___________________
Grinder,
The lovebirds were convicted of stealing Meredith's two cell phones. They were acquitted on the other theft charges.
See: Massei Report (English Translation), CONCLUSIONS, page 388.
///
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
Grinder,
The lovebirds were convicted of stealing Meredith's two cell phones. They were acquitted on the other theft charges.
See: Massei Report (English Translation), CONCLUSIONS, page 388.
///
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,589
lack of accountability
RW,
Amnesty International wrote in 2007, "There was no independent police complaints and accountability body." In 2008 they wrote, "Italy continued to lack an effective police accountability mechanism."
RW,
Amnesty International wrote in 2007, "There was no independent police complaints and accountability body." In 2008 they wrote, "Italy continued to lack an effective police accountability mechanism."
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the info, glad you 2 did a re-inactment. Your black humor was abit funny, sicko!
I've felt the time frame for the murder and assault would be pretty quick. What did Rudy do afterwards? Clean himself up a bit, look for the keys, drink some orange juice from the carton in the frig? When he found the keys, did he also go downstairs too? The cats blood was on the light switch, IIRC. And it was also found on some toilet paper/paper towels outside the residence I believe. I for one can not see Meredith getting cats blood on her, wiping her hands clean and then just littering outside her residence, most chicks are cleaner than that and would have rinsed off their hands in the sink and then dried them. I also can't see Meredith making a mess in Stefano's bedroom. So who did so, Rudy? Was he looking downstairs looking for more $$$?
I ask this because I am wondering about who it was that Alessandra Formica saw around 10:30pm that night, she said it was not Rudy that she saw in her courtroom testimony in the 1st trial. Others disagree, and think that she is mistaken. But if it was Rudy that Miss Formica saw, I need to try and keep him in the time frame and the same general vicinity. I wonder how does the cell phone connection jive with Rudy being in the same vicinity where Miss Formica saw someone. Had Rudy just left the cottage area by then or had he been long gone by 10:30pm?
Hi Doug
I hope you are correct in your assumptions. I won't relax until they are free.
Then i hope there is a huge investigation of all parties involved in this fiasco. I believe there are a large number of people that need to be held accoutable for their totally unprofessional behavior and lies.
I hope you are correct in your assumptions. I won't relax until they are free.
Then i hope there is a huge investigation of all parties involved in this fiasco. I believe there are a large number of people that need to be held accoutable for their totally unprofessional behavior and lies.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Okay.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-Hi Dave,
Thanks for the info, glad you 2 did a re-inactment. Your black humor was abit funny, sicko!
I've felt the time frame for the murder and assault would be pretty quick. What did Rudy do afterwards? Clean himself up a bit, look for the keys, drink some orange juice from the carton in the frig? When he found the keys, did he also go downstairs too? The cats blood was on the light switch, IIRC. And it was also found on some toilet paper/paper towels outside the residence I believe. I for one can not see Meredith getting cats blood on her, wiping her hands clean and then just littering outside her residence, most chicks are cleaner than that and would have rinsed off their hands in the sink and then dried them. I also can't see Meredith making a mess in Stefano's bedroom. So who did so, Rudy? Was he looking downstairs looking for more $$$?
I ask this because I am wondering about who it was that Alessandra Formica saw around 10:30pm that night, she said it was not Rudy that she saw in her courtroom testimony in the 1st trial. Others disagree, and think that she is mistaken. But if it was Rudy that Miss Formica saw, I need to try and keep him in the time frame and the same general vicinity. I wonder how does the cell phone connection jive with Rudy being in the same vicinity where Miss Formica saw someone. Had Rudy just left the cottage area by then or had he been long gone by 10:30pm?
Randy,
do you recall what she based her time estimate on? People generally don't check the time every few minutes unless they have an appointment or are waiting for someone or something (like a bus, taxi, friend) or just got done listening to or watching a TV, movie, concert, radio program etc. etc. or just got out of work or recently accessed an ATM and kept the receipt etc. etc.
Do you check your watch (or the time) whenever you see someone in the streets?
Just wondering,
Dave
Me too! It will be interesting, in light of an acquittal, what will follow. I suspect there is a lot of "behind the scenes" information that we may never learn about, but it sure would be great if it comes to light.
What we need is the truth, and let the chips fall where they may!
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
No, I meant that if they now convict after the only reviews came back strongly in favor of a not guilty verdict, it will look bad for the court.
