Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

What??? Mez was at Leeds University, one of the UK's highest ranked "red bricks".


ETA In any case, Amanda was not with Uni of Washington whilst in Italy. There is no evidence she was on the Dean's list, or an honours graduate. Or even that she graduated.

Leeds number 146. The University of Washington 26. I picked a UK based rater.

Whether Mez was first or last in her class makes no difference in this case. The demonetization of Amanda does make a difference.

The Associated Press reported that last spring that Knox, who grew up in Seattle, made the dean's list at the University of Washington​

She wasn't graduated in Nov. of 2007. She was still going to school. While the UW isn't in Erasmus, can you demonstrate that she wasn't still a student registered there and that none of the studies could be used?

Btw, learning for learning's sake is admirable as is paying one's own way.

 

[HumanityBlues]

What??? Mez was at Leeds University, one of the UK's highest ranked "red bricks".

And Amanda was in the honors program at one of the best public universities in the United States. Who cares? I mean, what is the implication you are trying to make? Are you saying because Amanda wasn't an Erasmus scholar and was in a different program Meredith was superior academically? And even if your ridiculous comparison were correct, what would it matter?

 

[Dan O.]

...
The phone access of Rudi might provide an example of dogmatic behavior. I have been able to assemble a significant number of unrelated sources showing that he clearly had access. I'm quite sure that several posters here could have provided this information long ago but didn't as it doesn't fit the PIP scenario.

I am quite certain that several posters here did provide this information. Rudy had a phone in Milan that was confiscated because it was stolen property. That Rudy had his own sim and phone number came out later. Rudy had access to Skype and used it has been well known. And Rudy's claim that he didn't have a phone or know where a phone was was pointed out in his statements.

As for access, there is a public payphone just in front of the news kiosk by the basketball court where Rudy played that everybody has access to.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe that for the PIP Rudi being a lone wolf and a serial burglar is dogma. The authority is not an individual but rather the PIP movement which in the beginning (before your time) was laid down by FOA. Bremner et al. were putting out the "railroad job from hell" as well as the "lone wolf" talking points.

I believe you are badly mischaracterizing this, but then again, I'm part of the dogma, I guess.

The phone access of Rudi might provide an example of dogmatic behavior. I have been able to assemble a significant number of unrelated sources showing that he clearly had access. I'm quite sure that several posters here could have provided this information long ago but didn't as it doesn't fit the PIP scenario.

All of this is news to me. No one schooled me in this as an essential element of the "dogma".

Kokomani is hand waved away as another Mignini creation or at least when that is proposed no one contradicts that but me (clearly I may forgotten someone) even though his pattern doesn't fit any of the other witnesses.

Again, I have not been schooled in this. What comes to mind is a division within the dogma, and you are on one side of it whether knowingly or not.

1) Some want to drill deep into the info to sketch out a narrative of the crime that describes how it happened to the last detail - incl. Koko, etc.

2) Others only wish to ferret out whether the available evidence supports AK and/or RS's involvement.​

I am perhaps someone who leans to #2, for a fairly straightforward reason. I neither have the background, talent, or intellectual horsepower to figure out #1 as important as #1 perhaps is.

Why is it that the PIP here are not more interested in what he was doing there that night? Why would a drug dealer (gang member ?)expose himself to this case voluntarily?

My hope is that the explanation covers that for me, as for my position within the "dogma". I sincerely hope I am not disciplined by the PIP-hierarchy for saying that this is something that really does not interest me.

Again, that lack of interest is mostly because I do not have the capacity to answer the question for myself.

The descriptions of Rudi with the exceptions of the womanizing remarks made after his arrest (similar to the british girls dissing Amanda after the arrest) what I've read his sister(s) (foster) said he was gentle and no one described him as anything bad except lazy and lying about going to his tutor.

All well and good. Yet the womanizing remarks at least find traction in the base-forensics at the scene. I understand completely what you are saying about the "british-girls-dissing-Amanda" canard, but the real import of those remarks is that there are no similar forensics at the scene to give them any real/interesting traction.

When I've asked if CT's testimony would be accepted if it was against the kids I get no reply much less an explanation. He can't even say he is sure it was Rudi, but here it is a set in stone example of his behavior. The guy claims he spotted him a club later, but only had a friend throw him out of another club and never told the police who this guy that broke into his place and threatened him with a knife was.

As grateful as I am that you are giving this a go - a very sincere reply to an honest question - again, I have no way, really, of putting this into perspective. That's just me. Maybe I'll get a nasty e-mail from dogma headquarters!

A true crime writer spins a story of burglary and fire with no backing or second independent source and no one here questions it when used as "another burglary". No one notes that this same account has Rudi being attentive and kind to Diaz's dog.

