Thank you, Steve, for yet another thread! Thanks, Skep, for your help in securing it...
Thanks Steve, without you we would have no home for this ongoing discussion.
As regards your introduction to this new thread, I believe that many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
-
Thank you Steve, thank you Skep 
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases. Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions? And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
---------
Crap, it loaded so fast it frightened me 
Thank you Steve for hosting this space.
Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Also, I'm not sure the police need or want any information. They seem confident they are holding the right people, and so they must think they have the crime all figured out. Now all they have to do is weather a few publicity squalls until they can present their case in court.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | #
----------
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
---------
Soozie wrote:
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases.
No, it doesn't happen in a majority of cases, but it has happened in far more than "several" cases. One of the links I provided, the Richard Leo article, gives some statistical information. Project Innocence says a quarter of the people who have been freed by DNA analysis in the U.S. either incriminated themselves or confessed outright when questioned by police. It's a statistically significant phenomenon.
Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions?
No one knows, because we don't know what percentage of false confessions are discovered. If the Hells Angels hadn't happened to discuss the murder of Gary Gauger's parents on a phone being tapped by the FBI, he'd have been executed and everyone would stil think his confession was valid.
And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
I don't personally know Knox or Sollecito or anyone associated with either of them. My interest in this case is based on the fact pattern. If it were Filomena and her boyfriend, and the fact pattern were the same, I would feel just as I do about Knox and Sollecito.
Thanks again Steve for giving us the continued opportunity to debate this case. It was a timely moment to go past Steve's home page again and I willingly made a donation via Paypal. If other regular posters havn't already done so please consider making a donation to our very generous host.
I agree with Eric that some of the posts are far to long and emotive, mainly from a few regular posters, one in particular takes a lot of space. It's great to keep it on task and try and avoid the personal insult variety of post when someones conclusions are different than your own. This blog has got a lot more interesting now there is a more balanced debate going on regards was it a 'group crime' or a 'lone wolf'.
There are lots of valid arguments from both sides of the fence.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Soozie wrote:
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
According to the report that Kermit cited earlier, there initial statements on November 2 were consistent. It was only on November 5, under more intense questioning, that their stories changed and became inconsistent. We disagree about why that happened. My view is that their initial statements were accurate.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Oceania88 | 04.11.08 - 9:29 pm | #
Yes, and your lively debate aint bad either!
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm | #
Charlie, I think they were suppose to call home and ask for permission before they spent that "private" time together! Then they would have had an alibi.
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
I usually do, it was more a space issue in respect of Steve.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm |
---------
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
--
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 9:48 pm | #
---------
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
Soozie wrote:
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Neither of these two has confessed. But I have no trouble believing they could both be manipulated into changing their stories so as to implicate themselves and each other.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba.
I do not believe, and have never argued, that any kind of serious physical coercion was used against either Knox or Sollecito.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch. Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:55 pm | #
Ok thanks for the reply. If it turns out that way, I won't be surprised they picked on her that way. She was (I believe) the youngest and would have been an easy target vs Raffael who probably new the system well enough not to be taken advantage of. I'm not saying abuses took place but it needs to be examined along with everything else.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch.
Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:05 pm |
----------
Because she didn't want to implicate Rudy? I honestly don't know. It's been suggested a few times that if we substitute Lumumba for Rudy, her story might make more sense. The fact she went into so much detail, invented a whole tale around how Lumumba had claimed to 'want' Meredith, had followed her into the bedroom, and how she'd been in the kitchen covering her ears to drown out Meredith's screams, the thuds she heard, etc etc. . . well, it seemed too detailed not to contain at least some truth in it. It's as if she told the truth, but put the wrong person in the frame. Maybe she was scared of grassing on Rudy, who knows? But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
-------------
Soozie wrote:
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Charlie, he spoke to his father several times a day. I would speculate that before he was interviewed he saw that his father had called and he just remembered that as one of the times and maybe inadvertantly said he was on the phone. Both of these suspects had to have been under a tremendous amount of stress whether they were participants or just having observed the results of a nasty murder.
Soozie wrote:
But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:43 pm | #
nodding yes how it was or yes it could have happen that way? I have a vission vs while I was in the kitchen...ect...ect...
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Yes Charlie.
It appeared in many places earlier on. However, the conclusion appears to be that Raf's Dad DID make the phone call but left a message on the answer machine.
On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.
He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events...
The Telegraph
hey Skep, idiot wind indeed!
Charlie:
From the Times
Police believe that all three suspects were present at the time of the murder,
although Mr Sollecito told them he received a phone call at his home from his father Franco at 11.30pm, which his father confirmed.
I can't find the contradiction to this right now, but I'll look for it tomorrow.
I definitely remember reading that RS did not answer his phone, and did not respond to a text his father had sent him.
Also from the Times:
"Pathologists’ reports suggest that two people were involved in the killing,
with one holding Ms Kercher down while the other “sexually violated” her."
By the way, regarding Amanda implicating Lumumba, I don't know how closely you followed the events in the early days, but she also claimed that after the murder,
(before anyone had been arrested), that Lumumba had approached her to ask if the police knew how Meredith had died, and what she'd told police etc.
Again, she appears to invent extra detail for the sake of it.
From RS's letter to his father:
Amanda is a fantasist who only thinks of her own pleasure
----------
Brian S. I type too slow!!
If interested. A ten minute video of Paul Ciolino & Peter Van Sant discussing Amanda Knox. They want everybody to contact the State Department?
http://www.kirotv.com/video/1585...8894/
index.html
Note: Steve thanks for the new web page.
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 10:48 pm | #
BTD If you go back to November/December/January timeframe there were so many leaks and documents coming from the ILE and the defence teams, it was crazy. This was much criticized by the by the judges and an "official caution" was handed out.
Then, "news" really did become short in supply for a few weeks. Everything did appear to clam up until one day Lalli released his final autopsy report to the press two weeks early. He was fired.
Back to Detention wrote:
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
I think more 'truth' was revealed in the first few weeks than anything since. Except for Lumumba's involvement of course.
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 11:13 pm | #
Charlie, today the cbs folks said that the statements they had were in broken english. Do you think they have an actual copy of the statement(s) by Amanda Knox? If not, they are just going to inflame the situation even more but if they do have an actual copy and it is in broken english then I would start to wonder why it would not be clearly written.
A friend sent me this link from a local radio station in Seattle. http://icestream.bonnint.net/
sea...12008154446.mp3
These guys were saying some pretty inflammatory things and I am certainly wondering if they have the balls/evidence to back up what they were saying. State Department? What does this mean?
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 11:18 pm | #
Soozie, I thought I read something about the hand print being larger...? I will go back and see where I saw that.
Hold on to your hats!
I don't remember reading about this before re: RS, or if I did, I forgot about it.
His diary also reveals how he was "psychologically tortured" at Perugia police station after being made to strip naked and put in handcuffs.
--------
Hold on to your hats!
Nowo | 04.11.08 - 11:23 pm | #
Woooooooooooooooooooooosssshhhhh
"An imprint found on the face of murdered British student Meredith Kercher reportedly matches Amanda Knox's fingerprints, a hearing in Italy has been told."
This was posted in an earlier Haloscan, 1 or 2, so I'll try and find the original later.
I just think that if ANY of this has been proved, (and we don't know about it), it would explain why the police are so confident about her involvement.
---------
Handprint on Merediths throat? It is real and it is from a large hand, like that of a basketball players.
I dunno but I bet if you placed a certain someones hand on that area, with the wounds being where they are, I bet it matches the wound that he has on his hand.
The knife...the one that is supposedly used in the murder is a straight edged knife and the one that inflicted the wounds on Meredith are from a serrated knife, so the report says. Mignini used our willingness to be quiet and our respect for the process to use this detail against us. He never corrected this error in the public domain because it helped him.
That is all changing now.
We will not be quiet, we no longer respect him or the process because it is flawed.
Watch the 48hrs show on April 12th to see just how flawed it is.
Mignini's butt is on the line. He has to look good in this case or else. His Supreme court hearing is the day after Amandas. She has not been charged, she is just a suspect. Mignini has been charged. He is more than a suspect and he is in deep for what he did to the judges in Florence.
So, ask me and if I know, I will tell you. I am done with amanda being accused of a crime she had no part of and I am done keeping quiet.
Chris Mellas | 03.27.08 - 2:14 am | #
I have not read that far back yet but I remembered the above from the night Chris Mellas was online. I know it can't be used as truth, but I don't know why he would say that about the hand.
Just posted this on the old thread by accident, so I repeat:
Charlie Wilkes: I have an idea
You seem like a fellow who has lots of energy, time to put into issues, and are willing to delve into discussions. What we need is someone to organize the material in a chart-like format for comparison - a chart of who did it/might have done it, and why - if you will. This way you can actually help all of us on the blog.
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear. I would assume by now you have had enough of the back and forth on the case, and the questions you have asked have all been answered. So, this might be a great time to put it into form. We would all appreciate the document, to be sure. If it needs translation, you have a good group on hand. Editing skills abound. One direction could be by 'accused' taking each of the jailed accused and presenting a pro and con list. Another could be a list of clues: both admitted into court, and others that are presently hearsay. It could be done in color. Excel has lots of possibilities for this expression. It just seems you are ripe for developing and trying out other roles here. You might even put yourself in as devil's advocate! A good list of pros and cons for each of the accused might just be the thing that makes it very clear.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, as going around in circles is exhausting for everyone. Sorry if I don't have the time to respond, but earning a living trumps trivial pursuits.
Thanks,
Thanks for the links, DLW and BTD.
I'm looking forward to the 48 Hours Mystery tomorrow night.
The Pinecone Theory is still solid.
May wrote:
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear.
It's a nice idea and would no doubt enhance my stature in this group. But someone whose views are more in line with the group consensus ought to take this project on. So I respectfully decline.
But thanks for thinking of me.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended,
You may be sure of it. 
So, based on the links posted by Brian and BTD, 48 Hours is saying there is absolutely no evidence - zero, nada - against Amanda. That they checked everything out and every single accusation against her is false. That every parent of a college student should be outraged and contact the State Dept to protest.
I don't generally watch TV but does this program wield that kind of influence? Is this simply all for show? For ratings? Is it possible that they believe what they are saying AND have investigated in good faith?
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
Peter and Paul seem to have a very, um, "American" perspective on the Italian system. That certainly doesn't speak well for their objectivity. And they are very comfortable stating a slew of horrible accusations against Rudy as fact.
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
I still have so many unanswered questions - especially regarding all the conflicting alibis. But the scenarios of guilt are not yet convincing to me either.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
The link I referred to above was from DLW, not Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
The link I referred to above was posted by DLW rather than Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
It won't make the slightest bit of difference in Italy.
Nor will the State Department be able to intervene.
Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are all being held for up to a year, as they can be according to the Italian process. They have not been charged for trial, but the courts consider they have enough evidence to justify holding them as suspects.
That's just the way it is in Italy.
It's the way their law is written by act of parliament. It would also appear that the Italian system has made allowances for those who are later found to have been held unjustly. They will be awarded compensation.
It may seem a strange way to run things to many of us(i'm from the UK) who are more used to common law, but that is the way they do things in Italy.
State Department? What does this mean?
BackToDetention
Paul Ciolino during his interview with KIRO in Seattle says ‘it’s going to take a lot of pressure from out State Department to get some forward movement for this young lady’ and ‘they need to get right on this'.
kp: No problem, Brian needs credit for his input, along with many other fine posters..
Thanks, DLW
Hi Corrina I was thinking of Bali somewhere like that I think Paul C Wilkes will gladly pay for all of us after all the dosh he makes on the CBS bull.
Hi Nicki,
Yes definitely south or Far East, not Scandinavia or somewhere ice cold like Oceania and her blog hubby Paul Wilke's theories, I strongly ponder.
To that I'd say, put another record on, it's so stuck
So here we go round and round
My baby loves to hide
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight consdescension of towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
You say I unlike others here Me as breath of fresh air
but it is your cut on it not anyone elses.
You fail to offer explanations for questions asked and are sound like someone stuck in a revolving door.
How is Amanda going to explain how she was at Raffaele's place but he says she wasn't?
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
Sadly, yes.
Jeez, new gasoline computer like they have in Eye Talia typos again
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight of condescension towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
_____________________________________
Knox: I was at Raffaele's house all evening and night.
I read Harry P and ate, watched a film with Raffaele, then woke up at 10 the next morning, then went to my house and found the door open.
I went in, there was blood, I took a shower, then went to Raffaele to tell him I think that there was a robbery at home.
Sollecito: I was at home all evening and I was on my own.
Amanda was not there with me, until 1 at night.
She left at 10 then I stayed in bed, then she came back then we went to her house to check the robbery out.
Judge to Knox's lawyer Ms Oceania: Please, what does your client have to say to Mr Sollecito's claims?
Sadly, yes.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:06 am
________________________
You must be kidding
Yes, Brian, I know it's the way they do things in Italy - and I don't have a problem with that.
But it is chilling to contemplate the possibility (the POSSIBILITY, people, however remote) that a naive, innocent, young girl (perhaps like my own daughter) might be unjustly spending many months in prison.
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is, as far as I have found out about the law in Italy, that a suspect can be held for two years if neeed be, prermission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases.
I have explained how the concepts differ between say UK or USA and that of Italy, so because these folk are seen as having serious pointers towards them, as being involved in a murder, they are confined, under the concepts of 'custody pending trial' these folk are considered in a way, charged, otherwise they would have been released after four days, the maximum that Italian police may hold someone without charging them, the procedure now involves preliminary investigation, then charging formally, then trial.
These people in custody can be considered charged. Just the various system's concepts do not equate.
Some people have understood the difference I've pointed out Brian, and some others just keep shouting out their same inaccurate stuff based on their ignorance of law.
Oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't even been charged, oew they haven't had bail (is no bail system in Italy comparable to that in UK or USA).
So, Charlie, we can't believe ANYTHING that has been published in any of the media?
And there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that, at this point, Amanda has no alibi? (She says she was with Raffaele, he says she wasn't.)
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
________________________________
Where do you get off Paul?
Like you are so fake. You pretend to know a little but all as you are doing is faking things, because you are involved as a paid-up person, the way yoiu camje here with this agenda, you are not arguing points, you are just telling everyone, this is how it is, when that is only your opinion.
How can you know what evidence the prosecutor has compiled, I know you don't know.
Simply because you say it is so, it is so.
