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

[acbytesla]

In fact, it is difficult to prove theft only possession of stolen property is clear. .

There is a difference between proving a crime in a court of law and adding up the evidence. The evidence adds up to Rudy probably being the burglar that broke into the law office. Rudy would almost certainly be convicted of breaking and entering as opposed to trespassing at the nursery. He has a common burglar's tool in his possession. "The little hammer". There is no logical reason for Rudy carrying this on his trip. Is there?

For me there is no reasonable doubt that Rudy broke into the nursery that night. There is also a fair suspicion that Rudy was the one who broke into the nursery a few weeks before, but there is no proof of that. Still, burglars will often hit the same location many times. This is very common.

Yes, coincidences do happen all the time, but not usually to the same person. Still, it is a coincidence and not proof. I see a clear pattern and a pattern that is more than reasonable to point out to the world.

Rudy has been convicted of Meredith's murder. He left more than a dozen pieces of physical evidence that ties him to the crime. His involvement is not doubted by anyone. The question for the court or for observers to decide is did he do this as part of his trade or did he do it with two college kids?

Is the pattern of probable burglaries more compelling than a conspiracy with two people that he has little or no connection to? I say that the pattern is definitely there and HAS to be seriously considered. If nothing else, this pattern should offer reasonable doubt.

 

[Strozzi]

. . . 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.
so they destroy their own myth of Italian judicial omniscience (the corrupt Hellman excepted).

AngloLawyer, you omitted mentioning one other thing that Stefanoni claims she found on the knife blade that no one else can verify existed. The scratch - a minuscule scratch on the blade that Stefanoni claims allegedly held and sheltered Meredith's alleged DNA. None of the eminent Italian scientists tasked by the first court of appeals (Hellman) could find the alleged scratch on the blade in spite of their trying to locate it.

How did that scratch disappear? Maybe it never existed. Eh? Another Stefanoni lie.

 

[acbytesla]

Don't you all find it interesting that the PGP insist that there had to be multiple people involved in the stabbing and killing of 120 pound Meredith when Elliott Roger launched his campaign of murder in Isla Vista by stabbing and killing three grown men in his own apartment?

 

[Grinder]

In fact, it is difficult to prove theft only possession of stolen property is clear. .

There is a difference between proving a crime in a court of law and adding up the evidence. The evidence adds up to Rudy probably being the burglar that broke into the law office. Rudy would almost certainly be convicted of breaking and entering as opposed to trespassing at the nursery. He has a common burglar's tool in his possession. "The little hammer". There is no logical reason for Rudy carrying this on his trip. Is there?

Do you misrepresent the convo on purpose or can't you stay on point?

My response was to this:

Originally Posted by acbytesla
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?

You were asking about enough evidence to charge auto theft and if there isn't enough to convict then yes charges are dropped.

For me there is no reasonable doubt that Rudy broke into the nursery that night. There is also a fair suspicion that Rudy was the one who broke into the nursery a few weeks before, but there is no proof of that. Still, burglars will often hit the same location many times. This is very common.

Yes burglars hit the same spot but they go to steal more not sleepover. You have absolutely no information that leads to the idea that he broke in their previously. Prado doesn't seem to think it. The Milan, not Perugia, police didn't think so. There is no anecdotal evidence that he had had a big hit, not even Nina. There is no evidence that there was a break in that night. You clearly haven't ever watched the video. I think you should apply to Nonsecini (US spelling) as you make up stuff with the best of them. I finding that Rudi broke in that night beyond a reasonable doubt is sooooo Italian. Amanda threw a party where rocks were thrown therefore she threw rocks as the leader of the riot. Guilty, right Tesla?

Yes, coincidences do happen all the time, but not usually to the same person. Still, it is a coincidence and not proof. I see a clear pattern and a pattern that is more than reasonable to point out to the world.

Coincidences happen but not the same person...what in the hell does that mean? The laptop was stolen in Perugia and Rudi fenced it and took it to Milan - no coincidence. The nursery had been burgled before but Rudi wasn't burgling it, he was sleeping there and most likely was let in or directed to it by an accomplice in crime. He had a gold watch that he was fencing and it may have come from Perugia and the house of Diaz but really there is only one source for that. He also had keys that Prado said were stolen but apparently not hers.

Rudy has been convicted of Meredith's murder. He left more than a dozen pieces of physical evidence that ties him to the crime. His involvement is not doubted by anyone. The question for the court or for observers to decide is did he do this as part of his trade or did he do it with two college kids?

So if he did it, which he certainly was there for, he must have done everything you suggest - fail.

Is the pattern of probable burglaries more compelling than a conspiracy with two people that he has little or no connection to? I say that the pattern is definitely there and HAS to be seriously considered. If nothing else, this pattern should offer reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt of what? Please point out where I said that the conspiracy is more likely than he being a burglar. Whacky time. Do you work for Atlas Van Lines? Do move goal posts for a living.

Rudi could be the biggest burglar in the world and the kids could be involved. He could have never burgled and the kids could be completely innocent. Your assertion above is like saying it is more likely to rain in Spain than it is likely that mining asteroids for energy will be economical.

If Rudi was more of a fence (RW's new info) than a burglar it makes it more likely he was at the cottage with other crooks like Koko. If they had found the 2000 Euro's instead of computers, I'd think he had burgled the nursery.

You never answer questions Tesla. Why wouldn't CT have turned in Rudi when he recognized him in the club? As a bouncer or bartender and considering Rudi's night life habits is it credible CT didn't recognize him immediately?

