Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

Hello Snook1,
I agree, and since we can not watch the video re-creation tha the prosecution made which helped convict Raffaele and Amanda in the 1st trial for their participation in an orgy gone wrong, I added a copy of the 2 photo's I've seen to your quoted post above that depict Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele attacking Meredith Kercher during that supposed sex crime. Looking at those images, I can see so many ways for evidence from Raffaele and Amanda to have been found.

If the murder went down this way, how come only Rudy Guede,
the poor black guy, only left his DNA, his palmprint, his fingerprints there?

Please don't insult my low IQ and say that Amanda and Raffael, rich and white, did a very detailed, selective clean-up that only removed all microscopic traces of their participation, but left Rudy's to be found. That just will not fly with this high school graduate, a member of the court of public opinion!
See you,
RW


R.I.P. Meredith Kercher

Excellent point, eloquently made.

 

[RWVBWL]

Agree. I can't imagine how bad they must've felt when the verdict was announced. All these years, they somehow, were convinced that it's all good, that both Knox and Sollecito were involved. Now, as you say, Hellmann had to step his foot in there and order a quick release due to no evidence whatsoever.

The delusion that you mentioned, was clearly visible for people that were outside of .org and .net (incl TJMK), but obviously people there most probably had no idea that they were wrong. I don't know if it's worth to laugh about it or cry.

They still continue to argue, to make some wild accusations, they're inventing stories and scenarios. Just like the prosecution did and failed. They should really learn from this mistake and drop it now. They should focus on Meredith and then on Guede. Instead, they're still on Amanda's witchy ways. Blah.

Snook1,
I read this earlier today, hilite my own:

"Meredith's frail-looking mother Arline, 65, said: "We are talking to our lawyers... " But then Stephanie interrupted: "We want to find out, if they are not guilty who is."
Arline was asked if she thought Knox was innocent and added: "I don't really know at the moment — I just had the verdict and no explanation. It has been a difficult few years let alone difficult few days."

Link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html


Stefanie Kercher is starting to ask questions:
If they are not guilty, who is?

 

[katy_did]

However, I wonder who is making money out of announcing her every movement? Who is expecting to make vast profits from interviews, book deals and movie rights? Who are the real greedy opportunists here, and who is still being exploited?

One of the things I liked about the Guardian article linked to earlier is the way it gets it exactly right about the hypocrisy of the media in relation to this case (and the credulousness - to put it kindly - of those buying into it):

There are many deeply troubling facets to this case. But an important one, surely, is the degree to which it exposes so many humans as only too happy to believe lurid and destructive slurs served up by a tabloid media culture that they all know – or should know – exists to make money from peddling damaging sensation, the more outrageous the better.

That same debauched editorial process will deliver the much-resented payday to Knox. The sum she receives will be a fraction of what will have been "earned" by others from building her up as a she-devil in the first place, and turning her into a scandalous household name. Yet, somehow, even though it is the media who are providing the filthy cash, while simultaneously stoking the outrage about it so that more people will consume the new stories they are desperate to run, this all just proves – in some foolish minds – that Knox herself has a terrible character, and is clearly somone who will stop at nothing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have seen it less as bullying, and more that the people on the losing end of the argument cannot defend their position, so they say the others are being mean.

So you are saying the pro-guilt group were complainers but not the bullies? Hmmm, not my experience.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Snook1,
I read this earlier today, hilite my own:

"Meredith's frail-looking mother Arline, 65, said: "We are talking to our lawyers... " But then Stephanie interrupted: "We want to find out, if they are not guilty who is."
Arline was asked if she thought Knox was innocent and added: "I don't really know at the moment — I just had the verdict and no explanation. It has been a difficult few years let alone difficult few days."

Link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html


Stefanie Kercher is starting to ask questions:
If they are not guilty, who is?

Thanks for pointing out this link and these quotes!

 

[Grinder]

Aside from the neverending series of lies that she told, do you think I should trust a person who has just been convicted for calunnia?