That is ignorance to make such sweeping statements, based on nothing but yiour fixed agenda.
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
typing corrections
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is - as far as I have found out about the law in Italy - that a suspect can be held for two years if need be, permission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases that an extension is
given so that preliminaries may run for up to TWO YEARS. FACT.
I guess those suspects had better get their stories straight fast.
Did anyone ever explain how Barcroft Media obtained copyrights on crime scene photos which appeared at this link: http://tinyurl.com/2fqqlp
I imagine all the leaked evidence would have had little value had the theory of the crime not been so outlandish.
Thanks to Seattleite for introducing me to that possible angle of the case. Knox appears to be Mignini's ace in the hole.
John,
Nobody is talking about charges or bail.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb wrote:
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
Indeed. Italy is a civilized country, a democracy with a criminal justice system that affords suspects due process and an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
But abuses can happen in any system. I recognize the patterns in this case because I am familiar with so many cases in the U.S. where prosecutors railroaded innocent people.
Are people checking out these links, or have minds already been made up?
OK, it sounds like I'm getting cranky. I'm off to bed.
Until tomorrow...
Brian S. wrote:
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
My statement has the same factual basis as your statement that Sollecito killed Meredith to keep her from calling the cops. It's a conclusion reached by examining all the information I have found on this case.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am
________________--
You are talking about what you are talking about, I find that subject nonsense and irrelevant, CBS isn't going to get her released. You can believe the hype.
Your choice.
I AM talking about charges, I dictate to me what I talk about KB, you do not make up my mind for me, nor does Paul Wilkes.
These suspects are as good as charged.
And I think they may ALL be guilty.
Every reason to hold them is reasonable under the circumstances.
Amanda wasn't hit, in my view, no, and nobody is able to answer our questions here, about how Amanda is going to explain why Sollecito is calling her a liar. The RAILROAD is Paul Wilkes and his repeating the same robotic statements.
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
TLC | 04.12.08 - 12:59 am | #
I have been posting in a down to earth believable way since I got here. It's just that you, and many others, refuse to look at the other side of the story. I have read all your theories and opinions and arrived at my own conclusions. If you feel your view is threatened in any way you lash out with personal insults, condescension and derogatory remarks. Most of you have participated in this, the sly, snide comments, the group support, it fits with the group instinct mentality. You seem to think your all being terribly clever and funny but it's actually terribly childish and transparent. It amuses me.
You have gone on and on about the fresh air thing, it was a joke, a double entendree as you first seemed to have grasped but have since had some sort of humour lobotomy over. I have put forward a lot of well thought through and insightful accounts to what I think happened in terms of RG being the perpetrator of this crime covering his profile, motive and how he carried it out. Many of your theories revolve around things like "Raff lost it because he didn't want his reputation ruined and killed Meredith, but he didn't leave any DNA because he had a surgical suit and gloves on and a swim cap"
And you ask me to keep my theories down to earth and believable !
The only other person I have this much trouble trying to put to bed is 7 years old.
The cheapest trick you love to pull out of your well worn deck of insult cards is the 'because you think only RG did it Miss High and Mighty, you cannot care about Meredith'. I do feel a very real connection to Meredith as I have a son who went to Perugia under similar circumstances and who lives 750mtrs away from where her life was taken. I sincerely hope
whoever committed this horrible crime pays severly for it.
But I'm sure you will be able to find fault with those sincere words as well.
Maybe I should copy some of the other posters and say 'this is the last time wasting post of yours I shall ever read and respond to, I shall ignore you for the rest of my life....pout..stomp....slam..'
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am | #
kb,
The detention of Raffaele and Amanda has been appealed all the way up to the Italian Supreme Court by their defense teams.
Charlie will tell you that the Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp organisation, but I would suggest that's just his opinion.
MY EMAIL ADDRESS
charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com
Since we're getting so chummy...
Pinecone | 04.12.08 - 1:35 am | #
Hi Pinecone, good to see you back again, you disappeared shortly after I arrived here. Just wondering if you have you updated any part of your theory since reading RG's diary ?
AP Breaking News Friday Night
Charles Manson and Family Released!
Charles Manson and his merry band of followers were released today following a long series of appeals. Manson, a known Beatles afficionado and guitar hero to many, was released due to the fact that he neither confessed to the crimes, committed the crimes, or ever recovered from his LSD/Marijuana incduced interviews which were clearly politically motivated against the hippy generation, thus creating mental anguish which tornadoed into depression and ADD. According to Manson's team of attorneys from the firm Captain Mickey & Friends, Manson had recently become a big fan of news programs such as 20/20 featuring true crime stories, and recently applied for another appeal through the State Department. A recent case inspired Manson and his long suffering girlfriend, Sadie Mae Glutz, who continued to pine for each other in one most inspiring romances of all time, rivalling that of Romeo & Juliet, or even Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Manson was quoted as saying, "I'm so pleased to finally have justice. I've always said these murders had nothing to do with me. It was you people, society, which brought this on yourselves. I'm just artist who loves the Beatles and the Beach Boys. Well maybe not the Beach Boys so much. They owe me money." At his release party at the Chateau Marmont, held in the famed bungalow where John Belushi was found dead, Manson announced that he has sold the rights of his final side of the Tate Murder story. In a bizarre twist, Roman Polanski has agreed to direct the screenplay, with Dina Lohan expressing interest in the Susan Atkins role for her daughter Lindsay, as long as the serious role includes full frontal. That's Hollywood!
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:59
I do not have any one theory, I have loked at it from all angles. I take objection to your I UNLIKE MOST OTHERS HERE, as if you are the only one with any sense.
Do not worry Oceania, you have not reacted to any of my questions because you could not answer them, it has been me pulling you up when yiou make riodiculous statements, so nothiung new then there.
I do care about the Kerchers and I know that nothing is okay for them except the truth about what happened. Nobody knows the truth yet. Nobody except the ones who murdered Meredith.
It means you do not know either Oceania.
I do not think you care truly about what happened to Meredith, you have something to do now, defending Amanda Knox.
That is your right. I just think you offer crap points based on theories that do not add up, like the one the other day where you said they would have thrown their own money away to make it look like a robbery. You said they'd have done that if they'd have been guilty of robbing her. It just made no sense at all.
Anyhow good luck and do your best then.
More on the CBS show:
Hired by "48 Hours" to review the case, Ciolino said police don't have any solid evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the killing. Speaking on the program, Ciolino said he's convinced that young women such as Knox -- a Seattle Prep grad who made the UW honor roll -- don't commit murder.
"Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides," Ciolino said. "They don't do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I'd sure like to see her."...
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:28 am | #
--------------------------------
Thanks Brain S... First time that I have seen abject reporting by Seattle PI recognising the fact that Amanda is not innocent just because the way she looks..... Hold off contacting the state police everyone... she may actually be guilty!
Best regards, LW
Oceania
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??
I am sure that CBS may not have covered this question...
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf, why do you keep swimming out to sea? You're a land creature, and a lovely one at that.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Love Wolf, are you saying I am these other people? Love it!! Now I think I feel a breeze a blowing!
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:08 am | #
Whatever floats your boat as we drift out to sea (as sparrow points out).
By the way, what are my motives? I never stated any agenda here that would involve any particular motives unless this is a game you play with newcomers to your blog.
Now I see why Skeptical B was making the goofy remarks earlier; cute!
Has Sollecito tried to blame it on Knox by saying she was not with him?
If he did say she was not with him so as to try and make her take the blame how could he have imagined that she would react if it was not true?
Would she not possibly have flipped and revealed all about how they BOTH were involved after she heard that Sollecito said she was not with him?
It may be that he knew Amanda would never just tell the truth, not even if he said that she was not with him.
and that is why he said it.
If it is true, it leaves him at home and Amanda off out without him until 1 at night.
That makes Sollecito look innocent of murder. It means Knox might have done the killing alone or with Guede.
If Guede did it alone then surely Sollecito would have no reason to tell lies about Amanda.
It doesn't look like Sollecito did it alone.
It doesn't look like Guede did it alone, it could have been if the other two had not acted so out of place and strangely, and if Sollecito was not calling Amanda Knox a liar.
There are still many possibilities.
Some theories can be discluded already, like Sollecito operating alone.
Whichever way one looks at it, instead of being able to disclude one of the individuals and say they are innocent, instead one is left being unable to see how they are not involved.
TLC... which ever way you look in the "she said he said" scenario you just know that all 3 played some form of role and
1) based on what Guede says that it was Raf.... I feel that Raf did knife / murder Meredith
2) and what Raf says about AK... he blames her for the whole events that took place.....
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga.. do not hold your breath regarding the other 2 they are following Charlie's advice and saying bugger all until court as each time they write or say anything it is blown away and proved to be false by the reality of what happened.
I cannot see their alibis coming together at all... If Raf changes his he risks everything... if AK changers hers she admits that she was out and about walking around during a period of memory loss!!
LW
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | #
______________________________________
That is exactly what I thought.
That guy Paul C Charlie Wilkes has no off switch.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Sparrow | 04.12.08 - 3:02 am
____________________________________
Hi ya Sparrow,
That is comforting, because, those with that one-sidedness, seem like enemies of justice for Meredith be it because they undermine all things involved, I find it hard to sit by and let them do that. Sound arguments, I will not ridicule, but simply saying, it's injustice Amanda is the victim, is simply unacceptable.
And it is, like Lurker Boy said, taking everything away from real open discussion.
Thanks for everything, you're very kind.
The tryuth will come out.
Well said Lurker Boy and TLC...
Justice will be served and I have 110% faith in the prosecution and investigation teams
The Media storm similar to the tactics here (probably are one of the same thing).
I think they are hoping for an OJ Simpson sort of trial, bit that will never happen as all this happened in Italy.... that will not change.
Have a great weekend all..... including you BTD.. I am sure you like me will spend some time away from this blog as I am sure that you are a real normal person behind the mask.
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Hi Chris,
I think there is plenty of time for RG to carry out all the things that happened that night. RG had a time frame of between approx 9pm and 10.30pm, if the witness who saw a black man running from the house is to be relied on. But for the sake of a RG alone timeframe lets look at one and half hours.
9pm sees Meredith walking home, approaches her, says he is waiting for one of the guys downstairs (or some other story), can he wait with her. Within the next half hour he gets cosy with Meredith. They chat, RG flirts, they laugh, Meredith feels quite comfortable at this point.
9.30pm Meredith briefly phones her mum. After the call RG ups the ante about trying to score with her and starts to make a more serious move. Maybe at first she goes along with some kissing and caressing. Maybe this is the point where he gets his finger inside her. Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation. By this stage Meredith is fighting hard. RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan). He holds it to Merediths throat. It turns into a violent frenzy. Meredith is fighting for her life, she grabs his hair. RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed. The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her.
10pm - 10.30pm (Not necessarily in this order) Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife. Gets toilet paper for his cut hand. Takes the money from M's drawer. Covers M's body. Takes phones. Locks bedroom door. Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage. Wipes blood from AK's room and drawers. Wipes blood off the outside of the bedroom door. Cleans bloody footprints from the hallway etc. Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room.
10.30pm Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path. Either he makes the call to her bank or its some kind of misdial while the phones are in his possession. He ditches them on his way home to clean up.
I should imagine he was pumping adrenalin and moving quite fast, but 20-30 mins is ample to complete those tasks in that small cottage.
Oceania88
Yes. As a scenario, something very close to this.
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga..
LW
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:57 am | #
____________________________
If the true version of events was Guede was the one who stabbed Meredith, then to me, it'd mean it would make no sense that the other two did not (and do not) just tell on him.
They've definitely shown they have told lies and that is something that points to their guilt.
They really do seem to be inter-linked. Even if they wanted to tell on the other they can't, what one reveals about the other, he or she reveals about themself, supposing it is a case of joint guilt that is the truth of the case.
In that case, the truth would mean they are all involved so they cannot just tell on the other, like Amanda couldn't, even after Sollecito abandoned her and in doing so cleverly adding a small but weak alibi for himself, robbing Amanda of her alibi.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
The one thing I would be prepared to say with certainty about this case is that anyone who is prepared to used the expression "all but certainly" about their own pet theory hasn't really understood the case at all.
And I mean tkll on him because of the evidence pointing to the clean up, and their reasons behind not being able to agree on where they were, points to their involvement and presence, as does the evidence found in the cottage.
The blood spot from Knox was fresh and how they judged that was because it was still not dry and had started to dry only 'from the outside inwards', as blood spots do dry. That is why the forensics stated that the blood spot puts her at the cottage.
There was one fingerprint found from Knox, one fingerprint from the entire apartment, none in her own room.
No trace of anything of Knox, except one fingerprint and blood. I have lived in houses with women, I have had girlfriends enough, but never seen any blood anywhere like on a WC floor or bathroom. Maybe my friends were all very tidy.
Oceania....
OK based on your theory...
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
I look forward to your views........
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
EXcuses the typo's caffeine still not hit me yet!!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | "a question to Kermit, SB et al.... Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes ..."
Welcome Lurker Boy. I hear you, and I apologise to all for the wild goose chase last night. I would probably want to keep on it, because Charlie - unlike Cheese&Rice types - tries to put a structure into his comments, which make them initially attractive for engaging in debate. Indeed, there are some facts behind some of his posts - the Wenatchee, Gauger cases did exist. However, when you start to debate his structure, and show the differences between those cases and Perugia, or the fact that his logic of "Sometimes innocent people are accused, therefore Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, therefore they don't have anything whatsoever to contribute to the investigation" ... that's when the wild goose chase starts.
The chase ended for me when I went to bed after posting the second post of this new thread:
Kermit | 04.11.08 - 8:53 pm | " many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
Just a few minutes later and three posts later Charlie had the nerve to post:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | "Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty."
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
Enough said.
Lurker Boy, I hope we see more of you and other posters.
-
Kermit wrote:
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am | #
1) Telling the truth would be a start
2) Clearing up any misunderstanding
3) Clearing their names if they are innocent
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
Lurker Boy wrote:
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
That is a breathtakingly naive statement.
How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am |
----------
Interesting to note that you see their only 'option' to help the inquiry would be to 'confess'. What about the truth? Why can't they just tell the truth about where they were that night, just like all the others did who were questioned? Personally, I don't think it would be a good judgement call for them to be released until they can prove they're telling the truth about their whereabouts that night. Despite your comment about 'they didn't have an alibi because they were home alone all night together', so what? Still doesn't explain why they both DISAGREE about whether they were together. That's the problem. They DISAGREE with each other. Filomena and her boyfriend didn't disagree with each other, no doubt because they were really telling the truth and didn't need to deviate from it. I'm sure if they'd also contradicted each other, they would have been questioned further too.
