Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Available at selected outlets.

I realize that the content is heavy on Harry Rag/The Machine. But I have seen Barbie Latza Nadeau pass on that sort of stuff. HR/TM has never been shy with his pseudos.

I read this same text 30 odd times before chancing on JREF, and used to respond to it, naively thinking it was just a matter of logical response.

 

[Grinder]

I was a campion at spelling and I resent being corrected by spell check.

I feel your pane.

 

[Desert Fox]

I read this same text 30 odd times before chancing on JREF, and used to respond to it, naively thinking it was just a matter of logical response.

I was discussing this issue on forums without such a long dedicated thread as this one or that are forums dedicated to innocence. They were not however pro guilt forums. The trouble is that I have never seen any arguments that are not transparent.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thank you. The idea they were "framing" from day one is pretty much idiotic. In addition to your valid point I would add that forensics weren't complete and someone else's DNA or prints could have been found. The "semen" stain could have been tested and someone else implicated. A witness could have come along and fingered an Albanian drug dealer as being present with two others in the car, one being Rudi.

To expand on your point, computer activity couldn't have been known by the police until after the 5th. A witness could have seen them through a window in their apartment.

Also, it could have been that the murderer would come forward and confess.

The police and prosecutors are much more likely to have been mistaken and incompetent than venal, at least at that point.

I would agree with Anglo that the material from the first week is crucial. I ask above if anybody has Amanda's memory experts testimony. Not withstanding the attacks I endured over her "contrasting" statements, did the expert only talk about her "confession" or about the interviews on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?

Grinder, you are only saying the same position as Samson, but not because you agree with Samson, or anyone else, IIUUC.

Because you don't accept facts that are accepted by most others, due to your concern over the sources, you are not arguing from the same common base of factual information. So of course your conclusions are different.

In your view, IIUUC,

-Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar.
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar.
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up.
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed.
-Rudy did not have scars from knife fights.
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage.
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police.
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia.
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs.
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar.

Given that you don't accept the above reporting of responsible journalists, and deny as fact the elements above, how could you expect to have a comparable opinion to anyone who does accept all of the above, as I do?
(You really don't have to answer, its not a trick question).

By calling the theory idiotic, your calling Steve Moore idiotic. Decades of experience in the FBI analyzing crimes scenes, running informants, contacts in law enforcement in Italy, access to the full case file, speaking out on the case pro bono and becoming a target of the guilt-tard community - that's Steve Moore.

As opposed to...Grinder. Experience unknown, identity unknown. Reason for rejecting factual elements no one else doubts, unknown.

I do not see a willful framing in the Nov 2-5 period, because I also don't see how it would work either. I see it more like an avalanche of incompetence gathering force. Every new mistake by police would be somehow shoe-horned into a bizarre scenario....

Bill, Raf said a police woman came out to warn him he'd need a lawyer, I think that was on Nov 4th, the same day Amanda went to the cottage and was asked to 'pick a knife'. That Mignini says her reaction is what caused him to suspect her and tap the phones, doesn't mean its true.

I've argued they tried to get Amanda to pick up a knife, so Steph could work her magic in the lab. You think I'm wrong on this point? Then for what possible legitimate reason do they need Amanda to physically 'Pick out a knife', and when she doesn't take one, not collect any for testing? Mignini could have already targeted Amanda with phone taps. And the interrogations had to be scheduled in advance.

You accept Mignini was obsessed with a sexual group murder motive in the case. But you don't accept he's teeing up Amanda for the role? Why not?

I feel like I'm running out of gas.

 

[lonepinealex]

-Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar.
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar.
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up.
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed.
-Rudy did not have scars from knife fights.
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage.
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police.
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia.
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs.
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar.

FWIW, I don't accept these as facts either. Which is not to say none of them are true, just that I've never seen any convincing evidence for most of them.

