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

[Grinder]

Grinder - If you read, also on Amanda's blog, where I think that picture you posted came from, the trial transcripts of Paolo Brocchi (one of only two names, under people in the MKM case files tab), its pretty interesting. (Lawyer at the perugian law office that got broken into by Guede).

The metal grate covering the door is discussed, and as it's being a "plumb line" under the window of entry, and could be used for entry. The little piles of glass they found by the copier, similar to the little piles of glass found on the window sill in Filomena's room.

The Milan case probably barely made the PLE raise an eyebrow. They had possession of stolen goods and not enough for the Milan PD to keep him themselves. He was after all in a place of business without permission with things from the place in his backpack. According to reports the nursery had been broken into before and money in the thousands had been stolen. Curious that cash was left there, but anyhow why didn't the police in Milan keep him? If you suggest that the Perugian cops said "he's one of us" by now someone in Milan would have sold the story or at least leaked it.
There may have been other burglars in Perugia using the 'rock through the window' method, but the police knew Guede did this robbery, because he was caught with the cell phone and laptop from this specific robbery.

Not sure of Napoleone's formal role at the time, but the cop Zugarini was lower down the chain, closer to the street level, and they were both there before Mignini got there on day 1, and greeted when he arrived (its on the video). Perugia is a small town, not a big city. I think it's hard to assume who knows what.

It's not a small town at 160,000 population. They greeted Mignini, so what?

Guede was released by the Milan police after talking with Perugia. I don't believe they want to reduce their paper work in Milan, but even if that's true, why would police then want more paperwork in Perugia?

Curatolo had been caught dealing in 2003. They don't seem worried about doing paperwork. At least not on any schedule.

I think the idea of some relationship between Guede and Perugia police is hard to refute. Secondly, Perugia police must have been aware that Rudy did that theft at the law office. And finally, in the transcript, Brocchi describes how Guede came to the law office again on Oct 29, three days befor the murder, to try to explain how he came to innocently possess the items stolen from the law office.

I don't think you have any idea about the slow moving bureaucracies police and local prosecutors are. It is easily possible that the PLE had no idea about who did this little B&E nor did they care much. There is absolutely nothing in the record that shows, indicates or points toward Rudi having a relationship with the PLE. Refuting it may be difficult in the old can't prove a negative way, but also making the statement means nothing. Rudi going to the law offices is weird no matter what.

What exactly did he do for the PLE? If he informed on someone wouldn't that person let it be known somehow? If not the person how about his lawyer? You have this tight big deal relationship with the PLE so big and significant that they would immediately see his MO and start the process of framing a rich Italian boy and young American - really?

Rudy's strong sense of wanting not being seen to be guilty is also striking. Nobody wants to get pinned for murder I'm sure, but it says something that he really thinks he could talk his way out of getting caught with stolen goods, from the law office to the people he stole from and ransacked their office, having been busted in the middle of another break-in!

Well the second wasn't precisely a break in as RW has reported that he was let in by key. Maybe he did buy the stuff or traded drugs for them. Maybe he thought he could schmooze them and get them not to file charges.

 

[Grinder]

From the dark side:

1) Trial court convicts;
2) Defendant appeals to Court of Appeal;
3) Court of Appeal reverses conviction (think Hellmann);
4) Prosecution petitions the Supreme Court for review (pursuant to legislation consistent with ABA Standard 21-1.4);
5) Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal and the conviction at trial stands.

I'd love to see the retired professor explain why that sequence of proceedings amounts to "double jeopardy" in Italy but not in America.​

This was referring to M. Cherif Bassiouni's post on extradition.

While I see issues with the post as well, I think Kramer's attorney misses an element. In the Italian system the appeals court looked at evidence whereas in the US appellate courts don't.

Hellmann looked at the old evidence and had new evidence presented. Not so much in Georgia.

The problem for the Italians in this case is that the ISC reversed the Hellmann verdict on factual matters, at least in part, and the Nencini court looked at yet more new evidence.

One big question will be how the Nencini motivations (Monday?) will deal with C&V. I wonder if C&V will be able to sue Nencini if he disses them.

 

[Bill Williams]

From the dark side:

1) Trial court convicts;
2) Defendant appeals to Court of Appeal;
3) Court of Appeal reverses conviction (think Hellmann);
4) Prosecution petitions the Supreme Court for review (pursuant to legislation consistent with ABA Standard 21-1.4);
5) Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal and the conviction at trial stands.

I'd love to see the retired professor explain why that sequence of proceedings amounts to "double jeopardy" in Italy but not in America.​

This was referring to M. Cherif Bassiouni's post on extradition.

