Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Welshman]

I think Frank writes a story about the case a little too politely. No matter I suppose. If Bongiorno was the big gun in this defense then she apparently had a misfire. No TOD debate...rather she talked about the interrogation to which the judge asks her...how can we read this when the SC disallows it? And so with that great opening she fails to capitalize much on the fact that the information was brought illegally into the case by Lumumbas lawyer and by Mignini and by Massei.

She could have downloaded the clip of the climber from YouTube while in the court. Frank said she has bigger issues on her mind. Does she have an assistant? Someone with a smartphone? This is simply not hard. When the judge asks do you have a video...??? WHY YES...Yes I do. Watch how easy this climb actually is...better yet why no defense produced video? No defense produced sound test of Naras? No defense produced video that compares the large knife with the bed sheet imprints? Why no questions about the missing DNA tests? If Diocletus can list them and do it then why not a highly paid legal firm? This is powerful data. Missing egrams... just certain samples....why? If you cant provide the accomplices (and if there were accomplices someone knows about them besides the perps) Guede had a criminal element to his life...he most likely had criminal elemental friends to go with that. Someone knows who those people were...he was not a antisocial loner after all. Kokos car, Kokos testimony that Guede wanted to rent that car, Kokos timely trip home. But nothing. Nothing much for these guys to think about anyway. Bloody pics from downstairs??? Good. Follow that up with the facts about missing samples from down there. Messed up bloody bed, wet flip flops...easy access with keys...

Lumumba silenced from his police abuse rants with the curious months long seizure of his business....perhaps leave out the silenced part and just ask what the police and prosecutor were doing that for. We all know why they did it. Do the Italians? Did the Italians see the Ch5 video? Why no Porta Porta video of the cottage climb and sound checks, etc...? Seems like that would be right up their alley.

These are not hard things but easy things to do. The CH 5 reporters did more with far less facts and details and still making lots of errors and yet they make a good case for innocence...certainly reasonable doubt. But the defenses are reminding me of how they handled the last two big trials...Massei they did nothing...and Hellmann they did nothing...but thankfully Hellmann and Zanetti ask all the right defensive questions and made the defense case for them.

These lawyers are all to a T far in over their heads...Perhaps Yummi/Mach is correct...they were each chosen for their political connections...so far that doesn't seem to be panning out too well. Lets face it....it is not like this is a tough or even opaque case. It is a sham and a joke and the defense have failed to call anyone to task for such a rotten fact-less case...Sorry but Maresca is doing a better job than these defense people....and that is saying less than nothing actually. Shameful. RS is in serious jeopardy. Knox not so much.

I agree the defense have not been asking enough awkward questions. On the injustice in perugia forum I started a thread on awkward questions people would like to ask the prosecution. These were some of the questions which came up:-

* Why did the prosecution have to tell so many lies if they had a strong case.

* Why did Stefanoni refuse to release the edf files.

* Why was the bra clasp not collected for six weeks.

* Why were the luminol prints not taken until six weeks after the murder.

* Why were the interrogations not taped.

* Why did Stefanoni continue to test the knife when the results came back too low.

 

[Rolfe]

Sadly, Word for Windows has changed the language for the worse. If you type "who," it will tell you to change it to "that."

Spawn of Satan. Friends don't let friends use Word.

Rolfe.

 

[AmyStrange]

It didn't. It was some random guy who just came in off the street who stabbed Meredith and ran away when he encountered Rudy. Truly, the most stupid story I have ever heard told by an adult. It reminds me of a story that a 4 or 5 year old will tell when you discover that the cookies were mysteriously eaten. "Well Dad, some guy just broke into the house and took the Oreos. I tried to stop him but he was too big for me".

-

I know. I agree, but it's still an interesting theory.

There's a newspaper cartoon strip, "Family Circle", that sometimes features this character, "NotMe" or something like that, that was blamed for all the trouble the kids got into. Or, something like that.

Rudy's problem, if that story is true, is he shouldn't have left his DNA inside Meredith, That was evil or extremely bad luck if he actually did have consensual sex with Meredith. You can't get around the fact that he was in the room after she was stabbed, and if it's true that he really did try to save Meredith and then left her to die, that's not a friend at all.

