PDA

View Full Version : WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:26 PM
Yes we did. AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in several spots in the bathroom. AK's dna mixed with spot of Meredith's blood in Filomena's room.
I said exactly that in my original post but it may have not been clear.

So you are saying now that AK's actual blood is mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom?

Malkmus
04-07-2011, 09:31 PM
Let's see:
AK's BARE footprints found in luminal in the hallway and to/in front of her room.

AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in bathroom, and dna mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room (maybe some on the way before boogie).

'Excuse' of no towels, limited lighting, naked 20 yr old female, open front door, blood drops on sink (maybe on floor too before boogie), poo in toilet, etc that I PLAINLY stated "I THINK" are excuses.

I already know you don't agree so why ask?

I still don't see where the excuse is. And I'm honestly not being facetious. They found luminol-detected footprints in the hallway which the prosecution allege were made in blood. Are you saying that AK tried to excuse the missing blood by saying she accidentally wiped it with the bathmat which had no blood on the bottom of it? How does a story like that, if fake, help her in any way?

dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:36 PM
So you are saying now that AK's actual blood is mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom?

Isn't that correct Malkmus? Wasn't one place on the box of Q-tips?

Malkmus
04-07-2011, 09:39 PM
Isn't that correct Malkmus? Wasn't one place on the box of Q-tips?

One drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet I believe, not mixed with anyone else's dna. She attributed this to a recent ear piercing. None of the mixed blood/dna samples contained Amanda's blood.

SMK
04-07-2011, 09:41 PM
Something did have to be wiped in MK's room if there are bloody towels in the room.Rudy claims he tried to staunch the bleeding from Meredith's wound, and there may be truth in this.

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:42 PM
So this statement is incorrect? Just trying to be clear.


AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in several spots in the bathroom.

dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:44 PM
One drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet I believe, not mixed with anyone else's dna. She attributed this to a recent ear piercing. None of the mixed blood/dna samples contained Amanda's blood.

So what was the one on the Q-tips?

I recall there being 5 different places with 'mixtures' of either AK's blood or dna mixed with Meredith's dna (blood).

dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:46 PM
So this statement is incorrect? Just trying to be clear.

I think the most certain way to know exactly is to read it in the transcripts or the motivation reports.

Personally I recall there being 3 spots out of 5 that were her blood, but I could be wrong. 1 of the spots of only dna was in Filomena's room.

Malkmus
04-07-2011, 09:47 PM
So what was the one on the Q-tips?

I recall there being 5 different places with 'mixtures' of either AK's blood or dna mixed with Meredith's dna (blood).

Meredith's blood/Amanda's DNA

SMK
04-07-2011, 09:48 PM
Whether he called a few minutes before or a few minutes after is irrelevant to me since I believe the postal police were driving around looking for the cottage in the area... not sure of it's exact location. I believe RS spotted them either while they were nearing the cottage walking to it or just after they both arrived at the cottage (AK's second trip).
so are you saying that this discounts this???



Raff and Amanda were likely NOT taken by surprise by the arrival of the Postal Police---indeed, they thought it was the 112 responding to their call. that is why they stood outside.


2:35 p.m. The parking garage CCTV camera across the street from the cottage captures the Postal Police car arriving at the gate. The camera timer is 10 -12 minutes slow.

12:45 p.m. This is the actual time the Postal Police arrive at the gate.

12:46 p.m. Meredith's second phone is dropped off at police station.

12:47 p.m. Amanda calls her mother in Seattle.

12.50 p.m. Raffaele calls his sister Vanessa who is a police officer.

12:51 p.m. Raffaele calls 112. They said call back.

12:54 p.m. Raffaele calls 112 back and reports a possible robbery at the cottage.

12:55 pm Raffaele completes his 112 call

12:58 - 1:00 p.m. Postal Police arrive to the cottage. The Postal Police who are trying to find Filomena, as they had found two mobile phones and one of the numbers belongs to Filomena. Amanda thinks the phones are Meredith's. Amanda asks the police to break Meredith's door down. Amanda is unaware that the Postal Police are at the cottage from another call regarding the phones. Amanda assumes the police are there responding to Raffaele's call. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/timeline-2.html

dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:52 PM
One drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet I believe, not mixed with anyone else's dna. She attributed this to a recent ear piercing. None of the mixed blood/dna samples contained Amanda's blood.

There was no blood according to her before the murder. When would this blood of her's get there? She also 'attributed' to maybe being from Meredith's menstrual cycle too... I think. It didn't worry her too much it seems, either there or the blood on the bathmat.

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:54 PM
I don't know SMK, but it seems that whatever the case, they were ready to call the police if they did it before the PP got there.


As for Amanda's blood. If it happened to come from her ear, and if we are to believe her that it wasn't there before the murder, why can't it have fallen there before or after the shower she said she took that morning before the police got there?

Also, I personally wouldn't hold weight to whether or not AK knew when a splatter of blood had fallen. It could have fallen the afternoon before. Wasn't she at the house at least until lunchtime the day of the murder? The only reason I give leeway on this point is because we see NO open wounds on Amanda.

If she'd been scratched or they'd photographs some fight wounds, hell yeah, I'd be all over this blood in the bathroom.

dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:57 PM
@SMK.
Yes, that post shows the postal police arriving at 12:58 AFTER driving around looking for the cottage for a bit IMO. RS's call ends at 12:55... Don't believe they would have expected them that fast. My opinion is that RS saw them driving around looking for the cottage.

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 10:00 PM
If that's the theory for the call, then what do you believe he was thinking when he saw the PP driving around?

Also, what's the theory of his calls at 12:50 and 12:51?

And a random question: Was there evidence that AK had showered in that bathroom?

dgfred
04-07-2011, 10:06 PM
@wasn't me,
There are photos of what looks like to me a scratch on her neck on the day the murder was discovered (but it doesn't look 'bloody' to me). Also it looks like her bottom earing is 'different' or missing... it is hard to tell exactly but something looks odd about it (doesn't look 'bloody' either tho). I would guess any blood would be from there since AK mentions it to LE and mentions RS 'cleaning' her ears.

dgfred
04-07-2011, 10:13 PM
If that's the theory for the call, then what do you believe he was thinking when he saw the PP driving around?

Also, what's the theory of his calls at 12:50 and 12:51?

And a random question: Was there evidence that AK had showered in that bathroom?

:shocked2::uthere::praying:

Only 7 minutes before their arrival.

Not sure of the 'in the shower' evidence.

SMK
04-07-2011, 10:37 PM
@SMK.
Yes, that post shows the postal police arriving at 12:58 AFTER driving around looking for the cottage for a bit IMO. RS's call ends at 12:55... Don't believe they would have expected them that fast. My opinion is that RS saw them driving around looking for the cottage.OK, that is a thought, for sure! But one thing---why would the postal police have a hard time finding the cottage? Would they not be very aware of all streets and addresses, being after all the postal police????????:waitasec::waitasec:

SMK
04-07-2011, 10:41 PM
@dgfred
I added a question to my post to you above

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 10:42 PM
:shocked2::uthere::praying:

Only 7 minutes before their arrival.

Not sure of the 'in the shower' evidence.

I don't get it. what's the theory?

The scratch on her neck is of no concern to me, personally, because it's not bleeding and I read that no scrappings were found under Mk's nails.

Do we know how long AK and RS were at the cottage before police arrived? this might help to explain some of the call issues.

I'm reading the thing whomever posted for me to read about the window. It's quite excellent, so I'll be back on that window shortly.

sherlockh
04-07-2011, 10:48 PM
I'm sure that if Raf and Amanda knew there was one of their bloody footprints on the bathmat after they had just cleaned up every other trace of themselves, that they would have opted to just throw some water on the footprint to at least distort it or thrown it in the washing machine before calling the cops to take a look at it.
I actually agree with that. If only they had known. I can only speculate on it but I think AK figured it out that morning when she said she noticed blood on the bathmat and made up a story of stepping on it and sliding down the hall way. Maybe she thought it was her footprint? Anyway, easy to say what they should or should not have done now we know all the evidence. She should have thrown the Q-Tip box away as well. I guess they were not thinking all that clearly after their first ever murder. I am surprised they even came as far as they did with their plan. JMO.

I am still surprised anyone would believe any of her story. The door is open, there is blood, and she takes a shower. She notices the blood on the bathmat and thinks it is from her roommate menstruating. But never mind that, she steps on it and slides down the hallway naked. She claims to have touched dried blood, and clean her ears and that is supposed to explain for stains on the Q-Tip box? I don't know but how can anyone not be at least a little bit suspicious after such a story? :)

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 11:10 PM
I understand that the front door was wide open and this was not a curious thing for these women, because the door had a history of coming back open if not properly latched.

My neighbor's door was this way for the longest time. The first time I saw it ajar, it scared the crap out of me, but once it kept happening, it was just a normal occurance and I was unafraid to approach it and close it for my neighbors.

Amanda could have thought someone just didn't shut the door right again.

I know nothing of this sliding naked around on the bloody mat. It might be possible that she didn't even look down at the mat until she'd gotten out of the shower.

Back on this window, this guy I'm reading actually shows proof in pictures of evidence of someone climbing the wall and having loose brick dust on their feet after climbing into the room. It's a great read.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2-----a.html

sherlockh
04-07-2011, 11:30 PM
It is true that the door needed to be locked, but I have not read anywhere that it was normal that the front door was open. Nobody testified to this. AK herself testified that the open door surprised her, so nothing normal about that. She then continues that she thought maybe somebody left the door open while going out for a minute. She then leaves the door open ajar while getting naked and taking a shower.

wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 11:48 PM
You can be surprised by an occurance that you've seen once or twice before. Seeing your own front door open does make the heart pump and then you remember the latch has a catching problem. For all we know, RG might have closed it and it opened back up on its own.

I don't know anything about her leaving the door open. She testified that she did not close the door back? That's dumb, even if she WERE the murderer, if you ask me. just because you killed your roommate doesn't mean someone else won't walk in on you, and if you did kill your roommate, seems you want to close the door, so no one just walks in and discovers it as you shower. So her leaving the door open is dumb whether innocent or guilty.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 12:19 AM
okay, after reading Ron Hardry's theory about the window, I'm sold that RG entered the house through that window.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2------c.html

He even located a scuff mark on the wall, he indicated how the clothes might have gotten all over the floor, he shows evidence of partials from RG's shoes that got on stuff that RG stepped on when he climbed into the room, he explains how glass gets way deep into the room and also on the window sill.

most importantly, he explains about this rock.

In his theory, the rock hit the upright black bag and tore in as it fell to the ground. There are particles from the rock as well as glass at the crash to the floor area. I see no plausible reason for the rock to end up half way in and half way out of the torn bag if the rock was strategically placed. I also see no reason for it to be strategically placed off to the side rather than more in front of the window. I think the rock hitting that bag is very important, because it shows something natural happening as the rock lands somewhere it isn't supposed to be as opposed to someone choosing to also strike the bag with the rock as they place the rock and bag onto the floor.

Anyone who has read this report, tell me your thoughts, agreeing or disagreeing with it.

claudicici
04-08-2011, 12:46 AM
It doesn't make sense to me that he would have chosen such an inconvenient way to break into the place.If he broke in it would have been much easier to break in through the door.That whole scenario of first climbing up to open the shutters,than throwing the rock,then climbing back up and getting in without getting cut? No I don't believe it.
i think the door was left open or Meredith opened it or he would have broken in through the door.
Maybe he opened the green shutters on his way out...tossed the clothes around in F's room and then threw the rock while he was running off? That would explain the glass on the clothes.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 12:51 AM
Yeah, the front door sounds good, too, but RG has a history of throwing rocks and climbing in, so not sure why he didn't use the front door at the other place, either.

I was reading something very important about the contamination of the crime scene. It's as follows:

One last note about the contaminated bra clasp. I have read some very interesting details about the protective suits that the investigators are wearing in the video. The most important information pertains to the shoe covers. The bra clasp was found on the floor. The shoe covers actually work like dust mops. This would mean that all of the DNA throughout the apartment would have quickly been spread from room to room. Shoe covers are designed to protect floors from shoe contamination. This means that they keep dirt from transferring to the floor from the shoe. However, any dirt on the floor will adhere to the bottom of the shoe covers. The covers quickly become dirty. The investigators in the video do not change their shoe covers as they walk from room to room, thus causing even more contamination of the crime scene.

I didn't even think that the footies could have messed up the crime scene. But this theorist has a valid point. It could explain how AK's DNA got up in FR's room mixed with MK's DNA or blood.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

See this dude below outside on the balcony, touching the rails with his footies on. What did he track into the house? And did he change his gloves? See the dude in the doorway behind this investigator? The one with NO protective gear on? What did he track around the house?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/article-1234298-077B0A86000005DC-517_468x303.jpg

JBean
04-08-2011, 01:03 AM
have you ever seen food workers use the same gloves over and over, as if that would keep germs from transferring? Of course it doesn't. It just sticks to the gloves and they spread it around that way.
Same with a crime scene. touch this touch that walk on this walk on that. spreads evrything everywhere.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 02:04 AM
What I am missing from the defense is a video showing somebody climbing up to that window. They made a video of a rock going through a window. I saw a pic of somebody standing on the small window, but somebody actually climbing up is what I am missing. It is a small window to climb up to and pretty high from the ground. About half way I am guessing. I don't even know how one should pull themselves up on such a small window. Maybe it is possible by jumping up the window and then slamming your face into the wall..lol.. The window next to it (AK's) seems even easier to climb up as that window below is long and starts from the ground. It is not so strange that even from the AK support sites I see explanations like RG came swinging in from the side (where the front door is) or even RG came swinging in from the roof :)

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 02:31 AM
@SMK.
Yes, that post shows the postal police arriving at 12:58 AFTER driving around looking for the cottage for a bit IMO. RS's call ends at 12:55... Don't believe they would have expected them that fast. My opinion is that RS saw them driving around looking for the cottage.

The problem is, there's a story claiming that RS went in the house and sneaked to call the police AFTER the PP arrived. I think that the time stamps are showing that this conspiracy theory is not possible, because he had called the police before the PP arrived. Whether he happened to see them driving around is another story, BUT with this time clock fix, we can rule out the notion that he sneaked away to call the police while amanda was distracting the Postal Police.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 02:42 AM
What I am missing from the defense is a video showing somebody climbing up to that window. They made a video of a rock going through a window. I saw a pic of somebody standing on the small window, but somebody actually climbing up is what I am missing. It is a small window to climb up to and pretty high from the ground. About half way I am guessing. I don't even know how one should pull themselves up on such a small window. Maybe it is possible by jumping up the window and then slamming your face into the wall..lol.. The window next to it (AK's) seems even easier to climb up as that window below is long and starts from the ground. It is not so strange that even from the AK support sites I see explanations like RG came swinging in from the side (where the front door is) or even RG came swinging in from the roof :)

It's only 13ft off the ground. if you're 6ft tall, you're just about half way there. And if you've got this window below, which I don't know how tall this window it, but let's give it 4ft like the others, plus maybe 3 feet from the ground, there's another 7 feet and you are now eye level in the room. I don't know rudy's height, but he was a basketball player, so....

The pictures make it look high, but when look at it from all angles, it starts to not look so high. Look at this guy in this picture:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window_access111.jpg

I don't know how tall this guy is, but look at where he is standing on this iron grate that is on the other window below. Then notice how high he already seems. His shoulders just about level witht he window and he's not even standing up straight yet. Wiat till he takes that next step up and then straighten himself up. He'd be able to stare into the room and scare the mess out of anyone that was standing in there. I suppose the hardest part would be to hoist yourself up in there, but it's most likely like doing a pull up while exercising, know what I mean?

Now look at this picture:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh80.jpg

The arrow in the picture points to a scuff mark that the theorist believes Rudy made as he climbed up there.

Now look at this picture:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/130.jpg

These are clothes with dust from that wall on them. The dust came from the bottom of RG's feet after scuffing that wall to get into the room. In a zoomed out picture, you'll see these clothes piled up along the wall, which proves they were there on the messy floor and FR really has a loose theory of what a neat and tidy room is.


There are other theories about him reaching around to the window from the front porch, but I don't know about those.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 03:04 AM
Haha, that is the pic of the guy on the small window...lol.. I find that so funny. I am pretty sure somebody helped him up there. Why not show the first part?

The arrow to a 'scuff point' is proof of somebody climbing in? Did the defense forget to show this important piece of evidence?

The dust on the clothes are interesting but not decisive one way or the other. You are claiming it as fact that this is dust from the wall, but I am pretty sure that that is just your opinion. One side says a guy came up through the window and put the dust there. The other side says a guy/girl just went outside to get a big rock and the clothes were on the floor before breaking the window. The 2nd scenario is confirmed by the girl who actually lived in the room and testified on the situation in her own room.

All JMO.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 03:33 AM
There was no blood according to her before the murder. When would this blood of her's get there? She also 'attributed' to maybe being from Meredith's menstrual cycle too... I think. It didn't worry her too much it seems, either there or the blood on the bathmat.

There's a difference between knowing there was no blood the day before Meredith was murdered and seeing blood after the fact when there was much more of it in the sink. She noticed Meredith's blood in the sink, she didn't notice her one drop of blood which could have been left on the facet a day or two earlier.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 03:44 AM
I actually agree with that. If only they had known. I can only speculate on it but I think AK figured it out that morning when she said she noticed blood on the bathmat and made up a story of stepping on it and sliding down the hall way. Maybe she thought it was her footprint? Anyway, easy to say what they should or should not have done now we know all the evidence. She should have thrown the Q-Tip box away as well. I guess they were not thinking all that clearly after their first ever murder. I am surprised they even came as far as they did with their plan. JMO.

No matter what way you toss it, whether she thought it was her footprint or Raf's, it makes no sense to clean every other trace of themselves then call the police and specifically notify them of the blood in the bathroom if any of it could be traced to them. As far as throwing away the q-tip box, if she's innocent then there'd have been no reason to get rid of it.


I am still surprised anyone would believe any of her story. The door is open, there is blood, and she takes a shower. She notices the blood on the bathmat and thinks it is from her roommate menstruating. But never mind that, she steps on it and slides down the hallway naked. She claims to have touched dried blood, and clean her ears and that is supposed to explain for stains on the Q-Tip box? I don't know but how can anyone not be at least a little bit suspicious after such a story? :)

She went back to her boyfriend and told him about what she found. Are you 100 percent sure that every single person person would expect the worst based on what she found, and call the police first, or that some people would tell the person they were closest to first about it and then see what they should do?

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 03:47 AM
What I am missing from the defense is a video showing somebody climbing up to that window. They made a video of a rock going through a window. I saw a pic of somebody standing on the small window, but somebody actually climbing up is what I am missing. It is a small window to climb up to and pretty high from the ground. About half way I am guessing. I don't even know how one should pull themselves up on such a small window. Maybe it is possible by jumping up the window and then slamming your face into the wall..lol.. The window next to it (AK's) seems even easier to climb up as that window below is long and starts from the ground. It is not so strange that even from the AK support sites I see explanations like RG came swinging in from the side (where the front door is) or even RG came swinging in from the roof :)

The window climbing isn't such a bizarre feat when you consider he'd done the same thing at the lawyer's office break-in. What I find stranger is those that believe that AK and RS coincidentally mimicked Rudy's mode of operation in staging the burglary. So was it a huge coincidence? Or did Rudy just break into the cottage the same way he broke into the lawyer's office? Occam's razor strikes again.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 04:10 AM
No matter what way you toss it, whether she thought it was her footprint or Raf's, it makes no sense to clean every other trace of themselves then call the police and specifically notify them of the blood in the bathroom if any of it could be traced to them. As far as throwing away the q-tip box, if she's innocent then there'd have been no reason to get rid of it.
They luckily didn't clean all their traces. I am not sure why they left blood traces in the bathroom. This is all pretty much speculation territory. Maybe it was a rushed clean job and they left some traces. Maybe they thought the break in by itself wouldn't be enough reason for the police to break open MK's door. Maybe they thought it could be explained away by repeating over and over 'it is all normal because I live here'. I don't know. I only know that their plan wasn't perfect and that they made plenty of mistakes. JMO.