I sure as hell wouldn't be happy for my daughter to be hanging out with them!
Charlie, there are two aspects to this issue.
One is legal strategy: Amanda and Raffaele have very capable lawyers who - from a purely legal strategy point of view - have probably given them good advice to invoke their right not to declare.
Quite another aspect is if Amanda and Raffaele are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened on the night of November 1. You have stated here on different occasions that you don't believe that either Amanda or Raffaele have any information beyond their declarations to ILE up to Nov. 5 ... To throw your words back at you once again:
"That is a breathtakingly naive statement."
By believing that they are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened, that doesn't mean they are guilty (REMEMBER your MISREPRESENTATION of my point of view?). We don't even know which crimes the ILE will deem to have occurred, nor in what order, although murder of one type or another will be amongst them. Quite likely, the information that Amanda could contribute to the investigation isn't 100% the same as Raffaele's.
Filomena, the victim's boyfriend, Sophie, Robyn, the Serbian, have been interviewed before and after November 5. Some old witnesses and perhaps some new ones will continue to be interviewed before the end of the investigation. There's always time and a need for input from anybody who can contribute.
-
LOVE WOLF | 04.12.08 - 5:33 am | #
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
I thought the mop was supposedly taken by AK back to RS in the morning. RG could have used cleaning materials from the cottage when he cleaned up as much blood as he could from oustide the room where Meredith was murdered.
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
No, what he cleaned up with was already at the cottage.
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
He triend to remove as much evidence of his bloody trail outside M's room. He knew M's room was too big a job, so he locked the door on it to delay discovery. When he went into AK's room he may have left some bloody footprints on the floor and bloody fingerprints on her drawers. He cleaned it off possibly with a rag and bleach. So he removed both his bloody trail and some of AK's DNA that was there from previous. I don't know how much I believe of that 'absolutely none of AK's prints found in the cottage' story. Maybe that grew a life of it's own out of the cleaning that RG did in her room. As Charlie points out how could AK selectively remove only her DNA from the entire cottage and leave all the others, that's an impossiblity.
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
He was more cunning than stupid that's for sure. And luck so far has played sickeningly into his hands with the arrest and implication of AK and RS in his hideous crime. It's also incredible how many poeple believe his lies. How many people discuss about AK stealing M's rent money etc. That was all born out of RG's imagination.
I look forward to your views........
and I look forward to yours.
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 7:08 am |
-------
I don't understand why you criticise other people for "refusing to look at the other side of the story", when you are absolutely guilty of it yourself.
It's so hypocritical. How can you not see what you're doing?
Take a look at some of the previous Haloscans, and you will see that yours and Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody. You are both in the minority of people who believe RS and Amanda are innocent of anything to do with this crime.
You seem to be here to present one theory and one theory only. You're entitled to that, but please don't insult the rest of us by accusing us of 'refusing' to look at the other side of the story, when you refuse to look at the 'other side' yourself.
--------------
Nice to see this thread getting (if just a little) back on track. Here are some comments arising from postings made yesterday:
Matteini's report of 9th November contains the ONLY hard facts we have access to.
It does NOT contain ALL the evidence that the investigators had at that date, simply what was considered enough to justify the holding of AK, RS and PL in custody pending further investigations.
That report has been appealed to the High Court who upheld it. We can thus be certain that the evidence it cites concerning RS and AK has not been subsequently been undermined, and can still be regarded as accurate. This is not the case with anything it says concerning PL.
What we have there is selective evidence, reflecting the state of play on 8th November.
Other, less hard facts, can be gleaned from media reports, mostly those that appeared within the first two weeks after the murder.
1. Faeces . When they underwent routine questioning on 2nd November (as did everyone else in any way connected with MK), the only discrepancy (according to the report) in their statements was about the faeces: AK had said there was shit in the lavatory; and RS said there wasn't. It is clear that he must have been questioned specifically on this point because RS 'affermava di aver trovato pulito'. He cannot, therefore have said he hadn't noticed.
In the context of the report, this is used to indicate that RS told a deliberate lie at the first routine questioning.
It is a very minor point; but the significance of the faeces must have emerged during the scientific investigations that also began on the afternoon of 2 November. If AK hadn't mentioned the shit, RS wouldn't have been questioned about it and their statements would have coincided precisely.
However, there must have been something (other things) else, either in these statements of 2 November or which emerged later to cause the police to bring back the two witnesses (as they then were) for a further grilling on 5th November; something serious enough for them to be called in after 22.00 rather than waiting till the next morning.
We do not know what that was (although it has been alleged without source, that the police, bugging AK's and RS's phones, heard her saying 'I can't keep this up'. The fact that AK's friends were re-questioned about what AK had told them about the finding of the body, also suggests that the police knew that AK had told more than she could have known simply from being present when the door was broken down.
They must know this; if it is the case, they chose not to mention it to Matteini when requesting to retain AK in custody.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 8:12 am |
Hi Minotaur. It's probably safe to say that at 13 h or so on Nov.2, when the postal police and AK and RS and Filomena were in the house, there was a clean slate as far as alibis go. But, right from that moment, in successive formal and informal contact with police and other witnesses, there was a chipping away of elements of a "10 point" alibi that the couple had established.
Or better said, rather than a chipping away, a constant addition of new elements, forced by ILE asking more questions. Inconsistencies arose. And the rest is history.
I would be interested to know if any other witnesses had their phones bugged. When did the moment occur that Matteini or Mignini said, "we're going in this direction, against AK and RS"? It wasn't on Nov.2, as the reports then were about an orgy and other types of initial speculation. The discovery was on Nov. 2. The "confession" questioning on Nov.5. In between there was time to decide to bug phones.
I'm out ...
-
2. Telephones
The Telegraph's translation of Matteini's report is quite good, but there are some lapses. One concerns the telephones:
'si deciseva pertanto di abbattere la porta in quanto la stessa Romanelli retenva strano sia il fatto che all'amica Kerker [sic] avesseri potuto sottrarre entrami i telefoni, essendo in usa a quest'ultima can Sim Card alla predetta inestata, sia il fatto che vi fosse la porta della stanza chiusa'
This means ' it was decided, however, to break down the door [to MK's room] , not only because Romanelli considered it strange that her friend Kercher could have lost both phones (the one with Romanelli's sim-card also being used by MK) but also because the door was locked.
The postal police had arrived at 12.35; Filomena arrived at 13.00. We do not know whether AK phoned Filomena before or after the arrival of the postal police. But the investigators do.
Furthermore: in her initial, routine, questioning, on 2 November AK states that she went to the cottage, arriving at 11.00: 'found the front door open; phoned her housemates, but without them replying; went into one of the two bathrooms where she found traces of blood, which she didn't bother to clean up; and to have noticed that in the other bathroom the lavatory was dirty with faeces, which she wondered at, but which she didn't try to flush away'
'verso le ore 11.00 di mattina, di aver traovato il portone d'ingresso aperto, di aver chiamato le coinquiine mas senza risposta, di essersi recata in uno dei due bagni e di avervi trovato tracce di sangui che communque non si preoccupava di puliere, di aver notato nell' altro bagno il water sporco di feci, di essersi meravigliata ma di non aver provveduto a ripulire, de essere uscita dall' appartamento verso le ore 11.30
As both telephones used by MK (i.e. her English one and her Italian one, which Filomena had acquired for her) were in the possession of the police, nothing could have been easier than to check whether AK did indeed try to phone MK around 11.00.
If there is no record of any attempt by AK to ring MK on the morning of 2 November; then AK was certainly lying at that very first interview that afternoon. If there was such a record, it proves nothing: in that case, and she cannot have been unaware that mobile phones record activity, she was deliberately doing what she assumed an innocent person would have done.
[In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang. If it was AK who was ringing, she (AK) would have realised that the phones had been found; that would have been the moment to abandon the clean-up....rumbled]
Nothing about the phones is contained in the Matteini report of 9th November. But by then the investigators would have known exactly who phoned whom and when. It was not necessary for Mignini to adduce it at the hearing on 8th November, there being plenty of other evidence sufficient to hold AK and RS (and at that moment PL).
We will only know this at the trial.
The other question is - and it is a crucial one - WHEN did she phone Filomena: before or after the unexpected arrival of the postal police. The investigators knew that too, but chose not to reveal it, on 8th November
In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang.
Minotaur| 04.12.08 - 9:03 am | #
--------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 9:41 am |
Hi Soozie UK
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
Raffaele has a pugliese accent
Guede has a local Umbriam accent,I doubt the call would have been done by AK.
The sun is back!
Ciao
"She told me that when she went back home she found the door wide open and traces of blood in the little bathroom. She asked me if it sounded strange to me. I answered that it did and I advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena (another housemate), but that Meredith wasn't answering."
He said the two went back to the house together.
---------
So according to RS, Amanda told him she'd already tried to call Filomena when she was at the cottage (and before she 'ran back' to RS's place).
This would have been at least a couple of hours before the postal police turned up, which no doubt can be proved one way or another.
If she didn't call Meredith, (as she claimed), then I can understand why the police decided to bug her phone, to perhaps catch her out on any other inconsistencies?
-------------
Charlie Boy.....
So you are you a father?
If so did you tell your child to tell the truth always?
LW
A questions Soozie and the Gang? Sounds almost as groovy as 'Cool and the Gang'
When AK said "I cannot lie" about where she was... what was her Mothers or Fathers response?
LW
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
nicki | 04.12.08 - 9:54 am | #
Not as far as I know. Just that 'someone' called. I think the mobile phone records hold a lot of evidence in relation to who made what calls, when they were made etc etc. If Amanda was already lying before the police even got there, well, you'd have to wonder why.
------------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:23 am |
I agree. It's clear that prosecutors have only released a tiny fraction of the evidence, just what is enough to keep them locked up.
Love Wolf - Amanda's mother said the comment had been taken out of context and that it meant "I cannot lie. I was at the house (RS's house) that night."
I haven't paid much attention to that comment since sentences taken out of context can be misleading. For example, the call to RS where she 'allegedly' said: "I can't do this anymore". . . what was the rest of the conversation? Without the full context we don't know what she meant. I know we can 'guess' what she meant, but still, it's only one sentence. The police clearly know, but we don't. They must be keeping the rest of it till later, when they need it.
--------------
About Amanda describing Meredith body in the wardrobe, I have find this link http://tinyurl.com/45kxgj
where it appears that she is quoting Sollecito for the description. Problem is, police excludes that Sollecito even saw the body. I've read several press reports where it is being stated that in no way anybody was even allowed close to the murder room.
Aplogies for typos above, particularly in the Italian.
3. Why did AK accuse Patrick?
There could be several reasons for this, any or all of which may have played a part: and what follows is hypothesis based on the little that we know:
On 5th November the investigators chose to question RS first (from 22.40) and then AK (after midnight). We do not know the reason for this sequence; but it suggests a greater suspicion of the role of AK.
During his interrogation RS said that he remained at the cottage with AK unitl about 18.00, when they went downtown. 'Around 20.30 to 21.00 Knox left him, saying she would go to Le Chic to meet up with some friends while he returned to his own flat, where he received a phone-call on his land-line from his father at 23.00'.
'verso le ore 20.30 - 21.00 la Knox se era allonntanata dicendogli che sarebbe andata presso il pub le Chic per incontrare degli amici mentre lo stesso era rientrato nella propria abitazione, che alle ore 23.00 aveva ricevuto una telefonata da padre sull' utenza fissa'.
It was a bad mistake that RS said he had 'received' a phone call on his land-line at 23.00; because we now know he didn't. And note his specification of land-line, to place him at home! So that useful alibi, which his father --who did try to phone him - must have put in his head, is worthless. But this is an aside: what concerns us here is that he said to the investigators, before they interrogated AK, that she had gone to Le Chic.
She, for her part (dal canto suo) told the investigators twice, at 01.45 and again at 05.45, that it was while she was chez RS that she had received a message at 20.30 on her mobile (voicemail or SMs we do not know) from Patrick saying that Le Chic would stay closed that night, [even though we now know (from the evidence of the Swiss academic) that it was open when this alleged message was sent. That important fact was still unconfirmed on 8th November].
'[AK] prima alle ore 1.45, poi alle ore 5.45, dichiarava al P.M che giovedì 5 novembre, alle ore 20.30, mentre si trovava presso l'abitazione di Sollectito Raffaele, receveva un messaggio sul proprio telefono cellulare inviatole da tale Patrick, titolare del pub Le Chic, dove la stessa lavorava, con il quale il predetto la avvisava che quella sera il locale sarebbe rimasto chiuso e che quindi non sarebbe dovuta andare, la medesima gle rispondeve che si sarebbero visti dopo....'
Because RS had told the investigators that AK had gone off to Le Chic, they would have focused on this when questioning her between midnight and 06.00 on 5th November. That may have given her the idea of implicating PL.
BUT, at the same time, the investigators -- as I havep pointed out before -- CANNOT have been unaware, by the morning of 3rd November at the latest, of the involvement of RG, whose fingerprints (on record as a petty criminal in Perugia) were all over the crime scene.
So they would certainly have grilled AK and RS about him (if only under the generic description of a black man). AK may well have found it convenient to conflate the two references to black at least one of which she knew.
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
In any case, the investigators continued to hold PL, even after they had confirmed that there eas nothing to link him to the scene of the crime. Given AK's testimony, they had every reason to do so; and they may have done so quite cynically to lull RG into a false sense of security in the hope that he might reveal his whereabouts.
Which he did.
PL will get compensation; and he will be a celebrity for some time.
In any case, both RS and AK can be shown to have lied, and seriously so, at a very early stage when there would have been no reason to do so if they were not involved in the crime. Which I believe, on the basis of what we have been told by reliable, if not unimpeachable sources, to be the case.
Q.E.D.
Thanks Soozie,
Appreciate about the context bit but what the mother or fathers says probably gives an indication of what AK was talking about
Best regards, LW
nicki:
From the Times, Dec 18th.
"Mr Mignini reminded Ms Knox that when first questioned at Perugia police station as a witness the day Ms Kercher's body was discovered,
she had told other witnesses she had seen Ms Kercher lying next to the wardrobe with a wound to her throat which had cause her to die "in slow agony".
