Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Any evidence Guede was involved in the drugs trade?
Any evidence that knox bought drugs from anyone in Italy?

Perugia was swimming with drugs. All three defendants admitted recreational use. After the murder, both Raf and Amanda swore they would never take drugs again.

 

[Vixen]

One of the many persisting errors in criminal investigation is the inadequate management of eye witnesses. There is really no attempt by any to see if the witnesses can identify Knox or Sollecito from a line up or from a selection of photographs. Kokomani did not know Knox or Sollecito, So how did he know who they were? Why did Guede never mention meeting him? Why was this not seen on CCTV? Why were Knox Sollecito and Guede not seen? Why did the people in the broken down car not see this scene?

It was in the dark apparently, and the three were lying in the road. Rudy apparently asked Koko if he could hire his car for €250. (So much for "being broke"?)

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, of course, it wouldn't be theft unless or until you are convicted of it. However, technically, the police have the power of arrest and charge.

I suggest you take a break from the law. Whether something is theft does not depend on whether one is caught and convicted. If I see someone drop a pound coin and I keep it, that is theft. If I just find the coin with no sign of the owner, that is not. The difference is dishonesty, which is present in the first case but not the latter.

s.1 Theft Act 1968 (I had to learn this by heart at college)

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Re the lawyer. The lawyer's belief was it was someone seeking to steal confidential legal information, and that it was an insider job. Further, no fingerprint evidence incriminated Rudy.

There is a massive market in stolen electronic equipment. You can't assume the buyer is the thief.

Yes, I agree with you here.

 

[Vixen]

1) Shengen area, no internal borders. Guide had Italian residence, not citizen ship, he is not an Italian citizen, nor an EU citizen. Ivorian citizen with Italian residence. In the UK you do not have to be a British nor a UK citizen to get benefits. Residence is sufficient.

So we are all agreed Rudy was not "without any means of support"?

 

[Vixen]

I still can't believe this gem from the recent document dump.

Lumumba to the Daily Mail:



Lumumba to the police November 6, 2007:

Ah, so newspaper reports are OK after all

 

[Vixen]

Rudy Guede's adidas shoes.

The two are very different. The footsteps in blood in the hallway look like the Nike 2 outbreak (_sp).

 

[anglolawyer]

Ah, so newspaper reports are OK after all

Brilliantly missing the point of Michael's post

 

[Vixen]

I will brush up my Italian and check that out.

Btw. Grinder seems to be under the impression that the claim is of 50+ hours being questioned by the police. My understanding is that it was 50+ hours either being questioned or hanging around waiting to be questioned. I can imagine the waiting being more tiring than the questioning, frankly, and I'm surprised (well not really) she didn't tell them to go **** themselves and that she would be there only when they were ready to question her and not otherwise.

Anyone who's been to court or been on jury service, knows there's hours and hours of tedious hanging around. Torture? Sure. Breach of ECHR Article 3? I don't think so.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps that is because the UK is not part of the Schengen area. You seem not to understand that within the Schengen area there are no border controls. I have crossed from France into Belgium, from Belgium into the Netherlands and from the Netherlands into Germany by car dozens of times and have never been required even to stop let alone show my ID.

Vixen, the range of things you seem to know nothing about, while expatiating upon them at large, is truly impressive. I take my hat off. There was once a Russian guy who used to travel round Russia giving lectures on chess despite not knowing how to play. You remind me of him.

ETA and of course multiple ninjas before this post.

I know all about the Schengen agreement without having to look it up or read ithere, thanks.

 

[Vixen]

That's right Vixen. That's because you are a UK citizen. The UK is not part of Schengen. Everybody shows their documents at the UK border.

I go to Germany a lot. When I arrive at the airport there, I show my passport to the nice man in the booth. We say "Guten abend" to each other and then I go on my way. But I am not challenged at the other border crossings.

As for your first paragraph, you seem to be under the impression that people are able to determine matters of nationality and residency on the basis of ethnic appearance. But notwithstanding that, no papers are required. I have friends from India and we deliberately meet in Europe because they get a Schengen visa more easily than a British one. And they cross borders there freely without the need to show documents.

Got it now?

OK. I travel freely around Europe myself.

 

[Vixen]

Your position is dependant upon Guede actually receiving state benefits. Do you have evidence of this and if you do can it be deduced from such a fact that Guede did not need to burgle, did not burgle and therefore was at the cottage for other reasons than burglary. It's a helluva stretch in any case. How much income do you think we might be talking about here? Benefits are not generous.

But first you need to provide evidence of receipt of benefits. Your interlocutors do not need to provide evidence to the contrary.

But we have evidence of Guede's impecuniousness, in any case. What do you say to this?

If Rudy as a resident is entitled to the same benefits as other Italians then it moots the point "he had no means of support so therefore had to be a burglar" whether or not he claimed his entitlement.

 

[Vixen]

The Ivory Coast is not a member of the EU.

As Rudy was educated and worked in Italy without a visa, we can assume he was entitled to, as at least a longterm resident.

 

[Vixen]

I suggest you take a break from the law. Whether something is theft does not depend on whether one is caught and convicted. If I see someone drop a pound coin and I keep it, that is theft. If I just find the coin with no sign of the owner, that is not. The difference is dishonesty, which is present in the first case but not the latter.

s.1 Theft Act 1968 (I had to learn this by heart at college)

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.