How can someone who saw Meredith as a beautiful flower, how could some one live with himself after leaving her there to die and then go out dancing. How can anyone defend that?

Yet, even more evidence that this hate of Amanda is not because they're trying to remember Meredith. This is something more psychologically twisted than anything bad they could ever say about Amanda,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

-

I know. I agree, but it's still an interesting theory.

There's a newspaper cartoon strip, "Family Circle", that sometimes features this character, "NotMe" or something like that, that was blamed for all the trouble the kids got into. Or, something like that.

Rudy's problem, if that story is true, is he shouldn't have left his DNA inside Meredith, That was evil or extremely bad luck if he actually did have consensual sex with Meredith. You can't get around the fact that he was in the room after she was stabbed, and if it's true that he really did try to save Meredith and then left her to die, that's not a friend at all.

How can someone who saw Meredith as a beautiful flower, how could some one live with himself after leaving her there to die and then go out dancing. How can anyone defend that?

Yet, even more evidence that this hate of Amanda is not because they're trying to remember Meredith. This is something more psychologically twisted than anything bad they could ever say about Amanda,

d

-

No, with all due respect Amy, Rudy's problem is that he's lying, and he's bad at it. The story is also not that interesting. And considering someone actually got killed, it's not humorous. The simple fact is that there's even less reason for a stranger come in off the street to kill Meredith than Amanda and Raffaele, It makes zero sense.

As you said, Rudy shouldn't have left his DNA inside Meredith, or his shoe prints or his DNA inside Meredith's purse. But beyond the physical evidence. Rudy incriminated himself in oh so many ways. There was his flight from the country and unlike Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy makes this incredibly incriminating statement not while under the coercive powers of the police, but during a conversation with his friend Giacomo and it was recorded.

Rudy's explanation as to what happened that evening make even less sense than the silly prosecution explanations involving Amanda and Raffaele. It's clear that Rudy is lying to fit what he thinks the evidence is against him. This is why I think Rudy's timing of Meredith's death is so important. There is no reason for Rudy to lie about that detail. It gives him nothing, so why would he lie about that detail? Pf course we know that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at that time.

I agree with you about how horrible the idea of going dancing after the murder is as well as the haters.

 

[AmyStrange]

No, with all due respect Amy, Rudy's problem is that he's lying, and he's bad at it. The story is also not that interesting. And considering someone actually got killed, it's not humorous. The simple fact is that there's even less reason for a stranger come in off the street to kill Meredith than Amanda and Raffaele, It makes zero sense.

As you said, Rudy shouldn't have left his DNA inside Meredith, or his shoe prints or his DNA inside Meredith's purse. But beyond the physical evidence. Rudy incriminated himself in oh so many ways. There was his flight from the country and unlike Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy makes this incredibly incriminating statement not while under the coercive powers of the police, but during a conversation with his friend Giacomo and it was recorded.

Rudy's explanation as to what happened that evening make even less sense than the silly prosecution explanations involving Amanda and Raffaele. It's clear that Rudy is lying to fit what he thinks the evidence is against him. This is why I think Rudy's timing of Meredith's death is so important. There is no reason for Rudy to lie about that detail. It gives him nothing, so why would he lie about that detail? Pf course we know that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at that time.

-

Well you can use whatever adjective you want, boring, interesting, or horrifyingly interesting, I still think it's an interesting theory and Rudy's problem wasn't lying about it, it was that he left Meredith there to die. How can anyone defend that like the PGP camp does,

d

ETA: I'm not referring to you Acbytesla in the last sentence

-

 

[Welshman]

No, with all due respect Amy, Rudy's problem is that he's lying, and he's bad at it. The story is also not that interesting. And considering someone actually got killed, it's not humorous. The simple fact is that there's even less reason for a stranger come in off the street to kill Meredith than Amanda and Raffaele, It makes zero sense.

As you said, Rudy shouldn't have left his DNA inside Meredith, or his shoe prints or his DNA inside Meredith's purse. But beyond the physical evidence. Rudy incriminated himself in oh so many ways. There was his flight from the country and unlike Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy makes this incredibly incriminating statement not while under the coercive powers of the police, but during a conversation with his friend Giacomo and it was recorded.