She had given a similar description of the scene to Marco Zaroli, the boyfriend of Filomena Romanelli, one of two Italian female students who shared
the cottage with Ms Knox and Ms Kercher."
There's nothing here to suggest she got this information from RS, especially as you correctly noted that NO ONE was allowed to enter the room (according to the police). But RS still gave an account of looking inside (once police had broken down the door) and described the scene, saying there was blood everywhere and he couldn't recognise it was Meredith etc etc. So he seems to have got a good view from the outside, even though he didn't actually go inside.
Also, Amanda was being questioned as a witness at the time, not a suspect.
----------
I think it is fair to say Oceania et al...
AK and RS have been rather dumb in all this......
or like Charlie and BTD they must think that the police and investigators are very dumb.......
I know which side I support and who I believe.......
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:53 am |
I guess this is a conflicting conflicting report then, La Stampa that I have linked above, has a different story. It did surprise me I have to say. Oh well guess we can discount it then, since the other reports are in line with the Times.
And the body wasn't found near the wardrobe. It had been moved. The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there. When I recall Amanda talking about 'thuds' while she covered her ears, I assumed it could have been Meredith's body being dragged from the wardrobe to the other side of the bed.
------------
The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 11:05 am | #
----------
I'm confused too. Like I said, RS managed to describe the scene when police broke the door down, and he also describes dragging Amanda away as she was 'screaming'. The police must know which of them mentioned the wardrobe, and in Amanda's case, I think the 'defence' is that she overheard police talking about it at the police station.
------------
I would love to know by the Lone Wolf and "Guededidit" theorists why there is ANY confusion at all from RS and AK about what they did and not see especially when they were at home all night until AK came back on the Sunday and if it is proven that they were not allowed to see the crime scene then they should have said nothing as they knew nothing?
Cannot wait for this court case!
I think we should get TLC to write the court script.. he is rather good at that......
"...Dalla messinscena del furto nella casa della «morte», alle strane «visioni» di Sollecito - a detta di Amanda - che «vede» il corpo di Meredith nell’armadio..." La Stampa
"...From the staging of the break-in in the "house of death" to the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
The who seems to be referring to Amanda, but then what are Solecito's "visions"? I find it confusing.
to the strange "visions" of Sollecito
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
"When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and
Raffaele followed them into the room."
"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming.
I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible. "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal."
-----------------------
Is it any wonder we're confused??? I guess they were both present when the door was knocked down, and they both saw inside the room (without needing to go inside),
so I don't think RS followed them inside. How could the police run the risk of contamination?
But with regards to 'seeing Meredith's body by the wardrobe' - if this is true, it's pretty damning evidence, whichever one of them said it.
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:24 am | #
That would make much more semse, perhaps is a typo?
The police have said no way anybody entered the room and that makes very much sense. I do believe too that "seeing Meredith'd body by the wardrobe" is damning evidence. There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe. They only found out a few days later. The story "Amanda overheard the police" is pure crap.
There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because
at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe.
---------------
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I did wonder how AK managed to overhear such private information (when nobody else did!). Are her ears much bigger than everyone elses?
And for the people who believe AK is an 'unfortunate' victim of circumstance - I wonder what they make of her comments. If the police didn't even know at the point, no one can argue that Mignini put the idea in her head, since he didn't know at that point either!!! So how did she know??
-------------
"the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
'who' refers to RS, 'strange visions' because that is not what he could have seen (MK was not in or near the wardrobe at this point).
Well I guess we'll find out soon enough whether AK was reporting what RS told her, or if it was her own words.
So how did she know??
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:49 am | #
What about she was there when Meredith was murdered?
I think this is one of many reasons why she's been held. Meredith's friends told police that they learned the detail of the wardrobe from Amanda on Nov 2 I think.
Raffaele has almost become a prosecution witness against Amanda.
He is not providing her with an alibi. He recovered his position on Nov 5. He has not significantly changed his story since. I can understand him clinging to his right to silence. Any changes in his statement at this stage will only muddy the waters as far as his defense is concerned. His defense team are currently trying their damnedest to dispute any forensics linking him to the crime scene.
When eventually questioned at trial he (or his team if he remains silent) will continue to insist that he was home alone.
Does this explain and is it the case that Amanda's defense team at this stage can only offer the defense of abuse of process by the prosecution? Is this the line they will carry into court?
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am | #
-------------------------------------
Brian, because that has to be what they go into court with otherwise she is doomed. ... and they know it. If a witness saw only her out also that evening then I am not quite sure how that will also have to be explained away.
Once all the evidence is laid on the table then I think the writing will be on the wall.. hence the media storm at the moment about discrediting evidence and DNA samples and also the PM stories... they are desperate Brain... they know it... Charlie Wilkes knows it.....
I think Oceania truly believes her view which I admire but not the way that she discounts and explains away everything that merely hints that more than one person was involved... which I would stake my mortgage and house on!
Cannot wait for this court case!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 11:12 am |
____________________________________
At your service Love Lupo (a wolf in Italian I think)
Court 1 in session
Charlie W McGarrett from the Five-O team tries to have the judges arrested before disguising himself and sneaking back in as lawyer.
Charlie Mc Garret: Book 'em, Danno!",
No, no, not them, there, says his secretary Oceangoer
Judge: Defence present your case
Charlie Mc Garrett quickly puts on an old grey wig not knowing they don't do that in Italy and proceeds as lawyer
Charlie Mc Garrett: Well, because women, from Catholic schools, never commit murder and nice girls like that just never do that, 'n' all, and, do I even have to state the obvious? a girl whom is pretty, could never do anything wrong, well, then I see it as my duty to order you 8, dumb Italian judges, to release this innocent girl immedi ate laaaay from your sav - age and prim - i - tive countraaaay, before I gits angraaaay. That pretty girl must be innoccent.
I rest my case.
Quickly grabbing a scrap of paper he makes an airplane and scrawls innocent in Latin - that he'd looked up and written on his wrist earlier - on both wings, throwing it full force in the direction of the judges panel.
Anon
Brilliant... I have just spilt my tea.....
lol
Thank you
That's not what Raffaele says.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am |
I agree with you Brian that RS has almost become a prosecution witness,I can't see how at this point he could change his version again and revert to version no.1.
On the other side, there's RG claiming that RS was the misterious Italian murderer, and RS claiming he has never seen the guy in his whole life. So I think there must be much more to it, as prosecution is maintaining the involvement of all three.
That was my tender post to Charlie Mc Garrett up thaaar, ya all.
Sheriff John Brown here, from the Marley recud, I shot Mc Garrett, don't even mention his darned deputies, no no.
He's guilty of falsely letting every potential murdering, raping and a looting crook off that he can. Great guy.
So how did she know??
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:49 am | #
What about she was there when Meredith was murdered?
nicki | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am |
-------------
EXACTLY!! Even if the police are accused of manipulating her words in order to mention the wardrobe (when they themselves didn't even know) - how can it be explained that she also told one of the flatmates the same story?? Personally, I think she was over excited and just blabbed before she thought of what she was saying. And she can't take that back. The housemate is an impartial witness, no hidden motives, no agenda, nothing.
------------
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 12:02 pm |
Loved it, a TLC style piece !
Thank you
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 12:04 pm | #
________________________________
I forgot to mention he cocked his head downwards as though he ought to be staring at the floor but raised his eyes upwards like lifting two lead weights, and peered and sneered at the prosecutor in a long outward breathing through his nose job, exclaming, I should coco, in Italian, throwing the wee jet full force in the direction of the judges panel.
So when Oceania and Charlie Wilkes check back in - I'd be interested to hear what they think of Amanda's incriminating description of Meredith by the wardrobe.
They should also bear in mind she told this to a flatmate AND other witnesses. Are all the other witnesses lying??
No wonder they're keeping her locked up!
-----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:07 pm |
I think this wardrobe issue is one of the first red flags that police saw along with the other inconsistencies. It doesn't matter if AK and RS saw or heard the police discussing the body, because at the time nobody had a clue about the wardrobe. The press reports of the first days actually speculate that Meredith was killed on or by the bed, where she had been found-see the drawings on La Stampa article-.
And the body wasn't found near the wardrobe. It had been moved. The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there. When I recall Amanda talking about 'thuds' while she covered her ears, I assumed it could have been Meredith's body being dragged from the wardrobe to the other side of the bed.
------------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:03 am | #
Forgive my ignorance, but as I look at the pic of Meredith's room, her body is "by the wardrobe" no matter where it lies on the floor of that very small room. And the bed seems to be against the wall, so the statement "moving the body to the other side of the bed" is very confusing.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 12:08 pm
________________________________
Imma don't wants ta make yas all miserable agin after the lightness but, that was serious, it is reality, that is what certain people are trying on as theory.
No matter how hard they try with all of that simple-minded nonsense, I can't help laughing louder, I can't say, laugh with them, but at that them, because fair is fair and what they are up to, the Charlie boy crew, isn't fair.
Forgive my ignorance, but as I look at the pic of Meredith's room, her body is "by the wardrobe" no matter where it lies on the floor of that very small room. And the bed seems to be against the wall, so the statement "moving the body to the other side of the bed" is very confusing.
Lv2rgu | 04.12.08 - 12:17 pm | #
_____________________________________
The way the investigation sees it she was slaughtered right in front of the wardrobe, not next to it, she was found next to it. They could see shéd been moved by the tracks in her blood on the tile floor.
Yes, but her body is still "by the wardrobe" in a manner of speaking, say, as opposed to "the other side of the bed".
"There was "unequivocal proof" from forensic science tests
that the murder had taken place in front of the dresser, with Kercher on her knees.
Reports said that a quilt had been used not only to cover Kercher’s body but
to drag it to where it was found on the floor between the bed and the bedroom door."
----------
The picture I'm looking at shows the door opening right up against the bed, or nearly so; no room for a body there.
So when Oceania and Charlie Wilkes check back in - I'd be interested to hear what they think of Amanda's incriminating description of Meredith by the wardrobe.
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:14 pm |
From what I have been reading in the past days I would expect anything Soozie, from "Mignini muurdered her and he planted the idea", to "the flatmates did it together and they told Amanda, not viceversa" to "
are we sure Meredith was murdered? Perhaps she committed suicide after RG rejected her avances".
Sorry about the above, but I've kept silent during the last couple of days and I needed to release some steam.
Back to ignoring disruption now.
PS TLC I knew it was you!
Among the six Britons are Meredith's best friends Sophie Purton, Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth, who have already described Knox's questionable behaviour to police.
In particular, Miss Butterworth told officers how she was struck by how Knox, 20, seemed to boast about finding Miss Kercher's body as they all waited in Perugia police station to speak to officers.
Miss Butterworth said: "She was talking at the top of her voice, saying she found the front door open and she went into the bathroom and saw blood on the floor.
"I remember Amanda kept going on about how she found the body. It was as if she was proud to have been the one who found it.
"She was saying how she had seen Meredith's body reflecting in the mirror of a wardrobe.
"I remember thinking her behaviour was very strange. It was as if she wasn't bothered at all. Her behaviour also struck other friends who were there."
Miss Butterworth said Miss Kercher had told her that Knox often brought men back to their flat. And she said the flatmates fell out because Knox did not flush the toilet.
The Leeds University exchange student said she was one of the last people to see Miss Kercher alive.
They watched a DVD with two British friends a couple of hours before she was killed
A prosecution source added: "From their statements we know that Knox told them that Meredith had died slowly from a stab wound to the neck.
"The question is how did she know this particular detail, as only police and the killer would have been aware."
Sorry about the above, but I've kept silent during the last couple of days and I needed to release some steam.
Back to ignoring disruption now.
PS TLC I knew it was you!
nicki | 04.12.08 - 12:26 pm
_______________________________
You are doing just fine Nicki, and the sun is shining through.
LW
If a witness saw only her out also that evening then I am not quite sure how that will also have to be explained away.
I'm a great watcher of behind the scenes happenings.
I have noticed that since the announcement of the 60 year old "superwitness" (that's a new one on me, it must be an Italian invention ) placing Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, not to mention the car driver and tow truck mechanic, there hasn't been any responding comment from either of the defense teams.
Most unusual for this case.
The only response came from Sollecito Snr. Unfortunately he and/or the newspaper used the wrong day, 31st Oct, when stating that he was on the phone to Raf. for an hour at the time in question.
On the night the witness places Raffaele and Amanda in Piazza Grimana, 1st Nov, Sollecito Snr could only get Raf's answer phone at around 11:30.
there hasn't been any responding comment from either of the defense teams.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 12:34 pm |
Good point Brian!
Filomena Romanelli pointed out in successive interviews, on November 7 2007, that Meredith had never let any man into her bedroom except for Silenzi Giacomo, her boyfriend.
On the night the witness places Raffaele and Amanda in Piazza Grimana, 1st Nov, Sollecito Snr could only get Raf's answer phone at around 11:30.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 12:34 pm |
-----------
And yet RS had claimed to have spoken to his father when he called. When Kate Mansey noted RS "seemed desperate to show he had nothing to hide" - well, he also seemed desperate to prove he was at home surfing the internet and chatting to his dad. But we know he didn't speak to his dad.
Maybe, like Amanda - his mouth ran off with him and he can't take it back.
-----------
Below is a link to a Seattle news television interview with Paul Ciolino and Peter Van Sant regarding the 48 Hours TV show. It's almost off topic because it is all about Amanda Knox, although they do mention that Rudy Guede is in custody for the murder of Kercher and imply that he is the only real suspect in this simple rape and murder case.
The 10 minute Flash video (starts off with an ad) presents a lot of opinion and broad summary, and does not detail any hard information, facts, or evidence. Most regular visitors to this blog would view it as being highly superficial and will quickly realize that what has been discussed here goes far beyond what these two investigators have been able to uncover. For example, when they talk about getting to the bottom of Amanda's police interrogation they say they performed in depth interviews with her parents and looked at every detail of her diary.
There is nothing "earth-shattering" at all. They talk about going "undercover" and make the claim that they are the only ones who have actually investigated this case. Again, on the basis of what they present in this interview it is obvious that most regular visitors to this blog do know far more about this case than they do with their undercover tactics. It does not appear that they had any contact with ILE during the the course of their underground investigation.
In summary, this is a propaganda piece aimed at viewers who know nothing about this case. They implore Americans to write to the Sate Department and demand justice for Amanda Knox. They claim that the tsunami of negativity in the UK, Italian, and even US press has demonized an innocent, All American girl. They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty, she will never get a fair trial, and that based on their long experience in wrongful conviction cases the ILE will never back off now that they have started down this road, even if they came to believe that she was innocent.