For what exactly was Mignini convicted?

How can you trust a prosecutor convicted of some sort of abuse of office?

 

[snook1]

Hello Snook1,
I agree, and since we can not watch the video re-creation tha the prosecution made which helped convict Raffaele and Amanda in the 1st trial for their participation in an orgy gone wrong, I added a copy of the 2 photo's I've seen to your quoted post above that depict Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele attacking Meredith Kercher during that supposed sex crime. Looking at those images, I can see so many ways for evidence from Raffaele and Amanda to have been found.

If the murder went down this way, how come only Rudy Guede,
the poor black guy, only left his DNA, his palmprint, his fingerprints there?

Please don't insult my low IQ and say that Amanda and Raffael, rich and white, did a very detailed, selective clean-up that only removed all microscopic traces of their participation, but left Rudy's to be found. That just will not fly with this high school graduate, a member of the court of public opinion!
See you,
RW


R.I.P. Meredith Kercher

First of all, it's such a pleasure to read your very well written posts. This one is no different.

I've seen the comments about rich winning with poor, black winning with white, families winning with lonely people. It's disgusting and instulting. Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher and now it seems, some people at hate sites are forgetting about this due to the fact that Knox and Sollecito were freed and they just can't handle it. Doesn't matter if Guede brutally killed Meredith, doesn't matter that his DNA was inside her body. It's all so irrelevant. After all, Knox must've been there, they don't even care that much about Sollecito.

Sure, they were there. Doesn't matter they didn't leave any signs of their presence. It really doesn't matter. They were there.

Hate to disappoint you, but they use this clean up in the murder room theory all the time, since it's the only possible scenario that explains how Knox and Sollecito got away with it. When this argument is being left out, then they have nothing. A big fat nothing.

If they were stoned(and just murdered someone for the first time), as some people suggest, then how did they manage to not leave or clean up their own traces? How? The adrenaline and stress would be unbearable, not to mention that they were drugged up. Rightttttt?

So how long did it take before they realized they have to get sober, they have to clean up, they have to stage a break in, they have to make some fake calls, they have to dispose of the bloody clothes, they have to get rid off the murder weapon, they have to clean themselves and think about inventing stories like pricking with the knife, bathmat shuffle, broken sink/pipes (or whatever it was that needed fixing) and having sex after or beofre cleaning Amanda's ears?

I mean, it's just not adding up. Being in your early twenties, killing for the first time and acting wisely (in terms of cleaning up the crime scene etc) isn't working well together. It just didn't happen.

It's so obvious that they didn't do it.

In my personal opinion, they were very naive and maybe, in some way, they liked the attention, the media etc. I believe that Amanda and Raffaele were shocked and sad about Meredith, but at the same time, they were the first ones on the crime scene and most probably they knew it was a big deal, with many possibilites on their way. Who knows, maybe they thought it will make them popluar in Perugia or whatever. Instead, they got caught up with no lawyers and kissing infront of the cottage. It was enough for the police to make their move. It was all over for them by then. Case closed.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Washington Post interview with Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock:

For the past several years, Frank Sfarzo has covered every hearing of the Knox trial on his blog, Perugia Shock, which he created in 2007 just days after the murder. The blog became widely read around the world in part because it was the only Italian blog written in English, but also because Sfarzo had a way of obtaining inside information, and because no detail was too obscure for the blog.

In a post entitled “A Tribute to Frank Sfarzo,” a crime blogger who goes by “Maundy Gregory” writes : “You want pictures of the knife? Frank’s your guy. Something about starch? Non c’è problema. A printout of Meredith Kercher’s DNA? Click here.”

Sfarzo started out as an objective observer of the case, even releasing details that could have condemned Knox. But over the years, he became increasingly convinced of Knox’s innocence, and starting using the blog to lobby for her release.

In May, Google shut down the blog after the head prosecutor of the case, Guiliano Mignini, filed a suit against Perugia Shock for “defamation, carried out by means of a Web site.”