While I see issues with the post as well, I think Kramer's attorney misses an element. In the Italian system the appeals court looked at evidence whereas in the US appellate courts don't.

Hellmann looked at the old evidence and had new evidence presented. Not so much in Georgia.

The problem for the Italians in this case is that the ISC reversed the Hellmann verdict on factual matters, at least in part, and the Nencini court looked at yet more new evidence.
One big question will be how the Nencini motivations (Monday?) will deal with C&V. I wonder if C&V will be able to sue Nencini if he disses them.

Whereas Nencini will find some reason to have the three, and only three new things his court looked at participate in the convictions of Sollecito and Knox....

...... in reality all three of those things went towards either reasonable doubt or to outright innocence.

This week we should know how Nencini thinks.

If Nencini even writes something that smells of, "Well, Rudy's court found...." and applies this to a reason to convict Sollecito and Knox, then Italy has more than double jeopardy on its hands.

It has basic rules of fairness, like being represented at a trial that convicts you (one with the trial-phase missing as well).

 

[Diocletus]

From the dark side:

1) Trial court convicts;
2) Defendant appeals to Court of Appeal;
3) Court of Appeal reverses conviction (think Hellmann);
4) Prosecution petitions the Supreme Court for review (pursuant to legislation consistent with ABA Standard 21-1.4);
5) Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal and the conviction at trial stands.

I'd love to see the retired professor explain why that sequence of proceedings amounts to "double jeopardy" in Italy but not in America.
​

Simple: it's not double jeopardy because the defendant hasn't been placed twice in jeopardy as anyone will notice if they consider the fact that there has been a single jury empaneled.​

 

[Desert Fox]

Whereas Nencini will find some reason to have the three, and only three new things his court looked at participate in the convictions of Sollecito and Knox....

...... in reality all three of those things went towards either reasonable doubt or to outright innocence.

This week we should know how Nencini thinks.

If Nencini even writes something that smells of, "Well, Rudy's court found...." and applies this to a reason to convict Sollecito and Knox, then Italy has more than double jeopardy on its hands.

It has basic rules of fairness, like being represented at a trial that convicts you (one with the trial-phase missing as well).

Will it not be couched in BS legalize like the Italian Supreme Court doument is?

 

[carbonjam72]

The Milan case probably barely made the PLE raise an eyebrow. They had possession of stolen goods and not enough for the Milan PD to keep him themselves. He was after all in a place of business without permission with things from the place in his backpack. According to reports the nursery had been broken into before and money in the thousands had been stolen. Curious that cash was left there, but anyhow why didn't the police in Milan keep him? If you suggest that the Perugian cops said "he's one of us" by now someone in Milan would have sold the story or at least leaked it.
There may have been other burglars in Perugia using the 'rock through the window' method, but the police knew Guede did this robbery, because he was caught with the cell phone and laptop from this specific robbery.

These are all presumptions on top of presumptions, like a multiple combination shot on a pool table. You might make the shot, but all the variables have to line up. Not enough to hold him?

Wasn't Guede was just convicted of possession of stolen goods for the items from the Perugian law office? So he was prosecuted in Milan. They had enough to prosecute, but not to hold him?

The fact is Milan let him go in a case they pressed. No process? No hearing for pre-trial imprisonment, nothing? Doesn't make sense. I think there has to be a reason Milan let him go, to return to Perusia. Steve Moore says law enforcement people recognize this as a symptom of Guede being an informant. I buy Steve Moore's explanation, because of his experience, and because it makes sense.

It's not a small town at 160,000 population. They greeted Mignini, so what?

Is this a lawyer's question from a hypothetical defendant, or a question designed to isolate the truth? It is, "compatible with collusion".

If they recognized Guede's break-in style at the cottage, as being identical to the law office, it means the explanation of a "staged break-in" can be reasonably explained as an intentional lie, and not the product of inexplicable idiocy by supposed professionals. It's easier for me to believe they are lying in so obvious a manner, then to believe they are that bad at their jobs. Because they have lied in so obvious a manner in so many other instances.

Curatolo had been caught dealing in 2003. They don't seem worried about doing paperwork. At least not on any schedule.

Interesting story on Curatolo, guess I'll float something on that, which I'm sure you'll dismiss, but what the hell? Trying Curatolo, Mignini's "super-witness" in the middle of Mignini's appeal with AK/RS, was not a exactly professional courtesy. I believe this was Canessa, the prosecutor in Florence? The same one Mignini was convicted for illegally wiretapping, among others? Canessa was handling one of the MOF cases I believe for Mignini, don't have it in front of me. But in Preston/Spezi's book MOF, a knowledgable friend had said someone had to pay the price for losing the MOF cases. Mignini seemed to be targeting Canessa, fitting him for the role of fallguy, even though they had both worked on the case together. So maybe this is just Canessa's way of returning the favor? Ok, laugh it up, paliacco...

