the results suppressed since they didn't fit ILE's theories, but that's just me.

The basis of the prosecution's case requires [d], which has always seemed absurd to me and looks more and more absurd every passing day.

Of course we all know that from RG's perspective story [a] slowly transitioned to story when it became more convenient to his defense...

People that believe that RG truthfully identified AK and RS (yourself?), sort of get lumped into the category in my opinion, which requires RG to be innocent. If not one of these categories, I'm curious if you have another theory or theories, and how they relate to the skype conversation.

= sd =

 

[platonov]

snip snip .........

Seeing as I am online I shall repost...........

Arguments from incredulity on his changing/developing 'story' wont fly in court. The concept of 'thieves hanging together or they will definitely hang apart' is not unknown to most rational observers. [see AK & RS for example - although that may have been a close run thing ]

I strongly suspect the Italian jurists will have no problem understanding it -- the perplexity it causes in some quarters may not be universal !!

 

[Kevinfay]

KevinFay -

What is your interpretation of Guede's skype conversation, in terms of what happened the night of the murder? I can start with a couple possibilities:

[a] The story was not inherently fabricated. RG was stating that he was not involved, and that it was some other person who actually committed the murder. (perhaps corroborating Aviello or Alessi's story). Thus RG is innocent

The story was not inherently fabricated. RG was stating that he was not involved, and that it was really AK-RS who committed the murder. Thus RG is innocent, AK-RS are guilty.

[c] The story was completely fabricated (to dodge incriminatory evidence?); RG was involved in the murder, alone or with someone else. (a friend? someone he feels necessary to cover for).

[d] The story was completely fabricated; RG-AK-RS were part of a conspiracy. Somehow RG broke apart from the conspiracy, pooped, fled to Germany, etc. yet is still covering for his ex-co-conspirators AK-RS, while AK-RS stuck around to clean up and are still covering for their ex-co-conspirator RG. Everyone needs to keep quiet about the conspiracy they had, after all they were such good friends for such a long time. It's all part of a big act, and they're all exceptionally good at keeping their mouths shut about the underlying conspiracy. I.e. RG is guilty, as well as AK and RS.

[e] ??? more ideas.

------

I kind of believe [a] or [c], but am leaning towards [c] due to the exceptional weight of the incriminatory evidence against RG, and the lack of evidence implicating someone else in a bloody murder scene. However, given the forensics team's knack for suppressing evidence from the defense, I'm not really sure. I would not be surprised the slightest if they found additional DNA in that room which was subsequently ignored. I sort of believe that the semen stain was already tested, and the results suppressed since they didn't fit ILE's theories, but that's just me.

The basis of the prosecution's case requires [d], which has always seemed absurd to me and looks more and more absurd every passing day.

Of course we all know that from RG's perspective story [a] slowly transitioned to story when it became more convenient to his defense...

People that believe that RG truthfully identified AK and RS (yourself?), sort of get lumped into the category in my opinion, which requires RG to be innocent. If not one of these categories, I'm curious if you have another theory or theories, and how they relate to the skype conversation.

= sd =

I believe that Guede assaulted Meredith first, Raff followed him into the bedroom and joined the assault. Knox was in the kitchen and put her fingers in her ears when Meredith screamed.

When RS and RG left the room, they threaten each other if either 'grasses'. It is possible that Guede also held his knife against Knox's throat, to threaten her ... hence the scratch on her 'adams apple'.

Knox flees first, and after a short standoff between RS and RG, they flee as well.

If we look at what I believe were the most revealing statements made by the defendants, i.e. the first:

- AK's blurted out that she was in the kitchen, with her ears covered when the murder took place. She siezed on the name of Patrick as the killer in panic, she was scared of Guede and with the cops questioning her about Patrick (all a misunderstanding about the 'see you later' SMS) she 'grasped at the straw offered her'.

- Guede, in his Skype converstion with Giacomo, had already read of some of the developments in the case and changed the truth from both him and Raff being the killers to there only being Raff.

- RS - Essentially never said anything, except that he was worried that someone might say 'strange things' about him

I've listed six reasons to believe that Knox never entered the bedroom, above. But also should add number 7 .... the recontruction of the crime would appear to give us more than one killer. The prosecution made 'more than one' into three, when there are only traces of RG and RS in the bedroom.