Sfarzo kept writing, at a new Wordpress blog located here.

Last night, Sfarzo took a few minutes to talk to us over the phone from Perugia about the verdict.

Q. So how do you feel? Why do you think the court came to the verdict it did?

A. This is a very happy day. I think the court made this decision because it recognized there was absolutely no evidence against Amanda.

Q. What has been the reaction in Italy?

A. The people outside the courtroom have gathered around yelling “Shame! Shame!” There are many young, drunk people there protesting against the case. People attached the first lawyer who came out of the courtroom, and he had to escape. Many of these people don’t know the case but were just reading all the articles, and they think she is guilty. People in Italy who have actually followed the case, some journalists, are sure she is innocent.

Q. How did you become convinced of Knox’s innocence?

A. I had the feeling that she was innocent from the beginning, but I tried to trust the prosecution when they said they had evidence about her. After I managed to obtain most of the documents from the trial, I said that this girl is absolutely innocent.

Q. How has this case made you think differently about the justice system in Italy, if at all?

A. It seems to me the court did not follow the law. A court is supposed to follow both the defendant and prosecutor. For a long time, they didn’t do that, and that’s why the miscarriage of justice happened until yesterday. This case showed that those in charge of the law in Italy don’t respect the law. The law must be respected precisely.

Q. Why did you devote so many years to this endeavor?

A. There was already one girl who was killed, I didn’t want another girl to be killed, in another way, or be in jail for the rest of her life... I’m just very happy that two lives [Knox and Sollecito] have been saved tonight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-frank-sfarzo/2011/10/04/gIQAa7hhKL_blog.html

 

[Fine]

Mixed Memory

Barbie, yesterday:

"2. Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it. Your mother told me that you had your period. Your stepfather told others that your ear piercings were infected. Which was it? Even if this mixed blood drop is contentious in its genetic makeup (all blood or blood mixed with DNA), the appellate court was shown a picture of a drop of blood attributed entirely to Knox on the faucet." Barbie Nadeau
____________________________

No. I'm not making this up. As you can see, Barbie's still confused after four long years and (she says) after consulting several dozen forensic scientists about the "mixed blood" evidence. Amanda's lawyers at no time agreed that any of Meredith's blood was found mixed with Amanda's blood.
///

 

[Ammonitida]

Snook1,
I read this earlier today, hilite my own:

"Meredith's frail-looking mother Arline, 65, said: "We are talking to our lawyers... " But then Stephanie interrupted: "We want to find out, if they are not guilty who is."
Arline was asked if she thought Knox was innocent and added: "I don't really know at the moment — I just had the verdict and no explanation. It has been a difficult few years let alone difficult few days."

Link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html


Stefanie Kercher is starting to ask questions:
If they are not guilty, who is?

I really hope the motivational report from Hellman debunks the "evidence" suggesting multiple attackers being present at the cottage. I know that at least the luminol prints will be refuted because one of those prints was a probable match to Knox (with the exception of the second toe) and she has been absolved of the crime. This must mean Hellman and his jury disregarded the luminol findings as not being related to the crime. That just leaves the ambiguous bathmat print and the violent nature of the murder left. If the jury determined that these two issues were also not indicative of multiple attackers, then that would put to rest the notion that "others" were involved. This would compel the Kerchers to drop their pursuit for the phantom assailants and finally try to move on with their lives.

 

[souldonut]

Hi SoulDonut,
I'd look for some info here in Frank sfarzo's earlier posting:

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/scornflake

and also do a good search of the all 4 sections of this thread...

Thanks. I did a search of my own files and found one interesting Perugia Shock entry, kind of with the narrative that Koko was a witness. Frank claims there were cell phone printouts placing Koko around via della Pergola at 8pm on Nov 1 (right before when we now believe the action happened; hours before the previous TOD). His cell phone records also put him there the night before: 11pm on Oct 31 (?). Not to pose a rhetorical question, but I wonder why he would innocently be there the night before.