I don't think you have any idea about the slow moving bureaucracies police and local prosecutors are. It is easily possible that the PLE had no idea about who did this little B&E nor did they care much. There is absolutely nothing in the record that shows, indicates or points toward Rudi having a relationship with the PLE. Refuting it may be difficult in the old can't prove a negative way, but also making the statement means nothing. Rudi going to the law offices is weird no matter what.

What exactly did he do for the PLE? If he informed on someone wouldn't that person let it be known somehow? If not the person how about his lawyer? You have this tight big deal relationship with the PLE so big and significant that they would immediately see his MO and start the process of framing a rich Italian boy and young American - really?

Well the second wasn't precisely a break in as RW has reported that he was let in by key. Maybe he did buy the stuff or traded drugs for them. Maybe he thought he could schmooze them and get them not to file charges.

From what I've seen, framing is about all they do. They would have framed anybody. Amanda and Raf just happened to be there, without lawyers, and vulnerable.

Ok, so you're right for failing to see a connection between Guede and Perugia in the fact that Milan released him after a call with the Perugian authorities after getting caught in a break-in while carrying stolen merchandise, and Steve Moore is wrong, because his decades of experience in law enforcement isn't credible on just this issue. Grinder, you may be right, but I can't see it. Moore's argument makes more sense to me on this.

I don't know how slow things move in Italy, though I'm getting the idea. The Kercher murder was a big deal at the time. Guede had just returned within the last 5 days, having been tied to an identical break-in. I find it plausible they had an awareness of that when they arrived at the Kercher crime scene, and scrambled to protect themselves from looking like fools whose irresponsible bungling got an English girl killed, which is exactly what I think they did. Not looking foolish seems to be their primary occupation in their professional work. You disagree, I gather. Fair enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

Will it not be couched in BS legalize like the Italian Supreme Court doument is?

I wish Machiavelli was posting here, because no one couches it in BS legalese more than Machiavelli.

Remember, Machiavelli was the one who accused all of Seattle, every citizen of Seattle of practising the Mafia behaviour known as Omertà. Why? Because Amanda Knox admitted to participating once in an April Fools break-in prank against a friend. Machiavelli saw this as behaviour compelling to believe she'd faked a break-in in Filomena's room at their cottage.

Omertà is the clannish-like "code of silence" Mafia adopts to avoid participating with authorities to solve crime. Machiavelli proposed this as the reason why no one had ever heard of this April Fools' prank until Knox spilled the beans. Should not all of Seattle have been talking about this? Obviously they were not, so Machiavelli gives us Omertà.

This is par for the course in guilter-land. Unfortunately this is also the way that the "party of the PM's" within Italy's system has approached this wrongful conviction of two innocents.

Judicial BS. In essence they are using facts as found at Rudy Guede's "trial-phase-missing" fast-track process to convict Raffaele and Amanda. Add in Judicial BS and there you have it.

I just wish Machiavelli would tell us why this is justice?

 

[js202]

Why is is there so much venom from the Pro-Guilt side?

Lots of sad, lonely people out there, looking for venues to channel those emotions as distilled, unbridled hatred.

They would be so much happier if only they looked into organizations such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, for example (or, for the many English haters, analogous organizations in the UK), towards which to direct their energies. But that would require them to extract their asses from behind their keyboards and make actual connections in the world.

 

[Desert Fox]

I wish Machiavelli was posting here, because no one couches it in BS legalese more than Machiavelli.

Remember, Machiavelli was the one who accused all of Seattle, every citizen of Seattle of practising the Mafia behaviour known as Omertà. Why? Because Amanda Knox admitted to participating once in an April Fools break-in prank against a friend. Machiavelli saw this as behaviour compelling to believe she'd faked a break-in in Filomena's room at their cottage.

Omertà is the clannish-like "code of silence" Mafia adopts to avoid participating with authorities to solve crime. Machiavelli proposed this as the reason why no one had ever heard of this April Fools' prank until Knox spilled the beans. Should not all of Seattle have been talking about this? Obviously they were not, so Machiavelli gives us Omertà.

This is par for the course in guilter-land. Unfortunately this is also the way that the "party of the PM's" within Italy's system has approached this wrongful conviction of two innocents.

Judicial BS. In essence they are using facts as found at Rudy Guede's "trial-phase-missing" fast-track process to convict Raffaele and Amanda. Add in Judicial BS and there you have it.

