Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

...
The ability to detect blood that was diluted 10,000-100,000-fold is impressive, but TMB has about the same lower limit of detection.

Using night vision goggles to detect the faint luminescent glow lowers the limit for Luminol even further. Some studies reported detecting dilutions as low as 1:1,000,000.

 

[Sonia]

Really? Don't they have wills in Italy? That a family could adopt someone and yet be clear that the adoptee would not be an heir in their wills?

You could do that in a will if you really wanted to make the point that the adoptee was never really part of the family and had been considered an outsider all along. But who would be cruel enough to adopt a child under those circumstances, and what would be the point?

It doesn't matter anyway when looking at the case of Rudy and the Caporalis because all sources state that he was informally adopted, and that he was just as informally cut loose after proving himself to be an irresponsible liar uninterested in either going to school or holding down a job.

 

[davefoc]

Really? Don't they have wills in Italy? That a family could adopt someone and yet be clear that the adoptee would not be an heir in their wills?

In the US and I have no reason to suspect that Italy isn't similar adoption is a big deal that entails major, long lasting commitments by the people doing the adopting. In the US, again, it is possible to write your children out of your will. In the absence of a will the default inheritance rules apply which would put children in first position. I suspect Italy is similar.

However, there is almost nothing adoptive parents can do to break the adoption and it seems very plausible to me that Guede's benefactors would have gone for an informal arrangement. It is one thing to help somebody and a different thing to make a major commitment to help somebody for a significant period of time regardless of the circumstances.

Guede only being informally adopted fits with other facts in the case and seems to be supported by evidence that people have put forth in this thread.

 

[Sonia]

Forgive me if this has already been posted. I tried to catch up, but I'm not sure if I read back far enough. Raffaele's "Honor Bound" diffamazione hearing has been adjourned to June 4.

http://www.firenzepost.it/2015/05/1...mazione-verso-il-magistrato-perugino-mignini/

 

[Vixen]

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.

This was a major issue in dispute at trial and the judges at the merits trial found in favour of the prosecution there was no burglary.

I doubt SC is going to find there was a burglary after all.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Me, I chuck it into the nearest charity donation box.

This issue has been much discussed in the media, and technically, the law does not say, "finders keepers", so in theory you are not legally entitled to keep money or other goods you might have found.

 

[Grinder]

This is the section I found on Rudi's burglary history. As I read it Nencini is only recounting the defense position and using their arguments against them. If he was such an experienced burglar why wouldn't he just force the door or pick the lock?

Still can't find where Nencini says his MO was known to the police. Could the claimant of this please provide the quote?

At this point it is possible to test the reconstruction of the events proposed by the defense teams, according to whom Rudy Hermann Guede, on the night of 1 November 2007, is said to have entered the cottage on Via della Pergola with the intention of carrying out a burglary and, surprised by poor Meredith, who returned home around 9:00 pm, decided to assault her in order to rape her violently and, given the young woman’s reaction, would have ultimately murdered her. This reconstruction is not objectively tenable based on the evidence.
But let us proceed in order.
Rudy Hermann Guede, apart from having specific experience in entering the homes of others with the intent to steal (his record, recalled in many trial records, is by itself [74] eloquent),[13] also knew the cottage under consideration, having been a guest of the young men who lived in the basement flat. He knew its location and features.
It can be asserted without fear of contradiction that the metal security gate to the front door, which is visible in the photo taken by the Scientific Police, was not closed. This can be deduced by the fact that whoever left the cottage after having committed the murder (only Rudy Hermann Guede, according to the defense of the defendants) certainly left via the main entrance after having broken into the cottage through the window. This clearly follows from the statements given by Amanda Marie Knox, who noted that when, after spending a night at the home of Raffaele Sollecito, she returned to the cottage around 10:00 am on 2 November 2007 in order to take a shower and change her clothes, she found the front door open. From this statement one must deduce that, from the defense’s reconstruction, the thief and murderer Rudy Hermann Guede broke in through the window and then, having committed the murder, left by opening the front door using the inside knob. He did this on the presumption that the metal security gate [to the front door] was open; otherwise, he would have been forced to leave by the same route he had used to break in, in other words [back] through the window that faces the cottage’s parking terrace, supported by a retaining wall of some type on the north side.
So Rudy Hermann Guede, certainly an expert at breaking and entering in order to commit burglary, according to specific previous instances, and wanting to break into the cottage on Via della Pergola, which he knew well, having found the metal security gate for the front door open, would never have entertained the idea of gaining access through the front door of the residence.
A front door that, apart from having a defective locking mechanism, as noted by Filomena Romanelli (though it may be objected that this detail might not have been known to Rudy Hermann Guede), appears in any case immediately upon seeing it, to be of slight solidity. Basically the front door has an interior lock that can easily be opened by knowledgeable people, a lock that certainly would not have resisted even a rather modest attempt to force it. Even if one were ready to accept that a person who decides to go and burglarize a residence that he knows perfectly well does not equip himself with at least a screwdriver of sizeable dimensions to force a very weak lock like the one shown in the photo of the Scientific Police.