I wonder what else the cell phone printout said. (where he went afterwards on Nov 1). Beyond anything I wonder if his DNA/fingerprints were present in the house that he parked in front of.

=sd=

(see attachment, highlighted sections)

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Washington Post interview with Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock:

[qimg]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/blogpost/201110/Images/frank.jpg?uuid=A8Coku6UEeC0hVUH8UyoXw[/qimg]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-frank-sfarzo/2011/10/04/gIQAa7hhKL_blog.html

But...but...but....Sti..I mean Pilo....I mean some of the.....I mean most of the guilters....told us that no-one had ever heard of Frank and...and...and Frank was a nobody...and..and..no-one would want to ever hear of Frank ever again after the trial....you know....the appeal trial in which Amanda and Raffaele would....would....would....DEFINITELY....well 99% ....be found GUILTY of murder etc etc etc...

And who was it that came on and rather smugly posted ''Deny...deny...deny'' and other tripe? (It's okay - I know full well who she was, don't respond on that hehe)

Oh dear.

 

[katy_did]

Moreover, Hellmann himself declared on La Repubblica that he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were on the scene of crime. Angeletti, a lay judge, says he had no certanity. This is all incompatible with 530.1.

I have no idea whether it was 530.1 or 530.2, but I'm not sure I agree with your logic here. What Hellmann apparently said is that they could have been at the crime scene, but there isn't the evidence. You could switch out Amanda and Raffaele for the Easter Bunny in that sentence and it would still make sense: maybe the Easter Bunny was at the crime scene too, but there isn't the evidence. It almost sounds to me like Hellmann is paving the way for a motivations report allowing for the possibility either that Guede acted alone, or that there were other people present but who left no evidence (or no evidence that was discovered and presented in Court - he can even cite poor crime scene techniques as a possible reason why that evidence wasn't discovered). If that's the case, then those people could of course have been Amanda and Raffaele, or anyone else who had no solid alibi for that night.

Additionally, Hellmann's hypothesis that maybe they know what happened is linked to a reality outside the trial, not the truth emerging within it, and on which the judges based the verdict. It sounds to me as if he was saying, maybe in reality they do know what happened, but that's not what emerged from the evidence at the trial. The verdict wasn't based on hypothetical what-ifs, things which could possibly have happened if we ignore the need for evidence to support them (differing markedly in this respect from the first verdict). So I think Hellmann's remarks are not incompatible with either form of acquittal.

Where I might change my mind is if a 530.1 means they've been proven to be innocent, since in that case even the possibility that they might have been there wouldn't exist. But if it means that, I'm not sure why anyone is even entertaining the possibility it could be a 530.1: if there were absolute proof of their innocence the case probably wouldn't even have gone to trial. On the other hand, if it means that there's no evidence of their guilt (as opposed to evidence existing, but not beyond reasonable doubt), then Hellmann's words wouldn't seem to rule that out.

 

[Machiavelli]

For what exactly was Mignini convicted?

How can you trust a prosecutor convicted of some sort of abuse of office?

Did you know that in Mignini's conviction, the Procura of Florence who indicted him and the victims of his alleged crime are the same people?
And, do you know that not even one piece of evidence and not one accusation argument is about Mignini? All "evidence" is against Michele Giuttari. Mignini was convicted, literally, because he did not side with the judge against Giuttari in the trial.
Do you know that the verdict is pending before the Supreme Court even if it is just a first instance trial?
Did you read that sentencing report?

I trust Mignini and I see absolutely no reason to distrust him, I can only see reasons for trusting him.
On the other hand, the Associazione Nazionale Magistrati of Umbria has issued and signed unanimusly a document of solidarity expresing total support of him, and the Supreme Council of Magistrates had promoted him.
But anyway, did you consider that in this case there is a prosecution office, another prosecutor, a prosecutor general, and a chief prosecutor: all the highest authorities of Public Ministers in Umbria, all aligned in the accusation line? They all accuse Knox and Sollecito. Nobody has ever taken distance from Mignini, never in any occasion. Moreover, there is a chain of 20+ judges who took part in building the accusation.