I do not believe Amanda was a target for framing from the start. That is conspiracy territory as far as I'm concerned. There are more reasonable explanations for her arrest, in the sense of it being a monumental cock-up. Obv it wasn't a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Samson]

Grinder, you are only saying the same position as Samson, but not because you agree with Samson, or anyone else, IIUUC.

Because you don't accept facts that are accepted by most others, due to your concern over the sources, you are not arguing from the same common base of factual information. So of course your conclusions are different.

In your view, IIUUC,

-Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar.
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar.
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up.
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed.
-Rudy did not have scars from knife fights.
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage.
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police.
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia.
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs.
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar.

Given that you don't accept the above reporting of responsible journalists, and deny as fact the elements above, how could you expect to have a comparable opinion to anyone who does accept all of the above, as I do?
(You really don't have to answer, its not a trick question).

By calling the theory idiotic, your calling Steve Moore idiotic. Decades of experience in the FBI analyzing crimes scenes, running informants, contacts in law enforcement in Italy, access to the full case file, speaking out on the case pro bono and becoming a target of the guilt-tard community - that's Steve Moore.

As opposed to...Grinder. Experience unknown, identity unknown. Reason for rejecting factual elements no one else doubts, unknown.



Bill, Raf said a police woman came out to warn him he'd need a lawyer, I think that was on Nov 4th, the same day Amanda went to the cottage and was asked to 'pick a knife'. That Mignini says her reaction is what caused him to suspect her and tap the phones, doesn't mean its true.

I've argued they tried to get Amanda to pick up a knife, so Steph could work her magic in the lab. You think I'm wrong on this point? Then for what possible legitimate reason do they need Amanda to physically 'Pick out a knife', and when she doesn't take one, not collect any for testing? Mignini could have already targeted Amanda with phone taps. And the interrogations had to be scheduled in advance.

You accept Mignini was obsessed with a sexual group murder motive in the case. But you don't accept he's teeing up Amanda for the role? Why not?

I feel like I'm running out of gas.

I see your points, but they will line up with a strong feeling of guilt, as a fall back option. They really needed and with great luck got the alibi confusion when they refused Raff a calendar, but it is unlikely they said to themselves, if we refuse a calendar then we will break their alibis.
They are so stupid they figured that a crime with no precedent had chanced on Perugia, a girl with no history killing another. So they were framing a presumed guilty Amanda, with evidence tampering if you are right.
The real framing happened with the bra clasp and Dan O has suggested a route for contamination, collecting dna from Raff's jail cell, which elegantly explains predominantly Raff dna and less so previous inmates. They really needed this in a serious way, before imploding.

 

[Bill Williams]

Given that you don't accept the above reporting of responsible journalists, and deny as fact the elements above, how could you expect to have a comparable opinion to anyone who does accept all of the above, as I do?
(You really don't have to answer, its not a trick question).

By calling the theory idiotic, your calling Steve Moore idiotic. Decades of experience in the FBI analyzing crimes scenes, running informants, contacts in law enforcement in Italy, access to the full case file, speaking out on the case pro bono and becoming a target of the guilt-tard community - that's Steve Moore.

As opposed to...Grinder. Experience unknown, identity unknown. Reason for rejecting factual elements no one else doubts, unknown.

I do not see a willful framing in the Nov 2-5 period, because I also don't see how it would work either. I see it more like an avalanche of incompetence gathering force. Every new mistake by police would be somehow shoe-horned into a bizarre scenario....

Bill, Raf said a police woman came out to warn him he'd need a lawyer, I think that was on Nov 4th, the same day Amanda went to the cottage and was asked to 'pick a knife'. That Mignini says her reaction is what caused him to suspect her and tap the phones, doesn't mean its true.

I've argued they tried to get Amanda to pick up a knife, so Steph could work her magic in the lab. You think I'm wrong on this point? Then for what possible legitimate reason do they need Amanda to physically 'Pick out a knife', and when she doesn't take one, not collect any for testing? Mignini could have already targeted Amanda with phone taps. And the interrogations had to be scheduled in advance.