 

[anglolawyer]

Me, I chuck it into the nearest charity donation box.

This issue has been much discussed in the media, and technically, the law does not say, "finders keepers", so in theory you are not legally entitled to keep money or other goods you might have found.

Sigh ... Vixen, irretrievably lost or abandoned goods belong to nobody and you can keep them if you find them. According to you, you are donating other people's money to charity without their consent! Arrest yourself at once and head for the nearest magistrate to learn your sentence.

 

[bagels]

Unless I'm missing something Nencini's logic that the front gate was open before Rudy arrived seems flawed. He could have simply opened it with the keys he stole once inside. Did Amanda say if she left the front gate closed or open on the afternoon before the murder?

 

[Grinder]

I notice you didn't answer my questions Grinder. Maybe you missed them. So I'll try again.

I really find it cheeky of you to ask after avoiding backing so many of your claims but I'll give you some fodder.

Do you believe that Rudy killed Meredith?

I'm 100% sure he was there when she was killed. It remains possible to me that others (not the kids) could have been involved. Koko being there and his story has always seemed a possible connection to Rudi. I can understand why Rudi wouldn't name anyone from the "gang".

Do you believe that he had a date with Meredith?

Probably not but for those of us reading from the beginning, it is interesting that was what the police were telling the media. Why did they suspect a date?

Do you believe that Rudy broke into the cottage?

Most likely but could have been with an accomplice.

If so, what was his motive for breaking into the cottage? Rape and murder?

The rent money.

Do you think that this was his first time breaking and entering?

Since you consider the nursery a B&E, then no. I don't buy CT and the lawyers' office really needed two to get the printer out unless they went out the door. Rudi had worked for some time and AFAIK had no arrests other than Milan. There is a great desire to have Rudi on some big crime wave but evidence of it are very skimpy.

You continue to repeat the Diaz caper but there is no support for the one account by a true crime writer.

You see, I admit that there is not enough evidence to convict Rudy of any of the burglaries. That said, that isn't the threshold I was aiming at.

I am confident that there is more than enough evidence to convict Rudy of murder. It's the how and why that we are addressing.

Oh I thought we were trying to figure out as best possible what happened. I also thought we were discussing his "crime wave" and the contentions being made.

When challenged on whether he "broke in" and the victim is on record of saying at a later date there were no signs you claim maybe a window was open or forced and Prato never noticed. When it is pointed out that the nursery has barred windows you demur when asked.

I do think that the evidence suggests that Rudy burglarized the law office and was caught in the act at the nursery. But there wasn't anything there for him to steal. Did he do Ms Diaz and Tremantano's? Maybe. But I seriously doubt that Rudy had only done just the cottage and the law office.

When RW added the Spanish kids' account of many computers at Rudi's, that made me think more likely a fence. He was sleepy there on a weekend night into a day the nursery was closed. You jump from his being in an office without permission with some of the merch stolen elsewhere and you know he burgled the law offices and then you throw in two incidents of little credibility.

The clearance rate for reported burglaries in the US is 14 percent. But it is estimated that only about 50 percent of burglaries are even reported. So that means only 7 percent of all burglaries are solved.
So, about 1 in 14 are solved. My guess is that some burglars are better than others so some might get away with hundreds and some only get away with a few.

Beautiful. So what? Because many burglars aren't caught that means Rudi was on a "crime wave" Pffft.

We'll never know how many jobs he pulled. But it is not likely that he murdered a resident on his first job. What do you think Grinder?

It would seem more likely that a relative rookie would be unprepared for someone entering and over reacting.

If someone is caught in a house what charge could be brought? Since nothing was taken it wasn't burglary. He could have been charged with criminal trespass and destruction of property (window) but not theft. A veteran would have realized that.

 

[Planigale]

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

IN THE UK!

 

[Strozzi]

Sigh ... Vixen, irretrievably lost or abandoned goods belong to nobody and you can keep them if you find them. According to you, you are donating other people's money to charity without their consent! Arrest yourself at once and head for the nearest magistrate to learn your sentence.