Rudy's explanation as to what happened that evening make even less sense than the silly prosecution explanations involving Amanda and Raffaele. It's clear that Rudy is lying to fit what he thinks the evidence is against him. This is why I think Rudy's timing of Meredith's death is so important. There is no reason for Rudy to lie about that detail. It gives him nothing, so why would he lie about that detail? Pf course we know that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at that time.

I agree with you about how horrible the idea of going dancing after the murder is as well as the haters.

The nutjobs on the tjmk/pmf villify Amanda for her behavior but are strangely quiet about Rudy going dancing as if nothing had happened after brutally murdering someone.

 

[acbytesla]

-

Well you can use whatever adjective you want, boring, interesting, or horrifyingly interesting, I still think it's an interesting theory and Rudy's problem wasn't lying about it, it was that he left Meredith there to die. How can anyone defend that like the PGP camp does,

d

ETA: I'm not referring to you Acbytesla in the last sentence

-

Maybe I'm confused Amy. I'm not sure what theory you are talking about. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm just saying that Rudy's story about what happened that evening is not believable by anyone that has half a mind.

BTW. I knew you weren't referring to me.. but thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Grinder]

Rudy was a burglar. PERIOD.

Maybe for a simple minded computer repair technician that would call himself a doctor in Italy. He was also involved in some way in both the college night life culture and most likely did a little low level dealing.

He and Koko were alleged to know each other. The drug business is run by the Albanians. Koko is Albanian.

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the cottage was (at minimum) the fifth burglary that Rudy had committed in about a 35 day span. Rudy admitted being there during a recorded conversation with a friend. Rudy also during that same conversation said Amanda and Raffaele were not there. There is no evidence of any relationship between Raffaele and Rudy and Rudy had only met Amanda briefly. Rudy also came up with bizarre stories to explain the murder. Why would he cover for Amanda and Raffaele considering he didn't really know either?

If he had been with an Albanian enforcer type accomplice perhaps he wasn't covering for the kids but rather for him. This professional thug would have made it clear what would happen to Rudy if he talked.

Please list out the five burglaries and the verification. One reference in a true crime novel isn't credible.

Rudy said he had a date with Meredith. Something nobody could confirm and most people (with the exception of Grinder) reject.

Whoa Shinola. The police (when you weren't following the case) on day two thought the evidence pointed to someone she knew and the sex was consensual. They made Meredith out to be a 'party girl' that was killed by a man she had met the night before. This story seemed to change after it became known that she was the daughter of a connected brit.

Although you are not used to any nuance I also said that Rudy may have thought he had an arrangement. Rudy was an in shape, attractive enough young man that could easily have appealed to Meredith. Her boyfriend on the other hand was far less attractive.

The testimony that Rudy wasn't around was given by her drunken friends one of whom needed to be driven home only a days before. These brit girls were drunks. Meredith seems to have been a heavy drinker, so much so that most here maintain the drink equivalent in her system at death was left over from the night before which would have made her nearly comatose at 5 am.

 

[acbytesla]

The nutjobs on the tjmk/pmf villify Amanda for her behavior but are strangely quiet about Rudy going dancing as if nothing had happened after brutally murdering someone.

Yes that is true. They are strangely silent about Rudy in any context. How does Mignini himself refer to the murderer as "poor Rudy".

 

[andreajo]

If he had been with an Albanian enforcer type accomplice perhaps he wasn't covering for the kids but rather for him. This professional thug would have made it clear what would happen to Rudy if he talked.

I have thought about the possibility of Rudy committing the crime with drug or B&E accomplices. I don't rule it out, but I'd find it more probable if he hadn't been all by himself on the two occasions I am aware of when he was spotted by the householder/business owner.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe for a simple minded computer repair technician that would call himself a doctor in Italy. He was also involved in some way in both the college night life culture and most likely did a little low level dealing.

He and Koko were alleged to know each other. The drug business is run by the Albanians. Koko is Albanian.