 

[acbytesla]

Do you misrepresent the convo on purpose or can't you stay on point?

Your point? Or mine? My point is that Rudy is a liar and a thief. That the evidence...NOT HIS STORIES, points to Rudy breaking in and stealing from many places. That while this is not enough to convict Rudy of these crimes it offers a much more persuasive theory of the murder than any of Rudy's stories or the prosecution for that matter.

Your point seems to be ..what exactly? That people shouldn't consider this trail of evidence just because it doesn't rise to the level of being able to get a conviction?

My response was to this:

You were asking about enough evidence to charge auto theft and if there isn't enough to convict then yes charges are dropped.

You're serious? A guy is caught driving a stolen car and his story is that some unknown person lent him the car and if you were on the jury you would not convict?

Yes burglars hit the same spot but they go to steal more not sleepover.

Why not? There was really nothing to steal this time, except the knife, so why wouldn't he sleep over? He's been there before so he knows the hours. My guess is that if there was 2000 Euros there again, he would have left a lot earlier.

You have absolutely no information that leads to the idea that he broke in their previously. Prado doesn't seem to think it. The Milan, not Perugia, police didn't think so.

Really? They don't think so? How would you know that they don't Do you assume that they don't just because they didn't arrest him? Or isn't it more likely that they know they just don't have the evidence to prove it?

There is no anecdotal evidence that he had had a big hit, not even Nina. There is no evidence that there was a break in that night. You clearly haven't ever watched the video.

Your kidding?? I have watched the video of Maria Del Prato MANY TIMES. Maria says that she had an appointment with the locksmith and when the three of them entered her nursery a man came out of their office. He accepted that he was caught and when the police searched his backpack they found a knife stolen from the nursery, stolen keys and other stolen goods. That is all. Next question.

Reasonable doubt of what? Please point out where I said that the conspiracy is more likely than he being a burglar. Whacky time. Do you work for Atlas Van Lines? Do move goal posts for a living.

I'm not moving the goal post. That is where it has always been. Is the burglar theory more persuasive than the staged break it? I say it is.

Rudi could be the biggest burglar in the world and the kids could be involved. He could have never burgled and the kids could be completely innocent.

This is true, but there was either a "real break in" or a staged break in. Agreed? One explanation is right and the pattern of probably break ins for Rudy offers a more than reasonable alternative to the "staged" break in.

You never answer questions Tesla. Why wouldn't CT have turned in Rudi when he recognized him in the club?

What would be the point Grinder? Rudy wasn't able to steal anything that night and CT wouldn't have been able to prove anything. It would have been a worthless action.

As a bouncer or bartender and considering Rudi's night life habits is it credible CT didn't recognize him immediately?

???? I don't get this question.

 

[Grinder]

Don't you all find it interesting that the PGP insist that there had to be multiple people involved in the stabbing and killing of 120 pound Meredith when Elliott Roger launched his campaign of murder in Isla Vista by stabbing and killing three grown men in his own apartment?

Meredith's weight isn't clear but I doubt she weighed over 110 lbs and the boys that were stabbed to death probably weren't much heavier than 125 lbs by their looks. I haven't heard how he did it and whether there were all sorts of defensive wounds or if they had caused injury to Rodgers. The argument in Meredith's murder is that she suffered so many wounds and didn't have wounds on her hands so they must have been held, but why care about the details. Maybe it will turn out he had an accomplice which by your logic will mean Rudi had accomplices as well.

But I'm sure you can reconstruct the scene just the way you want it.

 

[Planigale]

Interesting BBC documentary (radio 4) on miscarriage of justice. E&W specific but with some policy issues; balancing victims needs for closure vs. right of convicted to appeal. Interesting that the police in UK required to keep evidence until sentence completed whilst I think Machiaveli said in Italy there was a requirement to destroy evidence hence Stefanoni's misadventure with the bra hook was irrelevant because it should have been disposed of anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043x495

PS I know JREF does not allow ghosts or other other supernatural / post vital entities to post, so I have to declare my sister did not really kill me for ringing her at 7.30 on a Sunday. I was sent to Vauxhall for my sins (Waitrose).

 

[Grinder]

Your point? Or mine? My point is that Rudy is a liar and a thief. That the evidence...NOT HIS STORIES, points to Rudy breaking in and stealing from many places. That while this is not enough to convict Rudy of these crimes it offers a much more persuasive theory of the murder than any of Rudy's stories or the prosecution for that matter.

Originally Posted by acbytesla
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?

Your point seems to be ..what exactly? That people shouldn't consider this trail of evidence just because it doesn't rise to the level of being able to get a conviction?

You see you're the one that brought up conviction or charging. Did I say anywhere that you shouldn't consider it? I'm suggesting as I've made clear several times that RW's Spanish account of many laptops made "the evidence" point to him being a fence. You wish to have him on this crime wave that fits with how you want to think the crime went down. It's like the stabbing victims that you describe as fully grown men but really they look like smallish boys.

There is little evidence of his burglarizing history. He is found with stolen goods in the nursery where he only has a knife and some chain from that location. Prado says he slept there. He says he slept there. The police don't charge him with breaking and entering nor do they charge him with burglary only possession. He goes to the lawyers' and tells them he didn't enter there office. If he did, why would he go there? He has a gold watch and keys but they are never connected to anybody or crime.

You want him to be a serial burglar but you no evidence and what you have isn't credible (recognize the line?)

You're serious? A guy is caught driving a stolen car and his story is that some unknown person lent him the car and if you were on the jury you would not convict?

