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

[anglolawyer]

RWVBWL, sorry to hear about the death near the beach, we have them too, though this one was singular and disturbing to the community

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/loc...agic-shark-attack-death-couldn-t-be-prevented

I have been thinking more than studying this bra clasp business.

I offer this without any citations, purely from memory,
A police convoy arrives from Rome to search for more evidence as soon as the Sollecito family prove that Raffaele was not in the room where Meredith expired, and find a bra clasp upon which the second most prevalent dna profile belonged to Mr Sollecito.
Let us believe that this dna substance was truly on the bra clasp when tested.

I find as fact that it was planted, as a lay juror.

I am on your side of the jury room on this one. If it was there - planted. But I would like to hear argument as to why I should believe it was there on the uncorroborated word of a proven liar.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, except Ontario, where destruction/loss of crucial CCTV footage makes no difference at all. I am deducting points from you for this blunder and also from Strozzi for implying there was DNA on the clasp. The true position is there was mixed DNA on something which Stefanoni claimed was the clasp (while burying the fact that there was more than one contributor) but which might have been anything at all.

Do you really think they are that dishonest instead of (maybe) doping the evidence a little bit?

 

[Samson]

I am on your side of the jury room on this one. If it was there - planted. But I would like to hear argument as to why I should believe it was there on the uncorroborated word of a proven liar.

Can someone confirm the prevalence order?
1. Meredith
2. Raffaele
3 to 5, unknown males.

The issue is 1. makes sense, 2. does not. We know that Raffaele has an alibi to 9 31, and this is extremely good. To have him there in that time he needed to stride fast with Amanda, and gather Guede.
Raffaele seems to have a problem, because the Naruto genre appears to be an inculpatory interest to the PGP, but his watching it affords an alibi till 9 31 plus however long he watched it, taking his alibi beyond Meredith's scientifically possible life span. Yet he seems loathe to emphasise it be cause Manga is perjorative.

Anyway he was watching or whatever while Meredith was dead or dying.

I can understand the aggression on the door handle as being a pathway to second order prevalence on the bra clasp, but absolutely none other, certainly not dna dust on the floor.

Because police activity is frequently involved in planting and framing KNOWN GUILTY people, I conclude this is certainly what happened here.

When DanO asks cryptically what is more likely, I agree she was not a hooker.

ETA the proven liar theorem is complicated by the thought required to order the prevalence of the profiles, whereas planting explains it.
Use these (dirty) gloves

 

[anglolawyer]

Do you really think they are that dishonest instead of (maybe) doping the evidence a little bit?

The first. That dishonest. Who came up with the image of someone holing their second at the 18th to make the play off? I like that. And they did it twice. People need to free themselves completely of the idea there was anything ON the blade or ON the clasp. Consider the proof. What is it? With the clasp it is only Stef's say so, nothing more. And she is incompetent at best and a liar at worst. With the knife, the tests she carried out prove that her 'sample' contained nothing - no blood, not human, no cells (AFAAK), no measurable quantity of DNA. All these facts were suppressed and only emerged in a discovery process the prosecution vigorously resisted, in a system in which Comodi decides what's relevant. We have still not seen the EDFs.

I just read another piece by Frank (who has adopted a strangely respectful posture) in which he quotes Nencini saying something about Italian science having nothing to learn from foreign science. I wish by some surreal quirk Nencini could come here to debate the case with us. He would be shredded. We have to content ourselves with a surrogate - Machiavelli - who has lapsed into a possibly non-coincidental silence. Could that be due to the insuperable layers of error and absurdity piled up by Nonsencini (Grinder, please try to spell it right, just once)? Even guilters are attacking this latest motivation. It's that bad. Too bad for them that in doing so they destroy their own myth of Italian judicial omniscience (the corrupt Hellman excepted).

Where was I? No, I don't believe anything was on the clasp or the knife but I retain an open mind. If any evidence turns up that says there was I am willing to reconsider.