Like I said - not much mention of Meredith Kercher. Amanda, her family, and all Americans are apparently the real victims here. Now we see the full scope of this massive propaganda attack that has brought so many enlightened visitors to this blog in recent weeks. It will be interesting to see if this approach can really get anywhere. For me this plays like a last-gasp effort in what has been Amanda Knox's only defense strategy so far. There is no apparent interest in getting at any overarching truth. To the contrary, the clear intent of these so-called investigators is to make all Americans jump up and yell, "Bring bring this innocent girl home NOW so she can get back to more important things, like shopping with her mom." Not very likely.
http://www.kirotv.com/video/1585...8894/ index.html
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 12:43 pm |
Thank you for posting the link!
I think the State Department has better and more important things to do than looking over this case.
FBN
They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty, she will never get a fair trial...
It doesn't matter what 98% of Italians believe. As I understand it, they won't make up the jury panel which consists of judges and other appointees.
Thanks FBN...
Last gasp effort just about sums it up...... it sheds NO new light on the case...
I am sure Charlie and Candace and the crew will use the terms 'blown the case wide open'.......
Sad really that at the end of all this they would still be stating that Amanda was an innocent victim and it was all Raf's fault because he drugged her and brainwashed her.....
In the UK we have the 'Sex, Lies and Meredith Kercher' Cutting Edge CH4 show airing on the 17th and I suspect it will be exactly the same.
------------
"With the help of leading Italian crime journalist, Meo Ponte, Cutting Edge examines why Amanda and Raffaele are still under suspicion
and explores intriguing reasons as to why they may have behaved in the way that they did.
Amanda's parents explain to Cutting Edge why they think their daughter is innocent, and the heartbreak they experience every time they see her in prison."
--------------------
I hope the program also highlights the heartbreak Meredith's family experience while all this is going on. It's not just about Amanda. Meredith is dead.
Perhaps they could ask AK's parents how their daughter knew Meredith was lying by the wardrobe??
-----------
Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody...
They are. Just not here.
Perhaps they could ask AK's parents how their daughter knew Meredith was lying by the wardrobe??
-----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:58 pm | #
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
He said Ms Knox then "told me she was worried. She told me when she had got home the door was open and there were traces of blood in the bathroom. She asked me if that seemed strange. I replied that it did and advised her to phone her friends. She told me she had phoned Filomena (another housemate) but there was no reply from Meredith." The pair then went to the cottage together to investigate.
_______________________________
Here Sollecito in his actua 5th of November statement saying, according to Amanda, she had called Filomena before the pair of them left Raffaele's to go to the cottage. She told him she'd called but he didn't witness it.
These phone records are going to be known.
anonymous | 04.12.08 - 1:00 pm | #
________________________
Are you his mom?
TLC...
Probably the secretary of his fan club.......
he gives his email out he is that popular....
I hope the program also highlights the heartbreak Meredith's family experience while all this is going on.
If it is just an edited version of the CBS show, and no contribution is made by the Kercher family expressing concern about the investigation, it won't cut any ice in the UK at all. Currently the UK population doesn't carry many flags for the US of A.
Huff
"FYI -- I've noticed that several posters in these threads about Meredith's murder are better-than-average writers and incisive thinkers. Please check out this post and think about what I'm asking, if you have the time."
Quite what do you mean by this?
Handprint on Merediths throat? It is real and it is from a large hand, like that of a basketball players.
-----------------
I have not read that far back yet but I remembered the above from the night Chris Mellas was online. I know it can't be used as truth,
but I don't know why he would say that about the hand.
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 11:34 pm
----------
I suspect it is wishful thinking. "CMellas" also claimed they have a report which confirms the hair of a black man was found in Meredith's hand.
He doesn't seem to have been back since then, but some of us did ask if he would confirm 'black man's hair', or 'black hair'.
From the handprint comment, it would seem he almost certainly meant 'black man's hair'. In other words, anything that points to Rudy at the exclusion of anyone else.
I don't see any of this substantiated anywhere else. If someone has a link to anything that confirms what "CMellas" claims, please post it!
Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody...
That's because Charlie talks a lot about false confessions, as if everything in this case evolved from that. The Knox "false confession" is not a big factor in evaluating this case - there is tons of other more compelling stuff to consider.
And I repeat:
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
FBN
They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty
I wonder what the figures are for Rudy and Raffaele?
And I repeat:
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 1:26 pm | #
There is an implication which could fit in with my "theory", that Amanda didn't see the "black man" and was relying on what Raffaele said.
Lumumba was perhaps the first black man who she could think of with any connection. Amanda was probably well aware that on 31st, Patrick had asked Meredith to see him on the Friday in connection with the bar job.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 1:29 pm wrote: "They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty - I wonder what the figures are for Rudy and Raffaele?"
Well Brian, if we can get around wondering about how these two geeks passed themselves as off as paisanos in their undercover operation we can assume that the unaccounted 2% goes to Rudy, because no Italian would rule against a true countryman.
"They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty".
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 1:29 pm
98% of Italians don't even remeber who AK RS and RG are! They're concerned about elections, free Tibet, Alitalia, and the Erba and Garlasco murders.
"we can assume that the unaccounted 2% goes to Rudy, because no Italian would rule against a true countryman".
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 1:58 pm |
I wouldn't be so sure. In case people would remember who he is, I bet a great part of Northen Italians would think he's guilty.
Niki: sorry, just having a little fun...
I wouldn't be so sure. In case people would remember who he is, I bet a great part of Northen Italians would think he's guilty.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 2:12 pm | #
I'm glad you said that Nicki.
I did consider posting something about the Italian North/South divide the other day but decided against since I'm from the UK.
"That's because Charlie talks a lot about false confessions, as if everything in this case evolved from that. The Knox "false confession" is not a big factor in evaluating this case - there is tons of other more compelling stuff to consider.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 1:26 pm | #"
Perhaps I have missed a post or two, but I did point out that with respect to the conditions under which this false confession was supposedly extracted, we have only Internet rumors to go by and assertions made by friends of the family. I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours and that food, water and toilet privileges were denied.
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
I did consider posting something about the Italian North/South divide the other day but decided against since I'm from the UK.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:21 pm |
It's all true Brian, you must now the country well!
OT :Did you read Bossi's latest declarations? I don't vote, but if I did ...it would be a hard decision
I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:32 pm |
From the "ordine di custodia cautelare" that Kermit has posted in Italian, it doesn't seem that the session lasted so long, more likely 5-6 hours.
Oceana,
Now you are having Rudy buying a mop and cleaning the cottage too???
Okay, so he eats kabob, makes a date with the lovely English Girl, romances her, drinks her wine out of a cup, gets to 2nd base (or whatever) before he decides to kill her, take the money, get his moves on at the local discotheque, goes shopping for a mop and bleach, goes back to the cottage, cleans up, does a little bit of laundry (I wonder if he separated darks and lights!!!), throws a rock through the door, locks up, goes on vacay. To semi-quote another infamous mopper, Scott Peterson, "Rudy 'was amazing.'"
woopsie, I meant he drank the wine out of the bottle because they didn't have any clean cups!
"In any case, both RS and AK can be shown to have lied, and seriously so, at a very early stage when there would have been no reason to do so if they were not involved in the crime. Which I believe, on the basis of what we have been told by reliable, if not unimpeachable sources, to be the case.
Q.E.D.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 10:51 am | #"
Thanks, Minotaur, for this patient three-part demonstration. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the diaries and statements of the suspects, as well as the earliest and most reliable press accounts, and have come to the same conclusion. It may turn out that they have some reason for lying other than hiding their involvement in these crimes (the murder, the possible failure to assist a person in danger, the cover-up), but I am hard pressed right now to figure out what it might be.
Jumpy | 04.12.08 - 2:46 pm |
Wow a cross between Superman and Mandrake!
"CMellas" also claimed they have a report which confirms the hair of a black man was found in Meredith's hand.
He doesn't seem to have been back since then, but some of us did ask if he would confirm 'black man's hair', or 'black hair'.
From the handprint comment, it would seem he almost certainly meant 'black man's hair'. In other words, anything that points to Rudy at the exclusion of anyone else.
I don't see any of this substantiated anywhere else. If someone has a link to anything that confirms what "CMellas" claims, please post it!
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 1:19 pm | #
Soozie,
I believe CMellas claimed it was from a report the family had received, which implied perhaps it was not released publicly. Many posters have requested that he provide info that is not already public knowledge (partially in order to prove who he says he is), yet when he does, it is discounted because it cannot be substantiated. There's no way to win - because of course information that has not been released to the public cannot be substantiated. We'll just have to wait for the evidence to come out in trial and then we will know if CMellas' information was accurate. Until then, it's like everything else in this case - some will believe it and some won't, but it's all just opinion at this point.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:32 pm wrote: "I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours and that food, water and toilet privileges were denied."
If the 48 Hours show doesn't pursue similar claims like a territorial baboon, you'll have your confirmation that nothing like that happened. Furthermore, if they try to support this kind of claim solely on the basis of parental statements and Amanda's diary (as they indicate), it will be a superbly weak accusation in the absence of complaints filed with the court to support it.
"There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 7:08 am | #"
Well, if one assumes Rudy is the lone wolf, then this comment makes perfect sense. The problem is that it assumes precisely what needs to be proven.
It may turn out that they have some reason for lying other than hiding their involvement in these crimes (the murder, the possible failure to assist a person in danger, the cover-up), but I am hard pressed right now to figure out what it might be.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:49 pm | #
The lies and conflicting alibis are a major sticking point for me as well. Is it possible that, as CMellas seems to claim, their stories do now match up, but that information has not been released? I assume ILE is in possession of much unreleased evidence (or statements), but I am not convinced that that evidence points solidly in one direction.
SkepThanks, Minotaur, for this patient three-part demonstration.
That's just the beginning. Why do you think the MOP plays such an enormous role in their 'so-called', and non-evidential, prison diaries?
Because they were grilled about the mop; and tried to justify themselves.
Rudy's 'prison diary' is entirely out of bounds as evidence. There is nothing in it that he couldn't have gleaned from the media BEFORE he was arressted in Germany.
Oh dear! This bold lark has made me look foolish again.
"We'll just have to wait for the evidence to come out in trial and then we will know if CMellas' information was accurate. Until then, it's like everything else in this case - some will believe it and some won't, but it's all just opinion at this point.
kb | 04.12.08 - 2:51 pm | #"
You do have to wonder, however, if the report said "black hair" or "black man's hair," which is precisely what we requested clarification on. With respect to the impression supposedly left by a "large hand" on the victim's face, I would like to know, preferably in the form of a simple decarative utterance, whether or not it was stated in precisely this way in a report that was released to the family but not to the public. Incidentally, I see that BTD has helpfully added that this large hand was "like a basketball player's," but again we don't know if that was stated in the report either.
It is both fair and necessary to request clarification when statements like this are planted here. If you look back at the posts in question, I think you'll see that these things are not quite phrased in a "you can quote me on this" way, which is why we ask for clarification. It seems the only responsible course if our goal is to keep rumor, insinuation and misinformation to a minimum.
kb, The detention of Raffaele and Amanda has been appealed all the way up to the Italian Supreme Court by their defense teams.
Charlie will tell you that the Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp organisation, but I would suggest that's just his opinion.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:00 am | #
Yes, Brian, that has made me feel there must be some substantial reasons behind Raffaele and Amanda's detention. But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them? So if the failings are with the investigators or with the prosecutors, isn't it possible that issues might not be discovered through the appeal process? I really don't know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but nothing about this case seems cut and dried to me. This just seems like a remote possibility that shouldn't be completely ruled out quite yet.
Yes, Skep, I agree. Clarification would be immensely helpful.
Oh dear! This bold lark has made me look foolish again.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 3:05 pm | #
When using HTML it really does pay to use preview before posting.
I've been using HTML for some years now but I still regularly make mistakes.
Soozie wrote:
But with regards to 'seeing Meredith's body by the wardrobe' - if this is true, it's pretty damning evidence, whichever one of them said it.
I have read the back and forth on this and I am puzzled.
Why do you find it so hard to believe Knox and/or Sollecito might have seen the position of the body when the police broke the door down? The wardrobe is visible from the doorway, so anyone looking over the shoulders of the police would have been able to see that the body was up against the wardrobe.
But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them?
Yes and no. In this case the supreme court would have had access to all the 'verbali' from witnesses that had been taken before Matteini's decision on 9th November to keep the (then) three suspects in custodyl
That is what that thatjudgment is about. They Supreme Court simply confirmed Matteini's decision to keep the three (then two) in custtody on the basis of what had been presented to her on 8th November. It (the SC) would have had access to the statements and obligatory tape-recordings.
Nothing more; nothing less.We are still where we were on 9th November, legally. But we do know other things that have not yet been so explicitly confirmed.
The lies and conflicting alibis are a major sticking point for me as well. Is it possible that, as CMellas seems to claim, their stories do now match up, but that information has not been released?
Skep,
Surely, if AK and RS had made new statements, they would have been included in the appeal just over a week ago.
There was no mention of this by the defense teams, they appeared to say that the appeal was based on insufficient or poor forensic evidence.
Indeed RS team has announced it is to start a further appeal based on what they and Telenorba say is poor identification of RS from the footprint. They are going to claim it was made by RG.
AK's team does not appear to be included in any further appeal, but then that particular footprint has nothing to do with AK.
Why do you find it so hard to believe Knox and/or Sollecito might have seen the position of the body when the police broke the door down? The wardrobe is visible from the doorway, so anyone looking over the shoulders of the police would have been able to see that the body was up against the wardrobe.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:29 pm | #
That is indeed what Amanda's parents claim to have overheard in their phone call with her - resulting in the alleged hoof/foot mistranslation/misinterpretation.
Thank you for the clarification, Minotaur.
"I don't usually read the poster who sign himself Chris Mellas but this time I have gone through some of his posts because one of them caught my attention. Precisely, the one where he claims that AK called her Mom when she was at the cottage and the police broke down the door and found Meredith's body.He said that AK misunderstood the word "foot" and thought they said "hoof". As a bilingual person I smiled when I read this. A mistake of this kind could be made by an Italian speaker trying to understand English, after all "hoof" and "foot" have similar sounds. The opposite I find hard to believe.How she could confuse the word "zoccolo"(hoof) and "piede" (foot),is beyond me,since they sound totally different.Not that this detail makes a difference in the whole scenario, but it sounds like something entirely made up and as such, to me it is not an indication of the poster's honesty."
nicki | 04.09.08 - 3:09 pm | #
KB:
You may have missed bilingual Nicki's take on this.