I just wish Machiavelli would tell us why this is justice?

Lets say the crime was Meredeth tried to steal Amanda's boyfriend and Amanda killed her in a fit of rage - something at least believable.
I would expect that there would be some "US vs Them" from Seattle where people would not want to believe one of their own would do such a thing.
That far is at least believable.

I do hope that the Seattle PD would be more competent with such a case if things were effectively reversed.

 

[Grinder]

These are all presumptions on top of presumptions, like a multiple combination shot on a pool table. You might make the shot, but all the variables have to line up. Not enough to hold him?

Wasn't Guede was just convicted of possession of stolen goods for the items from the Perugian law office? So he was prosecuted in Milan. They had enough to prosecute, but not to hold him?

The fact is Milan let him go in a case they pressed. No process? No hearing for pre-trial imprisonment, nothing? Doesn't make sense. I think there has to be a reason Milan let him go, to return to Perusia. Steve Moore says law enforcement people recognize this as a symptom of Guede being an informant. I buy Steve Moore's explanation, because of his experience, and because it makes sense.

You buy it because you want to buy it. Yes Rudi was recently convicted but most likely nothing would have come of it had he not murdered Meredith. Curatolo wouldn't have been convicted of dealing heroin had he not been a liability to the PLE.

Possession of stolen property is a fairly low level crime perhaps just a misdemeanor.

My "presumptions" aren't as great or preposterous as yours. What was he informing the PLE about? The right time to trim roses? There are no accounts of him being a major dealer or even well connected.

Is this a lawyer's question from a hypothetical defendant, or a question designed to isolate the truth? It is, "compatible with collusion".

???

If they recognized Guede's break-in style at the cottage, as being identical to the law office, it means the explanation of a "staged break-in" can be reasonably explained as an intentional lie, and not the product of inexplicable idiocy by supposed professionals. It's easier for me to believe they are lying in so obvious a manner, then to believe they are that bad at their jobs. Because they have lied in so obvious a manner in so many other instances.

They showed tremendous incompetence. Hell, they even texted Napoleoni when their harassment of her ex was uncovered.

A window was broken on the second story. Hardly a signature and the only example of Rudi doing it was barely possibly known for a week. It is bat doo-doo crazy to think that the PLE would move to protect, at best a low, low level, snitch that had murdered an exchange student. If they had recognized his MO they would have gone straight to his place and arrested him and had their press conference and been heroes.

Interesting story on Curatolo, guess I'll float something on that, which I'm sure you'll dismiss, but what the hell? Trying Curatolo, Mignini's "super-witness" in the middle of Mignini's appeal with AK/RS, was not a exactly professional courtesy. I believe this was Canessa, the prosecutor in Florence? The same one Mignini was convicted for illegally wiretapping, among others? Canessa was handling one of the MOF cases I believe for Mignini, don't have it in front of me. But in Preston/Spezi's book MOF, a knowledgable friend had said someone had to pay the price for losing the MOF cases. Mignini seemed to be targeting Canessa, fitting him for the role of fallguy, even though they had both worked on the case together. So maybe this is just Canessa's way of returning the favor? Ok, laugh it up, paliacco...

The appeal trial was in Perugia. It was the Hellmann trial. I don't know who charged Curatolo but I was under the impression it was done by a Perugian prosecutor. I truly do not understand the complicated conspiracy/inside deals you are proposing. Though Mignini wasn't the lead in the Hellmann appeal he definitely participated. Curatolo was incarcerated before the trial effectively taking him out of media range.

From what I've seen, framing is about all they do. They would have framed anybody. Amanda and Raf just happened to be there, without lawyers, and vulnerable.

I doubt framing is all they do.

Ok, so you're right for failing to see a connection between Guede and Perugia in the fact that Milan released him after a call with the Perugian authorities after getting caught in a break-in while carrying stolen merchandise, and Steve Moore is wrong, because his decades of experience in law enforcement isn't credible on just this issue. Grinder, you may be right, but I can't see it. Moore's argument makes more sense to me on this.

I don't have the same regard for Moore that you do. Moore has no more experience in Italian LE than anybody here. He has little to no experience with low level theft. He has no experience with local law enforcement.

I spent 25 years in the FBI, much of it after 9/11/2001 investigating terrorist attacks in garden spots like Karachi
​

I don't know how slow things move in Italy, though I'm getting the idea. The Kercher murder was a big deal at the time. Guede had just returned within the last 5 days, having been tied to an identical break-in. I find it plausible they had an awareness of that when they arrived at the Kercher crime scene, and scrambled to protect themselves from looking like fools whose irresponsible bungling got an English girl killed, which is exactly what I think they did. Not looking foolish seems to be their primary occupation in their professional work. You disagree, I gather. Fair enough.