For me it all fits together.

-

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

Stop already

London John made an argument that, for once, I didn't regard as risible (it was a statement of the blindingly obvious mostly) so I developed it and added a comment on the impact of today's testimony.

I developed it too! I just added back in the part you didn't like...

Curotolo, and both items of DNA 'evidence' are the weakest part because they're utterly absurd and in the most important part of the case. The breaking of the alibi and the 'evidence' at the scene.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? Curotolo is so ridiculous he undermines the prosecution's presentation, and neither DNA 'evidence' item was actually found at the scene by investigators with anything resembling legitimate standards of evidence. Nor is either evidence of murder, or that were they even in the room at any time, or for that matter either touched those items at the cottage. In fact it has never been proven that Meredith's DNA was on the knife, or even that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp.

That's what the forensic DNA experts were trying to explain.

Italy has no standards of DNA evidence. Mignini could produce his used toilet paper to the court and say it had Amanda and Raffaele's DNA on it instead. He'd have to release some of the data that showed his stinky slimy stains were there, but all the defense could do is say Mignini just pulled it out of his ass and the judge and jury could chose to believe one or the other.

Do you understand what that means if Mignini is corrupt?

Your response doesn't address the points I made and furthermore if you think that the 'jury'/court didn't regard RG's testimony as being more important that the various cons* I can be of no further assistance.

Indeed on this* - it certainly didn't do the defence any favours but the actual evidence is more of a problem.

Important? Perhaps so, but what was really lost here from the prosecution perspective was the opportunity for Rudy to actually confess and implicate Raffaele and Amanda. That might have been damaging testimony, people might have believed it. As it stands all that happened was Rudy changed his story yet again to implicate someone other than himself that there's no evidence of being there. Now, perhaps you believe it, but I'm just guessing the average juror wasn't impressed.

Thus I still wonder, why would any juror find Rudy Guede's newest story that they were there more credible than his previous stories they weren't and the three people who testified he'd admitted they weren't?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I believe that Guede assaulted Meredith first, Raff followed him into the bedroom and joined the assault. Knox was in the kitchen and put her fingers in her ears when Meredith screamed.

When RS and RG left the room, they threaten each other if either 'grasses'. It is possible that Guede also held his knife against Knox's throat, to threaten her ... hence the scratch on her 'adams apple'.

I can help you out here: there never was a scratch on her neck. Knox was examined by the police for such injuries and none were found. It's just a myth that circulates in the guilter echo chambers.

Knox flees first, and after a short standoff between RS and RG, they flee as well.

If we look at what I believe were the most revealing statements made by the defendants, i.e. the first:

- AK's blurted out that she was in the kitchen, with her ears covered when the murder took place. She siezed on the name of Patrick as the killer in panic, she was scared of Guede and with the cops questioning her about Patrick (all a misunderstanding about the 'see you later' SMS) she 'grasped at the straw offered her'.

Amanda never "blurted out" that she was in the kitchen with her ears covered. She temporarily believed she was in the house when the murder happened as a result of sustained interrogation in which she was told that the police had incontrovertible proof that this was true and that Amanda was suppressing the memory of the event. When asked by the police to explain how it was possible she had no memory of hearing a scream, she speculated that she might have had her fingers in her ears.

Then when she had a chance to get herself together she immediately retracted the entire story, as is typical in these internalised false statement cases.

- Guede, in his Skype converstion with Giacomo, had already read of some of the developments in the case and changed the truth from both him and Raff being the killers to there only being Raff.

This doesn't explain Rudy's total lack of knowledge about Raffaele and Amanda in his Skype conversation.

- RS - Essentially never said anything, except that someone might say 'strange things about him'

How is that "revealing"? It's only "revealing" if you have already assumed he is guilty. If he's innocent it's just evidence Raffaele had a correct, low opinion of the likelihood of the Perugia police forces revising their theory once they had the real murderer.

I've listed six reasons to believe that Knox never entered the bedroom, above. But also should add number 7 .... the recontruction of the crime would appear to give us more than one killer. The prosecution made 'more than one' into three, when there are only traces of RG and RS in the bedroom.

For me it all fits together.

For me you're just playing Mad Libs with random snippets of evidence mixed in with random snippets of guilter folklore.