If the DNA evidence had come back showing it was valid, I'm sure there would be a conviction. I'm saying that they should just acquit or do more reviews.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
Ah I get what you're saying now Grinder and I agree. Ii just doesn't make any sense to do a limited retest etc and not acquit especially with the results that were reached and NOT do more retest and review unless they already have come to a reasonable doubt conclusion with the rest, but (like I keep saying) I'm not holding my breath.
The video of the bra clasp is so powerful, that it is "literally" what the prosecution has to overcome (no matter what anyone says or argues against) and all they really have is scientific talk and analogies.
As a matter of fact, It's also why the prosecution uses analogies (e.g. the meteor and food analogy) to explain DNA contamination. They are word "pictures" to which the lay jurors can relate.
If the defense is smart, they'll show that video again as the last word "picture" in their closing arguements,
Dave
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
1) I would assume because he felt if the "big3" fall, the other items are too marginal to convict.
2) He doesnt have years to go through it all again, is another guess. He chose the main 3 in his opinion.
imo, had the C&V confirmed everything it would be case over already.
On the other hand, if he has any doubt of any evidence leaning towards guilt, he should have it reviewed, because his own appointed experts have shown reasonable doubt of the forensic work and the recent results offer enough conflict to support more review time. The other known issues proven would be the pc bumbling squad, there again is enough proof, confirmed mistakes to warrant a full review if any doubt of innocence is present.
I look at it like an accounting audit of the prosecutions work.
Hellman "audited" it. He found mistakes on the main issues. It didn't pass the audit.
Does he need to go through 10,000 more pages, to fail the audit?
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Hi Dave,
I'm going off memory here, but it still is usually pretty accurate, since I've discussed Miss Formica a bit here on JREF and have used the early Perugia Shock writings as information also.
Miss Formica had dinner with a male friend and they were returning to their car when a male of colour hurriedly walked by them and bumped into her friend, on a staircase I believe, and he did not apparently wish to be seen. This was about 10:30pm, that is how Alessandra knew of the time.
As Frank Sfarzo reported from court in the 1st trial,
Miss Formica stated that the person she saw that night was not Rudy Guede.
I can always go and dig up my earlier posts, they are in either the 1st or 2nd continuation of this thread here at JREF.
With that said, and still wondering how to fit in Rudy into the general vicinity, I'll mention another often overlooked clue, which I saw recently in the PMF post archives, it was a blended photo showing a black car parked in the top entrance to the cottage driveway. What was that car doing there?
Was someone going to put Meredith in the trunk to dispose of her body, but they got spooked and split right around 10:30pm? Wasn't this around the time when the broken down car was forced to stop and wait?
This case is still so strange, and has so many unanwered questions...
RW
PS-On a side note, Rudy, soon after his arrest, made mention that when he 1st came over to the gals cottage that night, he saw a white car in the vicinity with a local drug dealer he recognized too. Rudy Guede knew a drug dealer? Was this ever investigated?
How come we do not know more about Rudy Guede?
Did he use cocaine?
Was he drug tested after his arrest? What were the results?
Did Rudy ever have a girlfriend? How many intimate sexual partners did Rudy have?
and lastly, I would like to know this:
Did the prosecution ever request solitary confinement for Rudy Guede?
Last edited:
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
I've never seen a picture of this. The Tow Truck driver said he saw a dark colored car in the driveway to the cottage. Maybe the person running away was the driver? A lookout for Rudys Burglary?
There was also a employee that parked in the parking lot at midnight or so and saw nothing, but they interviewed him for some reason.
That dark car the Tow Truck driver saw is really mysterious.
CCTV never saw it I assume? Didnt drive away or pull out and trip the camera?
Rudy has all the answers but it seems the prosecution was more interested in just getting him to support their theory than finding the truth.
Maresca is quoted on TJMK as saying Rudy is credible. Maresca is sickening imo, I guess I had too many expectations for him to be neutral and unbiased.
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Hi Chris,
WOW!!!
Thank you for that info, it is really hard to believe that an advanced culture like Italy does not have some sort of police oversight committee such as an Internal Affairs Group to investigate officer involved shootings, or potential incidents of corrupt police officers. With no oversight, can the police do whatever they want?
Hi Poppy1016
I too am quite nervous,
just as I was when the 1st verdicts were going to be announced.
I also agree with what you write, I hope that an investigation commences when this is over. Amongst many other problems, I wonder why does a prosecutor sue so many people as in this case and the Sarah Scazzi case too? To bully people into silence?