It wasn't an identical break-in. You have absolutely nothing but pure speculation to believe that they immediately knew it was Rudi but move post haste to frame Amanda, Raf and Patrick. I don't just disagree, I think it is ridiculous. Are you suggesting they made sure the kids didn't have any alibi? Were they just lucky that the kids didn't have a more solid alibi? Were they surprised that Patrick had an alibi? Did they tell Rudi to go to Germany?

How many burglaries are there a year in Perugia? Spokane, a city slightly bigger than Perugia, has about 3,000 burglaries a year and 7000 thefts.

It is questionable whether the the cops that did the report on the lawyers' office had even been informed about Rudi in Milan. Cops are not the best at paperwork and following up. They get victim's phone numbers wrong and lose witness information. And I'm talking about here not there.

So these boobs of cops that can't chew gum and walk at the same time come to this horror of a murder scene and immediately recognize Rudi's MO and start the process of framing the kids. Really?

Of course a meteor(oid) could hit the courthouse.

 

[Desert Fox]

Lots of sad, lonely people out there, looking for venues to channel those emotions as distilled, unbridled hatred.

They would be so much happier if only they looked into organizations such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, for example (or, for the many English haters, analogous organizations in the UK), towards which to direct their energies. But that would require them to extract their asses from behind their keyboards and make actual connections in the world.

When I discussed it on another board, at least some was "We had Americans."
Just have trouble believing that is a majority of posters / comments.

Like to get at least one person who argues for their guilt that does not use either hatred or BS to argue the issue.

 

[Samson]

Grinder and Carbonjam72, if CJ72's analysis is seen as a motivations report for a crime by Mignini, it is consistent with the known facts, and should not be ruled out.
Massei's motivations report for a crime by Amanda and Raffelele is inconsistent with the known facts. For example their is complete proof the break in was not staqed, and the time of death was in a very different time range.

At the moment we only have Massei's report to work with as an official theory of guilt, and it is wrong.

Grinder may not agree the staging is proven incorrect, but the proof is absolute in my opinion.

I certainly can not rule out CJ72's theory, but I can rule out Massei's. For example it is possible for a police force in a city of 160,000 to be broadly aware of the rock thrown into the lawyer's office. This would go close to making the main news in Dunedin, a city of similar population. Was the lawyer's office investigation handled from the same police station as Meredith's murder? If so, CJ72's theory has solid legs.

If Nencini writes a report where the rock is thrown from the outside BEFORE the murder, and the murder was committed shortly after 9 26, Amanda and Raffaele may have problems.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder and Carbonjam72, if CJ72's analysis is seen as a motivations report for a crime by Mignini, it is consistent with the known facts, and should not be ruled out.
Massei's motivations report for a crime by Amanda and Raffelele is inconsistent with the known facts. For example their is complete proof the break in was not staqed, and the time of death was in a very different time range.

At the moment we only have Massei's report to work with as an official theory of guilt, and it is wrong.

Grinder may not agree the staging is proven incorrect, but the proof is absolute in my opinion.

I certainly can not rule out CJ72's theory, but I can rule out Massei's. For example it is possible for a police force in a city of 160,000 to be broadly aware of the rock thrown into the lawyer's office. This would go close to making the main news in Dunedin, a city of similar population. Was the lawyer's office investigation handled from the same police station as Meredith's murder? If so, CJ72's theory has solid legs.

If Nencini writes a report where the rock is thrown from the outside BEFORE the murder, and the murder was committed shortly after 9 26, Amanda and Raffaele may have problems.

The theory has no legs. It is absurd to think the homicide division would "recognize" Rudi's MO. It is absurd to think that the PLE would immediately move to frame two innocent people because an informant had done the murder. In the US Rudi probably would have been arrested and released on bail if he could make it. If not they do an in custody hearing where he would most likely be released on PR.

In retrospect not holding Rudi seems bad and we don't quite get the Italian way. Mach explained that in Italy they either couldn't or wouldn't have held him. None of believe that he bought the stuff in the Milan train station but it is not out of the question that he received it from someone in Perugia and certainly at the time possessing stolen property isn't a big deal. What he did in Milan would seem more serious but the place was empty and he was let in by someone - i.e. no break in. I doubt that the Milan LE would let him go merely because he was an informant for the PLE, if he was.

Just think about it. A cop at a murder scene immediately recognizes the MO of the break in at the scene of a murder and rather than saying I know who did this conspires to protect a low level informant. You'll need more than a retired FBI pilot, sharpshooter and terrorist fighter to convince most clear thinking people.