The crime you're proposing is incredibly implausible to begin with. A burglar raping and murdering a woman found home alone is not an extraordinary hypothesis. Such things happen regularly, unfortunately.

Whereas your theory is, as far as I can tell, that a burglar who just happens to have a history of throwing rocks through second-storey windows to get inside, bothering women, threatening people with knives and stealing gets invited in by two people who barely know him, who have left their private love-nest late at night for no reason, and then when he decides to rape and murder one of their housemates the other pitches in and helps for no reason, and then Amanda decides to keep quiet about the whole thing for no reason even though she's just been a witness to her friend being fatally stabbed and then sexually assaulted as she died by her new boyfriend, and then when Rudy runs away they stage a burglary that looks exactly like his M.O.

Meanwhile at home their computers are busy watching movies and playing music by themselves all night, again for no reason because this was an unpremeditated crime.

Then based on no evidence whatsoever super-sleuths Mignini and Giobbi guessed exactly the right answer, or nearly, immediately, even though it was the most improbable crime of the decade.

On one hand we have a very high-probability explanation for the observed facts. On the other we have a staggering chain of incredibly improbable events, none of which is supported by evidence which stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Draca]

I believe that Guede assaulted Meredith first, Raff followed him into the bedroom and joined the assault. Knox was in the kitchen and put her fingers in her ears when Meredith screamed.

When RS and RG left the room, they threaten each other if either 'grasses'. It is possible that Guede also held his knife against Knox's throat, to threaten her ... hence the scratch on her 'adams apple'.

Kevinfay,

You believe, but based on what? What is the evidence that Raffaele attacked MK? Where is his DNA? Where is his Shoe Prints, Wounds, Bloody Clothes? How did he get out of the bedroom without leaving traces. Where is the motive for the computer techie Raffaele, who managed to gain Amanda's attention to do something like this?

Do you seriously consider the bra clasp, left PURPOSEFULLY ON THE FLOOR of a room TRASHED by the local Perugia police incompetents as evidence?

Secondly, Amanda Knox did not have a scratch. There have been photos posted here several times that show it was a hickey.

I ask seriously, what pieces of evidence proves this to you?

 

[souldonut]

Seeing as I am online I shall repost...........

Arguments from incredulity on his changing/developing 'story' wont fly in court. The concept of 'thieves hanging together or they will definitely hang apart' is not unknown to most rational observers. [see AK & RS for example - although that may have been a close run thing ]

I strongly suspect the Italian jurists will have no problem understanding it -- the perplexity it causes in some quarters may not be universal !!

Platonov-
While I think it was legally expedient for RG to "develop" his story, as he did, and believe that he did in order to incriminate AK and RS, my last post was trying to avoid that issue altogether by considering the contents of the skype message itself. To me the skype message is as close to "the truth" as we can get, since RG had no idea he was about to be arrested, and really did not know if implicating AK and RS would be beneficial to him at that time. He didn't know what RS looked like, unless of course he committed a murder with him several days before. He was just having a chat with a friend, nothing was on the record.

In terms of the conspiracy, it still just defies all reason to me that people who do not know each other (at very least RS-RG), would decide to murder someone without motive, and then cover for each other. Any sort of motive involving AK-RS-RG simply makes zero sense. Well, unless a Charles Manson-esque ring leader, with CIA training in brainwashing, was commanding them of course (AK). Ultimately it comes down to either believing a ridiculously complicated and motiveless murder conspiracy, consisting of people that do not know each other all all or barely; or resorting to Occum's razor, and and a regularly occurring single (or possibly dual) wolf theory, with one of the most common motives since the beginning of humanity. In terms of what the jury will find, I have no idea, but it will most likely depend on the other evidence being hashed out. I don't think RG's testimony will really mean anything at all, and feel that weight will be placed on the forensics / TOD / computer evidence.

= sd =

 

[RWVBWL]

Cheater or Liar?

I need help.
I haven't caught up with all that went down today, so excuse me while I ask a question or 2, 3, or 4.

If I understand it correctly, Mignini, who is not even the main prosecutor in the Appeal Trial, read a statement from Rudy Guede.