Maybe an Internal Affairs type of investigational unit will come about from all of the questions raised in this high profile case. We'll see...
See ya, RW
PS-Thanks for the kind words Poppy1016,
I hope that the posts we write have helped convince others that there really is no case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. They did not participate in Meredith Kercher's bloody murder and deserve to be set free and allowed to live their lives again.
Tht would be kinda cool, JREF2010!
But what I really hope is that if Amanda Knox is acquitted and does recieve enough money to pay off her expenses, she will afterwards donate some of that money to a help fund a memorial scholarship in her friend Meredith Kercher's memory...
RW
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Randy,
thank you, but don't bother, unless someone else wants to read the thread. Her explanation has the ring of truth to it,
Dave
I believe in Karma, Dave. Rudy Guede has a tremendous dose of the negative version of that hanging over his head. Like the proverbial Sword of Damocles.
He will get his. Nothing you or I can do to stop that. All of this has been his choice.
komponisto
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 646
Novelli on Porta a Porta
In addition to Stephanie and Arline Kercher, and the chat with Antonio "Credibilissimo" Curatolo in his jail cell (why have the authorities allowed him to be interviewed, I wonder?), the Porta a Porta episode from a few days ago featured an interview with Giuseppe Novelli. Here is a translation:
It's really disappointing how corruptible some people turn out to be.
(The last part is particularly outrageous. As we've discussed before, Conti and Vecchiotti specifically stated in the report that all parties agreed that there was not enough biological material to be tested. Either they lied outright in the report, or Novelli is being less than honest now.)
In addition to Stephanie and Arline Kercher, and the chat with Antonio "Credibilissimo" Curatolo in his jail cell (why have the authorities allowed him to be interviewed, I wonder?), the Porta a Porta episode from a few days ago featured an interview with Giuseppe Novelli. Here is a translation:
It's really disappointing how corruptible some people turn out to be.
(The last part is particularly outrageous. As we've discussed before, Conti and Vecchiotti specifically stated in the report that all parties agreed that there was not enough biological material to be tested. Either they lied outright in the report, or Novelli is being less than honest now.)
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's extraordinary: almost every response that Novelli is reported here as giving is either a massive distortion or an outright lie. As for the trial itself, this is all over now. The prosecutors seemingly couldn't give a coherent case for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the one place in the trial where they are required to do so: the closing argument. So long as the defence keep their heads and focus properly during their closing arguments, there's simply no way this trial can go other than acquittal.
And by the way, just to close off another ridiculous claim, I don't have a twitter account and have never posted a single word on twitter. And I have never registered or posted at .org or .net under a different username. But keep up those impressive sleuthing skills, idiots.
misteratunta
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 65
I hope you are right LJ
Last edited:
bri1
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 393
Here's an interesting paper on prosecutorial misconduct in relation to expert testimony:
http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub10058.pdf
Novelli's testimony contradicts a fundamental tenet of forensics investigation, and veers into a legal, rather than scientific point.
Whereas when forensics investigators take all reasonable steps (as indicated by all forensics collections guidelines) to prevent cross-contamination, then the burden is on the defense, if they want to argue contamination, to prove the specifics of the contamination. However, if the defense can show that such reasonable steps were not taken, then the burden falls to the prosecution and forensics investigators to show why contamination could not have taken place (the burden in this scenario is not on the defense even to prove that contamination did actually take place, let alone state when, where or how).
Novelli knows this. He should be subject to disciplinary action through an ethics committee. I'd quite like to write to his University's ethics committee.
Does anyone know what university he works at?
RoseMontague
Published Author
Back when the report had not been released but information was being leaked, (IIRC) there was something about finding a very minute trace on the handle, not the blade but I remember some confusion on this. The report is pretty clear they found nothing but starch on the blade from what I see. Another poster and I had this discussion at websleuths and he insisted there was a DNA trace found (I assume on the blade). I have seen a quote from Comodi that something was found but other quotes from Torre and Maresca indicating nothing was found. The fact that there is a sample and material on the blade is not in dispute it is whether it is DNA material. Maresca said something along the lines of how can they know it is not DNA on the knife if they don't test it further (with more sensitive machines). Perhaps the confusion is from the machine itself as I have seen testimony that indicates a too low reading means either less than 10 picograms or nothing at all. It is simply below the sensitivity of the machine. It appears some are taking this as something could be there and some are reading it as nothing is there.
- Status