Again, for the purposes of you answering in good faith my question - it might be wise for me to stay away from yet another go-round on the role of true crime authors in this case.

But thanks for the reply. I think I now know more where this sits.

 

[Grinder]

I am quite certain that several posters here did provide this information. Rudy had a phone in Milan that was confiscated because it was stolen property. That Rudy had his own sim and phone number came out later. Rudy had access to Skype and used it has been well known. And Rudy's claim that he didn't have a phone or know where a phone was was pointed out in his statements.

As for access, there is a public payphone just in front of the news kiosk by the basketball court where Rudy played that everybody has access to.

An assertion was made repeatedly that Rudi couldn't sell fence goods because he didn't have a boiler room electronic communication capability similar to a computer sales company in Seattle, including not having a phone.

I don't believe people corrected this at all, but, if so, not in any way similar to the corrections offered to Vixen on just about everything she offers up.

 

[Dan O.]

...
When I've asked if CT's testimony would be accepted if it was against the kids I get no reply much less an explanation. He can't even say he is sure it was Rudi, but here it is a set in stone example of his behavior. The guy claims he spotted him a club later, but only had a friend throw him out of another club and never told the police who this guy that broke into his place and threatened him with a knife was.

If you are going to discuss this, you should know CT's explanation for why no police report was filed. When this was brought up I did not blindly accept his testimony but asked where would we look to find confirmation. I believe he identified the officer that he made the initial report to. There should be a notation of that report in the officers log book. CT claims to have had Rudy tossed from a bar. This implies another participant in the action that is doing the actual tossing and the possibility of a record kept by the bar. Why would CT make up a story with such blatant loose ends?

 

[Dan O.]

An assertion was made repeatedly that Rudi couldn't sell fence goods because he didn't have a boiler room electronic communication capability similar to a computer sales company in Seattle, including not having a phone.

That makes sense and offers a possible explanation for why Rudy needed Meredith's phones.

 

[bagels]

IMO there's a big difference between forming your own internal historical sense of the case vs the PGP trying to assert some outrageous conjecture as a proven judicial truth that serves to physically lock people up in a dungeon.

For example, I find the crime scenes at the law office and cottage similar enough, with enough connecting idiosyncratic features, that it would be too coincidental to me for Guede to be connected to them for a reason other than being the perpetrator of both break-ins. This is just how I interpret the narrative of the crime in my mind. This is different from viewing it as a proven established truth. To put it in modern terms, the Wikipedia article should not say "Guede is a career burglar who broke into the law office and the cottage." But I think it's a perfectly acceptable opinion to form from the actual hard evidence that's available in lieu of contradictory information or more plausible alternative theories.

 

[Grinder]

I believe you are badly mischaracterizing this, but then again, I'm part of the dogma, I guess.

Okay how am mischaracterizing this? Please include where you are getting the information since you weren't following the case at the time.

All of this is news to me. No one schooled me in this as an essential element of the "dogma".

You said you weren't aware of any dogma. Now, you imply you were schooled in some of the dogma. I know it is just your dismissing the point with an attempt at humor. It is obvious that Rudi being a serial burglar is important to the PIP scenario. The biggest proponent lately here made phone access a significant point in that discussion. Now you know.

Again, I have not been schooled in this. What comes to mind is a division within the dogma, and you are on one side of it whether knowingly or not.

1) Some want to drill deep into the info to sketch out a narrative of the crime that describes how it happened to the last detail - incl. Koko, etc.

2) Others only wish to ferret out whether the available evidence supports AK and/or RS's involvement.​

I am perhaps someone who leans to #2, for a fairly straightforward reason. I neither have the background, talent, or intellectual horsepower to figure out #1 as important as #1 perhaps is.

Is this a form of no no you're the (fill in the blank)?

It seems to me you go far beyond stating they were innocent legally. As you have repeated often, they have been found not guilty. It's done.

I have for years stated that they clearly were not found guilty BARD and that much of the evidence shouldn't have been admitted.

My hope is that the explanation covers that for me, as for my position within the "dogma". I sincerely hope I am not disciplined by the PIP-hierarchy for saying that this is something that really does not interest me.

I in no way suggested there was a controlling power that would reach out. But if such an authority exists I hope you are disciplined to the highest degree.

All well and good. Yet the womanizing remarks at least find traction in the base-forensics at the scene. I understand completely what you are saying about the "british-girls-dissing-Amanda" canard, but the real import of those remarks is that there are no similar forensics at the scene to give them any real/interesting traction.

No the import is that using the remarks after the arrests is questionable. Just as the girls went beyond the pale in their remarks that well could have been the case with the bar buddies' remarks about Rudi. The forensics showed nothing about what he was like before Nov 2007.