The watch and fire story has little to no proof.

ETA -

Grinder and Carbonjam72, if CJ72's

Methinks Carbonjam72 and CJ72 are the same person

 

[Desert Fox]

It does sound like a problem that we do see in the US with a US Police Force making all of the standard "Go alone" errors though.
For example, with the Norfolk Four case, both the Virginia State police and FBI tried effectively telling Norfolk "You have a single perpetrator crime here"
I think that in this case the local police should have asked around to the other higher level police, maybe including Interpol "What kind of crime do we have here?"
This one is pretty clear as a single perpetrator crime.

 

[Samson]

The theory has no legs. It is absurd to think the homicide division would "recognize" Rudi's MO. It is absurd to think that the PLE would immediately move to frame two innocent people because an informant had done the murder. In the US Rudi probably would have been arrested and released on bail if he could make it. If not they do an in custody hearing where he would most likely be released on PR.

In retrospect not holding Rudi seems bad and we don't quite get the Italian way. Mach explained that in Italy they either couldn't or wouldn't have held him. None of believe that he bought the stuff in the Milan train station but it is not out of the question that he received it from someone in Perugia and certainly at the time possessing stolen property isn't a big deal. What he did in Milan would seem more serious but the place was empty and he was let in by someone - i.e. no break in. I doubt that the Milan LE would let him go merely because he was an informant for the PLE, if he was.

Just think about it. A cop at a murder scene immediately recognizes the MO of the break in at the scene of a murder and rather than saying I know who did this conspires to protect a low level informant. You'll need more than a retired FBI pilot, sharpshooter and terrorist fighter to convince most clear thinking people.

The watch and fire story has little to no proof.

ETA - Methinks Carbonjam72 and CJ72 are the same person

I realise they are the same person, I was using his abbreviation. Karen Pruett has just written a long article on Ground Report which certainly cites fast police awareness of Rudy. I don't know the truth, the Italian way is too often catastrophic by any measure. There is a huge amount of Kafka to contend with, and I will reread his works with a very new appreciation.
I no more understand the wickedness persisting in this case than the serial brutality of human history.

Shame on them all, and where is your state department in all this? Nowhere I am told gleefully by the dark side.

 

[carbonjam72]

It wasn't an identical break-in.

If you just read through Paolo Brocchi's transcripts on Amanda's blog, the similarities described include;
1. rock thrown through the window
2. Second story climb up, with metal grating available as a ladder directly underneath the window of entry. (requires athleticism).
3. Neatly piled shards of broken glass, almost some kind of message (very peculiar style, no?)
4. Makes himself at home; (turns up heat, cooks food, etc, also recreates fantasy home life according to N. Burleigh).
5. ransacks personal possessions, makes a deliberate mess.
6. (not from Brocchi) Caught carrying a large knife in Milan Nursery.
7. Visit to Law office after return to Perugia. (How did he know where to go or which office?).

You have absolutely nothing but pure speculation to believe that they immediately knew it was Rudi but move post haste to frame Amanda, Raf and Patrick. I don't just disagree, I think it is ridiculous. Are you suggesting they made sure the kids didn't have any alibi? Were they just lucky that the kids didn't have a more solid alibi? Were they surprised that Patrick had an alibi? Did they tell Rudi to go to Germany?

It is speculation either way, but the fact they immediately claim there is obviously a 'staged break-in', makes more sense if it's a deliberate lie, than an idiotic error in judgement, held to with the certainty of a papal command.

They made sure the kids didn't have an alibi, by frying 3 computers in a row, blaming it on a "power surge" (or three power surges?) which Raf asserts in his book absolutely would have verified their alibi.

Additionally, they withheld DNA data in the evidence they eventually used. By the way, the methodology Stefanoni used could have matched any object with the same result. It wasn't incompetence, it was a manipulation of the protocols to achieve a false positive result. That's why the officer could choose any knife from Raf's drawer, and, "it will do".

And, if you go to the "murderofMeredithKercher" web site, and look at the evidence relating to the downstairs apartment, they apparently did request a presumable semen stain be tested (Stefanoni is on the crime scene tape urgently requesting the result). Which presumed semen stain do you think it is most likely they tested, that Stefanoni was urgently requesting the result for? Care to guess? How about the one on the pillow between Meredith's legs, the one that Rudy stepped in and smudged with the same shoeprint he left tracks in with her blood. The police aren't stupid, they just don't share all their investigation materials - they share what they need to to obtain a conviction, and nothing more. From their perspective, why should they? As Commodi insists, 'they determine what's relevant and whats a distraction'. Railroading is all they do.