She went back to her boyfriend and told him about what she found. Are you 100 percent sure that every single person person would expect the worst based on what she found, and call the police first, or that some people would tell the person they were closest to first about it and then see what they should do?
I didn't say anything about expecting the worst or other people. Just thought why people buy such a bizarre story and not be at least a little suspicious? This is websleuths after all :)

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 04:15 AM
The window climbing isn't such a bizarre feat when you consider he'd done the same thing at the lawyer's office break-in. What I find stranger is those that believe that AK and RS coincidentally mimicked Rudy's mode of operation in staging the burglary. So was it a huge coincidence? Or did Rudy just break into the cottage the same way he broke into the lawyer's office? Occam's razor strikes again.
I still haven't seen any proof of RG breaking into that lawyers office. No history of breaking an entry, breaking windows, or carrying knives. All just internet gossips. Why not request proof for RG in the same way you do for AK+RS?

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:05 AM
. . . She went back to her boyfriend and told him about what she found. Are you 100 percent sure that every single person person would expect the worst based on what she found, and call the police first, or that some people would tell the person they were closest to first about it and then see what they should do?Exactly!!!In retrospect, one knows it was a murder scene, so judges. But as Amanda says, that did not enter her mind. Consider this: I knew someone in Pittsburgh in the early '90s, he had just worked an all night shift. He came home to his rental that he shared with his roommate. The front door was slightly a jar, but he figured his roommate left it that way. There were coins on the stairs, and a gold chain, but he figured his roommate had dropped coins and that maybe his girlfriend had dropped her necklace. There was blood in the hallway, but he thought his roommate had cut himself. He went to lie down. It was not until he went to go take a shower, and found his roommate fully clothed in the tub with his throat cut, dead, that he realized a burglary/murder had occurred and went to call 911.

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:10 AM
I still haven't seen any proof of RG breaking into that lawyers office. No history of breaking an entry, breaking windows, or carrying knives. All just internet gossips. Why not request proof for RG in the same way you do for AK+RS?

Internet gossip???? I am so stunned I can barely think.

They admitted in court he had broken into the nursery school and law offices, and had a knife in his backpack and stolen goods such as laptops.

An elderly couple testified that he had brandished a knife when robbing their home.

He was found with 2 knives, a kitchen knife , and a smaller switchblade. He also carried a rock in his backpack and had used it to gain entry by breaking windows. The prosecution admits all this, then says "but he knew the boys downstairs so we doubt he would choose such a place to rob". Maddening, sickening!!! I will find it, believe me, this is right in the judges report!

It is obvious he was a police informant, which is why he had a free pass. Hence your "no history of this, that, blah "---a girl is dead due to this free pass! His confidence grew and grew, no wonder he could sit on the toilet, until Meredith surprised him by coming home early. A British reporter found he had committed 6 serious crimes in 33 days. He had no reason to lie, he himself expressed amazement. This is NOT gossip.

The rents were due the next day, when he went to the cottage: Filomina was known to keep their monies in an envelope in her room. He was facing eviction. His prints and DNA are all over the crime scene. Also, he was sexually aggressive enough with females that he had to be asked to leave certain clubs for harassing them. the list goes on and on. Recall that Mignini, when he first suspected Amanda and Raffaele, did not yet know Guede was involved.

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:12 AM
The problem is, there's a story claiming that RS went in the house and sneaked to call the police AFTER the PP arrived. I think that the time stamps are showing that this conspiracy theory is not possible, because he had called the police before the PP arrived. Whether he happened to see them driving around is another story, BUT with this time clock fix, we can rule out the notion that he sneaked away to call the police while amanda was distracting the Postal Police.Right---and I really do NOT think the postal police would have to drive around looking for the residence. Being who they were, they would have known the location and arrived swiftly and smoothly.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 07:28 AM
I am only asking for proof. Not some journalist claiming some kind of hearsay. Lets start with proof of the break in in the law offices.

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:51 AM
I am only asking for proof. Not some journalist claiming some kind of hearsay. Lets start with proof of the break in in the law offices.How about the Massei or Machelli Report, where they speculate that, given his robberies, they still do not think he would choose that cottage, as he "knew the boys downstairs"? Also , the journalist at the Daily Mail surely would have been fired by now if he was making up all these reports on Guede.

SMK
04-08-2011, 08:01 AM
Just a beginning here:

In justifying a guilty verdict for Amanda and Raffaele, the Court was faced with an elephant in the room; Rudy Guede is clearly guilty of the murder. He had a history of repeated break ins; he knew that the students would have rent money, in cash, on that day of the month; he was in desperate need of money since he likely faced imminent eviction; he was known to carry large knives (and small ones); his presence at the scene of the crime was indisputable; and he fled the country shortly after. The case against Rudy Guede was overwhelming. How then, to diminish Rudy’s role and substitute Amanda, a kid who had no criminal or violent history and no motive, as the architect of this horrific crime?
The Motivation begins this delicate process by attempting to dismiss the import of three of Guede’s previous break ins that were testified to in the trial (there were others). These break ins took place in just the month before he committed the murder. They were at a nursery in Milan, a law office in Perugia, and at the Tramontano home in Perugia. Incredibly, it downplayed the obvious similarities between these prior crimes and the Kercher murder while highlighting a trivial difference.

It is instructive to review these break ins, as reported in the Motivation itself, not only as a window to understanding Rudy Guede’s criminal history but for insights into just far the Court went in its interpretation of events to get the result they sought.

“…on the morning of October 27, 2007, a Saturday, as she entered the nursery school at via Plinio 16, Milan, of which she was the principal, she noticed coming out of her office a person whom she didn’t know, later identified as Rudy Guede…. Rudy Guede had a backpack inside which was a computer. Called at once, the police made him open the backpack, in which they found a 40cm kitchen knife. She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman's watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows. The police told her that the computer had been stolen from a law office in Perugia.”
P-45

Rudy had a great excuse for breaking into the nursery school. He claimed that someone at the train station in Milan had told him he could stay there, for which service Rudy said he paid the man 50 Euros. So, the police naturally let him go. I could sell bridges to clients like these.

Just 6 days before the murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede made this unlawful entry into a nursery school where he was found with a very large kitchen knife and breaking and entering tools, and was subsequently questioned by the Polizia. And they let him go on an utterly unbelievable excuse. Why?

And what about the computer that was stolen from the law office?

On the night of October 13, 2007, just over two weeks before the murder, a law office in Perugia had been broken into.

“The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass…”
P-46

Rudy Guede later went to the attorneys to apologize for having been captured with their stolen laptop, claiming to have purchased it legally. Why he did that is a mystery, one of many strange things Rudy did that seem to make no sense whatever. None of this makes sense unless there was something else going on that we don’t know about. Rudy’s relationship with the Polizia is an important anomaly, an unanswered question that we will revisit in a later chapter.

Rudy broke into the office by throwing a rock through a window, the same entry method use in the cottage break in. There was even a grill beneath the window to climb up, just as with the cottage:

“…declared that the broken window was “a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille...”
P-46

Finally, Rudy broke into the home of Cristian Tramontano and threatened him with a jackknife when Cristian tried to make Rudy leave his home. This break in also took place in the month before the murder. During it, Rudy “…tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano….” P-46

Any objective person reviewing this evidence would conclude that Rudy Guede was an active burglar, that his modus operandi was varied, and included throwing rocks through windows and climbing up lattices to gain entry, that he broke into places that were occupied and had threatened the occupants with knives. Any objective person would therefore be not the least bit surprised to hear that Rudy broke into the cottage at Via della Pergola by similar means, with a more tragic outcome.

But what did the Court conclude? The exact opposite. [. . . ]



[. . . ]

Clinging to the slenderest of threads, the Court observed that while Rudy was not acquainted with the occupants of the nursery school, the law office, or the home, he was acquainted with the boys who lived downstairs at Via dela Pergola. This trivial distinction is given uncanny weight and cited as near proof that Rudy would not have broken into the cottage.

“Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar who broke into the law office of the lawyers Brocchi and Palazzoli and into Tramontano’s house, it must be observed that Rudy was not known by these, nor by the director of the nursery school in via Plinio, Milan; this situation is entirely different from the one at via della Pergola…”

Entirely different? Because he played basketball with the guys downstairs? Rudy had shown no compunction against breaking into a nursery school. A nursery school. He had thrown a rock through a window and climbed into a law office. He had threatened a home’s resident with a knife. The Court even cited a number of differences between these prior break ins, showing that Rudy didn’t always do the same thing. All this (and more, actually) in just the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher. http://www.sciencespheres.com/

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 08:39 AM
Why do you think Massei says: "Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar"? Because it is not proven he was the burglar in those law offices. He was caught with stolen property and booked for that. Nothing more nothing less.

So now Rudy already had 2 knives, a rock in his backpack (where does that even come from?), he is threatened an elderly couple (huh?), and last but not least, without any proof whatsoever...he is a police informant..lol... Just a little trick by the defense so they don't have to proof any of his burglary history which was all covered up since he is a police informant which also doesn't need any proof since after all how can you proof that? Keeping the rumor alive.

You are mainly copying large parts of propaganda sites supporting the Knox PR campaign. There is nothing objective about these sites. There are full with falsehoods, rumors and yes gossips ;) I think it would be much clearer if we just stick with topics that are actually being discussed during the trials. JMO.

SMK
04-08-2011, 09:07 AM
Why do you think Massei says: "Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar"? Because it is not proven he was the burglar in those law offices. He was caught with stolen property and booked for that. Nothing more nothing less.

So now Rudy already had 2 knives, a rock in his backpack (where does that even come from?), he is threatened an elderly couple (huh?), and last but not least, without any proof whatsoever...he is a police informant..lol... Just a little trick by the defense so they don't have to proof any of his burglary history which was all covered up since he is a police informant which also doesn't need any proof since after all how can you proof that? Keeping the rumor alive.

You are mainly copying large parts of propaganda sites supporting the Knox PR campaign. There is nothing objective about these sites. There are full with falsehoods, rumors and yes gossips ;) I think it would be much clearer if we just stick with topics that are actually being discussed during the trials. JMO.Well, I do not think it is propaganda, for a number of reasons. For me, it weighs very, very heavily.

SMK
04-08-2011, 09:14 AM
In any case, it can all be turned around to support the prosecution's theory as well---i.e., no proof= no reason to consider that Guede may have been doing a robbery which turned murder. The "Knox PR Campaign" is an accusation against a scientist who is not known to have ever been dishonest in his career: Why should he choose to do so now? Oh, he is being paid by the PR Machine, well, where is the proof of THAT? I think one ignores all this about Guede and ignores how VERY odd the wording of the motivation report about Guede is, because one wants to. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no proof this is dishonest propaganda - it is a huge leap and a conjecture to call it such. How about concerned educated people who are seriously questioning the case? To dismiss out of hand is just an easy way out. The appeal is ignoring the huge questions, and focusing on tiny details that will NOT change anything.

SMK
04-08-2011, 09:37 AM
Haha, that is the pic of the guy on the small window...lol.. I find that so funny. I am pretty sure somebody helped him up there. Why not show the first part?

The arrow to a 'scuff point' is proof of somebody climbing in? Did the defense forget to show this important piece of evidence?

The dust on the clothes are interesting but not decisive one way or the other. You are claiming it as fact that this is dust from the wall, but I am pretty sure that that is just your opinion. One side says a guy came up through the window and put the dust there. The other side says a guy/girl just went outside to get a big rock and the clothes were on the floor before breaking the window. The 2nd scenario is confirmed by the girl who actually lived in the room and testified on the situation in her own room.

All JMO.where is the indication that someone helped him up there??? Are you saying that retired professionals now decide to become dishonest and throw integrity out the window? proof???

SMK
04-08-2011, 10:19 AM
Yeah, the front door sounds good, too, but RG has a history of throwing rocks and climbing in, so not sure why he didn't use the front door at the other place, either.

I was reading something very important about the contamination of the crime scene. It's as follows:

One last note about the contaminated bra clasp. I have read some very interesting details about the protective suits that the investigators are wearing in the video. The most important information pertains to the shoe covers. The bra clasp was found on the floor. The shoe covers actually work like dust mops. This would mean that all of the DNA throughout the apartment would have quickly been spread from room to room. Shoe covers are designed to protect floors from shoe contamination. This means that they keep dirt from transferring to the floor from the shoe. However, any dirt on the floor will adhere to the bottom of the shoe covers. The covers quickly become dirty. The investigators in the video do not change their shoe covers as they walk from room to room, thus causing even more contamination of the crime scene.

I didn't even think that the footies could have messed up the crime scene. But this theorist has a valid point. It could explain how AK's DNA got up in FR's room mixed with MK's DNA or blood.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

See this dude below outside on the balcony, touching the rails with his footies on. What did he track into the house? And did he change his gloves? See the dude in the doorway behind this investigator? The one with NO protective gear on? What did he track around the house?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/article-1234298-077B0A86000005DC-517_468x303.jpg
Excellent points, and why the idea of contamination ought to have been taken very, very seriously.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 10:20 AM
where is the indication that someone helped him up there??? Are you saying that retired professionals now decide to become dishonest and throw integrity out the window? proof???
Lol..good one ;) It is a defense lawyer by the way who is climbing up there. I have no problem accepting the break in was easy but just show it. It is so obviously deceiving to show a guy who is already half way. If it is so easy to climb up there then where is the first part? Show how he steps up the small window, show how he holds himself onto that small window and somehow gets up vertically to reach to Filomena's window without falling backwards.

SMK
04-08-2011, 10:26 AM
Lol..good one ;) It is a defense lawyer by the way who is climbing up there. I have no problem accepting the break in was easy but just show it. It is so obviously deceiving to show a guy who is already half way. If it is so easy to climb up there then where is the first part? Show how he steps up the small window, show how he holds himself onto that small window and somehow gets up vertically to reach to Filomena's window without falling backwards.Point taken. But I do not presuppose that the defense, or those on Knox's side, are willing to be dishonest or deceptive about their true belief that the prosecution got it wrong. That said, the prosecution likely sincerely believe in their own theory, and are not just conspiring against the defendants. But I take the questions and gaps very seriously, in the name of justice, really do not care about any of the characters in Perugia as I do not know them, including MK.

SMK
04-08-2011, 10:40 AM
To qualify: It is doubtful to me that these educated persons of long-standing careers are merely part of some "Knox PR Machine"---nor do I think that they are enamored of Amanda and Raffaele. I think they are trying to serve justice, impartially.
Guede fled to Germany as it dawned on him that he had killed a University student, and his luck had run out in Perugia. AK and RS stayed, and dealt with the police at the cottage. Very telling, IMO.

ziggy
04-08-2011, 02:21 PM
It doesn't make sense to me that he would have chosen such an inconvenient way to break into the place.If he broke in it would have been much easier to break in through the door.That whole scenario of first climbing up to open the shutters,than throwing the rock,then climbing back up and getting in without getting cut? No I don't believe it.
i think the door was left open or Meredith opened it or he would have broken in through the door.
Maybe he opened the green shutters on his way out...tossed the clothes around in F's room and then threw the rock while he was running off? That would explain the glass on the clothes.

Claudi - no matter how many times I try to train my boss and others about keyboard shortcuts, they insist on using the slow mouse and drag it around and click - it's much slower and less efficient BUT IT'S WHAT THEY KNOW. People do what they know even if it seems like there might be a better, faster or more convenient way.

Nova
04-08-2011, 02:55 PM
Whether he called a few minutes before or a few minutes after is irrelevant to me since I believe the postal police were driving around looking for the cottage in the area... not sure of it's exact location. I believe RS spotted them either while they were nearing the cottage walking to it or just after they both arrived at the cottage (AK's second trip).

Well, there's a leap! Even if RS had seen the postal police on the road, why would he assume they were coming to the cottage?

But if he were calling the carabinieri in a panic, he would have called them. He wouldn't have called to discuss things with his sister first.

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:09 PM
What do you mean 'leap'?

So if you were INVOLVED in a murder and walking to or standing AT the crime scene... would you be nervous if you saw any police person in the vicinity???

I say the 'leap' is not thinking this would be so.

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:17 PM
...She went back to her boyfriend and told him about what she found. Are you 100 percent sure that every single person person would expect the worst based on what she found, and call the police first, or that some people would tell the person they were closest to first about it and then see what they should do?

I'm not correcting you, Mal, because I'm sure you've thought of this.

But we should add the language issue. AK went to tell RS about the break-in in part, I believe, because she wanted help dealing with police from someone fluent in Italian. She may have even known that RS had a relative on the Force.

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:21 PM
Why would she stroll back, eat lunch, stroll back over to the cottage... then want to call police?

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:24 PM
Exactly!!!In retrospect, one knows it was a murder scene, so judges. But as Amanda says, that did not enter her mind. Consider this: I knew someone in Pittsburgh in the early '90s, he had just worked an all night shift. He came home to his rental that he shared with his roommate. The front door was slightly a jar, but he figured his roommate left it that way. There were coins on the stairs, and a gold chain, but he figured his roommate had dropped coins and that maybe his girlfriend had dropped her necklace. There was blood in the hallway, but he thought his roommate had cut himself. He went to lie down. It was not until he went to go take a shower, and found his roommate fully clothed in the tub with his throat cut, dead, that he realized a burglary/murder had occurred and went to call 911.

Great example! I think most of us tend to reach for mundane explanations before accepting the worst. Only the most timid or neurotic immediately assume an unlocked door means a murder has been committed.

SMK
04-08-2011, 03:30 PM
Great example! I think most of us tend to reach for mundane explanations before accepting the worst. Only the most timid or neurotic immediately assume an unlocked door means a murder has been committed.Thanks, and you are right. First off, you are simply NOT EXPECTING a robbery/murder - your mind wasn't on it as you went about your business. Secondly, the mind goes into a denial state: You see, but don't see. "Oh, coins on the stairs, and a gold chain on the stairs, I guess they dropped those." I can picture Amanda's mind doing the same. It is so easy to judge in retrospect, as though she knew a murder had been committed. She did not.

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:30 PM
Claudi - no matter how many times I try to train my boss and others about keyboard shortcuts, they insist on using the slow mouse and drag it around and click - it's much slower and less efficient BUT IT'S WHAT THEY KNOW. People do what they know even if it seems like there might be a better, faster or more convenient way.

Indeed they do.

And Hendry discusses at length why that particular window, while physically challenging, offered numerous advantages in terms of visibility and avenues for escape if discovered while outside.

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:33 PM
What do you mean 'leap'?

So if you were INVOLVED in a murder and walking to or standing AT the crime scene... would you be nervous if you saw any police person in the vicinity???

I say the 'leap' is not thinking this would be so.

Leap in logic. Surely RS knew the difference between the postal police and the carabinieri and he knew whom he had called! (AK may not have understood this distinction, but RS surely did.)

Even if RS saw the postal police in the neighborhood, he'd have no reason to think they were responding to his call, because he didn't call them.

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:37 PM
But he couldn't be worried/anxious since he was involved in a murder, was standing at the crime scene, and saw policemen (of any sort) driving around looking at the cottage... yeah right.

Plus this subject doesn't make any difference to the proceedings now... it is just something I 'thought' personally. Whether it happened that way, or another way, or your way doesn't make any difference at this point.

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:40 PM
Why would she stroll back, eat lunch, stroll back over to the cottage... then want to call police?

The break-in had already occurred. The evidence of it wasn't going anywhere.