 

[anglolawyer]

Can someone confirm the prevalence order?
1. Meredith
2. Raffaele
3 to 5, unknown males.

The issue is 1. makes sense, 2. does not. We know that Raffaele has an alibi to 9 31, and this is extremely good. To have him there in that time he needed to stride fast with Amanda, and gather Guede.
Raffaele seems to have a problem, because the Naruto genre appears to be an inculpatory interest to the PGP, but his watching it affords an alibi till 9 31 plus however long he watched it, taking his alibi beyond Meredith's scientifically possible life span. Yet he seems loathe to emphasise it be cause Manga is perjorative.

Anyway he was watching or whatever while Meredith was dead or dying.

I can understand the aggression on the door handle as being a pathway to second order prevalence on the bra clasp, but absolutely none other, certainly not dna dust on the floor.

Because police activity is frequently involved in planting and framing KNOWN GUILTY people, I conclude this is certainly what happened here.

When DanO asks cryptically what is more likely, I agree she was not a hooker.

ETA the proven liar theorem is complicated by the thought required to order the prevalence of the profiles, whereas planting explains it.
Use these (dirty) gloves

I don't know enough about the tricks of the trade in the lab to know whether your suggested method is best or most plausible. My own uninformed theory is that in the course of testing 100 objects one of them comes up with the mixture you describe (which I think is correct) and you use that one, saying it came from the clasp, destroying the clasp itself as evidence so as not to be gainsaid, 'interpreting' the low peaks as stutter and omitting them from your report. Your theory does not account for the destruction of the clasp as evidence by means of a storage method that leaves one professor of microbiology of this parish dumbfounded.

 

[Samson]

I don't know enough about the tricks of the trade in the lab to know whether your suggested method is best or most plausible. My own uninformed theory is that in the course of testing 100 objects one of them comes up with the mixture you describe (which I think is correct) and you use that one, saying it came from the clasp, destroying the clasp itself as evidence so as not to be gainsaid, 'interpreting' the low peaks as stutter and omitting them from your report. Your theory does not account for the destruction of the clasp as evidence by means of a storage method that leaves one professor of microbiology of this parish dumbfounded.

I think the destruction of the clasp is ok in any theory that involves deliberate fraud. I would have destroyed it if I was a pawn in a fraud, and having trouble sleeping.
Under any scenario that involves innocence, the prominence of Sollecito's profile is in some way recorded by a God's eye view. What did that eye see? It really is fascinating.

 

[Desert Fox]

The first. That dishonest. Who came up with the image of someone holing their second at the 18th to make the play off? I like that. And they did it twice. People need to free themselves completely of the idea there was anything ON the blade or ON the clasp. Consider the proof. What is it? With the clasp it is only Stef's say so, nothing more. And she is incompetent at best and a liar at worst. With the knife, the tests she carried out prove that her 'sample' contained nothing - no blood, not human, no cells (AFAAK), no measurable quantity of DNA. All these facts were suppressed and only emerged in a discovery process the prosecution vigorously resisted, in a system in which Comodi decides what's relevant. We have still not seen the EDFs.

I just read another piece by Frank (who has adopted a strangely respectful posture) in which he quotes Nencini saying something about Italian science having nothing to learn from foreign science. I wish by some surreal quirk Nencini could come here to debate the case with us. He would be shredded. We have to content ourselves with a surrogate - Machiavelli - who has lapsed into a possibly non-coincidental silence. Could that be due to the insuperable layers of error and absurdity piled up by Nonsencini (Grinder, please try to spell it right, just once)? Even guilters are attacking this latest motivation. It's that bad. Too bad for them that in doing so they destroy their own myth of Italian judicial omniscience (the corrupt Hellman excepted).

Where was I? No, I don't believe anything was on the clasp or the knife but I retain an open mind. If any evidence turns up that says there was I am willing to reconsider.