In that statement, Rudy says that he was with Meredith. It sounds like he was in the process of hooking up with her when Amanda came over -(didn't she even buzz her own front door, this per RG's skype conversation?), with Raffaele in tow, and they got into an argument over Meredith's missing $$$ and then Amanda killed Meredith with Raffaele's help.

So a question for the guilter's:
Do you believe Rudy's letter to the court that Mignini read?

If so, then you believe that Meredith was cheating, correct?
This being the same Meredith who had earlier texted -(per "Angel Face", or wait, was that "Murder in Italy?"), how excited that she was to see Giacomo when he got home from his holiday trip.

Rudy says that he and Meredith were hooking up when Amanda came over, with Raffaele -(don't forget that she brought along that huuuuge kitchen knife that Amanda carried around for protection), and an argument started and a bloody murder happened when poor lil' Rudy, -(who only came over to see Meredith because he wanted some luvin', but forgot the condoms, as did she!?!), went to use the crapper.

Or do believe the original prosecution theory that it was orgy attempt that went awry? "You are always behaving like a saint. Now we will make you have sex" crap that Mignini used in his closing arguments in the OG trial...

Wasn't it this theory that helped send Raffaele to prison for 25 years and Amanda to prison for 26 years?

So what is it, guilters?
Rudy was in court today and a statement was read that he wrote.
Was Meredith a cheater or is Rudy a liar?
Or was it the orgy assault gone awry theory?

Whatever it is, not 1 bit of Amanda Knox's DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, or hair folicles were found in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. But your boy(*) Rudy's sure left his there in Meredith's bedroom, without a friggin' doubt! Even in her vagina.

L8, RW
_________________________________________________________________
(*) Bein'a street-wise kinda guy, with a huuuuge variety of friends and heck, even aquaitances, well I have done so and do sometimes still use the term your boy. Though derogitory in past history with persons of color here in the U.S.A., in the streets it's ok to use it when discussin' someone. And I use it here just to insinuate that most guilter's do not seem to mind anything that Rudy Guede did, as long as he helps convict Amanda Knox. Don't forget about Raffaele though, guilters! Heck, most of you didn't even seem to care when Mignini did not appeal Rudy's original prison sentence getting reduced, before the automatic fast trial reduction set in. Strange...

Your boy could not remember all the important details of what happened that night until many months later -(even though he knew that Amanda and Raffaele were already busted, in prison, the gig was up, so it's time to save your own skin).

Didn't Curatolo and Quint(?) the store owner, also have a problem remembering all of the important details that they too observed, this happening many months later, ala Rudy Guede, even though both Curatolo and Quint(?) were both questioned, in person, within hours after the discovery of Meredith Kercher's brutal, bloody murder?

Hmmm...

 

[Kaosium]

I believe that Guede assaulted Meredith first, Raff followed him into the bedroom and joined the assault. Knox was in the kitchen and put her fingers in her ears when Meredith screamed.

When RS and RG left the room, they threaten each other if either 'grasses'. It is possible that Guede also held his knife against Knox's throat, to threaten her ... hence the scratch on her 'adams apple'.

Knox flees first, and after a short standoff between RS and RG, they flee as well.

If we look at what I believe were the most revealing statements made by the defendants, i.e. the first:

- AK's blurted out that she was in the kitchen, with her ears covered when the murder took place. She siezed on the name of Patrick as the killer in panic, she was scared of Guede and with the cops questioning her about Patrick (all a misunderstanding about the 'see you later' SMS) she 'grasped at the straw offered her'.

- Guede, in his Skype converstion with Giacomo, had already read of some of the developments in the case and changed the truth from both him and Raff being the killers to there only being Raff.

- RS - Essentially never said anything, except that he was worried that someone might say 'strange things' about him

I've listed six reasons to believe that Knox never entered the bedroom, above. But also should add number 7 .... the recontruction of the crime would appear to give us more than one killer. The prosecution made 'more than one' into three, when there are only traces of RG and RS in the bedroom.

For me it all fits together.

-

All reconstructions and forensic experts including the Massei Report that the scene is compatible with one attacker. Most absolutely preclude more than one attacker, going back to Dr. Lalli early in the 'investigation.'

What time did this occur?

What evidence do you have this took place?

Knox never said she was in the kitchen when the murder took place.

There is no scratch on Amanda as per Massei and photographic evidence.