Surely, if AK and RS had made new statements, they would have been included in the appeal just over a week ago.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 3:36 pm | #
That's what I would have thought, too, Brian, but if I understand Minotaur correctly, the judges were only considering statements from November. No one was allowed to present additional evidence. Is this accurate?
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:
Innocent people have nothing to fear in talking to the the police.
The police have accurately described statements made by Knox and Sollecito, and the press has conveyed these statements to the public without error.
Given the lies and contradictions in these statements, Knox and Sollecito must be guilty of something.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito are now exercising their right to silence is further proof that they must be hiding something.
The appeal in Rome was only to to consider the legality of retaining RS and AK in custody on the basis of Matteini's decision of 9th November.
The defence lawyers of those two hoped to undo that decision on a technicality (as their profession encourages them to). But they were disappointed.
RG's custody was not part of this process, as evidence relating to him was presented in Perugia only after 9th November.
Please do your homework: it's not difficult, and most of it is on this blog!
Thanks, Skep. I dd see Nicki's post. And Nicki, I am incredibly grateful for your translations as they have provided such valuable information.
I do think, however, that word substitutions happen for many reasons, and direct translation issues may not be the problem here. I often substitute words - or can't think of the exact one for a specific item, especially under pressure. It's the way my brain works (or, more accurately, doesn't work!). But CMellas had no compelling reason to provide that detail to us - it is irrelevant in many ways - so for the moment, I am inclined to believe it happened. I have seen nothing in his posts that leads me to suspect he is purposefully lying to us.
Here's an excerpt from the local Seattle paper (the PI, generally considered to be not as good as Seattle's other paper, the Times) about tonight's show. Notice that another investigator was interviewed, and he feels the evidence against RS and AK is compelling enough to warrant ongoing detention. I wonder if he appears on the show. I ask because I know of at least one Perugian local who was interviewed but whose interview was not used for the program. Notice also that Ciolino uses the same reasoning as Doug Preston (good girls from Jesuit schools don't commit murder). I wonder, though: Does this mean that they ever get into trouble or make mistakes? Maybe I should ask my mom, who was senior class president of her nun-run Catholic high school. Finally, the article ends with the news that 48 Hours did not interview Knox. I wonder why she was not interviewed:
"Hired by "48 Hours" to review the case, Ciolino said police don't have any solid evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the killing. Speaking on the program, Ciolino said he's convinced that young women such as Knox -- a Seattle Prep grad who made the UW honor roll -- don't commit murder.
"Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides," Ciolino said. "They don't do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I'd sure like to see her."
.....
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed. Surveillance video shows Knox and Sollecito shopping for underwear the day after finding Kercher's body; other shoppers said they overheard the couple talking graphically about sex.
"48 Hours" did not interview Knox."
Well, you're right, Minotaur. It has been covered. But I appreciate your clarification. There's a lot to keep track of on this case. And you have to admit - sometimes there's a lot of **** to sort through on this blog! lol
Charlie Wilkes goes on and on about how police are experts at extracting false confessions and he is certain that this is what happened to Amanda. However, when Raffael was told that Amanda changed her story he wasn't exactly shocked. Instead, he said something to the effect of, "oh, well if that's the case I'm going to stop telling you all this crap I've been telling you because here's what really happened - she wasn't here with me at my place...". This last change came after he had already given several different accounts of what he/they were doing the night of the murder.
To my knowledge, he hasn't changed his story back, or come up with a newer version, to fully support Amanda's claim that she was with him at his place all evening. If Wilkes were to be right, how should we interpret Raffael's changing story line? Is this also be related to some kind of police-induced false confession scenario? This must have been asked before, but I'm not finding anything beyond Wilkes' simplistic police abuse theory regarding Amanda herself.
Fly by Night wrote:
This must have been asked before, but I'm not finding anything beyond Wilkes' simplistic police abuse theory regarding Amanda herself.
However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts.
"Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:
Innocent people have nothing to fear in talking to the the police.
The police have accurately described statements made by Knox and Sollecito, and the press has conveyed these statements to the public without error.
Given the lies and contradictions in these statements, Knox and Sollecito must be guilty of something.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito are now exercising their right to silence is further proof that they must be hiding something.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:46 pm | #"
Ah, Charlie. I think you know very well that we have had lively discussions on just these matters and hardly hold them as articles of faith. We have scrutinized and picked apart press errors, looked at multiple sources, checked with our local correspondents, used official reports issued by judges, in some cases retranslated them, translated Rudy's diary, and so on. We have pointed out the lies and inconsistencies and expressed astonishment that memory gaps have been explained by smoking large amounts of dope (I suspect there are many former stoners among us, which is why we are a little suspicious), but this does not mean I think they "must" be guilty of something--speaking only for myself. I do personally think that innocent people GENERALLY have nothing to fear from talking to the police. If they are socio-economically disadvantaged or a member of a racially "suspect" group, they might have more reason to fear speaking to the authorities in some parts of the world.
However, everyone here has cheerfully conceded that mistakes are sometimes made. We're just waiting to see all of the evidence arrayed and argued in public. As for the decision to remain silent being an indication of guilt, I think you are either willfully misrepresenting the view held by Kermit, Finn MacCool, myself and others or we have not made ourselves sufficiently clear. We think it would be good if they would give a full and coherent account of their whereabouts on the night of the crime and of their behavior in the aftermath of discovery. This may be because we have experience of legal cultures like Italy's, where the goal of this kind of investigation is to arrive at the truth.
In any case, I don't recognize any of my core beliefs in the articles of faith you present.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:46 pm | "Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:"
You forgot to add to your list of articles of faith - yours:
- belief that since in a minority of criminal cases innocent persons are charged, that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent (of what, Charlie doesn't know ... they are just innocent)
- belief that Amanda's alibi was not challenged directly nor implicitly in any way, before the moment when her questioning began on November 5
- belief that Amanda and Raffaele must have low intellectual coefficients, since putting them together would not produce any straightening out of their conflicting alibis, and thereby help the investigation (no Charlie, that doesn't mean there is an expectation that it will happen... AK's and RS's expensive lawyers have given them good professional advice to invoke their right not to declare)
- belief that there is no evidence (physical or forensic) linking Amanda or Raffaele to the aspects of the crime
- belief that all the posters on this board are a monolithic block, convinced that Amanda is guilty of murder
And you complain that it is impossible to reason. Your barriers to entry are higher than those of any individual poster here.
-
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm | "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts."
On the basis of what information from Perugia do you extend your prior research of police abuse of witnesses in other cases (which I have no doubt exists), to this specific case?
-
"But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them? So if the failings are with the investigators or with the prosecutors, isn't it possible that issues might not be discovered through the appeal process? I really don't know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but nothing about this case seems cut and dried to me. This just seems like a remote possibility that shouldn't be completely ruled out quite yet.
kb | 04.12.08 - 3:14 pm | #
KB:
I know you find it laborious to read through all the posts, but I would recommend that you go to the thread that just closed and choose a key word like "Matteini" (the investigating judge assigned to oversee Mignini's work on this case, she has the right to order additional examinations, interview subjects, etc.) for a partial answer to your question here.
Do please turn your attention(s) to the mop:
That is to say the 'mocio'; the 'lavapavvimwnto'; the 'velena'; the 'spazztegole", and other euphemisms.
When this case comes to court, that innocent household item will be a major player.
For our Italian speakers, here's a good report from early November from Il Giornale, with different players' testimony. Reference is made of the GIP (Matteini), although I assume some of the testimony was to Mignini:
http://www.ilgiornale.it/pag_pdf...df.php?
ID=64356
-
Re the Seattle radio programme -- a sort of hors d'oeuvre advertisement for the forthcoming (Amanda-whitewashing) CBS 48 Hours Mystery -- BTD pointed out (04.11.08 - 11:20 pm. Thanks, BTD !).
I have just listened to it and noted some salient points.
Here goes (quotation marks for their very words (as far as possible), square brackets for my own comments (which are few, since what is said speaks for itself -- in more ways than one).
-- They refer to AK as a/this "young lady" (at least twice) and "this kid". Meredith is just the "British girl" (or "the body" or, once, "the victim").
-- They refer to AK as "*the* main suspect". "They have *the* wrong person" [what about RS ?]. "SHE is *the* target." [not RG or RS].
-- AK's "so-called confession" (and accusation of PL) was extorted during a gruelling and bullying 14 hour interrogation (from 4 pm to about 6 am) by 6 Italian interrogators. No food, no sleep, no lawyer. They hint at actual violence (a "physical component").
-- AK "is not fluent in Italian" ; she "doesn't read or write Italian" [??]. So her signing of the interrogation account (which is in Italian) does not mean anything.
-- "There is NO DNA" (of AK). Only DNA found : RG's.
-- Plenty of Rudy-bashing. RG was known (they say) as a violent knife-wielder. As proof they tell this story : he was banned from some nightclub because one night the bartender (or one of the bartenders) there woke up in his bed and saw RG standing there with a (threatening) knife.
-- Bloody handprints (both on Meredith's head and inside her bag) are RG's.
-- They say that RG "fled *the next day* to Germany" [I thought it was several days later ?].
-- RG and AK did not know each other at all. They "never laid eyes on each other". [??]
-- Persecution of AK. Motivation ?
(a) "Palpable antiamericanism" is rife in Perugia/Italy. Why ? Ungrateful Italians ! "We liberated them, remember?" -- "Short memory, Dave ! --like the French !"
(b) Police and judges are protecting their own "reputation".
No word on the alibi discrepancy, of course. But perhaps the (much longer) TV programme will try to sweep that too under the carpet.
At the risk of being OT, am I the only one in the world with a Catholic education who doesn't find it impossible that a product of this education could be capable of anything? Not to mention those who used to dispense this education, before the priest shortage hit. See article below. Given the satanic tie-in, I'm wondering if Mignini wasn't somehow involved in the investigation.
"Catholic priest convicted over satanic ritual murder of nun
A U.S. jury yesterday found a Roman Catholic priest guilty of the satanic ritual-style murder of a 71-year-old nun which went unsolved for more than 25 years.
Father Gerald Robinson, above, was sentenced to a mandatory jail term of between 15 years and life.
There were gasps in the court after the verdict, but the 68-year-old priest remained impassive.
Sister Margaret Ann Pahl was found murdered on a chapel floor in April, 1980. She had been strangled, covered in an altar cloth and stabbed 31 times in the shape of an upturned holy cross.
She had been grabbed from behind and choked so violently that the blood vessels in her eyes burst and two bones in her neck broke. Prosecutor Dean Mantros said that Robinson pushed up the nun's robe and pulled down her underwear.
Robinson was an early suspect but was only arrested in 2004, after a woman came forward with claims that she had been sexually abused by a group of priests who performed satanic rituals and held sadomasochistic orgies.
A spot of blood on the priest's letter opener was found to match a bloodstain on the altar cloth that had covered."
RE-POSTED BECAUSE DISCUSSION MOVES SO FAST HERE.
I may regret this, but -- I've created a message board:
http://truecrimeweblog.freeforum...s.org/
index.php
The only forum ready to go there at the moment is this one:
The Murder of Meredith Kercher.
To post there, you will have to register:
Register to post in the True Crime Weblog Forum.
Once you've done that, you can post messages in the forum I've begun, as well as pm myself and others via the board.
I will need volunteer moderators for the board in general -- at least one mod to start. I'd prefer someone who tries to look at all sides of an issue, not someone flogging a single concern in relation to a given case.
NOW, THIS IS IMPORTANT:
My creating that message board is not meant to completely divert commenters in this particular thread. If you find it easier to stay here and continue the discussion, PLEASE do so. If you like the message board format, like to have your own profile, etc., please give the board I've created a try.
And bear with me while I tweak the board's look and feel to make it more user-friendly. Currently I am the admin and the only moderator by default, so you'll need some patience with me there, too.
If this goes well, I will begin adding other forums about other cases and possibly more moderators.
Thanks,
Steve Huff
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 3:52 pm wrote: "Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides..."
Detective types like Ciolino do not have any kind of journalistic standard - they are in the slimy business of public opinion manipulation. I myself am Episcopalian-educated and, oh, if only that were all it took for anyone to be pure. Someone pointed out here that going to a church-run school does not mean you buy-in to the faith. Ciolino is right, however, in implying that dysfunctional behaviors do not come out of nowhere. Given the statements made by some of Amanda's friends in Seattle talking about how super-nice she was, and statements from testimony in Italy, including her own diary, revealing what I myself would call serious social dysfunctions (not limited to the multiple casual sex partners), we can infer that she knows how to play the good-girl image up for all it is worth. Her parents would definitely know if she were prone to temper or ego issues, but don't expect them to talk about that here. None of this makes here capable of or guilty of murder, but you can't merely write them off, or flat out lie about them like Ciolino.
"No word on the alibi discrepancy, of course. But perhaps the (much longer) TV programme will try to sweep that too under the carpet.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 4:40 pm | #"
Bluetit:
Which radio station was this on?
Sorry. I forgot one of their contentions (or earthshaking revelations ?) :
-- They hint that the female witness (to scream and flight of two or more people) denied having told the police any such thing.
Quo usque tandem ... ?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm wrote: "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts."
Correct me if I'm wrong: I'm hearing you imply that you believe police interrogation methods led to Raffael say what he said about Amanda not being with him because they wanted him to help destroy her alibi so they could place her at the scene of the murder.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 4:55 pm |
Which radio station was this on?
Here is the URL (provided by BTD some time ago) :
http://icestream.bonnint.net/
sea...12008154446.mp3
"Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 4:37 pm |
Thanks for the link Kermit.The article reports "Matteini stressing bruises on intimate parts" . I wasn't aware that bruises were found anywhere else besides on Meredith cheeks.
"Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm | #
___
Thanks, Bluetit. Know it well. Local am radio, audio partner of the local CBS television affiliate, KIRO.
All,
I did sign up for the other blog Steve set up, but will wait to see if that's where most of you will end up.
In the meantime, if you think Charlie Wilkes is busy here, just look at all the posts he's made out there. It's amazing! Who does he work for?
http://tinyurl.com/54asd4
"They hint that the female witness denied having told the police any such thing."