Did the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did steal it? Just possessing it isn't proof he stole it. How long had it been stolen? An hour? A day? A month?

Why not? There was really nothing to steal this time, except the knife, so why wouldn't he sleep over? He's been there before so he knows the hours. My guess is that if there was 2000 Euros there again, he would have left a lot earlier.

Sure. He gets caught with a 3 buck knife and they figure out he stole the 2000 and now he is charged with grand theft. I'm sorry but the supposition that he stole the money and went back and hung around is ridiculous.

Really? They don't think so? How would you know that they don't Do you assume that they don't just because they didn't arrest him? Or isn't it more likely that they know they just don't have the evidence to prove it?

If they thought they had the money thief they would have held him. They can keep a suspect forever.

[quoteYour kidding?? I have watched the video of Maria Del Prato MANY TIMES. Maria says that she had an appointment with the locksmith and when the three of them entered her nursery a man came out of their office. He accepted that he was caught and when the police searched his backpack they found a knife stolen from the nursery, stolen keys and other stolen goods. That is all. Next question.[/quote]

She doesn't indicate that there was a break-in and they all entered. It is pretty obvious that there was no break in only a trespass. Why wasn't he charged for breaking in?

I'm not moving the goal post. That is where it has always been. Is the burglar theory more persuasive than the staged break it? I say it is.
This is true, but there was either a "real break in" or a staged break in. Agreed? One explanation is right and the pattern of probably break ins for Rudy offers a more than reasonable alternative to the "staged" break in.

This has nothing to do with the staged break in. Rudi could have never broken in before and done it that night. Or Rudi could done a break in or two before or he coukld have breaking in five times a night.

What would be the point Grinder? Rudy wasn't able to steal anything that night and CT wouldn't have been able to prove anything. It would have been a worthless action.
???? I don't get this question.

CT and his girlfriend were robbed and the pulled a knife. CT called the police at the time. He then spots Rudi in a club and has him banned. It is not credible that he didn't recognize him immediately since the club scene wasn't that large and certainly when he did recognize him he would have told the police. He only did after Rudi'sa pictures were in the paper - very Curatolo like.

You are wrong again as he did steal from them. Really Nonsecini can use you as he doesn't have Grinder checking his work

Desert

 

[acbytesla]

You see you're the one that brought up conviction or charging. Did I say anywhere that you shouldn't consider it? I'm suggesting as I've made clear several times that RW's Spanish account of many laptops made "the evidence" point to him being a fence. You wish to have him on this crime wave that fits with how you want to think the crime went down. It's like the stabbing victims that you describe as fully grown men but really they look like smallish boys.

I'm not sure why him having many laptops points to him being a fence instead of a serial burglar. In fact it doesn't. I admit I can't prove the "crime wave" but if you check out the statistics involving burglary you're going to see that very few result in arrests and even fewer result in convictions. Police will tell you that they almost never catch a burglar in the act and that most people are convicted as a result of finding them in possession of the loot. The idea of Rudy being "a fence is totally of your own making". Sure, it's possible, but the fact that Rudy is "caught in the act" at the nursery makes the idea that he is a fence instead of burglar a much bigger leap. (They were fellow college students. I haven't seen pictures of them as or yet)

There is little evidence of his burglarizing history.

There rarely is.

He is found with stolen goods in the nursery where he only has a knife and some chain from that location.

So? Maybe there wasn't really anything to steal this time.

Prado says he slept there. He says he slept there. (Where did you get that?) It's not in the video. PS, I have her name as Maria Del Prato.

The police don't charge him with breaking and entering nor do they charge him with burglary only possession. He goes to the lawyers' and tells them he didn't enter there office. If he did, why would he go there? He has a gold watch and keys but they are never connected to anybody or crime.

This actually doesn't surprise me Grinder. Burglary and breaking and entering are minor crimes. You would be surprised to find out just how often the police release minor criminals without charges.

You want him to be a serial burglar but you no evidence and what you have isn't credible (recognize the line?)

I think it is pretty clear that Rudy is a beginning serial burglar and I think the evidence is MORE THAN CREDIBLE to that fact. It just isn't enough to convict him of those crimes.


Did the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did steal it? Just possessing it isn't proof he stole it. How long had it been stolen? An hour? A day? A month?

Sure. He gets caught with a 3 buck knife and they figure out he stole the 2000 and now he is charged with grand theft.

And how are they going to do that Grinder? Do they have serial numbers to the money? Why would he think for a second when he got away scott free the last time that he is worried that somehow they are going to connect him to that burglary? I see no reason he would give it a moment's thought.

I'm sorry but the supposition that he stole the money and went back and hung around is ridiculous.

Well, that's your opinion. I think it is more than reasonable.

If they thought they had the money thief they would have held him. They can keep a suspect forever.

Really? How would they connect him to it? You say that the laptop which can be traced is not enough and yet you think they would have held him for stolen cash from a month before? Please tell me what drugs you are taking.

Your kidding?? I have watched the video of Maria Del Prato MANY TIMES. Maria says that she had an appointment with the locksmith and when the three of them entered her nursery a man came out of their office. He accepted that he was caught and when the police searched his backpack they found a knife stolen from the nursery, stolen keys and other stolen goods. That is all. Next question.

She doesn't indicate that there was a break-in and they all entered. It is pretty obvious that there was no break in only a trespass. Why wasn't he charged for breaking in?