But whether she "strolled" or "walked purposely" is a matter of opinion. If an eyewitness caught her "strolling," I haven't heard the testimony.

Much is made of her stopping to "eat lunch." But again, what exactly does that mean. Did she sit for 2 hours while RS served her a 6-course meal? Or did she grab an apple? A sandwich?

OF COURSE, now that we know the horror that awaited in MK's room, we expect more urgency on the part of AK and RS. But assuming they didn't know a murder had taken place, what was the rush?

I know don't the practice in Seattle, but there are large cities in the U.S. where police won't even respond to simple break-ins. They're just too busy. Instead they tell the victim to drop by the station some time and fill out a report.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Indeed they do.

And Hendry discusses at length why that particular window, while physically challenging, offered numerous advantages in terms of visibility and avenues for escape if discovered while outside.

You make some important points here Nova. Due to the direction the traffic came from it would be much easier to see someone on a deck than further below coming from the opposite direction. All of your points are things that burglers do take into consideration

OldSteve
04-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Question - I'm not familiar with how appeals work in Italy.
Are convictions ever, rarely, never overturned?
Is the best one can expect just a sentence reduction?
Can a sentence be lengthened?

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:44 PM
He seemed to mention blood IIRC, and a locked door... he should have been a 'tad' more worried. That was the whole point wasn't it? Can't have it both ways... either worried about the break in and Meredith, or not so worried.

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:45 PM
But he couldn't be worried/anxious since he was involved in a murder, was standing at the crime scene, and saw policemen (of any sort) driving around looking at the cottage... yeah right.

Plus this subject doesn't make any difference to the proceedings now... it is just something I 'thought' personally. Whether it happened that way, or another way, or your way doesn't make any difference at this point.

Dude, you brought it up. When somebody responds, it's a little late to say the issue is irrelevant. :)

But I agree that the guilt or innocence of AK and RS doesn't depend on this issue. Your theory seemed a new way to keep alive the myth that RS called the carabinieri after and only because the postal police arrived, and that simply is not true.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 03:48 PM
But he couldn't be worried/anxious since he was involved in a murder, was standing at the crime scene, and saw policemen (of any sort) driving around looking at the cottage... yeah right.

Plus this subject doesn't make any difference to the proceedings now... it is just something I 'thought' personally. Whether it happened that way, or another way, or your way doesn't make any difference at this point.

Why would anyone be concerned if they had done not committed a murder? Your reasoning does not make sense. If that had of been me, I would be no where near that cottage. I would of continued on with my plans in the hopes that the discovery would take much longer and as this was an important holiday in Italy it could of been very likely this would not of been discovered for much longer if AK had not of gone home, showered, noted things that seemed out of place, grabbed a mop, taken it back to RS's, and then returned said mop after telling RS what she had seen. I first would not of gone home to shower let alone called the police.

As for concern over the postal police, RS did not call them he called a different department. The postal police were responding with respect to a different call from a different person regarding 2 cell phones. There is simply no logic in your statement

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Question - I'm not familiar with how appeals work in Italy.
Are convictions ever, rarely, never overturned?
Is the best one can expect just a sentence reduction?
Can a sentence be lengthened?

I've read that first appeals in Italy are quite different from appeals here in the States and the overturning of convictions is more common; however, I haven't seen any hard figures.

I believe the prosecution has indeed asked that AK's and RS' sentences be lengthened, so apparently that is possible.

What I have NOT heard anything about is the likelihood that sentences would be reduced or what would have to happen for that to occur. It's too late for AK or RS to opt for a fast-track trial and that's the only ground for reduction I've heard about. This does not mean that others don't exist.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Exactly!!!In retrospect, one knows it was a murder scene, so judges. But as Amanda says, that did not enter her mind. Consider this: I knew someone in Pittsburgh in the early '90s, he had just worked an all night shift. He came home to his rental that he shared with his roommate. The front door was slightly a jar, but he figured his roommate left it that way. There were coins on the stairs, and a gold chain, but he figured his roommate had dropped coins and that maybe his girlfriend had dropped her necklace. There was blood in the hallway, but he thought his roommate had cut himself. He went to lie down. It was not until he went to go take a shower, and found his roommate fully clothed in the tub with his throat cut, dead, that he realized a burglary/murder had occurred and went to call 911.

Oh SMK I am terribly sorry to hear this!!!!

You do bring up some very valid points. Most do not think little things out of the ordinary mean that it is indeed a murder. There have been numerous times I have returned home to find the wind had blown open my door after my children had not closed it completely and there was nothing wrong with the locks.

They were simply in a rush to make it to the bus stop in time to catch the bus. I certainly never considered that a murder had occurred in my home. Just that the kids "did it again"

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Why would anyone be concerned if they had done not committed a murder? Your reasoning does not make sense. If that had of been me, I would be no where near that cottage. I would of continued on with my plans in the hopes that the discovery would take much longer and as this was an important holiday in Italy it could of been very likely this would not of been discovered for much longer if AK had not of gone home, showered, noted things that seemed out of place, grabbed a mop, taken it back to RS's, and then returned said mop after telling RS what she had seen. I first would not of gone home to shower let alone called the police.

As for concern over the postal police, RS did not call them he called a different department. The postal police were responding with respect to a different call from a different person regarding 2 cell phones. There is simply no logic in your statement

Exactly. Whatever happened to perps distancing themselves from the crime?

Even assuming that AK came home to take a shower in the a.m. in order to muddy the crime scene, why didn't she and RS just proceed on their holiday?

Or conversely, if AK and RS did indeed spend the night cleaning up the apartment (something the forensics don't show), why return for a morning shower and risk leaving more traces of her DNA behind?

I appreciate why the break-in seems odd to people. But IMO those oddities pale in comparison to wild theories that must be created to explain AK's and RS' participation in the murder.

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Indeed they do.

And Hendry discusses at length why that particular window, while physically challenging, offered numerous advantages in terms of visibility and avenues for escape if discovered while outside.

So it is physically challeging to enter, but offers 'advantages' for an avenue of escape. Geewiz, y'all are champion :spinner:

What would be one of the 'numerous' advantages in terms of visibility? How would that offer a better escape route than the back of the cottage where that was on the edge of the town?

No burgler in their right mind would scale that window (especially one that had seen the layout of the cottage) when a simple entry point would have been in the back on the balcony.

But it sure is somewhat entertaining to see all these 'spins' over a scene/action that has been proven by the prosecution as being a staged break in. This is not under appeal... and will never be.

Please return to your regularly scheduled programs. :crazy:

Nova
04-08-2011, 03:58 PM
Oh SMK I am terribly sorry to hear this!!!!

You do bring up some very valid points. Most do not think little things out of the ordinary mean that it is indeed a murder. There have been numerous times I have returned home to find the wind had blown open my door after my children had not closed it completely and there was nothing wrong with the locks.

They were simply in a rush to make it to the bus stop in time to catch the bus. I certainly never considered that a murder had occurred in my home. Just that the kids "did it again"

And furthermore, the cottage was basically a "dormitory" for AK and MK, and along with the boys downstairs, seems to have operated much like college housing. Certainly when I lived in a college dormitory very lax security was the norm and people wandered in and out of rooms at will; my niece is a freshman at a university in Hawaii and is experiencing much the same thing.

Under those circumstances, a door left open would not immediately cause alarm. Nor would a few drops of blood in a bathroom.

dgfred
04-08-2011, 03:59 PM
Dude, you brought it up. When somebody responds, it's a little late to say the issue is irrelevant. :)

But I agree that the guilt or innocence of AK and RS doesn't depend on this issue. Your theory seemed a new way to keep alive the myth that RS called the carabinieri after and only because the postal police arrived, and that simply is not true.

Dear Dudee,
I was asked what I thought was the scenario around the call and I responded. Since then the 'crowd' has been jumping all over it... mainly for the reason that they do not agree. This is MY position, no 'myth' involved, no prosecution, no court... just mine. They arrived at the cottage approximately 7 minutes after the call to the carabinieri. What I posted doesn't 'keep alive' anything.

Nova
04-08-2011, 04:04 PM
So it is physically challeging to enter, but offers 'advantages' for an avenue of escape. Geewiz, y'all are champion :spinner:

What would be one of the 'numerous' advantages in terms of visibility? How would that offer a better escape route than the back of the cottage where that was on the edge of the town?

No burgler in their right mind would scale that window (especially one that had seen the layout of the cottage) when a simple entry point would have been in the back on the balcony.

But it sure is somewhat entertaining to see all these 'spins' over a scene/action that has been proven by the prosecution as being a staged break in. This is not under appeal... and will never be.

Please return to your regularly scheduled programs. :crazy:

Do we know that RG had been inside upstairs? Your post is the first I've heard of it.

Hendry points out that the broken window was hidden from the road by a tree, but allowed a burglar to view both the road and the parking lot. IIRC, he also points out that entering via the balcony would mean a burglar might be trapped on the balcony if someone turned out to be home. By entering through the window that was broken, the burglar made his noise (breaking glass with the rock) while he was still in a place where he could run away easily if a light came on in response to the sound or if a car entered the parking lot.

You can read all this in the Hendry links, but I know the pro-verdict camp has conveniently decided to ignore him.

And Hendry may be wrong on this score. But it is one explanation why a burglar would go to the trouble of entering via a physically inconvenient point of entry.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:07 PM
Why do you think Massei says: "Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar"? Because it is not proven he was the burglar in those law offices. He was caught with stolen property and booked for that. Nothing more nothing less.

So now Rudy already had 2 knives, a rock in his backpack (where does that even come from?), he is threatened an elderly couple (huh?), and last but not least, without any proof whatsoever...he is a police informant..lol... Just a little trick by the defense so they don't have to proof any of his burglary history which was all covered up since he is a police informant which also doesn't need any proof since after all how can you proof that? Keeping the rumor alive.

You are mainly copying large parts of propaganda sites supporting the Knox PR campaign. There is nothing objective about these sites. There are full with falsehoods, rumors and yes gossips ;) I think it would be much clearer if we just stick with topics that are actually being discussed during the trials. JMO.

I think there is a more important question in this. When you have someone that has entered a premise 6 times in 33 days, is found to have stolen items as well as break and enter items in a backpack (which leads me to believe these may only be the times they are aware of and there possibly be even more) why would ILE not investigate him further. They had more on RG from these than they did of AK yet never arrested him, took him in for questioning, etc. Something is very wrong with this scenerio

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:12 PM
It doesn't make sense to me that he would have chosen such an inconvenient way to break into the place.If he broke in it would have been much easier to break in through the door.That whole scenario of first climbing up to open the shutters,than throwing the rock,then climbing back up and getting in without getting cut? No I don't believe it.
i think the door was left open or Meredith opened it or he would have broken in through the door.
Maybe he opened the green shutters on his way out...tossed the clothes around in F's room and then threw the rock while he was running off? That would explain the glass on the clothes.

The door very well may of been left open or not closed properly. I do believe the rock was thrown at the start as it is one method burglers do use to determine whether anyone is home as the noise would usually wake people up.

What does not make sense in your analysis is why his footprints led straight to the door and not into Filomena's room as there would of been blood on the footwear as evidenced from the ones in the hallway

ziggy
04-08-2011, 04:13 PM
Exactly. Whatever happened to perps distancing themselves from the crime?

Even assuming that AK came home to take a shower in the a.m. in order to muddy the crime scene, why didn't she and RS just proceed on their holiday?

Or conversely, if AK and RS did indeed spend the night cleaning up the apartment (something the forensics don't show), why return for a morning shower and risk leaving more traces of her DNA behind?

I appreciate why the break-in seems odd to people. But IMO those oddities pale in comparison to wild theories that must be created to explain AK's and RS' participation in the murder.

Especially considering Rudy DID flee THE COUNTRY. Some co-conspirator he is! He fled and left the other two to do the dirty work and the great criminal minds that they are figured to be didn't immediately see him as the perfect perp at which to point the finger and exculpate themselves - since they managed to clean up all evidence that they were in the room and leave his? wow - It defies any kind of logic or reason to believe AK and RS as co-conspirators would take the fall for Rudy. But then again, I see some are impervious to reason.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:14 PM
Dear Dudee,
I was asked what I thought was the scenario around the call and I responded. Since then the 'crowd' has been jumping all over it... mainly for the reason that they do not agree. This is MY position, no 'myth' involved, no prosecution, no court... just mine. They arrived at the cottage approximately 7 minutes after the call to the carabinieri. What I posted doesn't 'keep alive' anything.

Then what is the point you are trying to make as it is consistently brought up and the same explanations given?

otto
04-08-2011, 04:15 PM
So it is physically challeging to enter, but offers 'advantages' for an avenue of escape. Geewiz, y'all are champion :spinner:

What would be one of the 'numerous' advantages in terms of visibility? How would that offer a better escape route than the back of the cottage where that was on the edge of the town?

No burgler in their right mind would scale that window (especially one that had seen the layout of the cottage) when a simple entry point would have been in the back on the balcony.

But it sure is somewhat entertaining to see all these 'spins' over a scene/action that has been proven by the prosecution as being a staged break in. This is not under appeal... and will never be.

Please return to your regularly scheduled programs. :crazy:

Very curious how the side window has a better escape route than climbing onto the deck since the only way to access the side window is to walk all around the cottage (pretty much a 360 from the front door), past the deck, and access the narrow sidewalk that runs along the side of the cottage.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:21 PM
Frank has a new post on his site that I thought some of you might be interested in.

It seems that they found starch on the knife and only 5 picograms of unidentified DNA which is too small to test

"As we know no blood was found on the knife and it was decided not to take it apart since the scrubbing in the crevice did provide some substance "

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Very curious how the side window has a better escape route than climbing onto the deck since the only way to access the side window is to walk all around the cottage (pretty much a 360 from the front door), past the deck, and access the narrow sidewalk that runs along the side of the cottage.

Why would any burgler want to enter a 2nd story when there are easier ways and means? Statistics show though that this is common. Since I am personally not a burgler I unfortunately cannot understand there various reasons

Burgleries happen all the time even on the 2nd floor

dgfred
04-08-2011, 04:24 PM
Then what is the point you are trying to make as it is consistently brought up and the same explanations given?

Ha, are you talking to yourself :slap: .

The vicious cycle continues: a nonexistant 'flaw' in the case is seen from an internet poster's computer screen, we give the same valid reasoning and explanations for the perceived wronging of AK (again), then the 'crowd' moves to the next point of the massive conspiracy against the :innocent: AK.
And on and on.

SMK
04-08-2011, 04:28 PM
Oh SMK I am terribly sorry to hear this!!!!

You do bring up some very valid points. Most do not think little things out of the ordinary mean that it is indeed a murder. There have been numerous times I have returned home to find the wind had blown open my door after my children had not closed it completely and there was nothing wrong with the locks.

They were simply in a rush to make it to the bus stop in time to catch the bus. I certainly never considered that a murder had occurred in my home. Just that the kids "did it again"
Thanks, yes, I actually did not know his roommate who was murdered, but it was very tragic indeed for him to find him, and I know it shook him up terribly. And yes, there are often simple explanations as you say with your kids. It takes a REAL JOLT ( in this case, finding his roommate dead with throat cut) to make one see what has really occurred. God forbid any of us should ever have to find anything of this nature. Why did Amanda and Raffale - if guilty - not go away for the weekend, to avoid being seen and questioned?

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:29 PM
Ha, are you talking to yourself :slap: .

The vicious cycle continues: a nonexistant 'flaw' in the case is seen from an internet poster's computer screen, we give the same valid reasoning and explanations for the perceived wronging of AK (again), then the 'crowd' moves to the next point of the massive conspiracy against the :innocent: AK.
And on and on.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

otto
04-08-2011, 04:30 PM
Frank has a new post on his site that I thought some of you might be interested in.

It seems that they found starch on the knife and only 5 picograms of unidentified DNA which is too small to test

"As we know no blood was found on the knife and it was decided not to take it apart since the scrubbing in the crevice did provide some substance "

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

I think Franks remarks about the Oggi article are more interesting:

" Frank Sfarzo said...
When did Oggi publish that, on April 1st?...
Maybe they made a joke to people.
Or someone made a joke to them.

Or it's just the usual wishful thinking...

She's [Nara] a hear witness and now it comes out that she's almost deaf...
If she was an eyewitness she would have turned almost blind...
If her story implied a walk she would have turned almost paralytic...

Think about that..."

Nova
04-08-2011, 04:30 PM
He seemed to mention blood IIRC, and a locked door... he should have been a 'tad' more worried. That was the whole point wasn't it? Can't have it both ways... either worried about the break in and Meredith, or not so worried.

Actually, here's a third response: "It's probably nothing, but we don't know for sure and my sister said we should call you and let you check it out."

Why is the case against AK and RS so often made using black and white dichotomies? AK is either fluent in Italian or speaks not a word of it. The victim is practically the Madonna, so AK must be Satan's mistress. RS isn't an Eagle Scout, so he must be a serial killer. Filomena doesn't remember leaving her room a mess, so it must have been spotless. Etc. and so forth...

otto
04-08-2011, 04:31 PM
Why would any burgler want to enter a 2nd story when there are easier ways and means? Statistics show though that this is common. Since I am personally not a burgler I unfortunately cannot understand there various reasons

Burgleries happen all the time even on the 2nd floor

Easier ways and means to do what? Enter a 2nd story?
... not following

SMK
04-08-2011, 04:32 PM
And furthermore, the cottage was basically a "dormitory" for AK and MK, and along with the boys downstairs, seems to have operated much like college housing. Certainly when I lived in a college dormitory very lax security was the norm and people wandered in and out of rooms at will; my niece is a freshman at a university in Hawaii and is experiencing much the same thing.

Under those circumstances, a door left open would not immediately cause alarm. Nor would a few drops of blood in a bathroom.You are VERY right about this! I spent some time in off-campus housing, and same thing: Doors open, people bringing friends in and out late at night, very lax co-ed dorm feeling, even though it was technically a rental house some blocks away. I can see why Amanda would be more mildly puzzled than alarmed initially.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 04:33 PM
Haha, that is the pic of the guy on the small window...lol.. I find that so funny. I am pretty sure somebody helped him up there. Why not show the first part?

The arrow to a 'scuff point' is proof of somebody climbing in? Did the defense forget to show this important piece of evidence?

The dust on the clothes are interesting but not decisive one way or the other. You are claiming it as fact that this is dust from the wall, but I am pretty sure that that is just your opinion. One side says a guy came up through the window and put the dust there. The other side says a guy/girl just went outside to get a big rock and the clothes were on the floor before breaking the window. The 2nd scenario is confirmed by the girl who actually lived in the room and testified on the situation in her own room.

All JMO.

You asked for a theory of how he got in the window. I gave it to you. It is plausible, which raises reasonable doubt. it's not my "opinion" on what those dust marks are on the clothes. It's the theory of another expert, and you're welcomed to read his entire theory on the links that have been posted on the past page or two in this thread.

To me, the most real part of it is, becomes the position of the rock, which has torn the shopping bag on its way into the room and landed half in the bag and half out. I'm not convinced someone staging a crime scene would place that rock on a bag and tear it and leave it half in the bag and half out. It is more logical for them to place it on the floor. There is also bits of the rock around the spot where it landed, proving that this is where is came to rest.

You might think someone helped the guy up to the window, but unless it's documented, we do not know how that guy got up to the window, or how Rudy got himself up to an office 15ft off the ground after breaking a window at another of his crime scenes. I do not know if the defense presented the scuff mark; however, the scuff mark is there, as people have been asking to see proof that someone was on the wall.