Bluetit
This is what BTD referred to yesterday. With CBS cameras trained on her, her face hidden behind a half-closed door, she says through an interpreter: "I did not talk to the police."
I know someone who was in Perugia recently and who could not get a single person on Rudy's street to talk to about him or even admit to knowing the guy. Imagine that! And she didn't even have a CBS television crew following her around. Whether or not this woman actually spoke to the police and gave testimony is actually none of CBS's business right now. We'll see, huh? You do at least have to entertain the possibility that maybe this person is not cooperating with CBS, rather than taking this as proof that the police are lying about having spoken to her. Don't you?
Or am I missing the point about what this is meant to show? On some level, I'd like this program to be better than it sounds like it is.
"Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm wrote: "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts.""
Charlie:
If I may quote you from as long ago as last week, if you can't get one expert to support your findings, find another. Or words to that effect. Can you really expect to be able to support your own views by appeal to the experts and then fault others for doing so?
May | 04.12.08 - 5:54 pm | #
_____
I did as well.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm |
Hi Bluetit,
Thanks for posting the link!
Just one comment about the cops and prosecutors being on the Matrix show and having to save their reputation etc. They never went there, the only guests ever on the show were the omnipresent Dr Sollecito and his smiling team, Guede's defense, Patrick after he was freed and the Kercher's lawyer.It is easy to check the Matrix archives on their website.
How do they think they can get away with all this misinformation is beyond my understanding. They really have to watch out because all this trashing of the authorities, together with these claims of anti-americanism-they even dragged France in to make the point-may sort the opposite results and further damage Knox position, instead of helping her.
Oh the power of the almighty dollar... There 's no limit to what some people are willing to do for it!
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm wrote: "Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Right - the radio side of the TV station KIRO, a CBS affiliate in Seattle. This is the Dave Ross show that, in sum, makes him look like a complete idiot. It is highly embarrassing for him given what we know, but also for the blatant Italian bashing, and unquestioning acceptance of the same-old 48 Hours Peter and Paul tag team as having the indisputable proof.
Dave, Dave, Dave - where is the critical questioning? Peter and Paul say again that Americans need act now to bring this girl home - NOW - no investigation, no trial, no more questions - nothing - just put her on a plane tomorrow because she is so obviously innocent, and they are so outraged but these silly Italians.
The show makes a lot of claims, some of it laughable and some of it highly inflammatory, but all with righteous indignation played up for the radio audience. For example, they claim that Rudy and Amanda never laid eyes on each other before they got locked up in jail. They claim it is "crystal clear" that Rudy is the sole killer in a burglary gone wrong, that he probably thought the cottage would be empty for the holiday weekend, that he found Meredith at home and decided to rape, and then figured she had to be killed. They say that they will provide proof that Amanda was physically abused in her interrogation (not sure if they will cite specific charges that have been levied against the ILE), and that witness reports of a scream and footsteps running away are not true. Based on what we have identified as evidence here, I'm not seeing anything close to something that says she was in no way involved. In fact, I am simply stunned by how little of the details of case Peter and Paul actually know. The only thing clear about what they are saying is that they actually do have a motive - send Amanda Knox home tomorrow. In sum, this is a standard self-promoting talk radio performance - I would expect no more and no less and it is inconsequential.
Fly away Peter, Fly away Paul springs to mind.....
May | 04.12.08 - 5:54 pm wrote: "In the meantime, if you think Charlie Wilkes is busy here, just look at all the posts he's made out there."
Looks like he took my advice and got on that case about those 52 Mormons in Texas but, much to my chagrin, he's not making claims of law enforcement fabrication and railroading. Damn, this guy is good - just one glance and it's a done deal. He should run for governor of New York or something.
He should run for governor of New York or something.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 6:35 pm | #
Ha ha FBN! or, how bout Texas or Florida?
"In sum, this is a standard self-promoting talk radio performance - I would expect no more and no less and it is inconsequential.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 6:07 pm | #"
At least they don't have to worry about getting sued by the Italian authorities, who certainly did not listen to this show. Was it a call-in show? If so, I wonder if the PR firm lined up callers in advance.
Steve Huff -
A heartfelt thank you for your continuing generosity
Oceania -
"sees Meredith walking home, approaches her,"
Where does he see her? why was he there?
"Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation."
Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? What 'rape' by the way? In this scenario Rudy's 'Foreplay' with Meredith occurred 'before' he pulled out the knife.
"RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan)"
Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts' in the bracketed section of your sentence...let's look a little closer at these facts, it's important, since you have just 'discovered' a 'new' one 'Words' are very important here...when you say 'caught' in a knife fight...'caught' by 'whom'...do you mean the police caught him in the piazza fighting with a knife and arrested him? 'What' do you believe happened to Rudy in the piazza? Please can you supply the link to your used term knife fight in regard to Rudy? How do you define the term knife fight? Now Milan. Rudy had a knife on him when police discovered him in the daycare centre in Milan...I'm not sure he had it on him when he 'broke in' though. I recall reading some time ago that Rudy got the knife 'from' the daycare centre...he picked it up whilst in there. Anyone...am I correct in that?
"RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed."
Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?
"The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her."
Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her? Since your second sentence says Meredith is fighting for her life...do you mean that the 10-20 min portion not stabbing Meredith is spent fighting? That's not a 'fight' in my view...if it was a fight would all the knife blows be arriving into the throat/neck? Those came at the end/after any fight...after any such fight had been lost. If this had happened 'during' I would expect to see knife wounds on other areas of Meredith's body and certainly defence wounds. He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?
"Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife."
Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason? His hand was hurting him? Why is Rudy using 'two' bathrooms spreading blood in each? Where's Meredith's bood in AK's room that Rudy would have dripped, left on handles etc,? Where's 'his' blood? It's 'his' blood on toilet paper? What were the towels (plural, two) for? Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?
"Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage".
Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room? Why was he cleaning with 'bleach'? Where would all of that bleach have come from? Where are the empty bottles of the bleach he used? Why is Amanda washing both hers and MK's clothes in the morning on high temps...with 'bleach'? Is it 'coincidence' that both AK and Rudy each decide to use bleach for two completely different reasons? Why did RS also clean his apartment with bleach? Why did Rudy remove Meridith's bra some time after she had been stabbed...died even? What's RS's DNA doing on it right next to where it had been cut? Why is Rudy's DNA not where RS's was? Why put the keys in Ak's room before leaving? If the purpose of locking Meredith in the room was to prevent her discovery, why then leave the keys where they could easily be found by one of the residents so they could then easily open MK's door and discover the crime? Why not take them along with the phones? Why lock Meredith's door but not close the 'front' door (per AK)? Since you believe C Mellas...at which point and why did the bloody sheet appear in the dowstairs airing cupboard? Would he not by doing this have contaminated his hands with blood once again...which somehow did 'not' get on the phones or anywhere else on his journey whilst taking it downstairs? He remembers to shut the downstairs door and not the upstairs one though? How did 'his' blood not get on the phones from his cut hand? Did washing and toilet papering his hand magically immediately stop the bleeding? Why is Rudy washing and rinsing using two seperate receptacles in the bathroom (sink and bidet)...as one cleaner requires only 'one' receptacle? What was blood doing in the 'bath'? What is the explanation for AK's blood in the bathroom and the several occassions of her blood mixed with Meredith's? Why did Rudy take the phones...if he'd locked Meredith in her room why did he need to take them from the cottage...why not leave them there like the keys? Why take Meredith's credit cards...there was no attempt to use them? Finally...how does your sceneario explain the 'lamps' in MK's room?
"Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room."
Why oh why??? For what purpose? With hurt hand too. Did he then also trash Filomena's and Laura's rooms? Why? How did Ak's footprint get in Fillomena's room where she said she hadn't been? Rudy not only had time to 'do' all these things but think up the plan for it too?
"Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path."
What...after all the 'cleaning' that he did he just drops them right outside to be found? ? Tissues that incidentally do 'not' contain 'Rudy's' blood.
What of the Serbian witness? What of the witness that saw them looking towards the house that night? What of the Albanian witness?
What of all the problems that your scenario doesn't even attempt to address...namely all the problems with AK and RS (some of which I've mentioned above), like their repeated failures with alibi, constant little changes and non matching of 'details' within those alibis, bleach receipts, phones turned on and off at the same time, Raf being so stoned he can't remember if Amanda was with him in a small apartment, yet he was perfectly capable of studying degree level computer science on his computer...which incidentally shows no activity after 9:10 pm? What of the knife with AK's and MK's dna? Why was it bleached...and only that knife? Why did Raf bleach 'his' apartment at this time? Why did RS bleach the soles of his trainers? Amanda's knowledge of the placement of the body and how she had been stabbed in the neck? What could Amanda 'not keep up' in her telephone conversation with RS? Why was RS's phone unanswered when his father called? The mop?
Why has AK transcended Meredith in victimhood in this case?
Oceania -
"sees Meredith walking home, approaches her,"
Where does he see her? why was he there?
"Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation."
Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? What 'rape' by the way? In this scenario Rudy's 'Foreplay' with Meredith occurred 'before' he pulled out the knife.
"RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan)"
Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts' in the bracketed section of your sentence...let's look a little closer at these facts, it's important, since you have just 'discovered' a 'new' one 'Words' are very important here...when you say 'caught' in a knife fight...'caught' by 'whom'...do you mean the police caught him in the piazza fighting with a knife and arrested him? 'What' do you believe happened to Rudy in the piazza? Please can you supply the link to your used term knife fight in regard to Rudy? How do you define the term knife fight ? Now Milan. Rudy had a knife on him when police discovered him in the daycare centre in Milan...I'm not sure he had it on him when he 'broke in' though. I recall reading some time ago that Rudy got the knife 'from' the daycare centre...he picked it up whilst in there. Anyone...am I correct in that?
"RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed."
Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?
"The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her."
Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her? Since your second sentence says Meredith is fighting for her life...do you mean that the 10-20 min portion not stabbing Meredith is spent fighting? That's not a 'fight' in my view...if it was a fight would all the knife blows be arriving into the throat/neck? Those came at the end/after any fight...after any such fight had been lost. If this had happened 'during' I would expect to see knife wounds on other areas of Meredith's body and certainly defence wounds. He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?
"Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife."
Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason? His hand was hurting him? Why is Rudy using 'two' bathrooms spreading blood in each? Where's Meredith's bood in AK's room that Rudy would have dripped, left on handles etc,? Where's 'his' blood? It's 'his' blood on toilet paper? What were the towels (plural, two) for? Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?
Oceania -
"Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage".
Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room? Why was he cleaning with 'bleach'? Where would all of that bleach have come from? Where are the empty bottles of the bleach he used? Why is Amanda washing both hers and MK's clothes in the morning on high temps...with 'bleach'? Is it 'coincidence' that both AK and Rudy each decide to use bleach for two completely different reasons? Why did RS also clean his apartment with bleach? Why did Rudy remove Meridith's bra some time after she had been stabbed...died even? What's RS's DNA doing on it right next to where it had been cut? Why is Rudy's DNA not where RS's was? Why put the keys in Ak's room before leaving? If the purpose of locking Meredith in the room was to prevent her discovery, why then leave the keys where they could easily be found by one of the residents so they could then easily open MK's door and discover the crime? Why not take them along with the phones? Why lock Meredith's door but not close the 'front' door (per AK)? Since you believe C Mellas...at which point and why did the bloody sheet appear in the dowstairs airing cupboard? Would he not by doing this have contaminated his hands with blood once again...which somehow did 'not' get on the phones or anywhere else on his journey whilst taking it downstairs? He remembers to shut the downstairs door and not the upstairs one though? How did 'his' blood not get on the phones from his cut hand? Did washing and toilet papering his hand magically immediately stop the bleeding? Why is Rudy washing and rinsing using two seperate receptacles in the bathroom (sink and bidet)...as one cleaner requires only 'one' receptacle? What was blood doing in the 'bath'? What is the explanation for AK's blood in the bathroom and the several occassions of her blood mixed with Meredith's? Why did Rudy take the phones...if he'd locked Meredith in her room why did he need to take them from the cottage...why not leave them there like the keys? Why take Meredith's credit cards...there was no attempt to use them? Finally...how does your sceneario explain the 'lamps' in MK's room?
"Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room."
Why oh why??? For what purpose? With hurt hand too. Did he then also trash Filomena's and Laura's rooms? Why? How did Ak's footprint get in Fillomena's room where she said she hadn't been? Rudy not only had time to 'do' all these things but think up the plan for it too?
"Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path."
What...after all the 'cleaning' that he did he just drops them right outside to be found? ? Tissues that incidentally do 'not' contain 'Rudy's' blood. What of the Serbian witness? What of the witness that saw them looking towards the house that night? What of the Albanian witness?
What of all the problems that your scenario doesn't even attempt to address...namely all the problems with AK and RS (some of which I've mentioned above) like their repeated failures with alibi, constant little changes and non matching of 'details' within those alibis, bleach receipts, phones turned on and off at the same time, Raf being so stoned he can't remember if Amanda was with him in a small apartment, yet he was perfectly capable of studying degree level computer science on his computer...which incidentally shows no activity after 9:10 pm? What of the knife with AK's and MK's dna? Why was it bleached...and only that knife? Why did Raf bleach 'his' apartment at this time? Why did RS bleach the soles of his trainers? Amanda's knowledge of the placement of the body and how she had been stabbed in the neck? What could Amanda 'not keep up' in her telephone conversation with RS? Why was RS's phone unanswered when his father called? The mop?
Why has AK transcended Meredith in victimhood in this case?
Sorry for the double posting...my initial posting dissapeared...only to 'arrive' later...strange.
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 4:20 pm | #
I am actually not convinced Amanda is sincere and after all there hasn't been a reaction from lawyers about that.
Anyway a man, Aldo Bianzino, was found dead last October in the Capanne prison and at the end the pathologist Luca Lalli (him again!)found out that he was not killed because of natural heart disease but because he was maybe beaten up (he had a destroyed spleen and liver, brain hematomas) maybe because he had rebelled against some rule or imposition. He was arrested because he was cultivating and possessing indian hemp for having drug. In certain environments drug consuming (even light one) in Italy is regarded as a serious crime and like a sign of immorality. Maybe the man was also seen as a political enemy and an anarchist even if he was not involved in politics.