He wasn't charged because he wasn't charged. It is my understanding that they were going to charge him and someone from Perugia said to let him go.

This has nothing to do with the staged break in. Rudi could have never broken in before and done it that night. Or Rudi could done a break in or two before or he coukld have breaking in five times a night.

Of course it does. It's all about whether it was a "staged break in or a real one" The evidence points to Rudy being an actual burglar which makes the idea that it was a real break in more likely.

 

[anglolawyer]

AngloLawyer, you omitted mentioning one other thing that Stefanoni claims she found on the knife blade that no one else can verify existed. The scratch - a minuscule scratch on the blade that Stefanoni claims allegedly held and sheltered Meredith's alleged DNA. None of the eminent Italian scientists tasked by the first court of appeals (Hellman) could find the alleged scratch on the blade in spite of their trying to locate it.

How did that scratch disappear? Maybe it never existed. Eh? Another Stefanoni lie.

Thank you Strozzi. Points restored. The scratch ought to swing Samson in favour of my extreme theory of ultra-fraud. She needed the scratch to explain the otherwise inexplicable: why press on when your tests tell you there's nothing there? Investigative intuition! The same as Finzi (or whoever) plucking that knife from the drawer. So, holing at the short 16th and an eagle at the par four 18th. Great golf.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure why him having many laptops points to him being a fence instead of a serial burglar. In fact it doesn't. I admit I can't prove the "crime wave" but if you check out the statistics involving burglary you're going to see that very few result in arrests and even fewer result in convictions. Police will tell you that they almost never catch a burglar in the act and that most people are convicted as a result of finding them in possession of the loot. The idea of Rudy being "a fence is totally of your own making". Sure, it's possible, but the fact that Rudy is "caught in the act" at the nursery makes the idea that he is a fence instead of burglar a much bigger leap. (They were fellow college students. I haven't seen pictures of them as or yet)

Prado didn't say in was burgling the place, she said he slept there. The MLE didn't charge him with burglary only possession. Exactly who said he was burgling the place besides the likes of you?

Why did say they were full grown men if you had no idea? Oh I know, you just make stuff up to fit your theories.

If I'm the only one, so what. Oh I forgot we vote on these things. Ask your police buddies how long a broke burglar usually hang onto their loot.

There rarely is.

Therefore assume it's there - burglary history.

So? Maybe there wasn't really anything to steal this time.

Didn't Prado say something about a computer. So he broke in without breaking anything and hung out until middle morning cause he liked the thrill. You have him hanging out for hours where you have him stealing 2000 Euro. Makes no sense.

This actually doesn't surprise me Grinder. Burglary and breaking and entering are minor crimes. You would be surprised to find out just how often the police release minor criminals without charges.

As if you have some knowledge about this. Just make it up. How often do police release minor criminals? You have no idea. Can you name one criminal that was let off in similar circumstances. They do release them on PR.

I think it is pretty clear that Rudy is a beginning serial burglar and I think the evidence is MORE THAN CREDIBLE to that fact. It just isn't enough to convict him of those crimes.

There is no evidence of your contention and that which is there is not credible. He's a fence. He's a fence. He's a fence. Your right if one repeats something enough it becomes true. Rudi is definitely a fence.

And how are they going to do that Grinder? Do they have serial numbers to the money? Why would he think for a second when he got away scott free the last time that he is worried that somehow they are going to connect him to that burglary? I see no reason he would give it a moment's thought.

Well just maybe he left DNA or prints behind. Before you use your inside police knowledge, they do check for prints. If he had the key, that would be somewhat incriminating and then there is the basic good sense that getting caught there would be a bad idea

Well, that's your opinion. I think it is more than reasonable.

No it is ridiculous that he would return to the scene and just hang out there.

Really? How would they connect him to it? You say that the laptop which can be traced is not enough and yet you think they would have held him for stolen cash from a month before? Please tell me what drugs you are taking.

That's a clear violation. If they thought he had stolen it they would have held him not as a suspect but as a person with information. He would have told them what they knew to be correct in short order.

He wasn't charged because he wasn't charged. It is my understanding that they were going to charge him and someone from Perugia said to let him go.

That's been the meme. But not for the money theft. Do you have any backing for Rudi stealing the money? Did he live large after the fact?

Of course it does. It's all about whether it was a "staged break in or a real one" The evidence points to Rudy being an actual burglar which makes the idea that it was a real break in more likely.

I thought you regaled us with your ability to get into houses through windows. Were you an experienced burglar? The break in being real doesn't depend on Rudi being on this crime spree or even having ever burgled a place.

 

[Bill Williams]

AngloLawyer, you omitted mentioning one other thing that Stefanoni claims she found on the knife blade that no one else can verify existed. The scratch - a minuscule scratch on the blade that Stefanoni claims allegedly held and sheltered Meredith's alleged DNA. None of the eminent Italian scientists tasked by the first court of appeals (Hellman) could find the alleged scratch on the blade in spite of their trying to locate it.

How did that scratch disappear? Maybe it never existed. Eh? Another Stefanoni lie.

Thank you Strozzi. Points restored. The scratch ought to swing Samson in favour of my extreme theory of ultra-fraud. She needed the scratch to explain the otherwise inexplicable: why press on when your tests tell you there's nothing there? Investigative intuition! The same as Finzi (or whoever) plucking that knife from the drawer. So, holing at the short 16th and an eagle at the par four 18th. Great golf.

No one in all of creation saw that striation. This was discussed by Massei - who once again looks like a Rhodes Scholar in comparison to Judge Nencini. At least Massei discusses it.