With as much question as this lab is under, isn't the evidence against Ruby under question as well?

 

[anglolawyer]

With as much question as this lab is under, isn't the evidence against Ruby under question as well?

Jack Ruby? Whatever. Sure, why not? Let's throw out the DNA against him altogether and see what's left. His

admitted presence
being a burglar
lack of any plausible reason for being there
improbable story
hand print in blood
finger cuts
use/possession/theft of knives
the smashed window and burglary
route home and the phones in Lana's garden
flight to Germany

We could convict Rudi/Rudy/Ruby before DNA was invented. Easily.

 

[Samson]

Jack Ruby? Whatever. Sure, why not? Let's throw out the DNA against him altogether and see what's left. His

admitted presence
being a burglar
lack of any plausible reason for being there
improbable story
hand print in blood
finger cuts
use/possession/theft of knives
the smashed window and burglary
route home and the phones in Lana's garden
flight to Germany

We could convict Rudi/Rudy/Ruby before DNA was invented. Easily.

Don't forget the shoes. Sherlock 101.

 

[Desert Fox]

Jack Ruby? Whatever. Sure, why not? Let's throw out the DNA against him altogether and see what's left. His

admitted presence
being a burglar
lack of any plausible reason for being there
improbable story
hand print in bloodfinger cuts
use/possession/theft of knives
the smashed window and burglary
route home and the phones in Lana's garden
flight to Germany

We could convict Rudi/Rudy/Ruby before DNA was invented. Easily.

Sorry about the Ruby. . . .Been a long night
The other evidence I am concerned with is the bloody fingerprint.
I think if the hand print and DNA evidence did not surprise the prosecution, it would be more likely bogus.

 

[Bill Williams]

Another break-in at the cottage.

This one they will blame on the cleaning lady, for simulating it. Or.... they will say that the guy who broke in was too professional, and blame the cleaning lady.....

see: Sneaks into Meredith's house, and a brave cleaning Lady - Perugia Today​

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, except Ontario, where destruction/loss of crucial CCTV footage makes no difference at all. I am deducting points from you for this blunder and also from Strozzi for implying there was DNA on the clasp. The true position is there was mixed DNA on something which Stefanoni claimed was the clasp (while burying the fact that there was more than one contributor) but which might have been anything at all.

I will try to rescue myself saying that while the courts are organized provincially in Canada (because law enforcement is provincial, but criminal law is federal)..... oh look, squirrel!

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,

Nonsecini doesn't need the Y-Haplotypes to be from women.

He may not need the Y's to be from women but for some reason that is the "fact" he chose to base part of his decision for guilt on.

Unfortunately, this is a sign that Nencini actually DID put some thought into this.

Nencini has run out of males to attribute those Y-haplotypes to. Rudy has already been ruled out. His confirmation-biased reasoning is that Raffaele's is there by nefarious reason, and so should ALL male contributions.... except for perhaps Meredith's boyfriend who has an iron clad alibi.

Note he does not dust off the lie that Amanda had a parade of men into her room.... once again, to go with anyone who had not regularly visited the upstairs of the cottage raises the spectre of contamination - the whole point of this section is to "prove that it wasn't contamination.

I guess Nencini could have said one of the Y-stuff was Amanda's. I mean, they made up stuff about Meredith on the kitchen knife, so why not just make up stuff about Amanda on the clasp.

(Nencini is reading this right now - "Perché non ci ho pensato?")

 

[Desert Fox]

(Nencini is reading this right now - "Perché non ci ho pensato?")

He should have hired Grinder to write up his motivation report

 

[Grinder]

Where's The Grinder we all know?
How the heck do we know that Rudy Guede,
a dude with no real job at the time, though he said he was working for Armani,
paid some of his hard earned, (from where?) cash to stay,
to trespass at a nursery school overnight?