The illustration present a detailed and plausible way that Rudy got into the house. That creates reasonable doubt as to whether the scene was staged. Now, FR can say whatever she wants to say about how clean her room was, but we must agree that it is her opinion on what clean is. I'll tell you, my mom and I disagreed on what my idea of clean in my room was, but I'd swear to her that it was clean. I personally give less weight to what a person says versus what appears to be present, because people's memories are faulty, people not only made false confessions, but they've also been false witnesses against others. There are tons of studies about how someone will remember something incorrectly. So for me personally, I give less weight to people's actual statements on certain issues.

for example, FR could not be sure in what condition she left the shutters. So if she cannot be sure of that, I cannot be sure she's right about the condition in which she left the room. These are all minor details that no one thinks about when they are preparing to leave their house. I do not fault her, but I can understand how she might not recall correctly.

If you look at pictures of the glass spray, you will not see any glass stuck in the green shutters. This is because no glass hit them and got wedged, like a splinter. That means they were open when the rock flew. You also will see glass clear across the room tothe bedstand. The glass would not have flown backward at that force if it had been done inside the room.

If you look at the glass frame, you will see it's completely knocked out at the bottom as if someone had manually knocked it out. Look at other pictures of when an object hits a window and you will see that it does not perfectly knock 99% of the pieces out of the bottom, but creates shards. RG knocked those shards out manually to pull himself up. If you look closely at the glass, you can see pings in it where some glass was bent backward and broken off, as opposed to breaking the in direction it was originally struck toward.

Whether the glass was hit from inside or outside, we should see a little bit of glass outside. The investigators found none because they didn't look for it. Leaves had fallen that night and the glass should have been down beneath them either way. Once the perps opened the green shutters, if they'd been closed, enevitably, some glass would have fallen outside. This means that the breakin wasnt even thoroughly investigated to prove it false.

There are other notes I can make, too, and if you're interested, then I'll continue. As I said before, I have no dog in this fight, but i do not want to see someone railroaded. I DO want to see someone pay for Meredith.

otto
04-08-2011, 04:35 PM
So the kitchen knife used during the murder was previously used to cut bread?
(ref: Frank's blog)

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:35 PM
I think Franks remarks about the Oggi article are more interesting:

" Frank Sfarzo said...
When did Oggi publish that, on April 1st?...
Maybe they made a joke to people.
Or someone made a joke to them.

Or it's just the usual wishful thinking...

She's [Nara] a hear witness and now it comes out that she's almost deaf...
If she was an eyewitness she would have turned almost blind...
If her story implied a walk she would have turned almost paralytic...

Think about that..."

I have not been able to verify whether this particular article was just that a hoax or legit. As such I will treat it that way unless I comes across articles that can confirm it. Some I do know is confirmed as for Nara I would personally like more information before I would determine the merit of it

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:37 PM
So the kitchen knife used during the murder was previously used to cut bread?
(ref: Frank's blog)

I do not believe the point was that it was used to cut bread. I believe the point that was trying to be given is that they found starch. As we all know starch is porous and collects and is a great medium for things like BLOOD to accumulate in

otto
04-08-2011, 04:39 PM
You are VERY right about this! I spent some time in off-campus housing, and same thing: Doors open, people bringing friends in and out late at night, very lax co-ed dorm feeling, even though it was technically a rental house some blocks away. I can see why Amanda would be more mildly puzzled than alarmed initially.

Interesting ... so the cottage was really just a college dorm and it was normal for the front door to be wide open. Therefore, there was no reason for Amanda, Laura, Filomina and Meredith to be alarmed if the front door of their home was wide open when no one appeared to be home. What next?

dgfred
04-08-2011, 04:39 PM
wasn't me,
I hope you are kidding about the 'wasn't even thoroughly investigated' part. Surely you don't think the police did not search the ground outside the window, the wall, and the surrounding area. That is making the 'conspiracy' into something so huge it isn't even feasible. This will not get anywhere in regards to understanding the case IMO.

otto
04-08-2011, 04:41 PM
I do not believe the point was that it was used to cut bread. I believe the point that was trying to be given is that they found starch. As we all know starch is porous and collects and is a great medium for things like BLOOD to accumulate in

"It seems that a Lugol Iodine test was performed, and the solution turned dark, which means it was positive for starch carbohydrates. If this is true, in the crevice there was what there was supposed to be for a knife that just had a kitchen use: starch. Therefore they thought the knife was used to cut bread"

(from your link)

Maybe the starch came from the gloves. Maybe it came from bread. Maybe blood sticks to starch. Maybe the starch was caught in the handle where there was no blood. Maybe it's not starch. So many possibilities.

otto
04-08-2011, 04:43 PM
I have not been able to verify whether this particular article was just that a hoax or legit. As such I will treat it that way unless I comes across articles that can confirm it. Some I do know is confirmed as for Nara I would personally like more information before I would determine the merit of it

Dempsey thought it was so important she translated it and then wrote a blog about it. Frank seems to think it's an April Fools joke.

Would you like me to repost the interview with Nara where she is clearly not hearing impaired?

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:44 PM
"It seems that a Lugol Iodine test was performed, and the solution turned dark, which means it was positive for starch carbohydrates. If this is true, in the crevice there was what there was supposed to be for a knife that just had a kitchen use: starch. Therefore they thought the knife was used to cut bread"

(from your link)

Maybe the starch came from the gloves. Maybe it came from bread. Maybe blood sticks to starch. Maybe the starch was caught in the handle where there was no blood. Maybe it's not starch. So many possibilities.

Starch can come from a variety of sources. Since it is Italy pasta comes to mind for me. What is more important is where that starch was found and that they have decided that there would be no need to take the knife apart as there appears to of been "NO CLEANING" of the knife

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:45 PM
Dempsey thought it was so important she translated it and then wrote a blog about it. Frank seems to think it's an April Fools joke.

Would you like me to repost the interview with Nara where she is clearly not hearing impaired?

I have already read it some days ago. As I stated previously, until I am satisfied that that particular portion can be verified I will put little weight to it.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 04:46 PM
They luckily didn't clean all their traces. I am not sure why they left blood traces in the bathroom. This is all pretty much speculation territory. Maybe it was a rushed clean job and they left some traces. Maybe they thought the break in by itself wouldn't be enough reason for the police to break open MK's door. Maybe they thought it could be explained away by repeating over and over 'it is all normal because I live here'. I don't know. I only know that their plan wasn't perfect and that they made plenty of mistakes. JMO.

I didn't say anything about expecting the worst or other people. Just thought why people buy such a bizarre story and not be at least a little suspicious? This is websleuths after all :)

I do not know how they managed to clean up all their evidence, seen or unseen, but leave RG's evidence. Futhermore, if they purposely left his evidence, why would AK implicated PL and not RG? To purposely clean around RG's footprints etc means AK and RS must be trying to frame him. So why not go ahead and frame him? Additionally, how do they clean footprints made over or under RG's without removing RG's?

Additionally, if you are that intent on cleaning, why leave a big footprint in plain sight on a bathmat? Rush cleaning job? Why the rush? They had the whole night. So why even leave the house at all? Just spend the whole night there cleaning. Also, why come home and take a shower? Shouldn't AK have done that while at RS's when she was bloody? Why return to the murder scene the next day for the shower? If she'd returned to do more cleaning, she claims she arrived around 1030am. No one can tell me that within over an hour, she didn't have enough time to realize about this bathmat. Because if it's her intent to clean evidence, that bathmat is glaring.

ChasingMoxie
04-08-2011, 04:49 PM
I wish we had a forum for this case, I'm constantly getting lost tracking back through threads trying to find where I read certain details.

Anyhow, I recall it was said that ILE did not obtain a DNA profile or footprints from anyone else who lived in or regularly visited the cottage besides AK and RS. This proves that ILE chose their suspects before analyzing the evidence. If you add the probable contamination, lack of photos, not recording interrogations, removing evidence, altering the crime scene, tracking evidence from person to person and room to room, it starts to sound like a circus. Who are these investigators and why do they even have jobs? What sort of system allows this to happen without recourse?

I'm asking because it seems obvious that this was a terribly mismanaged case; even those who agree with the outcome should be able to admit that huge, bumbling mistakes were made throughout. But I don't understand how anyone can be confident about a verdict born out of this degree of ineptitude. If the wrong people are in jail for this it's a terrible injustice that I worry a great deal about; I would rather a murderer walk free than an innocent be persecuted.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:50 PM
Do we know that RG had been inside upstairs? Your post is the first I've heard of it.

Hendry points out that the broken window was hidden from the road by a tree, but allowed a burglar to view both the road and the parking lot. IIRC, he also points out that entering via the balcony would mean a burglar might be trapped on the balcony if someone turned out to be home. By entering through the window that was broken, the burglar made his noise (breaking glass with the rock) while he was still in a place where he could run away easily if a light came on in response to the sound or if a car entered the parking lot.

You can read all this in the Hendry links, but I know the pro-verdict camp has conveniently decided to ignore him.

And Hendry may be wrong on this score. But it is one explanation why a burglar would go to the trouble of entering via a physically inconvenient point of entry.

Also one that does make the most sense of any explanations I have read. It also points out a number of other things which I had not noted in the photos. It is well thought out

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 04:51 PM
Right---and I really do NOT think the postal police would have to drive around looking for the residence. Being who they were, they would have known the location and arrived swiftly and smoothly.

Yes, this was my question, because I read that it was the investigative police who were lost. So My question is, were they saying both the PP and the investigative units got lost that day?

Nova
04-08-2011, 04:51 PM
Ha, are you talking to yourself :slap: .

The vicious cycle continues: a nonexistant 'flaw' in the case is seen from an internet poster's computer screen, we give the same valid reasoning and explanations for the perceived wronging of AK (again), then the 'crowd' moves to the next point of the massive conspiracy against the :innocent: AK.
And on and on.

What ARE you talking about?

YOU proposed a bit of speculation. It had several logical flaws which were pointed out to you. So you announced your own speculation was irrelevant.

I refused to apologize for taking your posts seriously, so you reverted to your original speculation. It still doesn't make logical sense, but there's no "vicious cycle."

otto
04-08-2011, 04:53 PM
wasn't me,
I hope you are kidding about the 'wasn't even thoroughly investigated' part. Surely you don't think the police did not search the ground outside the window, the wall, and the surrounding area. That is making the 'conspiracy' into something so huge it isn't even feasible. This will not get anywhere in regards to understanding the case IMO.

Of course the outside of the cottage was investigated:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "walking along the outside perimeter of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window." (pgs. 50-51)

Ref: Judge's Summary

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:53 PM
I wish we had a forum for this case, I'm constantly getting lost tracking back through threads trying to find where I read certain details.

Anyhow, I recall it was said that ILE did not obtain a DNA profile or footprints from anyone else who lived in or regularly visited the cottage besides AK and RS. This proves that ILE chose their suspects before analyzing the evidence. If you add the probable contamination, lack of photos, not recording interrogations, removing evidence, altering the crime scene, tracking evidence from person to person and room to room, it starts to sound like a circus. Who are these investigators and why do they even have jobs? What sort of system allows this to happen without recourse?

I'm asking because it seems obvious that this was a terribly mismanaged case; even those who agree with the outcome should be able to admit that huge, bumbling mistakes were made throughout. But I don't understand how anyone can be confident about a verdict born out of this degree of ineptitude. If the wrong people are in jail for this it's a terrible injustice that I worry a great deal about; I would rather a murderer walk free than an innocent be persecuted.

This simply deserves more than a simple thank you!!!!

I believe, even if it is not this appeal, their convictions will be overturned and I am of the firm belief that many individuals, ILE, certain forums and individuals in those forums and writing campaigns, as well as newspapers will be on the receiving end of alot of litigation from AK and RS....

otto
04-08-2011, 04:54 PM
I have already read it some days ago. As I stated previously, until I am satisfied that that particular portion can be verified I will put little weight to it.

... give little weight to the Oggi article, or give little weight to Frank's opinion that it is a joke?

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 04:54 PM
I am only asking for proof. Not some journalist claiming some kind of hearsay. Lets start with proof of the break in in the law offices.

With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:56 PM
Very curious how the side window has a better escape route than climbing onto the deck since the only way to access the side window is to walk all around the cottage (pretty much a 360 from the front door), past the deck, and access the narrow sidewalk that runs along the side of the cottage.

darn why would he use the front door then :giggle:

Nova
04-08-2011, 04:57 PM
You asked for a theory of how he got in the window. I gave it to you. It is plausible, which raises reasonable doubt. it's not my "opinion" on what those dust marks are on the clothes. It's the theory of another expert, and you're welcomed to read his entire theory on the links that have been posted on the past page or two in this thread.

To me, the most real part of it is, becomes the position of the rock, which has torn the shopping bag on its way into the room and landed half in the bag and half out. I'm not convinced someone staging a crime scene would place that rock on a bag and tear it and leave it half in the bag and half out. It is more logical for them to place it on the floor. There is also bits of the rock around the spot where it landed, proving that this is where is came to rest.

You might think someone helped the guy up to the window, but unless it's documented, we do not know how that guy got up to the window, or how Rudy got himself up to an office 15ft off the ground after breaking a window at another of his crime scenes. I do not know if the defense presented the scuff mark; however, the scuff mark is there, as people have been asking to see proof that someone was on the wall.

The illustration present a detailed and plausible way that Rudy got into the house. That creates reasonable doubt as to whether the scene was staged. Now, FR can say whatever she wants to say about how clean her room was, but we must agree that it is her opinion on what clean is. I'll tell you, my mom and I disagreed on what my idea of clean in my room was, but I'd swear to her that it was clean. I personally give less weight to what a person says versus what appears to be present, because people's memories are faulty, people not only made false confessions, but they've also been false witnesses against others. There are tons of studies about how someone will remember something incorrectly. So for me personally, I give less weight to people's actual statements on certain issues.

for example, FR could not be sure in what condition she left the shutters. So if she cannot be sure of that, I cannot be sure she's right about the condition in which she left the room. These are all minor details that no one thinks about when they are preparing to leave their house. I do not fault her, but I can understand how she might not recall correctly.

If you look at pictures of the glass spray, you will not see any glass stuck in the green shutters. This is because no glass hit them and got wedged, like a splinter. That means they were open when the rock flew. You also will see glass clear across the room tothe bedstand. The glass would not have flown backward at that force if it had been done inside the room.

If you look at the glass frame, you will see it's completely knocked out at the bottom as if someone had manually knocked it out. Look at other pictures of when an object hits a window and you will see that it does not perfectly knock 99% of the pieces out of the bottom, but creates shards. RG knocked those shards out manually to pull himself up. If you look closely at the glass, you can see pings in it where some glass was bent backward and broken off, as opposed to breaking the in direction it was originally struck toward.

Whether the glass was hit from inside or outside, we should see a little bit of glass outside. The investigators found none because they didn't look for it. Leaves had fallen that night and the glass should have been down beneath them either way. Once the perps opened the green shutters, if they'd been closed, enevitably, some glass would have fallen outside. This means that the breakin wasnt even thoroughly investigated to prove it false.

There are other notes I can make, too, and if you're interested, then I'll continue. As I said before, I have no dog in this fight, but i do not want to see someone railroaded. I DO want to see someone pay for Meredith.

And just as important to me, where is the Italian expert on these matters? AK and RS were convicted primarily (IMO) on the belief that the break-in was staged and AK was the only one who would benefit from a staging.

So why wasn't the alleged staging demonstrated by more than the memory of the room's tenant and a few glances by investigating officers? Why weren't experts turned loose to explain glass patterns, torn bags, etc?

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 04:58 PM
Lol..good one ;) It is a defense lawyer by the way who is climbing up there. I have no problem accepting the break in was easy but just show it. It is so obviously deceiving to show a guy who is already half way. If it is so easy to climb up there then where is the first part? Show how he steps up the small window, show how he holds himself onto that small window and somehow gets up vertically to reach to Filomena's window without falling backwards.

If I were a defense lawyer, I'd say show me how he couldn't do it.

otto
04-08-2011, 04:58 PM
With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.

There have been a couple of requests for media articles describing Rudy scaling 2 story walls with rocks to enter a law office. The wall has been described as identical to that of the cottage. I searched the net for info ... couldn't find it ... so if someone has a link to a media article, I think many are interested. As it stands, it seems to be rumor and gossip.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 04:59 PM
With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.

True

I have often thought that either the Motivational Report to be the most inept piece of reasoning for a conviction or:

It was a brilliant document which set up the ability for the ability to overturn the convictions.

I flip back and forth on this theory of mine constantly

otto
04-08-2011, 05:00 PM
darn why would he use the front door then :giggle:

The court concluded that he did use the front door.:giggle:

:giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:01 PM
There have been a couple of requests for media articles describing Rudy scaling 2 story walls with rocks to enter a law office. The wall has been described as identical to that of the cottage. I searched the net for info ... couldn't find it ... so if someone has a link to a media article, I think many are interested. As it stands, it seems to be rumor and gossip.

Actually, he did a very similar burglery and it is in the testimony

otto
04-08-2011, 05:01 PM
Actually, he did a very similar burglery and it is in the testimony

Please provide a link. Saying it is true and then ignoring requests by those that want to verify the information is ... strange.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:02 PM
The court concluded that he did use the front door.:giggle:

:giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

My quirky sense of humour won out again lol :giggle: :giggle:

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:02 PM
What do you mean 'leap'?

So if you were INVOLVED in a murder and walking to or standing AT the crime scene... would you be nervous if you saw any police person in the vicinity???

I say the 'leap' is not thinking this would be so.

Oh, I'd be nervous, but I sure as hell wouldn't be calling them to come over there to where I'm at, because i'm probably trying to control this as long as I can.

Nova
04-08-2011, 05:02 PM
Interesting ... so the cottage was really just a college dorm and it was normal for the front door to be wide open. Therefore, there was no reason for Amanda, Laura, Filomina and Meredith to be alarmed if the front door of their home was wide open when no one appeared to be home. What next?

Here's an example of the black and white thinking I referred to a few posts back.

Several of us have mentioned the lax security we've encountered in college residences, the point being that AK might have been curious, annoyed, cautious or puzzled by the open front door, but she wouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that someone had been murdered. In response, a pro-verdict poster restates our remarks as "no reason ... to be alarmed" at a "wide open" door.

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:03 PM
I think there is a more important question in this. When you have someone that has entered a premise 6 times in 33 days, is found to have stolen items as well as break and enter items in a backpack (which leads me to believe these may only be the times they are aware of and there possibly be even more) why would ILE not investigate him further. They had more on RG from these than they did of AK yet never arrested him, took him in for questioning, etc. Something is very wrong with this scenerio
Right---and THIS is what led people to deduce - quite reasonably, I think - that Rudy was a drug informant for the Polizia.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:07 PM
I know don't the practice in Seattle, but there are large cities in the U.S. where police won't even respond to simple break-ins. They're just too busy. Instead they tell the victim to drop by the station some time and fill out a report.

In Atlanta, GA, I had a break in twice at my townhouse rental property and both times the police took at least a half an hour. And my renter DID want to leave and come back, but I told him to wait there until I got there or the police got there, because he couldn't keep leaving the house open and unattended witht he back door busted open.

otto
04-08-2011, 05:08 PM
Here's an example of the black and white thinking I referred to a few posts back.

Several of us have mentioned the lax security we've encountered in college residences, the point being that AK might have been curious, annoyed, cautious or puzzled by the open front door, but she wouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that someone had been murdered. In response, a pro-verdict poster restates our remarks as "no reason ... to be alarmed" at a "wide open" door.

Amanda testified that the door was wide open. I hope we can agree on that. Therefore, describing the front door as "wide open" is accurate and correct.

I get it ... Amanda was living in Italy with two professionals, but she confusedly expected the same lifestyle as living in a dorm in Seattle. I agree with that. Amanda used her home as a drug den and a place to bring men she met while out and about.

otto
04-08-2011, 05:09 PM
Right---and THIS is what led people to deduce - quite reasonably, I think - that Rudy was a drug informant for the Polizia.