But what is Massei's conclusion? It must have been there, because why would Stefanoni lie? The fact that it isn't there should not deter Massei from that conclusion.

Here's the sum total of what Massei says to come to this ass-covering conclusion:

(Stefanoni) reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of light came out‛​

This puts the lie to the photo on one of the PMF sites which says that the striation is plainly visible. PMFers post that photo and say, "look, you can see it!"

However, even the preliminary hearing expert Professor Cingolani, could not see these grooves (or striations)

Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio [pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches.​

One also needs to reread page 224-5 of Massei to discover that Stefanoni, on collection, said she could not test for blood, because that test would have destroyed any sample on the knife, leaving the sample's ownership unknowable. All this while arguing that the sample must have been preserved in that striation through vigourous bleach cleaning.

Which is it? A sample so robust that it survives bleach, but so fragile that a luminol test will destroy it?

Massei concludes from all this not only that it must be Meredtih's and must be there as a result of the murder, but also concludes that it is there as the result of a "striking motion".

On that point, Massei reverts to being as stupid as Judge Nencini was to be 4 years later.

 

[acbytesla]

Prado didn't say in was burgling the place, she said he slept there. The MLE didn't charge him with burglary only possession. Exactly who said he was burgling the place besides the likes of you?

Fine, Rudy liked hanging around in places where he could relive his childhood.. lmao Sure, some stranger let him in....

Why did say they were full grown men if you had no idea?

THEY WERE COLLEGE STUDENTS, DOH!!!. That makes them 18 TO 24 year old men. Sounds full grown to me.

If I'm the only one, so what. Oh I forgot we vote on these things. Ask your police buddies how long a broke burglar usually hang onto their loot.

Last year, the police broke a burglary ring where they found loot at a barn in Enumclaw. There were items from over a hundred burglaries that went back three years.

Didn't Prado say something about a computer.

Not during the video. And did she say it was tower computer or a laptop? I can see a laptop being stolen..but PC tower?? maybe, probably not.

So he broke in without breaking anything and hung out until middle morning cause he liked the thrill.

Yep,

You have him hanging out for hours where you have him stealing 2000 Euro. Makes no sense.

Maybe he wasn't worried about being caught.

As if you have some knowledge about this. Just make it up. How often do police release minor criminals? You have no idea. Can you name one criminal that was let off in similar circumstances.

( I could, but the last time I mentioned this, I got harassed from the PGP, so I won't.)

They do release them on PR.

Yes, they do, but Rudy was from out of town..it's the kind of thing that unless the guy has a record, they just might give him the benefit of the doubt and get him the hell out of town.

There is no evidence of your contention and that which is there is not credible. He's a fence. He's a fence. He's a fence. Your right if one repeats something enough it becomes true. Rudi is definitely a fence.

Now your talking.

Well just maybe he left DNA or prints behind. Before you use your inside police knowledge, they do check for prints. If he had the key, that would be somewhat incriminating and then there is the basic good sense that getting caught there would be a bad idea

Ever call the police after a break in or a burglary? How often do you think they call in someone to dust the place for prints? Or check for DNA swabs?

No it is ridiculous that he would return to the scene and just hang out there.

It's stupid, but it's not ridiculous.

That's a clear violation. If they thought he had stolen it they would have held him not as a suspect but as a person with information. He would have told them what they knew to be correct in short order.

Do you know that? I don't think you do. I also know that police take shortcuts all the time. That officers have a great deal of discretion. My best friend for example will tell you that officers do things in their own way. That people get released without DUI charges that definitely were driving drunk or that officers will avoid arresting people so they can avoid the paperwork.

I thought you regaled us with your ability to get into houses through windows. Were you an experienced burglar?

No, but I broke into my own home or friends homes more than a few times when I/they misplaced the keys. My sister lived on the third floor apartment building in Lynnwood and I scaled the wall and up two balconies above the ground to get in. I also know people that were more than a bit shady..(they've grown up since then)

The break in being real doesn't depend on Rudi being on this crime spree or even having ever burgled a place.

You're right, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that Rudy wasn't on a crime spree either and it doesn't mean he didn't leave a trail of bread crumbs.

 

[Bill Williams]

One also needs to reread page 224-5 of Massei to discover that Stefanoni, on collection, said she could not test for blood, because that test would have destroyed any sample on the knife, leaving the sample's ownership unknowable. All this while arguing that the sample must have been preserved in that striation through vigourous bleach cleaning.

Which is it? A sample so robust that it survives bleach, but so fragile that a luminol test will destroy it?

Massei concludes from all this not only that it must be Meredtih's and must be there as a result of the murder, but also concludes that it is there as the result of a "striking motion".

On that point, Massei reverts to being as stupid as Judge Nencini was to be 4 years later.

So to summarize - the "evidence" on the knife suggesting that Meredith once had anything happen to her because it is.....

Destroyed, as a necessary by-product of testing.​

The "evidence" on the bra-clasp suggesting that Raffaele once had anything to do with the crime......

Destroyed, because Patrizia Stefanoni stored the clasp improperly.​

As of 2014, there is no evidence at all suggesting that knife had anything to do with the crime, and there is no evidence at all suggesting Raffaele had anything to do with the crime.

But it's a good thing there's all the other evidence that Amanda Knox might have been involved.... it is....

Wait a minute, there's none of that either.

 

[Desert Fox]

So to summarize - the "evidence" on the knife suggesting that Meredith once had anything happen to her because if it.....