Amanda Knox is not just a convicted liar. She was a proven liar even before, she is a person who had told lies since day one.

 

[Diocletus]

But anyway, did you consider that in this case there is a prosecution office, another prosecutor, a prosecutor general, and a chief prosecutor: all the highest authorities of Public Ministers in Umbria, all aligned in the accusation line? They all accuse Knox and Sollecito. Nobody has ever taken distance from Mignini, never in any occasion.

Well, except for the judges that just unanimously acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder charge.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi SMKovalinsky,
Nice article on Frank Sfarzo! Appreciate the story...
Here's some of Rudy Guede's recent thoughts,
translated by using Google:

Meredith, la rabbia di Guede
«Io in cella, Amanda a casa»

PERUGIA - "I must go on. Do I have to courage. Next, I must not be afraid. " Phrases repeated like a mantra. Obsessive. A grip of hope to pass before the 16 years in jail. Rudy Guede is behind bars, convicted in a final competition for the murder of Meredith Kercher. For the past ruling to the Supreme Court, however, was not the author of material: with him the night of Nov. 1 there were two other people who have killed Mez. Now for the Perugia Court of Appeal were not Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, acquitted Monday. Even Rudy: "Amanda is back with the plane home and I behind bars, in jail here tease me." And there are those who confirmed: "It is true, there is a widespread spirit of injustice, after the acquittal, which is breathed in prison in Viterbo." He said Ivano Peduzzi, Lazio regional council, which met Tuesday Rudy penitentiary institute. "I went on a visit to monitor the overcrowding of the structure and I also spoke with Rudy."

The Ivorian has it changed since Monday evening, when he followed the verdict live. He, who on June 27, heard in the courtroom as a witness, accused Amanda and Raffaele: "They were there, the house on Via della Pergola." He does not have believed it. "After knowing the verdict - tell in prison - suddenly changed mood. He became moody and tense, different from usual. " He did not take it well. The next morning he did not want to have breakfast. Has not eaten and has asked other inmates to read all the newspapers. "He wanted to understand what had happened, Rudy was not the same as hassle-free."

After meeting with his attorney, tears in his cell. Then total silence. "He blurted out - says Peduzzi - cried. And operators have realized that the prison was helped: they put in jail four other people to distract him and make him talk. " That's where he found Peduzzi, down the hall to the last cell of the final, who must serve a sentence not appealable. Clean-shaven and dressed, but closed in on itself. "How did you get the sentence?" Asks concerned Peduzzi. "I must go on. I must have courage. " One, two. Three times. "Hold on, you're young," insists the director of the Communist Refounding. "We will go forward," he repeats obsessively Rudy. And staring at this point, the hope in the review of his trial. Because the blow of the absolution of two ex-boyfriends has been strong. "I'm home. Her as a star and I'm the only one who remains in prison. " Meanwhile, in Perugia, the President of the Assize Court of Appeal Claudio Pratillo Hellmann who signed the acquittal of Amanda keeps repeating: "Only Rudy knows what really happened."

Link:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=165503&sez=HOME_INITALIA


Awhile back, when SoulDonut first joined up, we had a bit of a discussion here regarding if the letter Rudy Guede wrote to court was authentic and if so, was it in his own handwriting? Some of us felt was not.

As I note above with the hilted sentence wherein Rudy asked his fellow inmates "to read all the newspapers", I've wondered if Rudy can not read that well, for I also recall that Prosecutor Mignini had to read Rudy's letter aloud in Judge Hellmann's court...

Reading from Ground Report:
http://www.groundreport.com/World/Amanda-Knox-Appeal-a-Day-of-Irrelevance_2/2939846
it seems like Rudy has trouble reading or understanding words sometimes, even when he supposedly wrote them:

"Guede was called to refute the testimony of five inmates that told the court last week that Guede informed them during prison yard discussions that Amanda Knox was innocent.