Vixen, my advice to you is first get a lawyer because how the police and prosecutor "frame" the case may affect you judicially. Also, if your parents are getting barraged with phone calls from media reps wanting to know if you are as bad a person as the police in Italy are claiming you to be, you might also want to consider hiring a media specialist to field the calls, sort out the callers, and guide you as you respond to media.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

That would be a no. He's not an EU citizen and not an Italian citizen. He was a thief and a drug dealer, neither of which would have helped his case for receiving benefits even if he was eligible. He arrived in Italy at age 6, so after 10 years he may have been eligible to apply for citizenship once he reached the age of 18. However during that time he returned to the Ivory Coast and returned after some period of time. Nothing I have seen indicates he was an Italian citizen. Teddy, who is Italian, has already told you to bring plenty of money over if you are expecting a free ride on Italy's dime. Italy gives you residency status after three months in the country, that does not mean they are throwing money your way.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen, my advice to you is first get a lawyer because how the police and prosecutor "frame" the case may affect you judicially. Also, if your parents are getting barraged with phone calls from media reps wanting to know if you are as bad a person as the police in Italy are claiming you to be, you might also want to consider hiring a media specialist to field the calls, sort out the callers, and guide you as you respond to media.

All of which means, acc. to the former pro-guilt-lobby, that Vixen is guilty. Why?

1) She secured the services of a PR firm to sort through the barrage of media requests, totally unprecedented in her life experience;

2) She got a lawyer, instead of going into interrogation thinking she did not need one - because, after all, actual innocent is an innoculant to an unjust prosecution.

3) The police and prosecutor do not need, really, to amass evidence, all they really need to do is create a narrative with somewhat internal consistency, regardless of what the actual evidence is. If an item of positive-evidence is missing for crucial things, repeat: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

4) She finds that when key forensics indicate that she (Vixen) was nowhere near the crime (and perhaps rules her out even as a suspect), that it is fair ball to then dismiss that exonerating evidence as immaterial because of, "all the other evidence."​

And then someone opens a thread on ISF called, "Is Vixen Guilty?", and proceeds to flood that thread with factoids, strawman arguments and ad hominem against anyone would would dare defend Vixen.

Much like Vixen treats Meredith's murder as a joke, treat Vixen's plight as a joke - never directly answer questions, but just post 20-25 times a day all sorts of mindless factoids.

 

[Grinder]

Chris I always thought the key issue with the Luminol prints is that they don't match anybody's foot. If they were in fact in Meredith's blood they would only verify that a smallish person was involved in the murder.

I no longer remember precisely but IIRC the prints were mostly or only one foot and that they didn't have a walking pattern to them that would fit with the murder. This in part proved the clean up as the only way to make the prints work as evidence. I also thought the prints could have come from Amanda's shuffle that she described before the Luminol and perhaps the diluted blood from the mat could have been the culprit.

As has been discussed many a time the prosecution needed to prove they were from that
night and that they matched Amanda. They did neither. Had they proven the elements described then that would have been legit evidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

This is the section I found on Rudi's burglary history. As I read it Nencini is only recounting the defense position and using their arguments against them. If he was such an experienced burglar why wouldn't he just force the door or pick the lock?