Destroyed, as a necessary by-product of testing.​

The "evidence" on the bra-clasp suggesting that Raffaele once had anything to do with the crime......

Destroyed, because Patrizia Stefanoni stored the clasp improperly.​

As of 2014, there is no evidence at all suggesting that knife had anything to do with the crime, and there is no evidence at all suggesting Raffaele had anything to do with the crime.

But it's a good thing there's all the other evidence that Amanda Knox might have been involved.... it is....

Wait a minute, there's none of that either.

There is the case of Jens Söring where there is also no DNA evidence and no blood in the car he is suppose to have used to get to the murder.
Was accused on the CSI syndrome. I don't expect magic but I would expect some evidence.

 

[Samson]

So to summarize - the "evidence" on the knife suggesting that Meredith once had anything happen to her because it is.....

Destroyed, as a necessary by-product of testing.​

The "evidence" on the bra-clasp suggesting that Raffaele once had anything to do with the crime......

Destroyed, because Patrizia Stefanoni stored the clasp improperly.​

As of 2014, there is no evidence at all suggesting that knife had anything to do with the crime, and there is no evidence at all suggesting Raffaele had anything to do with the crime.

But it's a good thing there's all the other evidence that Amanda Knox might have been involved.... it is....

Wait a minute, there's none of that either.

There is plenty of evidence alright. I would make it a high school project to tell kids, who will know nothing about this case, because that is the way of things, to be subjected to Massei and Hendry describing the break in evidence. You see they won't have any preconceptions. Has anyone tried this?

 

[Dan O.]

CT and his girlfriend were robbed and the pulled a knife. CT called the police at the time. He then spots Rudi in a club and has him banned. It is not credible that he didn't recognize him immediately since the club scene wasn't that large and certainly when he did recognize him he would have told the police. He only did after Rudi'sa pictures were in the paper - very Curatolo like.

It sounds like the action highlighted involve a third party. Would there be a written record of this action or is it all handled orally? Have you tracked down CT's testimony and found out what other persons were notified of CT's claim against Rudy? Was there any attempt to validate the claim through contacting these other persons?

 

[Strozzi]

It sounds like the action highlighted involve a third party. Would there be a written record of this action or is it all handled orally? Have you tracked down CT's testimony and found out what other persons were notified of CT's claim against Rudy? Was there any attempt to validate the claim through contacting these other persons?

If CT called the police there should be records on his phone bill and a police record of the incoming call. The defense of course would not have access to it but the police and prosecutor certainly would. Heck, the would not even have to ask CT to see a copy of his phone bill as they could probably get it directly (even clandestinely) from the phone company just as they tap citizen's phone calls. I'm sure if CT's claim had involved Amanda hypothetically being involved, the police and prosecutor would have pulled together phone records to document CT's call. But since Amanda was not involved and establishing via phone records that CT in fact called the police as he said he did to report about a burglar of Rudy's general description pulling a knife would not help the prosecution, I suspect documenting the call was not done.

In the US a burglar who pulls a knife when confronted by a homeowner is probably not a burglar but an armed robber with a deadly weapon. From the description that I have read of the incident, Rudy did not pull the knife to use as a tool to open the door but to potentially use the weapon against the homeowner who confronted him.

You would think the police would want to establish that it was Rudy and that the incident occurred as described. Documenting the phone call would seem to be a step in that process. Perhaps the police, after catching Rudy, did not want to document Rudy the burglar turned armed robber who threatened the homeowner with a knife. Hey, isn't that maybe what happened in the cottage?

 

[RWVBWL]

About the Nursery School keys

Greetings,
The beach was fun today,
hope you all had a swell holiday yourself here in the U.S.A.

Rudy Guede's Milan trip perplexes me still a bit,
enough so that I thought of it again today and wanna spend some of my time thinkin' aloud about it.

The guy didn't have a job, but told some new foreign neighbor students that he worked for Armani, pretty hard to keep that kind of lie going, right? Works for Armani, but didn't even have a car, ok. But had alotta computers in his flat without internet access, hmmmm.

When Rudy was arrested in Milan, the only mention of his cash on hand, as far as I can recall, and please correct me, folks, if I'm wrong, was that he had some small change on him, which is also something that Maria Del Prado reported being stolen.

No real cash on him?
Workin' for Armani, wasn't his wallet packed with cash when he showed his ID to Milan Police.
Not any mention of some 20 Euro's, 50's, a 100?
Nor even any mention of a 5er nor a 10.

If true,
why would Rudy Guede spend his last $20 to stay overnight at a nursery school?
Weird.

Why not just take the train(s) home, like most normal people would have. It was only 5 or 6 hour trip, which kinda reminds me of a time of youth from waaaays back catchin' a bus to+from Las Vegas when I didn't drive yet, plenty of time to kick back, relax and sleep after a fun filled road trip.

Guede spent his last 20Euro to stay overnight,
err trespass, at a lil' kid school?
Sure.


I was just diggin' around for some new info,
found a CNN article from this year, by Nina Burleigh,
which I will link after I post a few choice quotes:
"I spent two years researching and writing a book about the Knox case, living in Perugia, attending the trial, interviewing every lawyer involved in the case, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and court transcripts, interviewing forensic police, coroners, the principals of the case, their family members and associates."
<snip>
"In the months before the Kercher murder, Guede was broke and showing signs of mental illness, and was involved in three and possibly more home invasions, according to police reports, trial testimony and interviews with victims."