You accept Mignini was obsessed with a sexual group murder motive in the case. But you don't accept he's teeing up Amanda for the role? Why not?
I feel like I'm running out of gas.

As uncomfortable as I am to defend Grinder (!!!) .........

With all due respect carbonjam72, I'll admit there is smoke, but all of us are having trouble finding the fire.

Grinder is right about one thing: there needs to be almost an hour by hour reconstruction of what PLE knew and when they knew it. Mignini, Napoleoni, and ok, I'll give Grinder Ficara.

The business of a police woman telling Raff that he'd need a lawyer can mean many things. That police woman could have become aware that Raff was being keyed on, not that he was at that time being "set-up". The Police woman could have shared (hypothetically on both of them, because the only source is Follain, and Grinder won't contact Follain.....) Chiacchiera's views that the talk she was hearing in the Questura did not match the evidence she was seeing. It could mean a lot of things.

It could mean that she thought that suspects deserved legal representation - and that she knew Raff was being treated as a suspect, and the PLE was fudging on the "person informed of the facts" thing. That would simply make her loyal to Italy's constitution.

Just because Mignini has a fertile imagination, he (in the Nov 2 to 5 timeframe) is not necessarily setting up Amanda for the sex-game gone wrong, or any Satanic-related preconceived notion of his. Not in that time period. No one in any of their books, not Amanda or Raffaele, and not Mignini in his description to Drew Griffin goes there at all. Not for the time period of Nov 2 to 5.

Strangely, then, I'm on the same side of the fence as Grinder on this issue. I just don't see it. I also have the utmost respect for Steve Moore, and if it came down to it, you should probably listen to him rather than me or Grinder for all the reasons you mention....

It's just that when I'm called to give an opinion, however uninformed, that's the way it is. I see a cascading series of goofs which eventually the PLE tried to prove through massaged evidence, if not outright lies. But I think that this was in the period as Follain reports himself.....

..... that Mignini himself became confused that Raffaele was not "breaking" from his stay in solitary.

 

[lonepinealex]

If Steve Moore has access to evidence that other people don't that indicates Guede was an informant, he at least needs to state that, if not provide the evidence itself. As far as I know he hasn't done that. I have a lot of respect for him, but I think he's being a bit imaginative about some things. I'll adjust my view if I see some evidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

If Steve Moore has access to evidence that other people don't that indicates Guede was an informant, he at least needs to state that, if not provide the evidence itself. As far as I know he hasn't done that. I have a lot of respect for him, but I think he's being a bit imaginative about some things. I'll adjust my view if I see some evidence.

There's a lot of missing information. Many things we'd like to see verified, but are not so easy to do.

So when facts are reported by respected journalists, conclusions held by reliable experts in their subject of expertise, is it more reasonable to do which of the following:

Accept their reporting and conclusions provisionally, until more information comes to light.
Or, insist that since no sources have been provided, that they have lied, and we should assume their reporting and conclusions are factually false - ot at least - unproven. And because these facts are unproven, refuse to consider any theory that allows that they may be true.

And then, invent contrary scenarios with little if any basis; such as;

- Rudy may have had a date with Meredtih.
- Rudy was a fence, who accepted stolen goods from others.
- Rudy had an accomplice.
- Koko was involved.
- Rudy may have entered through the front door, have charmed his way inside with Meredith allowing him in, after first throwing a rock through the window.
- Rudy did not break into the Nursery school in Milan.
- Rudy was released from Milan because his crimes were not serious enough for him to be held, and the Perugians did not intervene to obtain his release and return to Perugia.

 

[lonepinealex]

There's a lot of missing information. Many things we'd like to see verified, but are not so easy to do.

So when facts are reported by respected journalists, conclusions held by reliable experts in their subject of expertise, is it more reasonable to do which of the following:

Accept their reporting and conclusions provisionally, until more information comes to light.
Or, insist that since no sources have been provided, that they have lied, and we should assume their reporting and conclusions are factually false - ot at least - unproven. And because these facts are unproven, refuse to consider any theory that allows that they may be true.