Also, they found a single trail of blood drops leading from the upstairs to the downstairs apartment, and I think 19 blood samples in the downstairs apartment, they attributed all to "cats blood". But they were able to retrieve 5 DNA profiles among those blood samples, and their machines only return human profiles (according to the site's analysis). Whose profile might it be? Anyone we might know? Aren't you at least curious?

But there was no break-in downstairs, as Rudy could have used the keys he got from Meredith to enter without physically breaking-in by smashing a window. Get a change of fresh clothes from the guys downstairs, and be on his way. That's what I think actually happened.

I think they were surprised Patrick had an alibi, as it took them 2 weeks to finally release him. And no, I don't think they had direct contact with Guede prior to his arrest in Germany. Why would I, or anyone, think that?

How many burglaries are there a year in Perugia? Spokane, a city slightly bigger than Perugia, has about 3,000 burglaries a year and 7000 thefts.

It is questionable whether the the cops that did the report on the lawyers' office had even been informed about Rudi in Milan. Cops are not the best at paperwork and following up. They get victim's phone numbers wrong and lose witness information. And I'm talking about here not there.

So these boobs of cops that can't chew gum and walk at the same time come to this horror of a murder scene and immediately recognize Rudi's MO and start the process of framing the kids. Really?

Of course a meteor(oid) could hit the courthouse.

You're making assumptions about what the police did or did not know, in the complete absence of any other evidence. My view is in context of what occurred, of what they said and did.

You think its silly, fine. Samson doesn't. It's consistent with Steve Moore and Karen Pruett's recent article on Ground Report re 'the Interrogations'. You don't believe there is any framing involved. Yet exculpatory evidence was destroyed, and the prosecutor deliberately, methodically, very competently leaked false information throughout the case from the initial press conference on Nov 6, to assassinate the defendant's characters in the press, especially Amanda, and make a fair unbiased trial all but impossible.

The absence of framing isn't a reasonable option here, IMO. That doesn't mean Mignini et als don't believe they're guilty. BUt their prosecution has been corrupt, intentionally dishonest, and absolutely ruthless. But, the fact that they destroyed their computers that Raf swears would have confirmed their alibi, if true, would show they knew they were convicting innocent people. I believe they knew it, and did it anyway. And the judges knew it too, and did it anyway.

Make excuses if you want, but I haven't found these arguments convincing nor credible. Am I experiencing confirmation bias? 'Guilters' would no doubt say so, and agree with you.

 

[carbonjam72]

ETA - Methinks Carbonjam72 and CJ72 are the same person

I used the abbreviation CJ72, for CarbonJam72, to try to save space. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Grinder]

I realise they are the same person, I was using his abbreviation. Karen Pruett has just written a long article on Ground Report which certainly cites fast police awareness of Rudy. I don't know the truth, the Italian way is too often catastrophic by any measure. There is a huge amount of Kafka to contend with, and I will reread his works with a very new appreciation.
I no more understand the wickedness persisting in this case than the serial brutality of human history.

Shame on them all, and where is your state department in all this? Nowhere I am told gleefully by the dark side.

Please pray tell what are Karen's credentials? She is a total FOA devotee.

If she has sourced evidence please let us know.

 

[Samson]

Please pray tell what are Karen's credentials? She is a total FOA devotee.

If she has sourced evidence please let us know.

She's a pretty good writer, but my interest ultimately is in using the break in forensics to prove Rudy was inside before Meredith, and the lawyer office evidence is part of this, so there are elements of Moore etc that are relevant. I have written posts that use the embedded glass shard as proof of this. I am figuring a simple way to do velocity tests to explain it, and will report in due course.

I see the critical path is to get the American public on side with a simple argument on only two or three points before Kerry can coldly sacrifice Amanda. Not really my job admittedly.

 

[Grinder]

If you just read through Paolo Brocchi's transcripts on Amanda's blog, the similarities described include;
1. rock thrown through the window
2. Second story climb up, with metal grating available as a ladder directly underneath the window of entry. (requires athleticism).
3. Neatly piled shards of broken glass, almost some kind of message (very peculiar style, no?)
4. Makes himself at home; (turns up heat, cooks food, etc, also recreates fantasy home life according to N. Burleigh).
5. ransacks personal possessions, makes a deliberate mess.
6. (not from Brocchi) Caught carrying a large knife in Milan Nursery.
7. Visit to Law office after return to Perugia. (How did he know where to go or which office?).

Both entry points are the second story. So what? Second story man is a famous category of burglars. People don't secure the second story as well as the first story, hence grating over lower windows.

Rocks are a common readily available break in tool.