"His apparent modus operandi was to break into what he thought were empty houses and make himself at home. A few weeks before the Kercher murder, someone broke into a Perugia law office through a second floor window, according to trial testimony from the lawyer who practiced there, turned up the heat, rearranged small trinkets, drank an orange soda from the refrigerator and appeared to have slept on the couch before making off with a laptop."

"At a nursery school in Milan a week later, director Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato, walked in on a Saturday and found Guede sitting at her desk, she told me in an interview. She called police. They found the stolen laptop and a knife in his pack. Del Prato suspected he might have gotten a key to the nursery school from one of her employees who frequented the Milan club scene. Del Prato told me she believed he spent a night on the children's cots and cooked a pot of pasta in the kitchen, then placed it in little bowls around the room."

"From that interview and many more, I pieced together a picture of a young man who seemed to be acting out some sort of fantasy of a home, a fantasy that perhaps abruptly cracked when Meredith Kercher came home unexpectedly while he was burgling her house, and unwittingly locked herself into the house with him. (Guede has maintained "whoever committed this terrible crime is still free.")"

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/


Thanks for the discussion on Rudy Guede's Milan adventure, folks,
for to me, something just doesn't jive with what told PM Mignini that he did when there:

Guede - Yes I can recount it without problems.
Seeing as, and this is something that happened before these days,
that I found myself in a nursery school in Milan and here I should… basically I had gone to Milan
Pros. Mignini - When was this?
Guede - On the 24th if I’m not wrong
Pros. Mignini - Of October
Guede - Of October, I had gone to Milan because it was a friend’s birthday
that I had got to know in Milan, anyway of a guy that I knew and I
went to… because there was this party and we were to go dancing
together and I was to spend a few days in Milan. Then it happened
that the last day which would be between the night of 26 and 27, I
found myself basically, well I couldn’t stay at this friend’s house and
also because we had gone to the discotheque and there I lost sight
of him… what did I think? I said to myself I’ll go to Milan Central
Station and wait for the train. However it must have been about
two… And so stupidly what did I do? I met… I was there and naively I
spoke with anybody and I met this South American person and I
explained my problem that here in Milan even the one star hotels
cost so much and this person said to me “it’s dangerous to say here
the night at the Central Station, I work in a place and you can stay
there until the morning that way you are safe” however you have to
give me 20 Euros. I gave him this money. He took me to this, in this
that turned out to be a nursery school… when I saw it… I naively said
“ok I’ll stay here” and I stayed there until the next morning and this
person had said to me “in the morning I’ll come don’t worry and then
you can leave.” However then in the morning I saw this lady and a
child and some men, I explained everything to the lady, how things
had happened, and I said to the lady to call the Police. Then the
Police came who then seized my cell phone and computer.
Napoleoni - Was the cell phone yours Rudy?
Guede - The cell phone wasn’t mine, it wasn’t mine… in the sense that I
hadn’t bought it…
_______________________________________________________________


Like I said, something about Rudy Guede's Milan trip just don't jive.
He travels 5 to 6 hours for a birthday party and some dancin' during the week.
Cool, I wonder, did he bring a birthday present for his friend?
(Filomena did, esh, Amanda even helped her wrap it.)

Surely he packed a change of clothes or 2 in his backpack, right?
It looks like he was wearing a t-shirt under a sweatshirt when he got his mug shot in Milan.
The guy, looking pretty disheveled, didn't even have a job and a known source of income to pay his month apartment rent, from what I've read. So I wonder, did Rudy bring a clean change of clothes for a partyin', dancin' road trip or the was the shirt photographed the same dirty ones he mighta been wearing for the last coupla days?

I find it odd that Guede was given the boot from staying at his friends flat. "Sorry bro, it's Friday night (and then early Saturday morning), and though your far from home, after we are done dancing, go find someplace else to sleep tonight".

Why would a friend do that?
Was Rudy causing problems? Falling asleep on the toilet, or barkin' like a dog in the middle of the night at a friends pad?

Here's some more from Nina Burleigh:
http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/?p=636&lang=en

Why not help set Rudy up with a different place to stay?
Or was Rudy's friend in Milan, Maria Del Prato's worker?
So he let him stay at a kids school overnight?

A dude goes dancin' at night clubs,
where most people usually drink a bunch,
is then found trespassing in the morning after sleeping overnight at nursery school?
Heck, he apparently made the missing little school kids pasta dinner!
I wonder if Poor Rudy dreamnt of little kids too?
^^^^!

Weird dude,
my opinions only...
RW

 

[RandyN]

Greetings,
The beach was fun today,
hope you all had a swell holiday yourself here in the U.S.A.

Rudy Guede's Milan trip perplexes me still a bit,
enough so that I thought of it again today and wanna spend some of my time thinkin' aloud about it.

The guy didn't have a job, but told some new foreign neighbor students that he worked for Armani, pretty hard to keep that kind of lie going, right? Works for Armani, but didn't even have a car, ok. But had alotta computers in his flat without internet access, hmmmm.

When Rudy was arrested in Milan, the only mention of his cash on hand, as far as I can recall, and please correct me, folks, if I'm wrong , was that he had some small change on him, which is also something that Maria Del Prado reported being stolen.

No real cash on him?
Workin' for Armani, wasn't his wallet packed with cash when he showed his ID to Milan Police. Not any 20 Euro's, 50's? Nor even any mention of a 5er or a 10.

If true,
why would Rudy Guede spend his last $20 to stay overnight at a nursery school?
Weird.