If he had been with an Albanian enforcer type accomplice perhaps he wasn't covering for the kids but rather for him. This professional thug would have made it clear what would happen to Rudy if he talked.

Please list out the five burglaries and the verification. One reference in a true crime novel isn't credible.



Whoa Shinola. The police (when you weren't following the case) on day two thought the evidence pointed to someone she knew and the sex was consensual. They made Meredith out to be a 'party girl' that was killed by a man she had met the night before. This story seemed to change after it became known that she was the daughter of a connected brit.

Although you are not used to any nuance I also said that Rudy may have thought he had an arrangement. Rudy was an in shape, attractive enough young man that could easily have appealed to Meredith. Her boyfriend on the other hand was far less attractive.

The testimony that Rudy wasn't around was given by her drunken friends one of whom needed to be driven home only a days before. These brit girls were drunks. Meredith seems to have been a heavy drinker, so much so that most here maintain the drink equivalent in her system at death was left over from the night before which would have made her nearly comatose at 5 am.

That all may be true Grinder, but a guy can be many things. Why limit yourself? I still don't buy at all that Rudy actually had a date with Meredith. But you can believe whatever you choose. But you would have to admit that there is no confirmation or any evidence to suggest that Rudy did have a date with Meredith.

BTW*** I have no problem with nuance. It is wild theories pulled from a backside that don't smell right to me.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Maybe I'm confused Amy. I'm not sure what theory you are talking about. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm just saying that Rudy's story about what happened that evening is not believable by anyone that has half a mind.

BTW. I knew you weren't referring to me.. but thanks for pointing that out.

-

I think you're spot on and not confused. I'm referring to the theory that Rudy was telling the truth. It's interesting because of the lies that have to be believed to make it work, plus it's what allows you to believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, and it's where the PGP seem to be setting up camp.

The psychologically twisted contortions you have to invent for it to be acceptable is unbelievable, but also interesting in a psychological and legal sense, at least to me anyway.

Sorry if that insults you,

d

-

 

[Kaosium]

Whoa Shinola. The police (when you weren't following the case) on day two thought the evidence pointed to someone she knew and the sex was consensual. They made Meredith out to be a 'party girl' that was killed by a man she had met the night before. This story seemed to change after it became known that she was the daughter of a connected brit.

That's true, Grinder. However it's also true that a primary reason for them jumping to the conclusion Meredith may have invited her attacker in was that they thought the window impossible to access except by a 'superman' (as per Profazio) thus the broken window must have been part of a 'staging' event rather than the means of entry for the killer. Therefore they considered scenarios which involved someone with a key being involved in the entry of the killer, which (after the possibility Meredith had let him in was considered unpalatable) led to them focusing on those who had keys--and eventually to Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Magister]

Latest from Frank Sfarzo.... on Bongiorno in court. "An attack too polite"

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/a...lecito-appeal-bongiorno-an-attack-too-polite/

"As we remember Bongiorno closed the first trial with a question. "Are we sure the blood downstairs was from the cat?"

Now she developed that argument showing the pictures of the large stains of blood in the apartment downstairs, recalling that even Giobbi was surprised that a cat could have so much blood.

And she found one of the blood tests from downstairs that says "human blood".

So the others that say "cat blood" could be wrong, and the story of via della Pergola could be different, involving people other than "Sollecito" "


If not Guede's blood then whose?

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

I think you're spot on and not confused. I'm referring to the theory that Rudy was telling the truth. It's interesting because of the lies that have to be believed to make it work, plus it's what allows you to believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, and it's where the PGP seem to be putting up camp.

The psychologically twisted contortions you have to invent for it to be acceptable is unbelievable, but interesting in a psychological and legal sense to me anyway.

Sorry if that insults you,

d

-

I agree 100 percent and I'm not sure why I would find that insulting.

 

[Grinder]

I have thought about the possibility of Rudy committing the crime with drug or B&E accomplices. I don't rule it out, but I'd find it more probable if he hadn't been all by himself on the two occasions I am aware of when he was spotted by the householder/business owner.

There has been some speculation about the lawyers' office because it had an alarm and some thought maybe Rudy would have had help. We have never found out what happened to the other items stolen there.