As grateful as I am that you are giving this a go - a very sincere reply to an honest question - again, I have no way, really, of putting this into perspective. That's just me. Maybe I'll get a nasty e-mail from dogma headquarters!

Diminishing the point with attempts at humor adds nothing.

 

[Grinder]

If you are going to discuss this, you should know CT's explanation for why no police report was filed. When this was brought up I did not blindly accept his testimony but asked where would we look to find confirmation. I believe he identified the officer that he made the initial report to. There should be a notation of that report in the officers log book. CT claims to have had Rudy tossed from a bar. This implies another participant in the action that is doing the actual tossing and the possibility of a record kept by the bar. Why would CT make up a story with such blatant loose ends?

I will doubt Napoleoni was on duty in the middle of the night when he called the police until that is proven. He claimed the lines were too long to fill out a report because immigrants were there filing.

He claims seeing him in one bar and having tossed from another but I believe Rudi was at the second bar over Halloween.

Strange that Nina found Diaz but not the bouncer that tossed "Rudi". Ct not being sure in was Rudi would seem significant.

Why would CT make up a story with such blatant loose ends?

15 minutes.

 

[Grinder]

IMO there's a big difference between forming your own internal historical sense of the case vs the PGP trying to assert some outrageous conjecture as a proven judicial truth that serves to physically lock people up in a dungeon.

For example, I find the crime scenes at the law office and cottage similar enough, with enough connecting idiosyncratic features, that it would be too coincidental to me for Guede to be connected to them for a reason other than being the perpetrator of both break-ins. This is just how I interpret the narrative of the crime in my mind. This is different from viewing it as a proven established truth. To put it in modern terms, the Wikipedia article should not say "Guede is a career burglar who broke into the law office and the cottage." But I think it's a perfectly acceptable opinion to form from the actual hard evidence that's available in lieu of contradictory information or more plausible alternative theories.

Do you believe that the information is consistent with another being the burglar and an accomplice of Rudi?

Basically the similarity is using a rock to break a second story window. In one case the balcony was much easier to reach and the target was a business over the weekend; in the other it was a sheer wall and a residence on a weekday.

Of course the two are similar but I'm sure many break ins are similar.

How do you explain Koko?

 

[acbytesla]

What??? Mez was at Leeds University, one of the UK's highest ranked "red bricks".


ETA In any case, Amanda was not with Uni of Washington whilst in Italy. There is no evidence she was on the Dean's list, or an honours graduate. Or even that she graduated.

You are SO mistaken. About every bit of it. The class's she was taking at the Foreigners University in Perugia were part of an accredited study abroad program with the University of Washington. I had posted links the program
on several occasions here.

Amanda was on the Dean's list at the UW at the time she left for Italy. After her imprisonment, she was not on it. But this is not unusual as the list is for individual quarters or semesters.

I'm not interested in arguing what school is better since even the rankings are subjective. Both schools are good and both Amanda and Mez were good students.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are SO mistaken. About every bit of it. The class's she was taking at the Foreigners University in Perugia were part of an accredited study abroad program with the University of Washington. I had posted links the program
on several occasions here.

Amanda was on the Dean's list at the UW at the time she left for Italy. After her imprisonment, she was not on it. But this is not unusual as the list is for individual quarters or semesters.

I'm not interested in arguing what school is better since even the rankings are subjective. Both schools are good and both Amanda and Mez were good students.

Didn't Amanda get back on the Dead's list once she got back as well?
Other than a little use of pot and enjoying sex, she seems to be a pretty solid person.

 

[bagels]

Do you believe that the information is consistent with another being the burglar and an accomplice of Rudi?

Basically the similarity is using a rock to break a second story window. In one case the balcony was much easier to reach and the target was a business over the weekend; in the other it was a sheer wall and a residence on a weekday.

Of course the two are similar but I'm sure many break ins are similar.

How do you explain Koko?

I'm going by the testimony where the lawyer that actually worked in the law office said it was "absolutely not" an easy climb. Plus the clothes thrown on the floor. It's possible Guede didn't break-in and it was just a striking coincidence he had stolen property from it and then wound up at a similar break-in two weeks later. It's also possible he had an accomplice. But I don't have enough compelling information to believe that over what's to me the simpler explanation.

I think there's a lot of unexplained aspects of this case due to the poor evidence collecting and documentation and an investigation focused nearly exclusively on two random students. Some of it is my own ignorance. For example I've previously mentioned the luminol footprints. What are the odds of finding luminol prints at a house where no crime has been committed? If the odds are somewhat good then the prints become significantly less mysterious given the lack of confirmatory tests and DNA.