Why not just take the train(s) home, like most normal people would have. It was only 5 or 6 hour trip, which kinda reminds me of a time of youth from waaaays back catchin' a bus to Las Vegas when I didn't drive yet, plenty of time to sleep and relax.

Guede spent his last 20Euro to stay overnight,
err trespass, at a lil' kid school?


I was just diggin' around for some new info,
found a CNN article from this year, by Nina Burleigh,
which I will link after I post a few choice quotes:
"I spent two years researching and writing a book about the Knox case, living in Perugia, attending the trial, interviewing every lawyer involved in the case, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and court transcripts, interviewing forensic police, coroners, the principals of the case, their family members and associates."
<snip>
"In the months before the Kercher murder, Guede was broke and showing signs of mental illness, and was involved in three and possibly more home invasions, according to police reports, trial testimony and interviews with victims."

"His apparent modus operandi was to break into what he thought were empty houses and make himself at home. A few weeks before the Kercher murder, someone broke into a Perugia law office through a second floor window, according to trial testimony from the lawyer who practiced there, turned up the heat, rearranged small trinkets, drank an orange soda from the refrigerator and appeared to have slept on the couch before making off with a laptop."

"At a nursery school in Milan a week later, director Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato, walked in on a Saturday and found Guede sitting at her desk, she told me in an interview. She called police. They found the stolen laptop and a knife in his pack. Del Prato suspected he might have gotten a key to the nursery school from one of her employees who frequented the Milan club scene. Del Prato told me she believed he spent a night on the children's cots and cooked a pot of pasta in the kitchen, then placed it in little bowls around the room."

"From that interview and many more, I pieced together a picture of a young man who seemed to be acting out some sort of fantasy of a home, a fantasy that perhaps abruptly cracked when Meredith Kercher came home unexpectedly while he was burgling her house, and unwittingly locked herself into the house with him. (Guede has maintained "whoever committed this terrible crime is still free.")"

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/


Thanks for the discussion on Rudy Guede's Milan adventure, folks, for to me, something just doesn't jive with what he said he did when there:
Guede - Yes I can recount it without problems. Seeing as, and this is something that happened before these days, that I found myself in a nursery
school in Milan and here I should… basically I had gone to Milan
Pros. Mignini - When was this?
Guede - On the 24th if I’m not wrong
Pros. Mignini - Of October
Guede - Of October, I had gone to Milan because it was a friend’s birthday
that I had got to know in Milan, anyway of a guy that I knew and I
went to… because there was this party and we were to go dancing
together and I was to spend a few days in Milan. Then it happened
that the last day which would be between the night of 26 and 27, I
found myself basically, well I couldn’t stay at this friend’s house and
also because we had gone to the discotheque and there I lost sight
of him… what did I think? I said to myself I’ll go to Milan Central
Station and wait for the train. However it must have been about
two… And so stupidly what did I do? I met… I was there and naively I
spoke with anybody and I met this South American person and I
explained my problem that here in Milan even the one star hotels
cost so much and this person said to me “it’s dangerous to say here
the night at the Central Station, I work in a place and you can stay
there until the morning that way you are safe” however you have to
give me 20 Euros. I gave him this money. He took me to this, in this
that turned out to be a nursery school… when I saw it… I naively said
“ok I’ll stay here” and I stayed there until the next morning and this
person had said to me “in the morning I’ll come don’t worry and then
you can leave.” However then in the morning I saw this lady and a
child and some men, I explained everything to the lady, how things
had happened, and I said to the lady to call the Police. Then the
Police came who then seized my cell phone and computer.
Napoleoni - Was the cell phone yours Rudy?
Guede - The cell phone wasn’t mine, it wasn’t mine… in the sense that I
hadn’t bought it…
_______________________________________________________________


Like I said, something about Rudy Guede's Milan trip just don't jive.
He travels 5 to 6 hours for a birthday party and some dancin' during the week. Cool, I wonder, did he bring a birthday present for his friend?
(Filomena did, esh, Amanda even helped her wrap it.)

Surely he packed a change of clothes or 2 in his backpack, right?
It looks like he was wearing a t-shirt under a sweatshirt when he got his mug shot in Milan. A clean change of clothes or the same as he was wearing for the last coupla days?

I find it odd that Guede was given the boot from staying at his friends flat. "Sorry bro, it's Friday night (and then early Saturday morning), and though your far from home, after we are done dancing, go find someplace else to sleep tonight".

Why would a friend do that?
Was Rudy causing problems? Falling asleep on the toilet, or barkin' like a dog in the middle of the night at a friends pad?

Here's some more from Nina Burleigh:
http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/?p=636&lang=en

Why not help set Rudy up with a different place to stay?
Or was Rudy's friend in Milan, Maria Del Prato's worker?
So he let him stay at a kids school overnight?

A dude goes dancin' at night clubs,
where most people usually drink a bunch,
is then found trespassing in the morning after sleeping overnight at nursery school? Heck, he apparently made the missing little school kids pasta dinner!
I wonder if Poor Rudy dreamnt of little kids too?
^^^^!

Weird dude,
my opinions only...
RW

Good questions...

Here are more.

Why didn't RG stay at his aunts place in Milan?

If RG got a key from someone...did the cops find it while searching RG and his possessions? (I don't think RG had a key...but there was an unlocked window or something)


Where is the data of this arrest?

Where is the data of this supposed case against RG for this crime? It has passed the second phase apparently...was it a secret trial?

Why is Frank not on this stuff if he is in fact not silenced?

Is NB the only person to look up the school director?