Yes, I agree with you here.

That is a common misconception, and you are definitely wrong.

I found a gentlemans gold wedding ring on the pavement outside British Museum. I went back and handed it into security.

No way was it "finders keepers".

 

[Numbers]

Not sure who you have agreed with[/I], Numbers. You and they are both wrong. The accused need show nothing at all. Mere possession of stolen property with nothing more may result in a handling charge but cannot sustain a burglary count.

Your robbery example is simply making the point that more than mere possession is required. In Rudy's case (I assume we are talking about the law firm's lap top) 'more' is present, although it may not be enough - he came from the place where the laptop was stolen, which is a coincidence. I still don't think that would be enough but it's possible. Fingerprints would be better.

Yes, I see I have reversed the burden of proof in my statement of agreement to something or someone. I retract that reversal of the burden.

The prosecution must show BARD the elements of the crime of burglary to rightfully gain a conviction.

I will retreat to say that a person who is found in possession of goods stolen in a burglary will likely be suspected by the police of having participated in the burglary, if there is no credible innocent explanation.

If some other crime were committed in the burglary, such as rape, and a person was found who had left DNA in the victim, then that person could also be suspected by police of taking part in the burglary, if there was no credible innocent explanation.

Thus, Guede explained his DNA present within Meredith as being the result of a consensual interaction on a date with her in her flat prior to the attack upon her by an unknown assailant. Furthermore, in his explanation, there was no broken window or, of course, anyone entering through that window. And the prosecution AFAIK did not charge him with breaking into the flat through the window, since in their theory of the crime, that apparent break-in was staged.

A conviction requires evidence BARD, which is more evidence than does an arrest based on reasonable suspicion aka probable cause.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is a common misconception, and you are definitely wrong.

I found a gentlemans gold wedding ring on the pavement outside British Museum. I went back and handed it into security.

No way was it "finders keepers".

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. A wedding ring may well possess sufficient identifying characteristics to be capable of being reunited with its owner and, in appropriate circs, it should be handed in. If, however, it's just a featureless ring and there is no reason to suppose the owner will imminently return looking for it, then you can just hang onto it. Sue me if this turns out badly for you. If you find the ring under 6 inches of sand while beach combing with your new metal detector, just keep it, unless it's of Saxon vintage and worth a king's ransom when different rules apply.

But pray, tell me the last time you found a pound (or any) coin on the street and handed it in. Who exactly would you hand it to and how would the true owner prove it was his in order to secure its return?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Luminol print in Amanda's room

Have a look at this re the luminol and tell me what you think. I think it's reacting to the CSI clean up operation removing Guede's shoeprints or something they've applied to the floor that day.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/images-test/

I am not sure. Another possibility is that the footprints are old. Suppose someone walked with soil or rusty water on their feet, and the metal ions bonded to the tile. I have seen rust stains on tile before, but I don't know whether or not they react with luminol. There is also the print in Amanda's room to consider (Rep. 180). It does not look like Amanda's reference print.

 

[lonepinealex]

Anyone know whether Guede was formally adopted?

 

[MichaelB]

I am not sure. Another possibility is that the footprints are old. Suppose someone walked with soil or rusty water on their feet, and the metal ions bonded to the tile. I have seen rust stains on tile before, but I don't know whether or not they react with luminol. There is also the print in Amanda's room to consider (Rep. 180). It does not look like Amanda's reference print.

I understand. I know you've looked at these pics many times, we all have.

It's like something has splashed on the ground and then spray drops landed on the pebble. And there's the seepage into the grouting from the run off.

Isn't it likely that whatever it's reacting to on the ground is also what it's reacting to on top of the ruler and on the guys booties? Which were presumably brand new when he put them on.

This is one of those things there's no way of really knowing like what really happened downstairs so I don't want to get to hung up on it.

 

[Grinder]

I will retreat to say that a person who is found in possession of goods stolen in a burglary will likely be suspected by the police of having participated in the burglary, if there is no credible innocent explanation.

Of course, the police would think it more likely a person in possession of stolen goods was involved in the burglary than somebody not in possession. But without something more than possession convicting for burglary is very difficult.

This could be one of the reasons he was released in Milan.

As we know he was not charged for burglary in Milan or the lawyers' office.

 

[Dan O.]

I understand. I know you've looked at these pics many times, we all have.

It's like something has splashed on the ground and then spray drops landed on the pebble. And there's the seepage into the grouting from the run off.

Isn't it likely that whatever it's reacting to on the ground is also what it's reacting to on top of the ruler and on the guys booties? Which were presumably brand new when he put them on.

This is one of those things there's no way of really knowing like what really happened downstairs so I don't want to get to hung up on it.

This photo is one in a series taken of the same location and you can see differences from shot to shot likely caused by the over application of the Luminol.

There is also a photo of this location taken on November 2 showing one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints and video of the print being scrubbed up to collect the biological sample. The next photo in the Luminol series shows this location in regular light showing the invisibility of the shoe print that was scrubbed up.

The correspondence with the shoe print allows this Luminol print to be precisely placed and orientated. The lack of references prevent placement of the other Luminol prints and we know from this example that the prosecution got it very wrong on their overview map.