Guede's testimony reiterated the feelings he expressed in a letter written in 2010. In a strange courtroom display, his letter was read aloud by Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini because Guede claimed to be unable to read his own handwriting. Judge Hellmann found this odd prompting him to ask Guede if he understood the big words written in the letter; in a very telling admission, Guede's answer was no.

 

[Diocletus]

Where I might change my mind is if a 530.1 means they've been proven to be innocent, since in that case even the possibility that they might have been there wouldn't exist. But if it means that, I'm not sure why anyone is even entertaining the possibility it could be a 530.1: if there were absolute proof of their innocence the case probably wouldn't even have gone to trial. On the other hand, if it means that there's no evidence of their guilt (as opposed to evidence existing, but not beyond reasonable doubt), then Hellmann's words wouldn't seem to rule that out.

I don't really know about this 530.1/2 distinction. But, an alibi would be absolute proof of innocence. And, there is an alibi at play here.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no idea whether it was 530.1 or 530.2, but I'm not sure I agree with your logic here. What Hellmann apparently said is that they could have been at the crime scene, but there isn't the evidence. You could switch out Amanda and Raffaele for the Easter Bunny in that sentence and it would still make sense: maybe the Easter Bunny was at the crime scene too, but there isn't the evidence. It almost sounds to me like Hellmann is paving the way for a motivations report allowing for the possibility either that Guede acted alone, or that there were other people present but who left no evidence (or no evidence that was discovered and presented in Court - he can even cite poor crime scene techniques as a possible reason why that evidence wasn't discovered). If that's the case, then those people could of course have been Amanda and Raffaele, or anyone else who had no solid alibi for that night.

Additionally, Hellmann's hypothesis that maybe they know what happened is linked to a reality outside the trial, not the truth emerging within it, and on which the judges based the verdict. It sounds to me as if he was saying, maybe in reality they do know what happened, but that's not what emerged from the evidence at the trial. The verdict wasn't based on hypothetical what-ifs, things which could possibly have happened if we ignore the need for evidence to support them (differing markedly in this respect from the first verdict). So I think Hellmann's remarks are not incompatible with either form of acquittal.

Where I might change my mind is if a 530.1 means they've been proven to be innocent, since in that case even the possibility that they might have been there wouldn't exist. But if it means that, I'm not sure why anyone is even entertaining the possibility it could be a 530.1: if there were absolute proof of their innocence the case probably wouldn't even have gone to trial. On the other hand, if it means that there's no evidence of their guilt (as opposed to evidence existing, but not beyond reasonable doubt), then Hellmann's words wouldn't seem to rule that out.

530.1 means there is no evidence at all of guilt, and might be some evidence of innocence. Not necessarily proof of innocence, but there might be evidence of innocence. However there must be no evidence still pointing in the direction of the suspect.
530.2 means there is evidence of guilt but this it is insufficient to reach certainity, or is contradicted by an equivalent evidence of innocence.

In this case my evaluation is that could never be not possible to argument that there is no evidence at all. Moreover there is at least one piece of circumstantial evidence - the calunnia - which is still in place. Moreover we have Hellmann's statement by which the prosecution does not deserve criticism, and there were more than enough elements to indict them: "Se fossi stato nei pubblici ministeri avrei fatto esattamente la stessa cosa: loro avevano elementi più che sufficienti per indagare questi due ragazzi". "Non si può parlare di responsabilità dei pm" . It seems he reaffirms there is evidence against them.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Hi SMKovalinsky,
Nice article on Frank Sfarzo! Appreciate the story...
Here's some of Rudy Guede's recent thoughts,
translated by using Google:

Meredith, la rabbia di Guede
«Io in cella, Amanda a casa»