Is that more rumor and gossip, or is there a link for that?

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:11 PM
No burgler in their right mind would scale that window (especially one that had seen the layout of the cottage) when a simple entry point would have been in the back on the balcony.

Is anywhere here saying that RG was in his right mind?

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:11 PM
Please provide a link. Saying it is true and then ignoring requests by those that want to verify the information is ... strange.

Guede also carried out another break-in at the offices of a local lawyer in Perugia and at the end of October he was arrested in Milan after breaking into a school.
There he was found in possession of a laptop and mobile stolen in the burglaries as well as a large flick knife, but he was freed and made his way back to Perugia where he met Meredith


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html#ixzz1Iy6FY9Jw

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:15 PM
Please provide a link. Saying it is true and then ignoring requests by those that want to verify the information is ... strange.

Late on the night of October 13, 2007, a couple of blocks from the house where Kercher was murdered, Guede broke into a law office and stole a Nokia cellphone and Sony Vaio computer. He smashed a window about 10 feet above the ground with a large rock, then scaled the wall, unlatched the window and crawled in. Two weeks later, the computer was in his possession when he was found in a nursery school in Milan. There, Maria Antonietta Salvadori del Prado, the school administrator, discovered him asleep in her office. "He was very serene and explained that he had been told that for €50 he could sleep here for the night," she told the court

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-27/at-knox-trial-the-killer-speaks/#

otto
04-08-2011, 05:15 PM
Guede also carried out another break-in at the offices of a local lawyer in Perugia and at the end of October he was arrested in Milan after breaking into a school.
There he was found in possession of a laptop and mobile stolen in the burglaries as well as a large flick knife, but he was freed and made his way back to Perugia where he met Meredith


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html#ixzz1Iy6FY9Jw

That appears to be the same media outlet that you claimed was not legit ... but never mind ... I agree, by the way.

Where does it say that he scaled a 2 story wall identical to the wall of the cottage or broke a window with a rock?

Nova
04-08-2011, 05:16 PM
In Atlanta, GA, I had a break in twice at my townhouse rental property and both times the police took at least a half an hour. And my renter DID want to leave and come back, but I told him to wait there until I got there or the police got there, because he couldn't keep leaving the house open and unattended witht he back door busted open.

It depends on the neighborhood, but I've had several friends who couldn't get L.A. police to respond to break-ins where no one was hurt and the amount stolen was relatively minimal. Another friend went out to her car in a parking lot and found a confused, elderly man had driven his own car UP ON TOP OF HERS and was sitting up there, revving his engine. She called 911 and they told her to call a tow truck, the police were busy.

Now none of this happened in Perugia, where they have policemen available to return lost cell phones. I think the point was just that not everyone reacts to a break-in with hysteria. Once the murder was discovered, things changed quickly, of course.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:18 PM
That appears to be the same media outlet that you claimed was not legit ... but never mind ... I agree, by the way.

Where does it say that he scaled a 2 story wall identical to the wall of the cottage or broke a window with a rock?

Late on the night of October 13, 2007, a couple of blocks from the house where Kercher was murdered, Guede broke into a law office and stole a Nokia cellphone and Sony Vaio computer. He smashed a window about 10 feet above the ground with a large rock, then scaled the wall, unlatched the window and crawled in. Two weeks later, the computer was in his possession when he was found in a nursery school in Milan. There, Maria Antonietta Salvadori del Prado, the school administrator, discovered him asleep in her office. "He was very serene and explained that he had been told that for 50 he could sleep here for the night," she told the court

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...iller-speaks/#

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:18 PM
So the kitchen knife used during the murder was previously used to cut bread?
(ref: Frank's blog)

That's what they said. Someone else had theorized it might have cut pasta. Either way, they theorize that the starch would have absorbed blood or DNA.

otto
04-08-2011, 05:19 PM
Late on the night of October 13, 2007, a couple of blocks from the house where Kercher was murdered, Guede broke into a law office and stole a Nokia cellphone and Sony Vaio computer. He smashed a window about 10 feet above the ground with a large rock, then scaled the wall, unlatched the window and crawled in. Two weeks later, the computer was in his possession when he was found in a nursery school in Milan. There, Maria Antonietta Salvadori del Prado, the school administrator, discovered him asleep in her office. "He was very serene and explained that he had been told that for 50 he could sleep here for the night," she told the court

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-27/at-knox-trial-the-killer-speaks/#

Thank you. So, using a rock, he smashed a window 10 feet above the ground, but we don't know anything about the wall.

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:20 PM
Cannot find Otto's post so am not quoting, but this is @OTTO as per his request about where it is stated that Rudy Guede has a history of burglary, unlawful entry, etc.

Sentence of the Court of Assizes of Perugia
Presided over by Dr. Giancarlo Massei
In the Murder of Meredith Kercher
pp. 45-48

Truly ALARMING that Massei would then DARE to say "even if one accepts Rudy Guede did enact these crimes"---if that does not reek of "police informant protection"--ugh. You and Sherlock seem to read the motivation through rose-colored glasses. Read it, it will not be copy/pasted.

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:22 PM
addendum Dr. Massei admits Rudy entered the nursery school unlawfully, admits he was found with a knife, admits he was found with items from the law offices---appalling and alarming, that he had doubts, and wanted no investigation....really sickening to me.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:22 PM
Thank you. So, using a rock, he smashed a window 10 feet above the ground, but we don't know anything about the wall.

If you read further in the article

An indentical break-in, with a rock thrown through a window, occurred on the Via della Pergola in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007, the same night Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered in a house she shared with Knox and two young Italian women

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-27/at-knox-trial-the-killer-speaks/

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:23 PM
wasn't me,
I hope you are kidding about the 'wasn't even thoroughly investigated' part. Surely you don't think the police did not search the ground outside the window, the wall, and the surrounding area. That is making the 'conspiracy' into something so huge it isn't even feasible. This will not get anywhere in regards to understanding the case IMO.

I am not kidding you. thoroughly investigated means you will take detailed pictures of the ground, for one. There are none.

Thorouhly investigated means you'll try to fingerprint the rock and or the glass and the window frame. You will look for DNA on those things as well. Thoroughly investigated means they'd be able to tell us for certain whether those grains on the clothes did indeed come off the outside wall.

Where is all this information? We have all these close up pictures of the window. Where are the close up pictures for outside? We have all this luminol all over the house. Where is the luminol for the window? Was the window tested for AK and RS's finger prints to prove it was staged?

Did I miss it, because I'm saying we got plenty good pictures of FR's room, but no good upclose pics of outside and the ground to prove there is or is not glass, to prove there are or are not footprints.

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:24 PM
That's what they said. Someone else had theorized it might have cut pasta. Either way, they theorize that the starch would have absorbed blood or DNA.

Right which I believe to be the main point of the article not the bread :)

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:27 PM
Of course the outside of the cottage was investigated:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "walking along the outside perimeter of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window." (pgs. 50-51)

Ref: Judge's Summary

Again, where are the pictures to prove her "observations?" they observed a big footprint on the bathmat. We have that picture. They observed a dead body on the floor. we have that picture. So where are the pictures of outside observations?

Allusonz
04-08-2011, 05:28 PM
I am not kidding you. thoroughly investigated means you will take detailed pictures of the ground, for one. There are none.

Thorouhly investigated means you'll try to fingerprint the rock and or the glass and the window frame. You will look for DNA on those things as well. Thoroughly investigated means they'd be able to tell us for certain whether those grains on the clothes did indeed come off the outside wall.

Where is all this information? We have all these close up pictures of the window. Where are the close up pictures for outside? We have all this luminol all over the house. Where is the luminol for the window? Was the window tested for AK and RS's finger prints to prove it was staged?

Did I miss it, because I'm saying we got plenty good pictures of FR's room, but no good upclose pics of outside and the ground to prove there is or is not glass, to prove there are or are not footprints.

None of what you have stated above was done. There was no analysis of the ground, no forensics done on the rock etc, no close up pictures of the ground below, they relied on the memory of people such as Filomena's memory which in her particular state I seriously doubt she was looking for glass under leaves, in the grass etc

otto
04-08-2011, 05:29 PM
Cannot find Otto's post so am not quoting, but this is @OTTO as per his request about where it is stated that Rudy Guede has a history of burglary, unlawful entry, etc.

Sentence of the Court of Assizes of Perugia
Presided over by Dr. Giancarlo Massei
In the Murder of Meredith Kercher
pp. 45-48

Truly ALARMING that Massei would then DARE to say "even if one accepts Rudy Guede did enact these crimes"---if that does not reek of "police informant protection"--ugh. You and Sherlock seem to read the motivation through rose-colored glasses. Read it, it will not be copy/pasted.

Thank you. So Rudy does prefer metal grills and balconys, like the metal grill and balcony at the cottage.

"The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was "a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille..." (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009)." (pg 46)

"Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar who broke into the law office of the lawyers Brocchi and Palazzoli and into Tramontano's house, it must be observed that Rudy was not known by these, nor by the director of the nursery school in via Plinio, Milan; this situation is entirely different from the one at via della Pergola (and the difference is not a minor one), where Rudy knew the boys from the downstairs flat and knew Meredith and Amanda, and they knew him."

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:30 PM
There have been a couple of requests for media articles describing Rudy scaling 2 story walls with rocks to enter a law office. The wall has been described as identical to that of the cottage. I searched the net for info ... couldn't find it ... so if someone has a link to a media article, I think many are interested. As it stands, it seems to be rumor and gossip.

I can help you look, but it's my understanding that the victims of these crimes testified to these things. If their word doesn't carry weight with you, I understand. But that should also mean FR's memory about her room shouldn't either.

otto
04-08-2011, 05:32 PM
Again, where are the pictures to prove her "observations?" they observed a big footprint on the bathmat. We have that picture. They observed a dead body on the floor. we have that picture. So where are the pictures of outside observations?

Hardy claims to have 100 photos and videos of the murder from the family/lawyer. I suppose he would be the guy to ask.

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:37 PM
Thank you. So Rudy does prefer metal grills and balconys, like the metal grill and balcony at the cottage.

"The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was "a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille..." (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009)." (pg 46)

"Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar who broke into the law office of the lawyers Brocchi and Palazzoli and into Tramontano's house, it must be observed that Rudy was not known by these, nor by the director of the nursery school in via Plinio, Milan; this situation is entirely different from the one at via della Pergola (and the difference is not a minor one), where Rudy knew the boys from the downstairs flat and knew Meredith and Amanda, and they knew him."this makes one want to tear one's hair. I have unfortunately KNOWN many drug takers-part-time-burglars (against my will, because my sister hung out with them) and they will rob strangers, they will rob you, my sister's friends robbed her and our mother at knife point)---why would Rudy say "gee, no one is home, but my honor says I do not dare rob these fine friends" - I think Massei was leaving a bread crumb trail for the convictions to be overturned---he would please the prosecution, then write an ABSURD report full of CLUES, etc....................My god, is all I can say.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:40 PM
For those who believe in RS and AK's Guilt:

I wanted you to know, personally, I can't wait to find some evidence to definitively link a killer to a murder, because I want them to fry. that's just how I am inside. I'm angry about this crime and I want the perp to pay. I sincerely do. In this case, I cannot find that piece of evidence to grasp onto.

I'm equally against accusing the wrong person as I am for finding the right one. I'm sure you guys feel the same way, but I'm telling you this because I'm practically begging you to get me to see the hard evidence that you see. If I can see it, I'm flipping on AK and RS faster than they flipped on each other.

But so far, everything can be explained for me. So please, I'm seriously begging you, give me that thing that makes me say guilty. In return, if I can explain it away, let me at least have that it's reasonable doubt, even if you don't doubt it. Thanks!

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:43 PM
The court concluded that he did use the front door.:giggle:

:giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Yes, Otto, this was quite witty. I'll give it to you. :rocker:

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:45 PM
For those who believe in RS and AK's Guilt:

I wanted you to know, personally, I can't wait to find some evidence to definitively link a killer to a murder, because I want them to fry. that's just how I am inside. I'm angry about this crime and I want the perp to pay. I sincerely do. In this case, I cannot find that piece of evidence to grasp onto.

I'm equally against accusing the wrong person as I am for finding the right one. I'm sure you guys feel the same way, but I'm telling you this because I'm practically begging you to get me to see the hard evidence that you see. If I can see it, I'm flipping on AK and RS faster than they flipped on each other.

But so far, everything can be explained for me. So please, I'm seriously begging you, give me that thing that makes me say guilty. In return, if I can explain it away, let me at least have that it's reasonable doubt, even if you don't doubt it. Thanks!

You will not be given it. There is no reason, because they were not involved. Rudy knew Filomina collected the group's rent $$$. He knew the rents were due. He was facing eviction. He knew noone was home. He broke in. He was confident enough to take a toilet break and listen to his iPod. Meredith surprised him by returning early. He was trapped. He confronted her. She fought back. If there is a God, the convictions will be overturned, and the Knox and Sollecito families will sue for millions.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:48 PM
It depends on the neighborhood, but I've had several friends who couldn't get L.A. police to respond to break-ins where no one was hurt and the amount stolen was relatively minimal. Another friend went out to her car in a parking lot and found a confused, elderly man had driven his own car UP ON TOP OF HERS and was sitting up there, revving his engine. She called 911 and they told her to call a tow truck, the police were busy.

Now none of this happened in Perugia, where they have policemen available to return lost cell phones. I think the point was just that not everyone reacts to a break-in with hysteria. Once the murder was discovered, things changed quickly, of course.

I completely agree with the point and that car story was hil-ar-ious!

Extending on my point, I thought it was SO strange for my renter to want to leave the crime scene. I mean, it was his house, his stuff, but he was talking about leaving the house unsecure. I wouldn't have done that. i was breaking speeds to get over there, but people just react differently.

ChasingMoxie
04-08-2011, 05:49 PM
So the kitchen knife used during the murder was previously used to cut bread?
(ref: Frank's blog)

It doesn't work both ways. The knife was either cleaned, leaving no blood or starch on it. Or not cleaned, and not used in a murder.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 05:56 PM
Thank you. So Rudy does prefer metal grills and balconys, like the metal grill and balcony at the cottage.

Or the metal grill on the window below the other window. Again, it's not the defense's job to explain why he chose that window. It's the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why he did NOT use the window as the scene depicts.

Apparently in one of the crimes at the school, a woman caught him in there. We can easily ask why did he not kill this woman, as MK was killed. But this is a mute point because MK is dead and his dina is all over her and in her.

Maybe he was escalating. Maybe the police had warned him that he'd better not be caught again, so he killed MK. I just find it completely odd that he'd not only get caught by the woman in the school, but apparently sit there and wait for the police to come. It sounds from the articles I read that he did wait.

So maybe this time, he was like "Hell, no" and he'll just kill the chick.

SMK
04-08-2011, 05:56 PM
Hardy claims to have 100 photos and videos of the murder from the family/lawyer. I suppose he would be the guy to ask.do you mean Hendry? who is Hardy?

Nova
04-08-2011, 05:59 PM
Cannot find Otto's post so am not quoting, but this is @OTTO as per his request about where it is stated that Rudy Guede has a history of burglary, unlawful entry, etc.

Sentence of the Court of Assizes of Perugia
Presided over by Dr. Giancarlo Massei
In the Murder of Meredith Kercher
pp. 45-48

Truly ALARMING that Massei would then DARE to say "even if one accepts Rudy Guede did enact these crimes"---if that does not reek of "police informant protection"--ugh. You and Sherlock seem to read the motivation through rose-colored glasses. Read it, it will not be copy/pasted.

I'm not arguing your basic premise that RG was an ILE informant. The arguments makes sense to me and I have no quarrel with them.

But "even if one accepts" (assuming the translation is accurate) is rather standard lawyer language, particular if RG hadn't yet been tried and convicted of the other offenses. I wouldn't be too alarmed that Massei uses those words or attach too much meaning to them.

Nova
04-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Thank you. So Rudy does prefer metal grills and balconys, like the metal grill and balcony at the cottage.

"The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was "a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille..." (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009)." (pg 46)

"Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar who broke into the law office of the lawyers Brocchi and Palazzoli and into Tramontano's house, it must be observed that Rudy was not known by these, nor by the director of the nursery school in via Plinio, Milan; this situation is entirely different from the one at via della Pergola (and the difference is not a minor one), where Rudy knew the boys from the downstairs flat and knew Meredith and Amanda, and they knew him."

To me, this is the sort of leap Massei makes throughout the Motivation Report. The break-in at vie della Pergola is "entirely different" from RG's other crimes because RG knew the tenants downstairs. Huh? Why?

Since RG knew the boys downstairs, he may have known that none of them would be home. Otherwise, I don't see how that makes this break-in inherently different from others.

It's just a leap Massei makes without explanation in order to reach the preordained conclusion that AK and RS are guilty.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Hardy claims to have 100 photos and videos of the murder from the family/lawyer. I suppose he would be the guy to ask.

Except that he's the one who reports that those pictures do not exist in evidence. I am guessing what he got was not filmed by the family or lawyer, but by the investigators on the scene.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:12 PM
this makes one want to tear one's hair. I have unfortunately KNOWN many drug takers-part-time-burglars (against my will, because my sister hung out with them) and they will rob strangers, they will rob you, my sister's friends robbed her and our mother at knife point)---why would Rudy say "gee, no one is home, but my honor says I do not dare rob these fine friends" - I think Massei was leaving a bread crumb trail for the convictions to be overturned---he would please the prosecution, then write an ABSURD report full of CLUES, etc....................My god, is all I can say.

There's no way to determine why for certain RG chose the cottage; however, we know he chose it, because he was in there for whatever reason and he admits to being in there. It's just up to the presecution to prove why he was in there. Let me give a list of reasons:

1. Meredith. He saw her at the party and she was standoffish. He didn't like it and wanted to "show her."

2. OR Meredith was actually kind of nice to him at the club and he took it the wrong way to mean he could call on her.

3. Amanda. He'd been asking the downstairs boys about her and he knew that she was permiscuious.

Under number 2 and 3, I'm not sure of a reason for a breakin.

4. Money. He needed to pay his rent or get evicted so he chose their place.

5. Bored. Just looking for something to do. Yes, some young burglars do it out of boredom, so I've read that they've given as reasons.

I don't know.

But, while constructing this list, I realized, doesn't or didn't the bottom apartment have bars on all the doors and windows? I know I see them on that window and on that door downstairs, but anywhere else?

SMK
04-08-2011, 06:12 PM
I'm not arguing your basic premise that RG was an ILE informant. The arguments makes sense to me and I have no quarrel with them.

But "even if one accepts" (assuming the translation is accurate) is rather standard lawyer language, particular if RG hadn't yet been tried and convicted of the other offenses. I wouldn't be too alarmed that Massei uses those words or attach too much meaning to them.Well , Sherlock and you attached meaning to them. This whole case has become so bogus to me. I hope justice will prevail, and the convictions will be overturned. If not, just one more crappy thing in this world.

Nova
04-08-2011, 06:14 PM
Or the metal grill on the window below the other window. Again, it's not the defense's job to explain why he chose that window. It's the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why he did NOT use the window as the scene depicts.

Apparently in one of the crimes at the school, a woman caught him in there. We can easily ask why did he not kill this woman, as MK was killed. But this is a mute point because MK is dead and his dina is all over her and in her.

Maybe he was escalating. Maybe the police had warned him that he'd better not be caught again, so he killed MK. I just find it completely odd that he'd not only get caught by the woman in the school, but apparently sit there and wait for the police to come. It sounds from the articles I read that he did wait.

So maybe this time, he was like "Hell, no" and he'll just kill the chick.

I don't totally understand why the same perp reacts violently sometimes but not others. Perhaps, as you say, RG was escalating.

Or maybe MK screamed and that frightened him. Or maybe he had a thing for her and found her vulnerable that night. (I'm not blaming MK obviously.)