Keep in mind that Rudy says he was in Milan for a party, to go dancin' if I recall correctly,
Yes, I still have the links I posted previously, but I just don't feel like re-readin' them right now.


Though this was his last night in town,
the dude shoulda been looking spiffy, sorto like in this pix
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/842/r58e5.jpg[/qimg]
for he had been out on the prowl in previous days.

A guy who worked for Armani, right?!?
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/i6w3.jpg[/qimg]

Not the bum-ly hobo lookin' dude that Milan Police photographed
after Poor Rudy was found in a recently burglarized little kids school.
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/41/k5e5.png[/qimg]
How ya gonna get any ^^^^^ when lookin' like that?


Rudy paid someone to let him inside a nursery school?

Right! My thoughts are that he's lyin' once again, and had found a key to the place during the previous break-in,(*) when he probably scored some major cashola, what was it 20000E which he then party-ed his arse off with, as he told his true tale of workin' for Armani when back in Perugia to a buncha foreign chicks. Come on girls, bro's, Drinks on me, sniff a line or 2 of cocaine, let's party!!! Soon afterwards, $$$$.$$ gone, nightclubin' Rudy returned to the scene of the Milan crime, and was found, lookin' more than a bit disheveled, in the nursery school...
My thoughts only, RW



(*) - Man, I'm gettin' a bit hammered tonight, yea!
But I wonder still:
How did the entry to the original Nursery School Burglary happen?
Broken window, Jimmied door? Inside job?

I found this info:
On October 8, nursery school owner Maria Del Prato went to her school on a Monday morning and found the kitchen was a total mess. Someone had prepared a vast quantity of food, pasta and frozen spinach and left the debris all over the room, in the sink and all over the tables. Also the pallets where the children take their naps were disarrayed and had been slept on. 2000 euros, the tuition she’d accepted from parents the previous Friday had been stolen.

More info:
On October 27, Maria Del Prato walked into her school office and found Rudy Guede unhooking the cable to her computer in order to plug it into his laptop and she immediately called the police. The police went through his back pack and found a large knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, the stolen laptop belonging to Paolo Brocchi , cell phone, stolen keys, a little hammer used for breaking glass and a woman’s gold watch.


Question:
Wasn't Maria Del Prato there with a locksmith,
ya know, to change the locks when she found Rudy G'day?

Was it because she noticed that someone had stolen keys from the nursery school? Or was it that she suspected someone, an insider, was renting out her school as a youth hostel for wayward late night travelers at the Milan Train Station?

My guess?
Rudy Guede did not pay anyone 20 or 50 Euro to stay at a lil' kids school overnight, he simply returned to the scene of a previous crime he committed and let himself into the school with stolen keys, which the Italian cops never checked to see if any of the stolen keys they found on him even matched the nursery school doors. Or did they?

RW,

After your discovery of the Spanish people's report of the stash of stuff I changed my opinion a bit. I think he was more of a fence than a burglar. That doesn't mean he never burgled. I doubt very much that Rudi robbed the nursery of 2000 Euro and then returned to the scene with the keys. I doubt he had 2000 Euros and no one commented on him living large. It also pretty much makes the rent money argument moot.

I think he was let into the place but probably by a guy he was doing business with that had involvement in the earlier theft. Once again, I mention he was convicted of possessing stolen stuff in Milan but AFAWK not for breaking and entering. Prado says she came to the nursery opened the door and found Rudi in her office. There is no mention that she found the door open or jimmied. Those facts and Rudi saying he was let in all fit.

I would guess that Prado after the burglary realized that her place wasn't secure. I would think that only an insider would know that she kept 2000 Euro in cash there. I doubt that a local would bring Rudi in from Perugia to do the job - not exactly like bringing a hit man from Chicago.

I doubt that Prado would have missed noticing her key on the "stolen" keys. I wonder how they knew they were stolen.