And then, invent contrary scenarios with little if any basis; such as;

- Rudy may have had a date with Meredtih.
- Rudy was a fence, who accepted stolen goods from others.
- Rudy had an accomplice.
- Koko was involved.
- Rudy may have entered through the front door, have charmed his way inside with Meredith allowing him in.
- Rudy did not break into the Nursery school in Milan.
- Rudy was released from Milan because his crimes were not serious enough for him to be held, and the Perugians did not intervene to obtain his release and return to Perugia.

What? I haven't done any of these things. And Steve Moore is not a journalist. Are journalists reliable experts? News to me, as it were. I'm really only interested in the provable facts, and it makes no difference to the innocence of A & R if Guede was or wasn't in the middle of a crime spree.

The idea that anyone framed Amanda from day 1 makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Desert Fox]

FWIW, I don't accept these as facts either. Which is not to say none of them are true, just that I've never seen any convincing evidence for most of them.

I do not believe Amanda was a target for framing from the start. That is conspiracy territory as far as I'm concerned. There are more reasonable explanations for her arrest, in the sense of it being a monumental cock-up. Obv it wasn't a reasonable thing to do.

How do you explain that they questioned her over and over and over again?
If you are questioned repeatedly, you are a suspect. You are not a witness.
I would not say that they were framing her but they believed she was involved.

 

[Grinder]

-Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar.
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar.
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up.
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed.
-Rudy did not have scars from knife fights.
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage.
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police.
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia.
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs.
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar.

FWIW, I don't accept these as facts either. Which is not to say none of them are true, just that I've never seen any convincing evidence for most of them.

I do not believe Amanda was a target for framing from the start. That is conspiracy territory as far as I'm concerned. There are more reasonable explanations for her arrest, in the sense of it being a monumental cock-up. Obv it wasn't a reasonable thing to do.

Obviously I appreciate this. I also think many of the "facts" may well be true facts.

Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar. - He may well have been a burglar
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment. - There really is so little to base this on it can't be considered without some more information and the house wasn't burned down. A cat died. No one has even produced a newspaper story.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT. - Someone broke into his place. He never stated he was sure it was Rudi and only fingered Rudi at all after his picture was in the paper.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar. - There is nothing that would indicate he would be talking to a top cop at 6 in the morning or anytime. Where does this even come from?
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up. - Maybe he did, a weekend office burglary with a balcony is quite different. His going there makes it seem maybe he just fenced the stuff
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed. -Is there anything to support that the Perugians called Milan? How did they know the Milanese had him? Why is the 5 days significant?
-Rudy did not have scars from knife fights. - No one provided proof of this and it doesn't fit anything else about him - he was not described as violent by anyone
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage. - This is total fantasy
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police. - Total fantasy
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia. - total fantasy
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs. - One friend of Rudi's said he when drunk or high would bother women and steal FROM their purses - not backed by others
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar - How would that be known since he was never caught doing a burglary - the nursery wasn't a burglary IMO.


Steve Moore did not have extensive experience as a crime scene evaluator. He spent most of his time in the FBI as a pilot, sniper and anti-terrorist work according to his web site. He may have connections with LE in Italy but it isn't clear.

I totally agree with Lonepine that he should be more transparent and give a lot more about Rudi being an informant.

I wondered about Rudi's connections with PLE but nothing has come out. It is still a possibility but even if he was it would be hard to believe the PLE would frame an American girl to protect their man.

 

[Grinder]

What? I haven't done any of these things. And Steve Moore is not a journalist. Are journalists reliable experts? News to me, as it were. I'm really only interested in the provable facts, and it makes no difference to the innocence of A & R if Guede was or wasn't in the middle of a crime spree.

The idea that anyone framed Amanda from day 1 makes no sense to me at all.

If Moore has evidence that Rudi was an informant it should be shouted from the rooftops. A video should be made with all the details included. The press should be sent all the documents. The Italians Moore allegedly works with should spread the word in Italy. Friendly politicians on both sides of the pond should be informed.