I was juror on a murder trial where the defendant stabbed the victim ten times with a huge knife. The defendant was claiming self-defense, but when asked why he stabbed 10 times when once would have incapacitated the victim, he said that after the first stab, he simply couldn't help himself, that (these are my words now) a sort of "blood lust" came over him and he just kept stabbing until he was exhausted.

Maybe RG started by just trying to quiet MK or reason with her and then he couldn't stop himself until she was dying.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:15 PM
You will not be given it. There is no reason, because they were not involved. Rudy knew Filomina collected the group's rent $$$. He knew the rents were due. He was facing eviction. He knew noone was home. He broke in. He was confident enough to take a toilet break and listen to his iPod. Meredith surprised him by returning early. He was trapped. He confronted her. She fought back. If there is a God, the convictions will be overturned, and the Knox and Sollecito families will sue for millions.

I'm not sure of theories you present or about FR being the one who collected the rent. Not saying it's not true, just haven't read it. However, I agree that he broke in looking for something, used the bathroom, MK startled him, and he attacked her. I do agree with all that.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:16 PM
do you mean Hendry? who is Hardy?

Yes, Otto is just repeating what I called him. I called him Hardy first. Sorry.

ziggy
04-08-2011, 06:18 PM
Of course the outside of the cottage was investigated:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "walking along the outside perimeter of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window." (pgs. 50-51)

Ref: Judge's Summary

They observed...what a crock - they should have done what crime scene analysts do and rigoursly photograph and then sift the contents of the leaves,soil and vegitation below. "No vegitation was trampled" sounds a lot like "no footprints in the snow" (when there was no snow)...

Walking on leaves and grass does not necessarily cause it to look trampled for crikey sakes. It's so easy to see this investigation was not thorough and to imply that it was is silly and shows severe bias.

SMK
04-08-2011, 06:21 PM
Well , Sherlock and you attached meaning to them. This whole case has become so bogus to me. I hope justice will prevail, and the convictions will be overturned. If not, just one more crappy thing in this world.Sorry, Nova, I thought I was speaking to Otto---my brains are fried today. :( I thought you were Otto speaking to me :(

Nova
04-08-2011, 06:22 PM
...3. Amanda. He'd been asking the downstairs boys about her and he knew that she was permiscuious....

Good list of possible reasons why RG chose the cottage.

Re #3 above, how promiscuous was AK really? After the furor about the HIV testing, didn't it turn out she'd had six or seven partners over several years? (Yes, I know one of them was a one-night stand, possibly drug induced.)

Maybe it's because I came of age in the 1970s and have very lax standards, but one new partner every six months or so at age 20 isn't "promiscuous" to me.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:23 PM
I don't totally understand why the same perp reacts violently sometimes but not others. Perhaps, as you say, RG was escalating.

Or maybe MK screamed and that frightened him. Or maybe he had a thing for her and found her vulnerable that night. (I'm not blaming MK obviously.)

I was juror on a murder trial where the defendant stabbed the victim ten times with a huge knife. The defendant was claiming self-defense, but when asked why he stabbed 10 times when once would have incapacitated the victim, he said that after the first stab, he simply couldn't help himself, that (these are my words now) a sort of "blood lust" came over him and he just kept stabbing until he was exhausted.

Maybe RG started by just trying to quiet MK or reason with her and then he couldn't stop himself until she was dying.

Yes, also, I've studied crimes where rapists and molesters escalate. they go from merely assaulting to killing. I saw one case where a child molester got caught. When released, he molested again, but this next time, he killed the child. I believe it was because he didn't want anyone telling him as how he got caught the last time.

Nova
04-08-2011, 06:24 PM
Sorry, Nova, I thought I was speaking to Otto---my brains are fried today. :( I thought you were Otto speaking to me :(

Your brains are fried?

You actually CONVINCED me and I've been sitting here trying to remember the post to which you were refering! :loser:

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:25 PM
They observed...what a crock - they should have done what crime scene analysts do and rigoursly photograph and then sift the contents of the leaves,soil and vegitation below. "No vegitation was trampled" sounds a lot like "no footprints in the snow" (when there was no snow)...

Walking on leaves and grass does not necessarily cause it to look trampled for crikey sakes. It's so easy to see this investigation was not thorough and to imply that it was is silly and shows severe bias.

yes, and more leaves could have fallen on top after the crime, too.

otto
04-08-2011, 06:29 PM
None of what you have stated above was done. There was no analysis of the ground, no forensics done on the rock etc, no close up pictures of the ground below, they relied on the memory of people such as Filomena's memory which in her particular state I seriously doubt she was looking for glass under leaves, in the grass etc

The judge sure is confused ... including information about the investigation into the area below the broken window in his summations when, according to someone???, this never happened.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:29 PM
Good list of possible reasons why RG chose the cottage.

Re #3 above, how promiscuous was AK really? After the furor about the HIV testing, didn't it turn out she'd had six or seven partners over several years? (Yes, I know one of them was a one-night stand, possibly drug induced.)

Maybe it's because I came of age in the 1970s and have very lax standards, but one new partner every six months or so at age 20 isn't "promiscuous" to me.

I agree with you that we don't know. Just like we don't know what FR thinks "clean" means.

If I venture to guess, I'd say that Rudy would have gotten his ideas from the fact that MK was unhappy with the men AK brought home, probably mentioned that to her downstairs boyfriend who could have told Rudy. Total hearsay.

I guess that Daniel, who AK supposedly slept with upstairs while MK and her man were downstairs might have mentioned it, or the boys collectively might have been talking about it in RG's presence.

again, that's all speculation and if true, of course hearsay. But I'm guessing that if he'd been asking about AK to the boys, as the boys have tesitified, he could have gotten some of this as answer.

In RG's favor, it's not real evidence against him to be asking around about AK, especially since she's not the dead one.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:30 PM
Your brains are fried?

You actually CONVINCED me and I've been sitting here trying to remember the post to which you were refering! :loser:

See, you got AK syndrome, about to admit to something you didn't do! :waitasec:

otto
04-08-2011, 06:36 PM
To me, this is the sort of leap Massei makes throughout the Motivation Report. The break-in at vie della Pergola is "entirely different" from RG's other crimes because RG knew the tenants downstairs. Huh? Why?

Since RG knew the boys downstairs, he may have known that none of them would be home. Otherwise, I don't see how that makes this break-in inherently different from others.

It's just a leap Massei makes without explanation in order to reach the preordained conclusion that AK and RS are guilty.

At both the law office and cottage, there was a door or window directly under the balcony with a metal grill. The balcony was about 10 feet above the ground at both locations. At both locations, there were French doors on the balcony. At the law office, Rudy made use of this and entered the office through the French doors on the balcony. At the cottage, he ignored the easy and familiar method for breaking in, and instead scaled a wall without a metal grill (nothing to step on) to a height about about 15 or 20 feet and climbed in through a broken window (without getting any glass on the ground below).

Seems to be quite different to me.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:37 PM
The judge sure is confused ... including information about the investigation into the area below the broken window in his summations when, according to someone???, this never happened.

Why are you saying this? Now I'm confused.

The initial claim was that there was not a "thorough investigation."

You have been the one to set forth information that the judge garnered his conclusions from "observations" by the investigators. You submitted this as proof that there was an investigation of the outside area.

The dessenters have said "observations" are not good enough, because the initial assertion is that there was not a "thorough investigation."

no one here that I know of has disputed that the "observations" happened.

otto
04-08-2011, 06:39 PM
Good list of possible reasons why RG chose the cottage.

Re #3 above, how promiscuous was AK really? After the furor about the HIV testing, didn't it turn out she'd had six or seven partners over several years? (Yes, I know one of them was a one-night stand, possibly drug induced.)

Maybe it's because I came of age in the 1970s and have very lax standards, but one new partner every six months or so at age 20 isn't "promiscuous" to me.

Seven, not including Raffaele, by the age of 20 ... definitely not 70 in 60 days, as was reported at the Innocence Forum held at Washington State U (Steve Moore, Dempsey, Wright, Ciolino, someone else) earlier this week.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:40 PM
At the cottage, he ignored the easy and familiar method for breaking in, and instead scaled a wall without a metal grill (nothing to step on) to a height about about 15 or 20 feet and climbed in through a broken window (without getting any glass on the ground below).

Seems to be quite different to me.

Except there was a metal grill below the cottage window. The bars on that lower window could be climbed. You're saying that they cannot be?

otto
04-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Why are you saying this? Now I'm confused.

The initial claim was that there was not a "thorough investigation."

You have been the one to set forth information that the judge garnered his conclusions from "observations" by the investigators. You submitted this as proof that there was an investigation of the outside area.

The dessenters have said "observations" are not good enough, because the initial assertion is that there was not a "thorough investigation."

no one here that I know of has disputed that the "observations" happened.

According to whom? The report summarized the conclusions of the investigation into the area below the window. The 427 page report is a summary of the 11 month long trial ... it's not a transcript. All of the sources for the conclusions are cited and I suppose they're all available somewhere in Italy. To suggest that because photos of the investigation are not on the net, it didn't happen seems strange to me. In fact, there are some photos of investigators below the window ... I just don't feel like taking the time to search for them.

otto
04-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Except there was a metal grill below the cottage window. The bars on that lower window could be climbed. You're saying that they cannot be?

It is on the main floor, but not directly below Filomina's window.

When I was still trying to figure out whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved, I looked at the metal grill below the window. These are some images I put together

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/AK12InchSidewalk.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/AKfilominawindowlines.jpg

Someone breaking in using the metal grill on the main floor should have ended up in Amanda's bedroom, not Filominas.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 06:56 PM
It is on the main floor, but not directly below Filomina's window.

When I was still trying to figure out whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved, I looked at the metal grill below the window. These are some images I put together

Someone breaking in using the metal grill on the main floor should have ended up in Amanda's bedroom, not Filominas.

Are you saying to me that those bars that were on the window below FR's room were in fact not on that window?

I'm very confused at the point you're getting at, because the theory is that he could have climbed on those security bars on that lower window or he could have reached around from the front porch. I'm not into the front porch theory, though.

Did you draw all these lines on the photos or was this from some other investigation? Just asking, because if it's another investigative report, I'd like to read it.

I just do not understand why you are saying that those bars on that window below FR's room were not there unless I somehow misunderstood the pictures of the crime scene.

As for your other post about whether pictures were put out or they weren't, and what's on the internet and what's not, I really can't prove that. If you want to say there's no proof one way or another that these pictures exist because they were possibly not leaked, I can accept that. What I have a problem with is if the defense also says there's no such detailed investigation. So if I find that the defense has also asserted that they do not exist, that means they plain do not exist. So you'll be the first to know if I find that. If you haven't seen the pictures of a details investigation, though, then you can't say definitively if there were or were not footprints and glass outside, either.

I have no problems conceding when people have a point, but it's hard when others won't do the same in return.

on second thought, what I'll try to do is read the language in the report. If anytime they refer to specific photos or evidence, then I'll let you know, because there is no reason for the language of the document to say "observations" in one spot when referring to evidence, but then refer to actual photos etc of other evidence. It's my assumption that if they have the photos, they'll refer to them. If they don't, that's why they said "observations."

Nova
04-08-2011, 07:03 PM
At both the law office and cottage, there was a door or window directly under the balcony with a metal grill. The balcony was about 10 feet above the ground at both locations. At both locations, there were French doors on the balcony. At the law office, Rudy made use of this and entered the office through the French doors on the balcony. At the cottage, he ignored the easy and familiar method for breaking in, and instead scaled a wall without a metal grill (nothing to step on) to a height about about 15 or 20 feet and climbed in through a broken window (without getting any glass on the ground below).

Seems to be quite different to me.

That's fine, otto, but I was referring to Massei's comment that the via della Pergola break-in was "completely different" because RG knew the occupants of the first floor. That's the leap I find unconvincing.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:03 PM
Are you saying to me that those bars that were on the window below FR's room were in fact not on that window?

I'm very confused at the point you're getting at, because the theory is that he could have climbed on those security bars on that lower window or he could have reached around from the front porch. I'm not into the front porch theory, though.

Did you draw all these lines on the photos or was this from some other investigation? Just asking, because if it's another investigative report, I'd like to read it.

I just do not understand why you are saying that those bars on that window below FR's room were not there unless I somehow misunderstood the pictures of the crime scene.

As for your other post about whether pictures were put out or they weren't, and what's on the internet and what's not, I really can't prove that. If you want to say there's no proof one way or another that these pictures exist because they were possibly not leaked, I can accept that. What I have a problem with is if the defense also says there's no such detailed investigation. So if I find that the defense has also asserted that they do not exist, that means they plain do not exist. So you'll be the first to know if I find that.

There are two windows along that wall. The one closest to the entrance is Filomina's, the next one is Amanda's. You can see by looking at the images that the metal grill on the main floor is directly below Amanda's bedroom window. Why not break through Amanda's window?

I added the lines because the photo is in perspective. I wanted to understand whether someone could have climbed up that metal grill to break into Filomina's room. My conclusions, based on drawing straight lines from the ground to the roof, is that Amanda's bedroom is directly above the metal grill.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:05 PM
That's fine, otto, but I was referring to Massei's comment that the via della Pergola break-in was "completely different" because RG knew the occupants of the first floor. That's the leap I find unconvincing.

Yes, the judge seems to draw a line between people breaking into friend's residences and breaking into stranger's residences. Maybe it's some kind of knowledge he acquire through work in the justice system ... and maybe he's just making stuff up.

Nova
04-08-2011, 07:06 PM
Seven, not including Raffaele, by the age of 20 ... definitely not 70 in 60 days, as was reported at the Innocence Forum held at Washington State U (Steve Moore, Dempsey, Wright, Ciolino, someone else) earlier this week.

Thank you, otto, that's what I thought. That is not what I would call "promiscuous." (Which isn't to say the boys downstairs didn't think of AK as promiscuous or tell RG she was (especially if she had a one-night stand with one of the roommates). I think we all know boys who exaggerate such things at that age.)

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Okay, I see that, but what of the metal bars on the window below FR's room? These are inconsequential?

As for the why not? That's RG's decision to choose his entry point. I cannot say why he chose it, unless he actually did reach around from the porch to pull those shutters back.

Or he could have climbed up to Amanda's window first, saw that her shutters were locked. I don't know. The only way we'd know that for certain is whether or not it was reported the condition of Amanda's shutters. I can only speculate.

Nova
04-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Yes, the judge seems to draw a line between people breaking into friend's residences and breaking into stranger's residences. Maybe it's some kind of knowledge he acquire through work in the justice system ... and maybe he's just making stuff up.

Except that RG quite obviously did NOT break into his friends' residence. He broke into the apartment of upstairs neighbors he barely knew.

And as other posters have noted: friendship may not matter much to drug addicts, assuming RG was one.

Nova
04-08-2011, 07:10 PM
It is on the main floor, but not directly below Filomina's window.

When I was still trying to figure out whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved, I looked at the metal grill below the window. These are some images I put together

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/AK12InchSidewalk.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/AKfilominawindowlines.jpg

Someone breaking in using the metal grill on the main floor should have ended up in Amanda's bedroom, not Filominas.

Point taken. But the greater size of Filomena's window may have made it a more attractive point of entry.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 07:11 PM
Yes, the judge seems to draw a line between people breaking into friend's residences and breaking into stranger's residences. Maybe it's some kind of knowledge he acquire through work in the justice system ... and maybe he's just making stuff up.

I gotta go with "making stuff up," because if RG knows the boys, one of the boys was dating one of the girls. So RG's knows the girls by association. Not only that, the boys MIGHT have known that he was a petty thief, so wouldn't they maybe at least consider him on a burglary upstairs?

these speculations might cast doubt on RG's burlgary motive, but still...the judge is off base to think a friendship would keep RG out of the downstairs. A friendship should have kept RG from any illegal entry on that property, if we are going with that theory.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:12 PM
Thank you, otto, that's what I thought. That is not what I would call "promiscuous." (Which isn't to say the boys downstairs didn't think of AK as promiscuous or tell RG she was (especially if she had a one-night stand with one of the roommates). I think we all know boys who exaggerate such things at that age.)

I don't think that Amanda seems promiscuous to her peers. Many women in that age group are very open with sex ... viewing it as more of a sport (that may not be the right word, but something along those lines) than something reserved for marriage.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:17 PM
Okay, I see that, but what of the metal bars on the window below FR's room? These are inconsequential?

As for the why not? That's RG's decision to choose his entry point. I cannot say why he chose it, unless he actually did reach around from the porch to pull those shutters back.

Or he could have climbed up to Amanda's window first, saw that her shutters were locked. I don't know. The only way we'd know that for certain is whether or not it was reported the condition of Amanda's shutters. I can only speculate.

As far as I could see, there are no metal bars below Filomina's bedroom window. Have you seen another angle of the cottage where there bars below Filomina's bedroom? When I put those images together I was in fact trying to find an explanation for how Rudy climbed in through the window ... but the question that wouldn't go away was: why didn't he climb the metal grill directly under Amanda's room and in through her window? That makes far more sense than somehow horizontally scaling the wall, 16 feet off the ground, to Filomina's room.

I'm assuming that Rudy, if he broke in, was looking for the easiest way to enter the cottage. The balcony and Amanda's window both seem easier than Filomina's bedroom.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:21 PM
Point taken. But the greater size of Filomena's window may have made it a more attractive point of entry.

Maybe, but Rudy is 6' tall and thin. There were bars on some of the windows. I'll look for a picture of Amanda's window ... as I don't remember if there were bars on her window. I didn't find any images that show security bars on the window.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:37 PM
I gotta go with "making stuff up," because if RG knows the boys, one of the boys was dating one of the girls. So RG's knows the girls by association. Not only that, the boys MIGHT have known that he was a petty thief, so wouldn't they maybe at least consider him on a burglary upstairs?

these speculations might cast doubt on RG's burlgary motive, but still...the judge is off base to think a friendship would keep RG out of the downstairs. A friendship should have kept RG from any illegal entry on that property, if we are going with that theory.

IIRC, Rudy and Amanda had met three times: at the club where she worked, in the square, and then at a party (about 6-7 people) smoking drugs in the downstairs part of the cottage.

I understood the judge to be identifying differences between the break in at the law office and the staged break in at the cottage. Most notably, although there were metal grills, balconies, and French doors at both locations and Rudy was known to enter using the balcony at the law office, we are to believe he chose to scale a 16 foot flat wall at the cottage. The judge also states that Rudy was known to enter public buildings (law office, daycare) where he knew no one, but here it was alleged that he broke into a residence where he knew all of the occupants.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:39 PM
Here's an image of investigators collecting evidence outside the cottage. It looks like a thorough investigation to me ... complete with all the tools one would expect from forensic experts. I highly doubt suggestions that investigators simple speculated that there was no broken glass on the ground outside the window.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/Knoxunderwindowinvestigation.jpg

Ref: Perugiamurderfile.net

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:43 PM
IIRC, Rudy and Amanda had met three times: at the club where she worked, in the square, and then at a party (about 6-7 people) smoking drugs in the downstairs part of the cottage.

I understood the judge to be identifying differences between the break in at the law office and the staged break in at the cottage. Most notably, although there were metal grills, balconies, and French doors at both locations and Rudy was known to enter using the balcony at the law office, we are to believe he chose to scale a 16 foot flat wall at the cottage. The judge also states that Rudy was known to enter public buildings (law office, daycare) where he knew no one, but here it was alleged that he broke into a residence where he knew all of the occupants.OK, now that I am calmer, I can see the distinction. However, I do believe something such as it being a night where a. everyone was presumably out and b. the night before rents were due-- may possibly have made this part of the opportunistic pattern (of unlawful entry when he was in need of something). I think although it is a departure, it is not a great one.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 07:45 PM
As far as I could see, there are no metal bars below Filomina's bedroom window. Have you seen another angle of the cottage where there bars below Filomina's bedroom? When I put those images together I was in fact trying to find an explanation for how Rudy climbed in through the window ... but the question that wouldn't go away was: why didn't he climb the metal grill directly under Amanda's room and in through her window? That makes far more sense than somehow horizontally scaling the wall, 16 feet off the ground, to Filomina's room.