The glass on the window sill didn't resemble the description of the glass at the lawyers in that it was on the sill where either one could move it while entering or the shutter could order it when closed.

All burglars ransack possessions making messes.

Please expound on the turning up the heat etc. Sure he ate in Milan he was there over night. At the cottage he drank some juice. Forgot about what he did at the lawyers' office if it was him.

He had a large knive, so what? A large knife had nothing to do with the murder or the lawyers' or Christian for that matter.

I don't know how he knew where the law office was except just maybe the law firms info was in the the computer and in the phone. You think?

I'm guessing that many many burglars use the window grate over the secured first floor window to access the second story.

The big differences being people he knew, a private residence and perhaps day and time.

It is speculation either way, but the fact they immediately claim there is obviously a 'staged break-in', makes more sense if it's a deliberate lie, than an idiotic error in judgement, held to with the certainty of a papal command.

Tell us who first said it looked staged.

They made sure the kids didn't have an alibi, by frying 3 computers in a row, blaming it on a "power surge" (or three power surges?) which Raf asserts in his book absolutely would have verified their alibi.

You say frame I say incompetent. I thought they were able to recover Raf's computer info.

Additionally, they withheld DNA data in the evidence they eventually used. By the way, the methodology Stefanoni used could have matched any object with the same result. It wasn't incompetence, it was a manipulation of the protocols to achieve a false positive result. That's why the officer could choose any knife from Raf's drawer, and, "it will do".

Then why not put a small smear near the handle or force it under the handle and "discover" the blood they missed under the handle. They had plenty of time to seed the knife, why not pick one that matched the sheet outline and put some blood on it? Why not rub a little Raf DNA on the bra itself?

Also, they found a single trail of blood drops leading from the upstairs to the downstairs apartment, and I think 19 blood samples in the downstairs apartment, they attributed all to "cats blood". But they were able to retrieve 5 DNA profiles among those blood samples, and their machines only return human profiles (according to the site's analysis). Whose profile might it be? Anyone we might know? Aren't you at least curious?

Sure tell who it is.

But there was no break-in downstairs, as Rudy could have used the keys he got from Meredith to enter without physically breaking-in by smashing a window. Get a change of fresh clothes from the guys downstairs, and be on his way. That's what I think actually happened.

What does Moore think?

I think they were surprised Patrick had an alibi, as it took them 2 weeks to finally release him. And no, I don't think they had direct contact with Guede prior to his arrest in Germany. Why would I, or anyone, think that?

Why would they be surprised he had an alibi? He ran a bar and was married. If they were protecting their primo informant that was worth framing two or three innocent people, I say they would want to make sure he escaped.

You're making assumptions about what the police did or did not know, in the complete absence of any other evidence. My view is in context of what occurred, of what they said and did.

No you are assuming that the homicide squad would immediately recognize Rudi's MO and begin to frame two college kids and bar owner. Frankly it's absurd.

You think its silly, fine. Samson doesn't. It's consistent with Steve Moore and Karen Pruett's recent article on Ground Report re 'the Interrogations'. You don't believe there is any framing involved. Yet exculpatory evidence was destroyed, and the prosecutor deliberately, methodically, very competently leaked false information throughout the case from the initial press conference on Nov 6, to assassinate the defendant's characters in the press, especially Amanda, and make a fair unbiased trial all but impossible.

I didn't say there was no framing involved. I said and say that it is absurd to think that the police immediately recognized the MO and framed the kids. I have never argued that the release of information was proper but a far cry from the framing you suggest. I think the trial was a joke. The evidence in no way proved guilt BRD even with them framing from the first hour

I'm sorry but not agreeing with your threesome doesn't bother me a bit.

The absence of framing isn't a reasonable option here, IMO. That doesn't mean Mignini et als don't believe they're guilty. BUt their prosecution has been corrupt, intentionally dishonest, and absolutely ruthless. But, the fact that they destroyed their computers that Raf swears would have confirmed their alibi, if true, would show they knew they were convicting innocent people. I believe they knew it, and did it anyway. And the judges knew it too, and did it anyway.

Believe away

Make excuses if you want, but I haven't found these arguments convincing nor credible. Am I experiencing confirmation bias? 'Guilters' would no doubt say so, and agree with you.

Ouch. Perhaps I'll get some Flag Day cards from the dark side.

I think arguments like yours makes the pro innocent side look like nuts. I have never agreed with any of the guilty verdicts including calunnia (Bill ), I do not rule out the possibility of some framing but your theory of protecting Rudi is whack. Why didn't they just pick Shaky or some other marginal character from the scene? Why would they pick two kids that most likely had resources? Why would they pick a guy like Patrick that was likely to have an alibi?