I mean really, if Rudi had been an informant game over for extradition if not at the ISC.

And then, invent contrary scenarios with little if any basis; such as;

Rudy may have had a date with Meredtih. - The police said this immediately because it looked like consensual sex
- Rudy was a fence, who accepted stolen goods from others. - RW provided an article in which Rudi's Spanish friends said he had a lot computers
- Rudy had an accomplice. - Why is that so odd?
- Koko was involved. - Well he was there
- Rudy may have entered through the front door, have charmed his way inside with Meredith allowing him in, after first throwing a rock through the window. - Like C&V said anythings possible
- Rudy did not break into the Nursery school in Milan. - Several sources including Prato said there was no sign of a break-in
- Rudy was released from Milan because his crimes were not serious enough for him to be held, and the Perugians did not intervene to obtain his release and return to Perugia. - He was arrested for trespass and possession - here in Seattle he would also be released as these are misdemeanors - common practice would be for the Milanese cops to check with Perugia and if he wasn't wanted there release him

 

[Grinder]

ervisory Special Agent for 25 years, retiring in 2008. Steve’s early career was spent in covert operations against white supremacist organizations in northern Idaho and the northwest. Later, he led the investigations of many high-profile crimes in LA, including the first ever conviction for an anthrax threat, the Buford Furrow shooting/murder spree at a Jewish Community Center and the interdiction of a planned attack on California’s second-largest oil refinery.

Steve was chosen to run the Los Angeles component of the 9/11 investigation and testified before the congressional “911 Commission.” In 2002, he was named head of Al Qaeda investigations for the Los Angeles FBI and within a year was tasked with creating and running a squad responsible for the investigation of all acts of terrorism against the U.S. in Asia and Pakistan. This was and is the largest territory covered by a single squad in the FBI. Bombings of U.S. Consulates, luxury hotels and military personnel were standard fare for the squad. He established liaison and worked closely with the CIA and U.S. State Department. Steve received three DOJ awards for excellence in investigations, and was nominated for the FBI Director’s “Outstanding Terrorism Investigation” award.

He has lectured on violent crime and terrorism at the International Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok and served for a summer as a Legal Attaché at a U.S. Embassy. Five of his bureau years were spent on the LA FBI SWAT team as an assault “Operator” and sniper. Several more years were spent as an FBI helicopter pilot-in-command. Ultimately, Steve built up over 6,000 hours of airplane and helicopter flight time. He retired in June, 2008.

 

[Desert Fox]

I totally agree with Lonepine that he should be more transparent and give a lot more about Rudi being an informant.

I wondered about Rudi's connections with PLE but nothing has come out. It is still a possibility but even if he was it would be hard to believe the PLE would frame an American girl to protect their man.

On the argument that he is an informant, there have been cases where police forces have gone to great lengths to protect themselves from the fall out from want an informant might do. It is not to protect the informant but to protect themselves.

That said, I would argue that there is a strong possibility that he was an informant, but I would make the odds maybe about 25% at maximum that he was. Even then, the odds of them protecting themselves by shielding him to be far less likely. They can just throw him to the wolves and wipe their hands.

I consider it far more likely that they considered Amanda very early on a suspect and never could shake that belief. The wild card is if they still believe she is guilty of this bizarre crime or not. I hope you will at least admit the prosecution story is pretty bizarre?

If they believe her to be guilty, all the framing could be in the good cause of justice as they see it. Otherwise, they are protecting themselves. It is remotely possible that they believe all of the evidence is real although to me it does strain credulity.

I never answered one of your questions. There are still issues to explore but I will agree that I was mostly chasing a useless idea as far as limited between indictment and the end of trials. I already said that it was on hold as a position but you seemed unable to understand.

 

[lonepinealex]

How do you explain that they questioned her over and over and over again?
If you are questioned repeatedly, you are a suspect. You are not a witness.
I would not say that they were framing her but they believed she was involved.