That all may be true Grinder, but a guy can be many things. Why limit yourself? I still don't buy at all that Rudy actually had a date with Meredith. But you can believe whatever you choose. But you would have to admit that there is no confirmation or any evidence to suggest that Rudy did have a date with Meredith.

Seriously can you read? Perhaps you can't peruse but only scan. There is his own Skype admission that he had a date and was there when she died. You choose to believe everything that fits your theory but not anything that doesn't. Sounds like a PGP approach.

Now try to understand that Meredith and her friends may well have been totally drunk that night and could easily have completely forgotten hours of activity. It is also possible that Rudy convinced himself that he had made an arrangement.

There is no confirmation for all kinds of things that you claim and then after some period of time reclaim but you never prove. Sorry but one true crime novelist doesn't count just like one newspaper story about a cocaine dealer on Amanda's phone doesn't count

 

[Samson]

There has been some speculation about the lawyers' office because it had an alarm and some thought maybe Rudy would have had help. We have never found out what happened to the other items stolen there.



Seriously can you read? Perhaps you can't peruse but only scan. There is his own Skype admission that he had a date and was there when she died. You choose to believe everything that fits your theory but not anything that doesn't. Sounds like a PGP approach.

Now try to understand that Meredith and her friends may well have been totally drunk that night and could easily have completely forgotten hours of activity. It is also possible that Rudy convinced himself that he had made an arrangement.

There is no confirmation for all kinds of things that you claim and then after some period of time reclaim but you never prove. Sorry but one true crime novelist doesn't count just like one newspaper story about a cocaine dealer on Amanda's phone doesn't count






BTW*** I have no problem with nuance. It is wild theories pulled from a backside that don't smell right to me.

[/QUOTE]
If Rudy broke in it is a lie that he had a date, it is that simple.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I have thought about the possibility of Rudy committing the crime with drug or B&E accomplices. I don't rule it out, but I'd find it more probable if he hadn't been all by himself on the two occasions I am aware of when he was spotted by the householder/business owner.

-

I can't remember his name, but the heroin guy who lived on the bench and saw the Disco buses when he said he saw Amanda and Raffaele, I always had a nagging suspicion that he might have been the lookout for Rudy on the outside while he robbed places,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

Yes that is true. They are strangely silent about Rudy in any context. How does Mignini himself refer to the murderer as "poor Rudy".

Maybe Mignini, who appreciates how Rudy's lawyer Biscotti tacitly supported Mignini's version of the crime, is concerned that Rudy is unable to pay Biscotti's bill.

 

[Kaosium]

In regard to the actual prank itself: I'd say that there is a massive and important difference between:

a) A "prank" in which people don ski masks, break into an apartment, and terrorise the occupants with threats of rape; and

b) A genuine prank where a bunch of people rearrange somebody's room to make it look like there has been a burglary, then await the "victim's" shock upon discovering the scene, before coming clean and saying it was a prank.


For a start, there's clearly no element of threat of violence of any sort in scenario (b), in stark contrast to the intense threat of violence in (a). And secondly, there's obviously no intent in (b) to do anything other than induce a short-term shock in the "victim", whereas (a) could very clearly induce a very real panic and terror in the victim, which might have long-lasting effects.

I also reiterate that (b) is illustrative of exactly the form of prank that was commonplace in my student days (in fact, far more extreme variants of it were practised). It's preposterous to suggest that it's indicative of any sort of psychological abnormality. It's also preposterous to suggest that it bears any direct relevance to what happened in Perugia on November 1st 2007.

Isn't it interesting that when Amanda did participate in a staged burglary that she had the sense to ensure it looked like things had been taken. If she knows enough to realize a prank won't go off well if it doesn't look like things were taken, why would she ever attempt a staged break-in (with her life on the line!) without doing the same?

When I was a teenager somehow a group of (West High) seniors managed to get the principal's car on the roof of West High, which was about 4 stories up. I always wondered how they did that. Scuttlebutt was that they disassembled it and reassembled it on the roof, but it still puzzles me as to how they got the frame up there!