I'm assuming that Rudy, if he broke in, was looking for the easiest way to enter the cottage. The balcony and Amanda's window both seem easier than Filomina's bedroom.

Okay, that's where I'm getting confused, I guess, because I have been assumming that these bars have been on this window since the night of the murder. Is this not true? Below, I did not draw that blue arrow, but it points to a scrap mark RG allegedly made AFTER he climbed on the metal bars that are on the window below the blue arrow. That's why I keep asking if you're saying those bars were not there. They look just the same as those bars on that door. I have to look back at your picture with the lines, but by looking, the window appears the same height as the door as well.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh80.jpg

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Here's an image of investigators collecting evidence outside the cottage. It looks like a thorough investigation to me ... complete with all the tools one would expect from forensic experts. I highly doubt suggestions that investigators simple speculated that there was no broken glass on the ground outside the window.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/Knoxunderwindowinvestigation.jpg

Ref: Perugiamurderfile.net

Awesome. Glad for the outdoor picture, but just upon first glance, I think this is pictures of them looking at the driveway and the porch, possibly tracking RG's prints out of the house. I need a detailed collection of photos for the side of the house where the actual window is.

But thanks for that one.

SMK
04-08-2011, 07:47 PM
I don't totally understand why the same perp reacts violently sometimes but not others. Perhaps, as you say, RG was escalating.

Or maybe MK screamed and that frightened him. Or maybe he had a thing for her and found her vulnerable that night. (I'm not blaming MK obviously.)

I was juror on a murder trial where the defendant stabbed the victim ten times with a huge knife. The defendant was claiming self-defense, but when asked why he stabbed 10 times when once would have incapacitated the victim, he said that after the first stab, he simply couldn't help himself, that (these are my words now) a sort of "blood lust" came over him and he just kept stabbing until he was exhausted.

Maybe RG started by just trying to quiet MK or reason with her and then he couldn't stop himself until she was dying.
Nova, Meredith's family says she was trained in karate, and had a strong will, and would have put up a fight. THIS to me seems to give ample reason why Guede might have pulled the knife, gotten violent: He was not expecting such a fight from a slim, relatively small young woman. In this sense, her fighting may have not been in her best interest. Also, he knew she was a university student who had seem him downstairs and around, and she would identify him.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:52 PM
Okay, that's where I'm getting confused, I guess, because I have been assumming that these bars have been on this window since the night of the murder. Is this not true? Below, I did not draw that blue arrow, but it points to a scrap mark RG allegedly made AFTER he climbed on the metal bars that are on the window below the blue arrow. That's why I keep asking if you're saying those bars were not there. They look just the same as those bars on that door. I have to look back at your picture with the lines, but by looking, the window appears the same height as the door as well.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh80.jpg

With all the recent discussion about "how can we know that the footprints revealed with luminol were made at the time of the murder" ... I think you know the response to a slightly different colored brick on the side of the building.

I did see that other grill in a photo. That is the grill where we see someone from the defense standing on the grill. Someone else is raising up a hand, which is at the height of the climbers foot. I'm still waiting for images showing the rest of the story ... why isn't there a video showing how the guy got up there, and how he then climbed into the window. It's a suggestive and incomplete story. Glass on the window ledge should have been brushed to the ground if only to enter the room without getting cut ... shouldn't it?

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 07:54 PM
IIRC, Rudy and Amanda had met three times: at the club where she worked, in the square, and then at a party (about 6-7 people) smoking drugs in the downstairs part of the cottage.

I understood the judge to be identifying differences between the break in at the law office and the staged break in at the cottage. Most notably, although there were metal grills, balconies, and French doors at both locations and Rudy was known to enter using the balcony at the law office, we are to believe he chose to scale a 16 foot flat wall at the cottage. The judge also states that Rudy was known to enter public buildings (law office, daycare) where he knew no one, but here it was alleged that he broke into a residence where he knew all of the occupants.

Yeah, I guess I was still piggy backing off the part about the judge saying RG wouldn't do it downstairs because he knew the boys. Meeting Amanda a few times adds to the fact that he wouldn't do it upstairs for that reason, either.

I have read reports that way the window at the cottage was 13FT, while the window at the law office was 15Ft, possibly 16Ft if I read it wrong, but I am sure I read that the cottage window was a lower height than the law office window.

otto
04-08-2011, 07:56 PM
Awesome. Glad for the outdoor picture, but just upon first glance, I think this is pictures of them looking at the driveway and the porch, possibly tracking RG's prints out of the house. I need a detailed collection of photos for the side of the house where the actual window is.

But thanks for that one.

The photo might even be from around the back of the cottage. In any case, I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that investigators did not do a proper forensic examination of the exterior of the cottage ... and I think we can be sure that they carefully examined the area below the broken window ... wearing their extraterrestrial suits. That area was of particular interet because of the broken window. That is, if they were that careful with one part of the exterior, it's safe to assume they were that careful with all parts of the exterior.

The link from Allusonz to the Dailybeast Barbie Nadeau article said 10 feet. The Nadeau article seems to be based on the link that SMK provided to the Judge's summary. A standard door is about 84" in height and using the image I posted before (with the yellow lines) it looks to me like the window is twice that distance above the ground ... so approx 168", about 14'.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 08:01 PM
With all the recent discussion about "how can we know that the footprints revealed with luminol were made at the time of the murder" ... I think you know the response to a slightly different colored brick on the side of the building.

I did see that other grill in a photo. That is the grill where we see someone from the defense standing on the grill. Someone else is raising up a hand, which is at the height of the climbers foot. I'm still waiting for images showing the rest of the story ... why isn't there a video showing how the guy got up there, and how he then climbed into the window. It's a suggestive and incomplete story. Glass on the window ledge should have been brushed to the ground if only to enter the room without getting cut ... shouldn't it?

I'm not following the thought about the luminol and the scuff on the wall. Dauh, I just figured it out and I do agree.

Perhaps the person in the picture is about to point to something. I don't
recall the hand being close enough to the experiment to mean anything.

I agree that it's an incomplete story and we should be allowed to see all the pictures of that story.

As for the glass, that's why I said the originial thing about there wasn't a 'thorough investigation' because we should see pictures proving that no glass was on the ground or there was some glass on the ground. That picture you showed a couple posts back was of an investigation of the porch, not the side window.

As for the glass, I described in another post how RG had to break out more glass by hand when he got up there, and that's what glass is sitting on the sill, looking kind of as if it'd been placed there. I do believe it should have fallen off, some of it, specks of it when he entered. I also believe though, that if it was a constructed scene, glass still should have fallen to the ground in the same manner when the green shutters were finally opened by the people who allegedly set up a fake scene. Does that make sense?

I'm saying in a real break in scenerio and in a fake break in scenerio, I STILL expect to see a little bit of glass outside. Just a little bit, probably not enough for an "observation" to discover, especially since Leaves had fallen.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 08:05 PM
The photo might even be from around the back of the cottage. In any case, I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that investigators did not do a proper forensic examination of the exterior of the cottage ... and I think we can be sure that they carefully examined the area below the broken window ... wearing their extraterrestrial suits. That area was of particular interet because of the broken window. That is, if they were that careful with one part of the exterior, it's safe to assume they were that careful with all parts of the exterior.

I don't believe it's a stretch because it took them 45 days or so to find a bra clasp that had been supposedly beneath the victim's body on day 1.

Now, if all things had been handled correctly since day 1, I would certainly agree with you. But if it took 45 days or so to find that clasp, even if they did do a deeper investigation outside, when was it? How many days after the crime? Outdoors changes a lot more quickly than indoors, and other people, like the residents, were walking around there, looking for things. They could have raked up the glass, pressed it deeper into the ground--anything. I don't know, just guessing at what could have happened to the evidence while it was outside.

So I want to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but scuttling from room to room in their unchanged footies, wearing their gloves outside and touching the railings, shoving bloody boots under MK's bed and trying to figure out later how a blood mark got under the bed, losing the clasp for 45 days....all that makes me weary about them.

otto
04-08-2011, 08:06 PM
Yeah, I guess I was still piggy backing off the part about the judge saying RG wouldn't do it downstairs because he knew the boys. Meeting Amanda a few times adds to the fact that he wouldn't do it upstairs for that reason, either.

I have read reports that way the window at the cottage was 13FT, while the window at the law office was 15Ft, possibly 16Ft if I read it wrong, but I am sure I read that the cottage window was a lower height than the law office window.

The link from Allusonz to the Dailybeast Barbie Nadeau article said 10 feet. The Nadeau article seems to be based on the link that SMK provided to the Judge's summary. A standard door is about 84" in height and using the image I posted before (with the yellow lines) it looks to me like the window is twice that distance above the ground ... so approx 168", about 14'.

OldSteve
04-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Nova, Meredith's family says she was trained in karate, and had a strong will, and would have put up a fight. THIS to me seems to give ample reason why Guede might have pulled the knife, gotten violent: He was not expecting such a fight from a slim, relatively small young woman. In this sense, her fighting may have not been in her best interest. Also, he knew she was a university student who had seem him downstairs and around, and she would identify him.

BBM - yet no marks on AK.... nope! That no photos were taken of her (as far as I know) is strange.
Cannot believe she engaged any sort of sex-gone-wrong kind of orgy with AK, RS, and RG... Cannot believe AK and RS would become involved with RG in spur of the moment activity of this sort.

I can only conclude that whatever took place was against MK's will and done with force. Is it possible that in a drug induced state AK and RS saw what was taking place and cheered RG on, even taunted MK? Possible, but cannot find anything to back that up - no marks from MK kicking AK or RS. No smeared blood by AK, RS in MK's small room. Nothing to place others in MK's room. Is it possible AK cheered RG on while standing outside MK's room? That I cannot answer.. It would be a horrible thought. Yet, had that happened, RG never implicated anything like this took place.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 08:11 PM
So RG standing on that window could possibly get him up to the sill enough to see enough and do a "pull up" like when you excercise, possibly kick tha scuff on the wall once, and be in the room.

Possibly.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 08:12 PM
BBM - yet no marks on AK.... nope! That no photos were taken of her (as far as I know) is strange.

From what i understand, no injuries, except a blemish on her neck that was not bleeding. Now, RG's hand had a cut, but to be fair, have we been told that his actual BLOOD was in the house or just DNA? And do we know if he'd been injured in anyway besides the hand cut? He was picked up 5 or 6 days later, so bruises might have healed, but open wounds? Probably not.

otto
04-08-2011, 08:14 PM
I'm not following the thought about the luminol and the scuff on the wall. Dauh, I just figured it out and I do agree.

Perhaps the person in the picture is about to point to something. I don't
recall the hand being close enough to the experiment to mean anything.

I agree that it's an incomplete story and we should be allowed to see all the pictures of that story.

As for the glass, that's why I said the originial thing about there wasn't a 'thorough investigation' because we should see pictures proving that no glass was on the ground or there was some glass on the ground. That picture you showed a couple posts back was of an investigation of the porch, not the side window.

As for the glass, I described in another post how RG had to break out more glass by hand when he got up there, and that's what glass is sitting on the sill, looking kind of as if it'd been placed there. I do believe it should have fallen off, some of it, specks of it when he entered. I also believe though, that if it was a constructed scene, glass still should have fallen to the ground in the same manner when the green shutters were finally opened by the people who allegedly set up a fake scene. Does that make sense?

I'm saying in a real break in scenerio and in a fake break in scenerio, I STILL expect to see a little bit of glass outside. Just a little bit, probably not enough for an "observation" to discover, especially since Leaves had fallen.

If you need to see everything with your own eyes, such as photos of the same extraterrestrials standing below Filomina's window, then I suppose it will be difficult to believe anything about the case. We haven't seen detailed photos of Laura's room, so maybe that was ransacked, and we haven't seen detailed photos of the other bathroom so maybe that was covered in blood ... hard to be sure if we need to see everything with our own eyes.

otto
04-08-2011, 08:17 PM
So RG standing on that window could possibly get him up to the sill enough to see enough and do a "pull up" like when you excercise, possibly kick tha scuff on the wall once, and be in the room.

Possibly.

And the glass on the outside window ledge? Why didn't some of end up on the ground ... or are we going to argue that police didn't actually investigate outside the cottage?

otto
04-08-2011, 08:18 PM
From what i understand, no injuries, except a blemish on her neck that was not bleeding. Now, RG's hand had a cut, but to be fair, have we been told that his actual BLOOD was in the house or just DNA? And do we know if he'd been injured in anyway besides the hand cut? He was picked up 5 or 6 days later, so bruises might have healed, but open wounds? Probably not.

No blood from Rudy in the cottage.

Nova
04-08-2011, 08:22 PM
Here's an image of investigators collecting evidence outside the cottage. It looks like a thorough investigation to me ... complete with all the tools one would expect from forensic experts. I highly doubt suggestions that investigators simple speculated that there was no broken glass on the ground outside the window.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/Knoxunderwindowinvestigation.jpg

Ref: Perugiamurderfile.net

Is there a date on that photo? 'Cause if they waited a month and a half to collect evidence from an exterior space, well...

SMK
04-08-2011, 08:25 PM
BBM - yet no marks on AK.... nope! That no photos were taken of her (as far as I know) is strange.
Cannot believe she engaged any sort of sex-gone-wrong kind of orgy with AK, RS, and RG... Cannot believe AK and RS would become involved with RG in spur of the moment activity of this sort.

I can only conclude that whatever took place was against MK's will and done with force. Is it possible that in a drug induced state AK and RS saw what was taking place and cheered RG on, even taunted MK? Possible, but cannot find anything to back that up - no marks from MK kicking AK or RS. No smeared blood by AK, RS in MK's small room. Nothing to place others in MK's room. Is it possible AK cheered RG on while standing outside MK's room? That I cannot answer.. It would be a horrible thought. Yet, had that happened, RG never implicated anything like this took place.
Yes, if you look at that piece in the Sun, (it was on the last thread, but I cannot locate it now---journalist was saying kercher murder was a fight staged to LOOK sexual) it would appear to make sense..........EXCEPT, as you note, where are the marks on AK and RS??? & why as you also note, would Rudy have not said, "THEY told me to do it, they egged me on".

Nova
04-08-2011, 08:25 PM
Nova, Meredith's family says she was trained in karate, and had a strong will, and would have put up a fight. THIS to me seems to give ample reason why Guede might have pulled the knife, gotten violent: He was not expecting such a fight from a slim, relatively small young woman. In this sense, her fighting may have not been in her best interest. Also, he knew she was a university student who had seem him downstairs and around, and she would identify him.

Good points. I don't for a moment think MK's family would tell anything but the truth, but all the karate training in the world can't tell how one will react the first time one is actually attacked. But assuming MK fought back and fought hard, that may have been enough to produce an uncontrollable rage in RG.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 08:28 PM
If you need to see everything with your own eyes, such as photos of the same extraterrestrials standing below Filomina's window, then I suppose it will be difficult to believe anything about the case. We haven't seen detailed photos of Laura's room, so maybe that was ransacked, and we haven't seen detailed photos of the other bathroom so maybe that was covered in blood ... hard to be sure if we need to see everything with our own eyes.

Otto, I'll have to remember you said this when you are questioning evidence, too.

The breakin is pivitol to the case, in my opinion, so I want to see if there was glass on the ground or not. Why is that a bad thing? Something was in Laura's toilet. They took a picture of that, and I saw that. Didn't want to see the boo-boo, but they sure photographed it and we know for 100% sure he left it.

So it's not a bad thing to want to see the glass outside. I don't want to make this personal, but it's not fair to give me that kind of answer when you've challenged things and asked for proof of things. not only have you asked for that proof, when someone has provided it, you've said the source wasn't credible. It just happened today with the information about RG's past burglaries.

So with all due respect, if you feel that you cannot help me further, just say that you cannot, and I will respectfully direct my questions elsewhere.

Thanks!

otto
04-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Yes, if you look at that piece in the Sun, (it was on the last thread, but I cannot locate it now---journalist was saying kercher murder was a fight staged to LOOK sexual) it would appear to make sense..........EXCEPT, as you note, where are the marks on AK and RS??? & why as you also note, would Rudy have not said, "THEY told me to do it, they egged me on".

Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.

Nova
04-08-2011, 08:32 PM
The photo might even be from around the back of the cottage. In any case, I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that investigators did not do a proper forensic examination of the exterior of the cottage ... and I think we can be sure that they carefully examined the area below the broken window ... wearing their extraterrestrial suits. That area was of particular interet because of the broken window. That is, if they were that careful with one part of the exterior, it's safe to assume they were that careful with all parts of the exterior....



I don't think it's safe to assume anything in this case. No DNA testing of the other occupants of the house? That's Forensics 101. If a thorough examination of the ground beneath the window was performed, where are the photos? Where is the testimony?

Where is the expert testimony on glass patterns, etc., that proves the break-in was staged? Oh, that's right: some non-professional saw glass on her computer case. :rolleyes: (Just to be clear: I'm not rolling my eyes at you, otto. I am very frustrated at how much of this case depends on our blind faith in Italian LE. Sorry, but I don't have blind faith in California LE. Why would I have greater faith in the Italians?)

otto
04-08-2011, 08:36 PM
Otto, I'll have to remember you said this when you are questioning evidence, too.

The breakin is pivitol to the case, in my opinion, so I want to see if there was glass on the ground or not. Why is that a bad thing? Something was in Laura's toilet. They took a picture of that, and I saw that. Didn't want to see the boo-boo, but they sure photographed it and we know for 100% sure he left it.

So it's not a bad thing to want to see the glass outside. I don't want to make this personal, but it's not fair to give me that kind of answer when you've challenged things and asked for proof of things. not only have you asked for that proof, when someone has provided it, you've said the source wasn't credible. It just happened today with the information about RG's past burglaries.

So with all due respect, if you feel that you cannot help me further, just say that you cannot, and I will respectfully direct my questions elsewhere.

Thanks!

Go ahead. First we read that there was no investigation on the exterior of the cottage, so I reference information in the Judge's summary detailing the findings from the investigation under the window. Then we read that investigators didn't really investigate, they just looked and reported their thoughts, so I provide a photo of what investigators did outside the cottage. Then we read that because there is no photo of those investigators standing underneath the window, we should still doubt that investigators did a thorough investigation of the area under the window.

Sure, if you present that sort of information to me, and I refuse to accept the obvious, you should remind me of my remark.

Nova
04-08-2011, 08:36 PM
BBM - yet no marks on AK.... nope! That no photos were taken of her (as far as I know) is strange.
Cannot believe she engaged any sort of sex-gone-wrong kind of orgy with AK, RS, and RG... Cannot believe AK and RS would become involved with RG in spur of the moment activity of this sort.

I can only conclude that whatever took place was against MK's will and done with force. Is it possible that in a drug induced state AK and RS saw what was taking place and cheered RG on, even taunted MK? Possible, but cannot find anything to back that up - no marks from MK kicking AK or RS. No smeared blood by AK, RS in MK's small room. Nothing to place others in MK's room. Is it possible AK cheered RG on while standing outside MK's room? That I cannot answer.. It would be a horrible thought. Yet, had that happened, RG never implicated anything like this took place.

Karate aside, given the size of that room, anyone present for the murder would most likely have at least superficial knife cuts as well. IMO.

OldSteve
04-08-2011, 08:37 PM
Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.