Well yes, that's my position too. Framing implies that they maliciously zoned in on her to the exclusion of all others, knowing she was innocent. That patently did not happen from day 1, if at all.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well yes, that's my position too. Framing implies that they maliciously zoned in on her to the exclusion of all others, knowing she was innocent. That patently did not happen from day 1, if at all.

Do you think they are framing her now or that they still think she is guilty?
If you think they are framing her, when did it actually start?

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
There's a lot of missing information. Many things we'd like to see verified, but are not so easy to do.

So when facts are reported by respected journalists, conclusions held by reliable experts in their subject of expertise, is it more reasonable to do which of the following:

Accept their reporting and conclusions provisionally, until more information comes to light.

Or, insist that since no sources have been provided, that they have lied, and we should assume their reporting and conclusions are factually false - ot at least - unproven. And because these facts are unproven, refuse to consider any theory that allows that they may be true.

And then, invent contrary scenarios with little if any basis; such as;

- Rudy may have had a date with Meredtih.
- Rudy was a fence, who accepted stolen goods from others.
- Rudy had an accomplice.
- Koko was involved.
- Rudy may have entered through the front door, have charmed his way inside with Meredith allowing him in.
- Rudy did not break into the Nursery school in Milan.
- Rudy was released from Milan because his crimes were not serious enough for him to be held, and the Perugians did not intervene to obtain his release and return to Perugia.

What? I haven't done any of these things. And Steve Moore is not a journalist. Are journalists reliable experts? News to me, as it were. I'm really only interested in the provable facts, and it makes no difference to the innocence of A & R if Guede was or wasn't in the middle of a crime spree.

The idea that anyone framed Amanda from day 1 makes no sense to me at all.

Not referring to you, these are Grinder's conjectures and assertions.

The journalists are the journalists. Steve Moore is a subject matter expert commenting on his area of expertise.

If Rudy were on a crime spree prior to killing Meredith, and the Perugians didn't arrest or prosecute him because he was an informant, AND the Perugians called Milan to spring Rudy 5 days before he killed Meredith because he was an informant for them, then the Perugians and Mignini are responsible for failing to control Guede, and allowing him to remain free and return to Perugia to kill Meredith. In this view, Mignini & the Perugians are responsible for Meredith's death because they enabled Rudy to kill her.

Under this theory, Moore's theory, the Perugians and Mignini had an incentive to protect Guede, not because they cared about protecting Rudy, but rather to protect themselves. It was their incompetence and poor judgement which cost Meredith Kercher her life. That's why it matters if Rudy was on a crime spree before the killing, and was protected and enabled by Mignini and the Perugians.

That's the argument. You don't have to accept it. But I do. That's the only way the evidence and the behaviors of the police, and their baloney explanations of what "made them suspicious" make any sense to me. Perhaps we disagree. Perfectly fine.

 

[lonepinealex]

Do you think they are framing her now or that they still think she is guilty?
If you think they are framing her, when did it actually start?

Who is 'they'? I don't think every single person involved in the investigation of this case believes her to be guilty, but I think enough of the key players are so entrenched by confirmation bias or pride to stand by that position. I think when evidence like the knife and bra clasp were brought into play, as well as all the 'odd behaviour' stuff, that they probably believed her guilty (and, by extension, Raffaele) but needed to 'find' some evidence to convict. Now, all these years on, who knows what some of them think.

The idea that everyone involved was consciously framing someone they thought was innocent is implausible.

 

[Desert Fox]

Who is 'they'? I don't think every single person involved in the investigation of this case believes her to be guilty, but I think enough of the key players are so entrenched by confirmation bias or pride to stand by that position. I think when evidence like the knife and bra clasp were brought into play, as well as all the 'odd behaviour' stuff, that they probably believed her guilty (and, by extension, Raffaele) but needed to 'find' some evidence to convict. Now, all these years on, who knows what some of them think.

The idea that everyone involved was consciously framing someone they thought was innocent is implausible.

So is your position that most of the key players in the prosecution side consider Amanda to be guilty of murdering her roommate?