It would be interesting to know where the nursery was in relation to where Rudi hung out in Milan. Milan is one big city. What an odd target for a theft. What could he expect to find there? Maybe a kitchen knife.

And RW i'm sure you've the experience that the actual thieves like to unload the loot quickly. Why would Rudi steal and hold?

I think for a mug shot he looks pretty good.

 

[Desert Fox]

Even with the clown outfit which is Italian Forensics, I think it is pretty solid that he broke into Meredeth's house. Why exactly he did that we will likely never know.

 

[acbytesla]

RW,

After your discovery of the Spanish people's report of the stash of stuff I changed my opinion a bit. I think he was more of a fence than a burglar. That doesn't mean he never burgled. I doubt very much that Rudi robbed the nursery of 2000 Euro and then returned to the scene with the keys. I doubt he had 2000 Euros and no one commented on him living large. It also pretty much makes the rent money argument moot.

I think he was let into the place but probably by a guy he was doing business with that had involvement in the earlier theft. Once again, I mention he was convicted of possessing stolen stuff in Milan but AFAWK not for breaking and entering. Prado says she came to the nursery opened the door and found Rudi in her office. There is no mention that she found the door open or jimmied. Those facts and Rudi saying he was let in all fit.

I would guess that Prado after the burglary realized that her place wasn't secure. I would think that only an insider would know that she kept 2000 Euro in cash there. I doubt that a local would bring Rudi in from Perugia to do the job - not exactly like bringing a hit man from Chicago.

I doubt that Prado would have missed noticing her key on the "stolen" keys. I wonder how they knew they were stolen.

It would be interesting to know where the nursery was in relation to where Rudi hung out in Milan. Milan is one big city. What an odd target for a theft. What could he expect to find there? Maybe a kitchen knife.

And RW i'm sure you've the experience that the actual thieves like to unload the loot quickly. Why would Rudi steal and hold?

I think for a mug shot he looks pretty good.[qimg]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkQvZ1G2vyTh1JRNxY4AmIiQK-dEywPf3BRiozYiV4Xg3-4r2k[/qimg]

Why would you believe that nonsense story that Rudy was let in by some unknown guy who had robbed the place before? Because Rudy said so? It's essentially the same story guys tell when they are caught driving a stolen car. "Some guy lent them the car. And when asked who? They can never come up with more than a first and never know where the guy lives. Would you drop the auto theft charge?

These are far too big a coincidences Grinder. Rudy buys a laptop in Milan that was stolen just a few blocks from his home? Rudy just happens to get caught making himself at home in a nursery that just happens to have been burglarized a few weeks before? Rudy has a ladies gold watch and his next door neighbor was just robbed only days before and a ladies gold watch was stolen?

I don't believe in coincidences Grinder. And Rudy's stories have the same familiar scent of cow manure about them.

Think about it. Rudy says he went to the train station but it was closed. Rudy undoubtedly knew when the Milan train station closed, he had been there often. He could have easily stayed at his relatives home which he had the night before. A far more believable story than some unknown burglar is that Rudy broke in before and hit the jackpot with the money and he hoped he would again.

But of course you will ignore the clear pattern and more compelling story to buy another unbelievable story from Rudy Guede. Have you noticed something about Rudy's stories? That none of them can be confirmed by anyone.

 

[Grinder]

I offer this without any citations, purely from memory,
A police convoy arrives from Rome to search for more evidence as soon as the Sollecito family prove that Raffaele was not in the room where Meredith expired, and find a bra clasp upon which the second most prevalent dna profile belonged to Mr Sollecito.
Let us believe that this dna substance was truly on the bra clasp when tested.

I find as fact that it was planted, as a lay juror.

They were aware of the shoes not matching well before the 18th both from seeing it themselves (no cite just an assumption) and from listening in to the Sollecitos' phone conversations. IIRC the date was coordinated with the defense.

Having said that the clasp is my number one thing that might have been planted. The regular police had access and it would only take one of the Flying squad to rub some DNA on it.