Disagree - would be rare for there to be no scratches, etc... but even so, if by chance no marks made, I still cannot find blood smears, etc to shows othes in the room with MK in what had to involve allot activity if the orgy said to take place really did.
Oh, least I forgot - RG not implicating AK or RS.

Nova
04-08-2011, 08:45 PM
Go ahead. First we read that there was no investigation on the exterior of the cottage, so I reference information in the Judge's summary detailing the findings from the investigation under the window. Then we read that investigators didn't really investigate, they just looked and reported their thoughts, so I provide a photo of what investigators did outside the cottage. Then we read that because there is no photo of those investigators standing underneath the window, we should still doubt that investigators did a thorough investigation of the area under the window.

Sure, if you present that sort of information to me, and I refuse to accept the obvious, you should remind me of my remark.

otto, surely you can understand our frustration with what is missing in terms of expert testing, analysis and testimony.

You are willing to look at a photo of techs looking at one piece of ground and assume all ground was carefully examined. But we know all the residents weren't treated the same forensically, so why think the ground was?

otto
04-08-2011, 08:47 PM
I don't think it's safe to assume anything in this case. No DNA testing of the other occupants of the house? That's Forensics 101. If a thorough examination of the ground beneath the window was performed, where are the photos? Where is the testimony?

Where is the expert testimony on glass patterns, etc., that proves the break-in was staged? Oh, that's right: some non-professional saw glass on her computer case. :rolleyes: (Just to be clear: I'm not rolling my eyes at you, otto. I am very frustrated at how much of this case depends on our blind faith in Italian LE. Sorry, but I don't have blind faith in California LE. Why would I have greater faith in the Italians?)

I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

SMK
04-08-2011, 08:51 PM
Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.So are you saying that premise is correct? (that it was a NONsexual fight, staged to look sexual?--wish I could locate that piece from The Daily Sun)---how could the glass of water and envelope perched on table edge be undisturbed in that tiny room with 3 killers violently assaulting one vicitm???:waitasec:

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 08:53 PM
I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

Because if Laura or Filomena's DNA turned out to be any of the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp or mixed samples of blood and DNA it would render the DNA findings of Amanda in the cottage utterly worthless.

otto
04-08-2011, 08:59 PM
Disagree - would be rare for there to be no scratches, etc... but even so, if by chance no marks made, I still cannot find blood smears, etc to shows othes in the room with MK in what had to involve allot activity if the orgy said to take place really did.
Oh, least I forgot - RG not implicating AK or RS.

Some people seem to believe that a standard sized bedroom is too small for three people to attack one person. Personally, I don't agree. There's nothing to be done ... no one is changing their opinion on whether a standard sized bedroom is large enough for the type of attack that occurred.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:01 PM
Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.

I think we need to get off the false premise that someone having over 40 wounds (of which only three were actual deep stabs) is proof of multiple assailants. 10 seconds on google will reveal (unfortunately) an infinite number of news stories which contradict that notion. This one for example:

http://www.conservativesforamerica.com/around-the-web/horrific-honor-killing-in-germany-100-stab-wounds-in-21-year-old-mom-to-be

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:03 PM
Some people seem to believe that a standard sized bedroom is too small for three people to attack one person. Personally, I don't agree. There's nothing to be done ... no one is changing their opinion on whether a standard sized bedroom is large enough for the type of attack that occurred.

This straw man again? I thought we just clarified a few days ago that no one has said the room was too small for three people to attack someone in, just that the evidence doesn't support that notion.

otto
04-08-2011, 09:04 PM
otto, surely you can understand our frustration with what is missing in terms of expert testing, analysis and testimony.

You are willing to look at a photo of techs looking at one piece of ground and assume all ground was carefully examined. But we know all the residents weren't treated the same forensically, so why think the ground was?

So ... because DNA may not have been taken from people that could not have committed the murder, it's quite likely that police did not properly investigate the area under the broken window? I don't think that's true.

otto
04-08-2011, 09:06 PM
Because if Laura or Filomena's DNA turned out to be any of the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp or mixed samples of blood and DNA it would render the DNA findings of Amanda in the cottage utterly worthless.

Dr Stefanoni did not find Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp. Why would Laura's DNA be there?

otto
04-08-2011, 09:08 PM
This straw man again? I thought we just clarified a few days ago that no one has said the room was too small for three people to attack someone in, just that the evidence doesn't support that notion.

No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:12 PM
So ... because DNA may not have been taken from people that could not have committed the murder, it's quite likely that police did not properly investigate the area under the broken window? I don't think that's true.

Well, that and the fact that they couldn't count the number of rings in a shoe print correctly - a mistake which led to Raffaele's arrest, broke a few hard drives by accident, couldn't interpret a text message correctly despite the presence of a police interpreter - leading to the arrest of an innocent man, destroyed by accident a key piece of forensic evidence (the bra clasp), lied about the results of the blood tests on the Luminol prints, I mean how many more examples need to be listed to show that we can't take their word on anything (and there are more)? FYI, according to Frank at PS, Raf's lawyer stated that there was glass under the window outside.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:13 PM
Dr Stefanoni did not find Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp. Why would Laura's DNA be there?

You're right. It would render the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele worthless.

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:15 PM
No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.

Um, I countered your claim that posters on here are arguing that the room was too small for a four-person struggle. No one is saying that. Your response is that there is evidence of multiple attackers. Two completely different arguments.

SMK
04-08-2011, 09:17 PM
No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.
That to many is up for debate...the 3 on 1 attack is nonsensical in so many ways. The evidence is not so clear to us, and we are not going to take LE word for gospel (whether in Italy or the US or the UK or anywhere---part of being of that generation which was taught to see corruption in authority)

I think someone posted this before, but i found that part about Rudy I had been looking for. I still think he was the lone wolf here...


In Sept 2007 two months before the murder a burglar later identified as Guede had broken into a house and threatened a couple with a knife before running away.
Defence lawyers called as a witness a local solicitor, Paolo Brocchi, who described how, in Oct 2007, an intruder used a rock to smash the window of his office, clamber through it and steal a mobile phone and a laptop computer.
Police arrested Guede a few days later after he broke into a school in Milan, armed with a knife, and found the stolen goods in his possession.
"The break-in was a carbon-copy of the way he used a rock to break a window at Kercher's house and enter," said Luca Maori, a lawyer representing Sollecito.
"It helps show how Guede entered alone that night, probably to steal, found Kercher undressing, tried to rape her and then killed her."
When Guede broke into the lawyer's office, he climbed up to a window which was about 15ft from the ground. When police investigated the apparent break-in at the cottage Miss Kercher and Miss Knox shared outside Perugia's stone walls, they found that a window of a similar height had been smashed. They decided that it was too high to clamber through and instead came up with the theory that it had been broken from inside by Miss Knox and Mr Sollecito to fake a burglary and throw police off their tracks.
"We heard evidence today that Rudy was perfectly able, and accustomed, to scaling such heights," said Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Miss Knox.

SMK
04-08-2011, 09:20 PM
Um, I countered your claim that posters on here are arguing that the room was too small for a four-person struggle. No one is saying that. Your response is that there is evidence of multiple attackers. Two completely different arguments.uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing::eek::eek:

Malkmus
04-08-2011, 09:21 PM
uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing::eek::eek:

Ah, that's what I get for jumping in randomly. We had a discussion a few days ago about some of the analysis on IIP stating that when it didn't, so I jumped the gun.

Sorry, Otto!:seeya:

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 09:31 PM
uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing::eek::eek:

For me, the size of the room might lend toward why RS and AK ought to have more bruises. Even if MK didn't get a hit off, they were probably knocking into each other very hard, trying to fight MK, possibly knocking into the wall and furniture. If it was 3 on 1, then the attackers ought to be bruised in my opinion.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 09:32 PM
Go ahead. First we read that there was no investigation on the exterior of the cottage, so I reference information in the Judge's summary detailing the findings from the investigation under the window. Then we read that investigators didn't really investigate, they just looked and reported their thoughts, so I provide a photo of what investigators did outside the cottage. Then we read that because there is no photo of those investigators standing underneath the window, we should still doubt that investigators did a thorough investigation of the area under the window.

Sure, if you present that sort of information to me, and I refuse to accept the obvious, you should remind me of my remark.

Since you don't have to see it with your own eyes then, I just there's no reason to continue helping you look for a more concrete report about RG's criminal record. As I should take the investigators word for investigating outside, we'll take their word about RG's criminal record.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 09:35 PM
I think there is a more important question in this. When you have someone that has entered a premise 6 times in 33 days, is found to have stolen items as well as break and enter items in a backpack (which leads me to believe these may only be the times they are aware of and there possibly be even more) why would ILE not investigate him further. They had more on RG from these than they did of AK yet never arrested him, took him in for questioning, etc. Something is very wrong with this scenerio
Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 09:40 PM
With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.
We were talking about the defense trying to make a point of Rudy's history. Of course, they need to proof that. If you just take an objective look at this defense tactic then it is rather weak. No evidence of the actual break in, no shoe print, no DNA, no fingerprints on any of the glass parts or anywhere. So they try to make a connection by showing Rudy's past. And they do so with assumed break-ins. No arrests, nothing proven. It is just a weak tactic IMO.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 10:19 PM
We were talking about the defense trying to make a point of Rudy's history. Of course, they need to proof that. If you just take an objective look at this defense tactic then it is rather weak. No evidence of the actual break in, no shoe print, no DNA, no fingerprints on any of the glass parts or anywhere. So they try to make a connection by showing Rudy's past. And they do so with assumed break-ins. No arrests, nothing proven. It is just a weak tactic IMO.

I don't recall what the orig. discussion was about that led to my statement, but I stand by what I said. If the defense is stepping forward to prove ANYTHING, even Rudy's past, they are going above what is required of the defense, at least it's that way in the united states. Whether juries actually respect that is another story, and this is probably why defenses will go above their burden. But the burden of proof in the crime lies with the prosecution. I'm trying to convey that the defense has a low threshold in the law for proving anything, only a threshold for raising reasonable doubt.


If it is not this way in Italy, let me know.

wasnt_me
04-08-2011, 10:45 PM
Here's an outside pic. I don't know when it was taken, and unfortunately, the investigators are again outside with their protective footies, picking up other objects on the bottom of them. Assuming this is the front porch, so let me know if I'm right or wrong.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1165

Nova
04-08-2011, 10:49 PM
I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

As anyone who watches TV knows, you take DNA from everyone who belongs in the house so that you recognize their traces when you find them and don't waste time looking for an intruder with that DNA. Laura's DNA would be a control sample.

In this case, apparently, such controls were not needed because ILE relied on the more scientific "hip wiggle" test instead.

Nova
04-08-2011, 10:55 PM
Some people seem to believe that a standard sized bedroom is too small for three people to attack one person. Personally, I don't agree. There's nothing to be done ... no one is changing their opinion on whether a standard sized bedroom is large enough for the type of attack that occurred.

Do you have figures on what are standard sizes for bedrooms in Italy? MK's room was very small by American standards, but I realize we are the country of "Give me land, lots of land...."

But IIRC, MK's was the smallest of the bedrooms in the upstairs apartment. Even if that is a standard size in Europe, it's sill very cramped quarters for four people in a violent struggle.

Nova
04-08-2011, 11:06 PM
I don't recall what the orig. discussion was about that led to my statement, but I stand by what I said. If the defense is stepping forward to prove ANYTHING, even Rudy's past, they are going above what is required of the defense, at least it's that way in the united states. Whether juries actually respect that is another story, and this is probably why defenses will go above their burden. But the burden of proof in the crime lies with the prosecution. I'm trying to convey that the defense has a low threshold in the law for proving anything, only a threshold for raising reasonable doubt.


If it is not this way in Italy, let me know.

It's true that the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution, but that doesn't mean the defense gets to throw out any wild conjecture and force the prosecution to prove it wrong.

For what are called affirmative claims--such as insanity or self-defense--the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

For other claims, such as alternate theories of the crime (RG acted alone, say), the defense has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the claim. (Otherwise, the defense could claim MK was killed by Martians and then dare the prosecutor to disprove it.) If the judge doesn't agree there is a reasonable basis for the argument, he or she won't allow it.

I assume--and we all know the problem with assuming--that Italy must have equivalent principles. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of anything.

sherlockh
04-08-2011, 11:30 PM
Do you have figures on what are standard sizes for bedrooms in Italy? MK's room was very small by American standards, but I realize we are the country of "Give me land, lots of land...."

But IIRC, MK's was the smallest of the bedrooms in the upstairs apartment. Even if that is a standard size in Europe, it's sill very cramped quarters for four people in a violent struggle.
AK's room is the small one. Not sure how she fit in ;)

wasnt_me
04-09-2011, 01:02 AM
It's true that the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution, but that doesn't mean the defense gets to throw out any wild conjecture and force the prosecution to prove it wrong.

I never said that they got to do that. I said all they have to do is cast reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. I don't believe I ever said they could cast out wild assertions and make the prosecution prove it wrong. But if the defendent says he was home alone all night, it IS up to the prosecution to prove that wrong. It is also in the best interest of the defendent to try to prove it, but IT IS NOT HIS BURDEN. I don't know how much clear I can make that.




For what are called affirmative claims--such as insanity or self-defense--the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

I agree that if they raise a defense like this, the bar of their burden raises ON THAT particular claim.




For other claims, such as alternate theories of the crime (RG acted alone, say), the defense has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the claim. (Otherwise, the defense could claim MK was killed by Martians and then dare the prosecutor to disprove it.) If the judge doesn't agree there is a reasonable basis for the argument, he or she won't allow it.

I assume--and we all know the problem with assuming--that Italy must have equivalent principles. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of anything.

This is the same thing that I'm saying. They cast reasonable doubt on their involvement in the crime. They can use a theory that RG worked alone and then cast reasonable doubt on any evidence that might indicate their involvement. We're saying the same thing in a different way. but I'm also asserting that they are not required to produce another assailant. Just to turn all the evidence against them into doubt.

I really don't know how else to state myself so that it can be understood, but I've always known that the corner of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty--not guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:11 AM
I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

The lived in the cottage. We are talking forensics 101 here especially when you have DNA from unknown people. What you are trying to do is find out whose DNA it is then if they have alibis obviously they are removed as a POI

If you take this DNA and then find additional DNA that does not belong to the people that reside there it tells LE that maybe they should did deeper.

Hard to do though when you state "Case Closed" before the forensics collected has come back or ILE had even finished collecting it all. They were more concerned with making sure she was arrested prior to her mother arriving the morning of the 6th. Huge red flag when i here both of those pieces of information

The bottom line is you follow the evidence you dont make the theory up then try and fit the forensics to the theory if it does not fit

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:13 AM
Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.

Your right he did not enter the same premise 6 times he entered a number of different ones.

I believe that if he had been dealt with sooner MK would be alive today instead of being raped and killed

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:19 AM
Go ahead. First we read that there was no investigation on the exterior of the cottage, so I reference information in the Judge's summary detailing the findings from the investigation under the window. Then we read that investigators didn't really investigate, they just looked and reported their thoughts, so I provide a photo of what investigators did outside the cottage. Then we read that because there is no photo of those investigators standing underneath the window, we should still doubt that investigators did a thorough investigation of the area under the window.

Sure, if you present that sort of information to me, and I refuse to accept the obvious, you should remind me of my remark.

They did not properly forensically analyse the exterior of that cottage properly. Nor did they properly forensically analyze the inside of the cottage properly.

They as well did not forensically analyze the area where the cell phones were found.

Investigators that do it properly would of been down below that area looking for even more than glass. RG could easily of dropped items, there could of been DNA left on the wall, around the area below but we will never know as they did not treat this crime scene properly

They did not even bother sealing the area off allowing people to wander around at will.

This crime scene was not processed properly period

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:22 AM
Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.

They would though of left traces of themselves there. What I find even more ironic is when individuals state that they cleaned it up. I can see it now they are cleaning the crime scene and leaving traces of themselves while in the midst of cleaning up the initial one. Sorry does not add up either way I look at it

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:30 AM
I gotta go with "making stuff up," because if RG knows the boys, one of the boys was dating one of the girls. So RG's knows the girls by association. Not only that, the boys MIGHT have known that he was a petty thief, so wouldn't they maybe at least consider him on a burglary upstairs?

these speculations might cast doubt on RG's burlgary motive, but still...the judge is off base to think a friendship would keep RG out of the downstairs. A friendship should have kept RG from any illegal entry on that property, if we are going with that theory.

If I was a burgler, and had inside information that the residents would not be home on a particular night, it would be a deciding factor in that home being my target rather than the other way around. You will often hear of people arriving home from holidays etc to find that this had in fact had happened

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:33 AM
As far as I could see, there are no metal bars below Filomina's bedroom window. Have you seen another angle of the cottage where there bars below Filomina's bedroom? When I put those images together I was in fact trying to find an explanation for how Rudy climbed in through the window ... but the question that wouldn't go away was: why didn't he climb the metal grill directly under Amanda's room and in through her window? That makes far more sense than somehow horizontally scaling the wall, 16 feet off the ground, to Filomina's room.

I'm assuming that Rudy, if he broke in, was looking for the easiest way to enter the cottage. The balcony and Amanda's window both seem easier than Filomina's bedroom.

IIRC There was a grate over the window or bars of some sort between them, I forget now exactly how that worked. After the murder better ones were put on as you can see in later pictures

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:40 AM
From what i understand, no injuries, except a blemish on her neck that was not bleeding. Now, RG's hand had a cut, but to be fair, have we been told that his actual BLOOD was in the house or just DNA? And do we know if he'd been injured in anyway besides the hand cut? He was picked up 5 or 6 days later, so bruises might have healed, but open wounds? Probably not.

IIRC it was actually a hickey (sp)?

Allusonz
04-09-2011, 03:51 AM
See, you got AK syndrome, about to admit to something you didn't do! :waitasec:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

oh god toooooooo funny

SMK
04-09-2011, 07:36 AM
Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.The motivation report makes it clear that Guede engaged in unlawful entry, theft, and had a knife. It makes it clear that there are several occasions of this. To not want tot see this seems willful blindness. I am sure Guede himself would encourage such.

SMK
04-09-2011, 07:38 AM
Your right he did not enter the same premise 6 times he entered a number of different ones.

I believe that if he had been dealt with sooner MK would be alive today instead of being raped and killedRight. He engaged in several crimes of unlawful entry, the motivation report makes it clear he stole and had a knife---why was he not locked up? Yes, I think Meredith would still be alive if Guede had been dealt with.

SMK
04-09-2011, 09:35 AM
Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.It was reported by a UK journalist that Guede had committed 6 felonies in a 33 day period. Certainly when one reads within the Motivation report about the stolen goods, the break-in at the nursery, the knife and hammer in his possession, the laptop from the Law Offices, a picture of Guede as a burglar begins to emerge. The elderly couple testified in court that he brandished a knife. Why would they lie? Why the interest in painting Guede as other than he was?

Nova
04-09-2011, 10:27 AM
So ... because DNA may not have been taken from people that could not have committed the murder, it's quite likely that police did not properly investigate the area under the broken window? I don't think that's true.

Once sloppy, always sloppy. That's no greater leap than the "once a liar, always a liar" standard you apply to AK.

SMK
04-09-2011, 11:50 AM
I just happened to be reading this article about the DNA collection and the review of such process within the appeal, and it makes it seem that the convictions standing are already a done deal. Has anyone else read it (link below).
IMO, the appeal ought to have been based on all which led to the arrest of AK and RS being questioned. That would have been a real appeal. This seems just a further way to make the convictions even more solid. http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_limited_dna_reviews_-_why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/

SMK
04-09-2011, 05:27 PM
In any case, I think if you look at the over-all picture, the defense has had to be humble and yielding, when it seems the only hope would be some aggressive action, if possible. Otherwise, it would seem to be game over. It's been fun talking to myself. :(