I would love to know more about what definitively happened but Rudy seems pathologically incapable of telling a coherent truthful story and the evidence has a lot of blind spots.

 

[lonepinealex]

Didn't Amanda get back on the Dead's list once she got back as well?
Other than a little use of pot and enjoying sex, she seems to be a pretty solid person.

Why would pot and sex be in the "cons" column anyway?

 

[Desert Fox]

Why would pot and sex be in the "cons" column anyway?

You are right of course. . . . .Just indicating that she does not seem to be the type to party instead of school or work.

 

[Dougm]

Although many on the PIP side do argue that Rudy was a serial burglar, was a drifter, was aggressive with women, etc., I agree that the evidence for much of this is based on some conjecture, which works best if the person making the conjectures already believes that Rudy is guilty of Meredith's murder. But I think the reason that PIP posters often don't reply to challenges to this information is that it doesn't really matter.

I think that who Rudy was, and if he was a fence, or a burglar, or whatever, is interesting background, but largely immaterial. The evidence at the murder scene shows that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher, by himself. Some of these other points support the idea that he was the kind of person that might end up in such a situation, and his behavior that night seems consistent with his previous behavior (in regards to breaking into offices, nursery schools, homes, etc.). But even if he was the Mayor of Perugia, and had never violated any laws before, he would still be guilty of the murder, and the evidence of that would be clear.

There may be some who can't get over the idea that Rudy had to have been a burglar, drug dealer, etc., but what I see when people argue that is that it makes sense, based on what evidence we have. But it is not essential to solving the crime. What is clear from the evidence is:
1) Mez was killed;
2) Rudy was there, and had never been there before;
3) He was there at the time the killing occured;
4) There is no reliable evidence that anyone else was there at that time;
5) His story about why he was there, and what happened when he was there, is not believable.

There may be a "dogma" around who Rudy was and why, but it is not a driver of the case, or the fact that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Rudy did it. They didn't. That is true if Rudy was a burglar, or a fence, or a successful businessman. The story of Rudy as a drifter, burglar, and guy who annoyed women and fell asleep on toilets fits the narrative, and seems to be the most likely true story. But he is still the killer, regardless of how one wants to portray him.

 

[analemma]

Rudy obviously has Italian residency, then. I was chatting to a German friend of mine who told me her German relative was married to a lady from the Middle East. She had to jump many hoops to attain German residency, before she could go gallivanting all over Europe.

Not really sure job record is relevant. More relevant IMV was being abandoned by his mother, neglected by his father and passed through 80(?) foster homes. Little wonder Rudy has sociopathic tendencies.

Poor, Poor, Rudy

 

[Dan O.]

I will doubt Napoleoni was on duty in the middle of the night when he called the police until that is proven.

Was there ever a claim that she wasn't? There would be records of who is on duty and when and this would have been used against CT's claim if it were verified that she was not on duty at the time CT claimed he contacted her. We also have plenty of evidence that she was working late into the night on the 5th so your doubt that she could be working off hours is unfounded.

 

[Desert Fox]

Although many on the PIP side do argue that Rudy was a serial burglar, was a drifter, was aggressive with women, etc., I agree that the evidence for much of this is based on some conjecture, which works best if the person making the conjectures already believes that Rudy is guilty of Meredith's murder. But I think the reason that PIP posters often don't reply to challenges to this information is that it doesn't really matter.

I think that who Rudy was, and if he was a fence, or a burglar, or whatever, is interesting background, but largely immaterial. The evidence at the murder scene shows that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher, by himself. Some of these other points support the idea that he was the kind of person that might end up in such a situation, and his behavior that night seems consistent with his previous behavior (in regards to breaking into offices, nursery schools, homes, etc.). But even if he was the Mayor of Perugia, and had never violated any laws before, he would still be guilty of the murder, and the evidence of that would be clear.

There may be some who can't get over the idea that Rudy had to have been a burglar, drug dealer, etc., but what I see when people argue that is that it makes sense, based on what evidence we have. But it is not essential to solving the crime. What is clear from the evidence is:
1) Mez was killed;
2) Rudy was there, and had never been there before;
3) He was there at the time the killing occured;
4) There is no reliable evidence that anyone else was there at that time;
5) His story about why he was there, and what happened when he was there, is not believable.

There may be a "dogma" around who Rudy was and why, but it is not a driver of the case, or the fact that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Rudy did it. They didn't. That is true if Rudy was a burglar, or a fence, or a successful businessman. The story of Rudy as a drifter, burglar, and guy who annoyed women and fell asleep on toilets fits the narrative, and seems to be the most likely true story. But he is still the killer, regardless of how one wants to portray him.

Pretty much this, the rest is just busywork