 

[Desert Fox]

They were aware of the shoes not matching well before the 18th both from seeing it themselves (no cite just an assumption) and from listening in to the Sollecitos' phone conversations. IIRC the date was coordinated with the defense.

Having said that the clasp is my number one thing that might have been planted. The regular police had access and it would only take one of the Flying squad to rub some DNA on it.

They might not even see it as falsifying evidence

 

[Grinder]

Why would you believe that nonsense story that Rudy was let in by some unknown guy who had robbed the place before? Because Rudy said so? It's essentially the same story guys tell when they are caught driving a stolen car. "Some guy lent them the car. And when asked who? They can never come up with more than a first and never know where the guy lives. Would you drop the auto theft charge?

In fact, it is difficult to prove theft only possession of stolen property is clear. You know the rule here is that while Rudi is a liar whenever possible he tells the truth and even more so if it fits a theory. She screamed at 9:15-20 hello!

Watch the Prado video. She doesn't indicate that the door had been jimmied or was open/unlocked when she arrived. They didn't charge him with breaking and entering even though they charged him with possession of the stolen laptop.

The story makes total sense with the exception of the payment. I think it was a guy he was working with in his fencing business.

I totally doubt that Rudi stole the 2000 Euro. It seems clear that Prado knew someone had access and was changing the lock but highly unlikely that it was Rudi from Perugia.

These are far too big a coincidences Grinder. Rudy buys a laptop in Milan that was stolen just a few blocks from his home? Rudy just happens to get caught making himself at home in a nursery that just happens to have been burglarized a few weeks before? Rudy has a ladies gold watch and his next door neighbor was just robbed only days before and a ladies gold watch was stolen?

At least get my story straight. He got the laptop in Perugia and was going to sell it in Milan. He doesn't just happen to go there. He goes there because someone has access and thinks it would be a safe place over the weekend as no kids will be there. No one but Nina has the neighbor's story and even if true it could have been stolen by someone else and fenced through Rudi.

[quoteI don't believe in coincidences Grinder. And Rudy's stories have the same familiar scent of cow manure about them. [/quote]

Too bad they happen ALL the time. Do you think Rudi called Lana? That is a much bigger coincidence if the Rudi watch thing is even a coincidence.

Think about it. Rudy says he went to the train station but it was closed. Rudy undoubtedly knew when the Milan train station closed, he had been there often. He could have easily stayed at his relatives home which he had the night before. A far more believable story than some unknown burglar is that Rudy broke in before and hit the jackpot with the money and he hoped he would again.

Yes that's so correct stupid. He lives in Perugia and we have no accounts of him hanging out in Milan during this period but he stumbles onto a 2000 Euro heist and then decides it would be a good idea to back there and spend the night. You have no idea what his situation with his aunt was or what her situation was that night. He didn't go to Milan to go dancing he went there to sell what had been fenced to him including the watch, which may or may not have once belonged to his neighbor who may or may not have been burgled.

But of course you will ignore the clear pattern and more compelling story to buy another unbelievable story from Rudy Guede. Have you noticed something about Rudy's stories? That none of them can be confirmed by anyone.

How do you know if they could be confirmed or not? Did he have blood on his pants? Did he ditch the shoes in Germany? Did he hear Meredith scream at 9:15-20? Did he know the girls as he reported in his Skype?

By repeating "clear pattern" and ignoring anything that doesn't fit doesn't make it a "clear pattern".

If CT really recognized him shortly after his breaking into CT's place do you think it is credible that CT didn't let the police know? Do you actually think that the clubs didn't know Rudi by name? According Mach and others there weren't many blacks in town so how hard would it have been to figure out who he was?

You never deal with the questions ask of you. You just repeat "clear pattern" "crime wave" "gold watch" etc.

ETA - do watch the Prado video. She describes his arriving by train and needing a place to stay without expressing any doubt.