PERUGIA - "I must go on. Do I have to courage. Next, I must not be afraid. " Phrases repeated like a mantra. Obsessive. A grip of hope to pass before the 16 years in jail. Rudy Guede is behind bars, convicted in a final competition for the murder of Meredith Kercher. For the past ruling to the Supreme Court, however, was not the author of material: with him the night of Nov. 1 there were two other people who have killed Mez. Now for the Perugia Court of Appeal were not Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, acquitted Monday. Even Rudy: "Amanda is back with the plane home and I behind bars, in jail here tease me." And there are those who confirmed: "It is true, there is a widespread spirit of injustice, after the acquittal, which is breathed in prison in Viterbo." He said Ivano Peduzzi, Lazio regional council, which met Tuesday Rudy penitentiary institute. "I went on a visit to monitor the overcrowding of the structure and I also spoke with Rudy."

The Ivorian has it changed since Monday evening, when he followed the verdict live. He, who on June 27, heard in the courtroom as a witness, accused Amanda and Raffaele: "They were there, the house on Via della Pergola." He does not have believed it. "After knowing the verdict - tell in prison - suddenly changed mood. He became moody and tense, different from usual. " He did not take it well. The next morning he did not want to have breakfast. Has not eaten and has asked other inmates to read all the newspapers. "He wanted to understand what had happened, Rudy was not the same as hassle-free."

After meeting with his attorney, tears in his cell. Then total silence. "He blurted out - says Peduzzi - cried. And operators have realized that the prison was helped: they put in jail four other people to distract him and make him talk. " That's where he found Peduzzi, down the hall to the last cell of the final, who must serve a sentence not appealable. Clean-shaven and dressed, but closed in on itself. "How did you get the sentence?" Asks concerned Peduzzi. "I must go on. I must have courage. " One, two. Three times. "Hold on, you're young," insists the director of the Communist Refounding. "We will go forward," he repeats obsessively Rudy. And staring at this point, the hope in the review of his trial. Because the blow of the absolution of two ex-boyfriends has been strong. "I'm home. Her as a star and I'm the only one who remains in prison. " Meanwhile, in Perugia, the President of the Assize Court of Appeal Claudio Pratillo Hellmann who signed the acquittal of Amanda keeps repeating: "Only Rudy knows what really happened."

Link:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=165503&sez=HOME_INITALIA


Awhile back, when SoulDonut first joined up, we had a bit of a discussion here regarding if the letter Rudy Guede wrote to court was authentic and if so, was it in his own handwriting? Some of us felt was not.

As I note above with the hilted sentence wherein Rudy asked his fellow inmates "to read all the newspapers", I've wondered if Rudy can not read that well, for I also recall that Prosecutor Mignini had to read Rudy's letter aloud in Judge Hellmann's court...

Reading from Ground Report:
http://www.groundreport.com/World/Amanda-Knox-Appeal-a-Day-of-Irrelevance_2/2939846
it seems like Rudy has trouble reading or understanding words sometimes, even when he supposedly wrote them:

"Guede was called to refute the testimony of five inmates that told the court last week that Guede informed them during prison yard discussions that Amanda Knox was innocent.

Guede's testimony reiterated the feelings he expressed in a letter written in 2010. In a strange courtroom display, his letter was read aloud by Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini because Guede claimed to be unable to read his own handwriting. Judge Hellmann found this odd prompting him to ask Guede if he understood the big words written in the letter; in a very telling admission, Guede's answer was no.

Great post RWVBWL,

Extremely observant of you.

That adds weight to my belief that Rudy did NOT write the letter Mignini read out in court.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't really know about this 530.1/2 distinction. But, an alibi would be absolute proof of innocence. And, there is an alibi at play here.

A valid alibi is evidence of innocence.

An unproven or failed alibi is no evidence.

A false alibi is evidence of guilt.

Jurisprudence defines the alibi as: "a defensive argument by which a defendant maintains his being not present on the location of the crime".

In this case there is a false alibi at play (maybe more than one false alibi). They told lies when they explained what they were doing that evening; their account of that night and the following morning, besides being not credible on many aspects, has been proven false.