Still can't find where Nencini says his MO was known to the police. Could the claimant of this please provide the quote?
At this point it is possible to test the reconstruction of the events proposed by the defense teams, according to whom Rudy Hermann Guede, on the night of 1 November 2007, is said to have entered the cottage on Via della Pergola with the intention of carrying out a burglary and, surprised by poor Meredith, who returned home around 9:00 pm, decided to assault her in order to rape her violently and, given the young woman’s reaction, would have ultimately murdered her. This reconstruction is not objectively tenable based on the evidence.
But let us proceed in order.
Rudy Hermann Guede, apart from having specific experience in entering the homes of others with the intent to steal (his record, recalled in many trial records, is by itself [74] eloquent),[13] also knew the cottage under consideration, having been a guest of the young men who lived in the basement flat. He knew its location and features.
It can be asserted without fear of contradiction that the metal security gate to the front door, which is visible in the photo taken by the Scientific Police, was not closed. This can be deduced by the fact that whoever left the cottage after having committed the murder (only Rudy Hermann Guede, according to the defense of the defendants) certainly left via the main entrance after having broken into the cottage through the window. This clearly follows from the statements given by Amanda Marie Knox, who noted that when, after spending a night at the home of Raffaele Sollecito, she returned to the cottage around 10:00 am on 2 November 2007 in order to take a shower and change her clothes, she found the front door open. From this statement one must deduce that, from the defense’s reconstruction, the thief and murderer Rudy Hermann Guede broke in through the window and then, having committed the murder, left by opening the front door using the inside knob. He did this on the presumption that the metal security gate [to the front door] was open; otherwise, he would have been forced to leave by the same route he had used to break in, in other words [back] through the window that faces the cottage’s parking terrace, supported by a retaining wall of some type on the north side.
So Rudy Hermann Guede, certainly an expert at breaking and entering in order to commit burglary, according to specific previous instances, and wanting to break into the cottage on Via della Pergola, which he knew well, having found the metal security gate for the front door open, would never have entertained the idea of gaining access through the front door of the residence.
A front door that, apart from having a defective locking mechanism, as noted by Filomena Romanelli (though it may be objected that this detail might not have been known to Rudy Hermann Guede), appears in any case immediately upon seeing it, to be of slight solidity. Basically the front door has an interior lock that can easily be opened by knowledgeable people, a lock that certainly would not have resisted even a rather modest attempt to force it. Even if one were ready to accept that a person who decides to go and burglarize a residence that he knows perfectly well does not equip himself with at least a screwdriver of sizeable dimensions to force a very weak lock like the one shown in the photo of the Scientific Police.

I think I saw this in Luca Chelli's analysis, that you and I have discussed before, so I believe you have seen it too, though may have forgotten it.

(I thought I remember something like page 92 from Nencini? Is that possible? And I believe it came up in discussing the staged break-in, with Nencini trying to figure out who staged the break-in, since he already knows the break-in was staged because cassation told him so. SO its the presumption of judicial truth that leads Nencini down that path, which Nencini cheerfully admits. But Nencini's argument seems to be that since someone staged the break-in, it couldn't be GUede, because he would never stage a break-in in his usual style, because the police would recognize his style. WHy Guede would continue to use a break-in style that police associated with him on other jobs isn't really addressed. I never believed Nencini believed what he was writing, I think he was just playing a game, giving the verdict he felt was ordered, but loaded with so many errors that cassation could accept or reject it in entirety. I never thought Nencini was serious. Best I can do G on short notice).

 

[RoseMontague]

Chris I always thought the key issue with the Luminol prints is that they don't match anybody's foot. If they were in fact in Meredith's blood they would only verify that a smallish person was involved in the murder.

I no longer remember precisely but IIRC the prints were mostly or only one foot and that they didn't have a walking pattern to them that would fit with the murder. This in part proved the clean up as the only way to make the prints work as evidence. I also thought the prints could have come from Amanda's shuffle that she described before the Luminol and perhaps the diluted blood from the mat could have been the culprit.

As has been discussed many a time the prosecution needed to prove they were from that
night and that they matched Amanda. They did neither. Had they proven the elements described then that would have been legit evidence.

The only decent print (from AK's room) didn't match, the rest were basically blobs. What I was pleased to see in the new documents was the picture comparison of the palm print on the pillow to Rudy's palm print on file. They got a real good, detailed print off the pillow, very similar to what you see in a fingerprint comparison.

 

[analemma]

This was a major issue in dispute at trial and the judges at the merits trial found in favour of the prosecution there was no burglary.

I doubt SC is going to find there was a burglary after all.

I think you are a Mach sock puppet
As such, your predictions will probably be as good as they have been in the past.
Even nencini said that Rudy was a burglar

 

[Grinder]

The only decent print (from AK's room) didn't match, the rest were basically blobs. What I was pleased to see in the new documents was the picture comparison of the palm print on the pillow to Rudy's palm print on file. They got a real good, detailed print off the pillow, very similar to what you see in a fingerprint comparison.

Rose might you also have access to where Rudi's print was on file? I thought it was with something like the aliens' database i.e. aliens were required to provide periodic prints and other info.

 

[Grinder]

I think you are a Mach sock puppet
As such, your predictions will probably be as good as they have been in the past.
Even nencini said that Rudy was a burglar

I so far don't read him that way. He repeats the defenses position that Rudi was a burglar and using their assumptions say in that case he should have done a better job.

CJ is looking for proof of the claim that Nencini said the police knew Rudi's MO for burglaries, which I find hard to believe. Perhaps you can direst us to the spot in Nencini. I can't imagine anybody in the PLE saying: "yeah we recognized Rudi's MO right away"