An enquest was open about this case (judge Petrazzini). Detainees witnesses say they think nobody entered his cellar and that the man called the guardians with a bell but nobody came to see what was happening to him. News say the policeman will be only accused of duty omission
Someone has promised to introduce a legal guarantor for the detainees
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/...&
post_id=114334
http://anconasiamonoi.forumcommu...net/?
t=10746337
The man's wife is invalid 100% with a pension of 250 euros per month. She is now alone wth a 91-year-old mother and her young 14-year-old son
They have even opened a postal account number to make donations to the
c/c postale number 27113620 to Roberta Radici
There is an inteview to her on Grillo's blog
http://www.beppegrillo.it/
immagi...ff_bianzino.pdf
They also say he probably slipped and hurt his head and body..but well, we know a lot about people slipping and falling down (see Pinelli..)
fran | 04.12.08 - 8:32 pm |
Thanks Fran for your research on a case of beating, or at least possible dereliction of duty by authorities in Italy.
And Charlie says we're a monolith, "The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire.", says he. Then he makes of list of "articles of faith".
Actually, my interest in Matteini over the last few days is because I thought there was a possibility that she was the one who did the famous questioning on Nov. 5.
That didn't interest Charlie much, as he posted at | 04.10.08 - 8:42 pm |"I wouldn't know where to find out more."
Well, all he had to do was google: Matteini Sollecito
Actually, I proved my own hunch wrong by re-encountering the Telegraph translated extract of the Matteini report, which indicated that the Nov. 5 declarations were made to Mignini. (I then confirmed that by going back to Matteini's original report in Italian).
But, what this does go to show is that we're interested in obtaining further information and understanding, and not hiding behind blind faiths based on research done on other crime cases, and no interest in researching this crime or the personalities. (This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
-
(This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 8:59 pm | #
----------
Even I did a little bit of reading up on that since I wanted to know about this 'corrupt' and 'evil' Mignini!
And I also went back to the Telegraph extract of the report since there's a lot of information and details that are easily missed or forgotten about, especially as we're 5 months on now, and totally bogged down in a million more details.
----------------
I have been away for awhile due to major family commitments. I did my best speed reading to catch up to the latest posts.
I took some time to preview the video clips promoting the 48 hour program to air tonight. Looks like CBS's hired investigator Paul Ciolino feels that Amanda is experiencing a "railroad job from hell".
Mr. Ciolino seems to think the murder was committed by an ugly person and thus the beautiful Amanda with her stellar academic, athletic, hard working background could never have been a part of such a crime. I can't believe a professional investigator would actually state this in public.
Be prepared also for a full blown attack of the ILE investigative tactics with Amanda. Oh wait! Charlie Wilkes already has set the stage for us.
I think SB was right CW popped on this scene for a reason.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
We think it would be good if they would give a full and coherent account of their whereabouts on the night of the crime and of their behavior in the aftermath of discovery. This may be because we have experience of legal cultures like Italy's, where the goal of this kind of investigation is to arrive at the truth.
This is exactly the point on which I part company with you and your friends on this board. You believe the authorities running this investigation are honest public servants who care only about the truth, whatever it might be. I regard that belief as preposterously naive. And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here.
re ILE dumping Patrick for Rudy as the third suspect during the show tonight:
"But now we have another problem (be)cause Amanda don't know him, Raffaele don't know him."
< a brief expalnation that there are no phone records linking AK or RS to Rudy >
"There is no connection, so we have a big problem..."
Really?!? Seems to me Rudy and friends could corroborate this to the contrary.
Kermit wrote:
(This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
I've read everything I could find on the web. Has Mignini told the world his side of the story?
Have been away all day, caught most of the 48 hours program--Very selective with the evidence presented, and Paul C stated his opinion as though it was fact. He repeated Tacopina's defense that good white kids don't commit crimes. Black men do. They neglected to talk about the number of men that Amanda brought home, how much dope she smoked or how much she was in debt to a dealer in Perugia. Handpicking the evidence and stating supposition as fact doesn't convince me of AK's or RS's innocence.
A half-assed attempt at finding truth, a full-out attempt to appeal to white, blue collar Americans. Most those Americans will watch their local news following 48 Hours, go to bed and forget Amanda by tomorrow morning.
The guilt or innocence of the suspects will not be decided in a television program that survives at the pleasure of the ratings, but will instead be decided in a court of law as it should. | #
Watched the 48 hours program--Very selective with the evidence presented, and Paul C stated his opinion as though it was fact. He repeated Tacopina's defense that good white kids don't commit crimes. Black men do. They neglected to talk about the number of men that Amanda brought home, how much dope she smoked or how much she was in debt to a dealer in Perugia. Handpicking the evidence and stating supposition as fact doesn't convince me of AK's or RS's innocence.
A half-assed attempt at finding truth, a full-out attempt to appeal to white, blue collar Americans. Most those Americans will watch their local news following 48 Hours, go to bed and forget Amanda by tomorrow morning.
The guilt or innocence of the suspects will not be decided in a television program that survives at the pleasure of the ratings, but will instead be decided in a court of law as it should be.
Yes a2.
The promo video clips for the show claimed, there were "shocking new details" as to why Amanda implicated PL and confessed to being there that night. Unfortunately no details where shared this evening.
And again Amanda's phone call to her mom was brought up without the full details. Was it before or after the shower? And if her mother did tell her to contact the police immediately why didn't Amanda?
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:20 pm wrote: "And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here."
I think it would be absolutely fantastic if more people took a serious interest in this case and took the time to research the volumes of information that has become available over the past 5 months. You better believe it doesn't add up. We've got 3 suspects telling 3 different stories. Keeping them right where they are is the absolute best thing to do until the truth comes out.
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:24 pm wrote: "I've read everything I could find on the web. Has Mignini told the world his side of the story?"
I believe Mignini's issues are still being handled in the courts so he probably cannot comment on anything. However, the evidence and procedures surrounding the ongoing investigation of the Murder of Meredith Kercher have been reviewed and upheld by Italy's highest court as being valid. There's not much to say beyond that, except to note that this case would go forward with or without Mignini. As with any investigation, theories evolve as evidence is pieced together and none of the 3 suspects can be said to be helping with that task. This is surely contributing to the time factor in getting actual charges filed.
I sat home and watched tonight's "48 Hours" program.
And now I can once again load this site! CHE BELLO!!!!But, now that *I'm* here, where is everyone else?
Helllllooooo?.....
Here are some OTTOMH (Off the top of my head)observations and questions.
First, my impression of P.I. Paul Ciolino...
To sum up, I'd say he's..."Molto fumo e poco arrosto" which in English translates as "Great boast, small roast." Lots of shadow, little substance provided as to the claims of Amanda's innocence. (He also included Raffaele with Amanda's name in every utterance he made about the Italian Investigators (I.I.) railroading of the innocent incarcerated.(I.I)
And, please, someone help this man with his painfully bad grammar!!
1. According to the program, the owner of the "Merlin Club" had banned Rudy from entering his club because RUDY HAD ATTEMPTED TO ROB THE OWNER AT GUNPOINT??? (Is this fact or fiction?) Now that's a biggie, if it is true. Can it be easily verified?
2.FWIW, Paul Ciolino stated there was NO video and NO audio of Amanda's interrogation and signed "confession."
3. There's that "perp walk" footage of Amanda with her wool cap covering her face and most of her head. I couldn't help but notice that in this film, Amanda's hands were rendered out-of-focus by that digitally altered technique....Nicki, what's that term you supplied..? Anyway, what were they trying to hide on AK's hands while in cuffs? (Was AK perhaps giving the photographer the finger???!! Really!--what could it have been that had to be covered up for TV?)
4. They didn't even get Meredith's age right!! They said that Meredith was 20 years old. Why bother verifying those victim details, here,huh?
I mean, after all, the girl's deceased, right?...20?, 21?...23...Yeah, 20 is fine.. Amanda is 20...should be close enough.
The whole program (what a surprise) certainly "invisibilized" the victim. Worse, the closing of the show and Ciolino's words about not wanting Amanda to be "ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM" in this case. How crass and insensitive to the Kercher family and Meredith's friends to make such a statement.
5. With respect to the relationship between Meredith and Amanda: If they were such good friends, why have we yet to see a single photograph of the two girls together? NOT ONE! Isn't that a telling observation to how close and harmonious their relationship was (NOT)?
What few words I actually heard of the Italian words spoken by the police were:
"Non posso scendere nei particolari." (I can't get into specific details"
i.e, the MANY reasons AK and RS are actually being held.
And then he spoke of the "prova regina" (the key proof) but the interpreted audio of the English drowned out the Italian, which was, of course, edited, anyway.
6. The alleged RS shoe print photo(which I had never seen before like this) appeared to be a lot more detailed than I had expected. I'm not a forensics expert, but it sure looked like a good print to me. But, nooooo, says Ciolino--"it's not conclusive." OK, but why isn't it?
7. Too much time was dedicated to Mara the neighbor and the validity of her eyewitness testimony, which, as we know does not make or break this case. But the Average Joe Viewer doesn't know this.
8. I have to say I was genuinely moved by seeing how emotionally devastated Amanda's mother is.
OK, I'll stop now, lest I be cited again (!) for excessive carriage returns. Ciao, ciao
ddude | 04.12.08 - 11:21 pm wrote: "Really?!? Seems to me Rudy and friends could corroborate this to the contrary."
That's right. Perhaps these so-called ace investigators should have taken the time to simply read Rudy's diary where he describes his contacts with Amanda, and then followed up by interviewing Rudy's friends who were present at those times. There would be a problem with that though, since many people in Perugia are simply fed up with these so-called investigators and reporters bugging them, so they refuse to talk about the case to anyone. That does not imply that the evidence does not exist.
Sorry for the double post...my bad.
One more thought on the show.
I got a very strong feeling Amanda's defense is making every effort to stay on VERY good terms with Raffaele's team. Paul C even ended the show with a very pollyanna wish. He wanted to right there and then pick up the poor mistreated "kids" from prison and take them home where they belong, with their parents.
Where the #%^$&%#$ did that interloping sunglasses-wearing smiley face come from in my previous post?!?!?!...suddenly appearing right before my comment that I was genuinely moved by viewing Amanda's mother's emotional pain...
That "smiley" was not intended by me, I don't know how it got there and for the record, do not want it to diminish my sentiment, which was genuine.
Too tired to do so now, but must catch up on the latest posts...
Ooops, there I go again...
Excessive Ellipsis Expressor,
Traduco
Fly by Night wrote:
We've got 3 suspects telling 3 different stories. Keeping them right where they are is the absolute best thing to do until the truth comes out.
Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?
Traduco asked:Where the #%^$&%#$ did that interloping sunglasses-wearing smiley face come from in my previous post?!?!?!.
Traduco, and everyone else -- certain combinations of parentheses and other symbols will just automatically convert to a smiley of one sort or another. Traduco wrote an 8 followed by a right-hand parentheses and it just converted to a stupid smiley with sunglasses.
I edited your post, Trad., to take out the smiley. I agree it was confounding.
Everyone please scroll up to check out my post (also all in bold, so you'll know it's me) about the forum I've started. Please consider using that. If you don't want to go to the trouble to register there, though, feel free to keep the discussion going here. (Note, several people have registered already. I thank them all.)
Thanks,
Steve
Edited By Siteowner
"And, please, someone help this man with his painfully bad grammar!!"
Traduco, a propos Paul Ciolino.
Traduco,
I am afraid he is beyond help.
"This is exactly the point on which I part company with you and your friends on this board. You believe the authorities running this investigation are honest public servants who care only about the truth, whatever it might be. I regard that belief as preposterously naive. And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here.
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:20 pm | #"
I hope the journalists and crime experts you mention, whoever they may be, have done their homework a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight. I can't speak for others on this board, who represent a range of opinions and who together have impressive knowledge of Italian culture, language and criminal process, but I don't think we as individuals are "preposterously" naive. Whoever made this program seems to make that assumption about the average viewer, though. I do agree, however, that inevitably we will see where it goes from here. Why don't your give yourself a handle if you plan to stick around. Anonymous is way overused, everywhere.
Lets all hope the Italian police do their job a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight since they are tasked with the investigation not a mystery show.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I hope the journalists and crime experts you mention, whoever they may be, have done their homework a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight. I can't speak for others on this board, who represent a range of opinions and who together have impressive knowledge of Italian culture, language and criminal process, but I don't think we as individuals are "preposterously" naive.
Indeed I have gotten a lot of useful information from this board. I can see that you and many others here are intelligent people. That is why I am so bewildered that you are willing to assume these Italian investigators, who have been floundering for nearly six months, speculating wildly without arriving at a coherent theory about how and why this crime was committed, are competent people acting in good faith. I can only attribute this credulous streak to a lack of familiarity with normal criminal investigations and police procedures.
I noticed you brought up the Robinson
Why don't your give yourself a handle if you plan to stick around. Anonymous is way overused, everywhere.
My apologies. I posted the comments to which you responded. I am posting from a different computer and I forgot to fill out the form.
I meant to say, I noticed you brought up the Father Robinson case. I assume you know there's a cloud over this case and many people who think Robinson is innocent.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 1:14 am | "Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?
Perhaps you are unaware of the legal situation of the current suspects, given that they are in an Italian judicial process.
Neither they have to prove their innocence right now, nor does the prosecutor have to prove their guilt right now.
No charges have been laid. To prove guilt, a trial has to be underway.
What for an American unfamiliar with European civil law may appear to be legal limbo, is a judicial framework which - since Napoleon's time - never seemed to bother Americans as much as in the last six months.
This situation can last up to a year. For an American 9 time zones away, that may seem abusive. It may seem that the six months that have already gone by is too much. But you make it appear that the only person of interest to you here - Amanda - is getting some treatment that is unique or not applied in general within the Italian judicial processes. I think you'll have to hold off on these complaints until another six months are over.
If you are concerned about this characteristic of legal systems in continental Europe (Italy's system is not the only one), then I suggest you join Amnesty International and work to change a general judicial feature which is not specific to this case. Unless if you don't give two hoots about preventive prison in general, and your only concern is to get Amanda out of jail, but that's a different story.
Come on Charlie. You are a self-described student of other serious crime cases around the world. I wish you would do some serious research here - I was amused the other day when you replied to me when I brought up the possibility that you look into an issue here: Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 8:42 pm | "I wouldn't know where to find out more."). I found what I wanted by googling: Matteini Sollecito.
I think you'll find that even in the USA there are many investigations of serious crime which go well beyond 6 months, and meanwhile the suspects are in jail on the basis of lesser stop-gag charges. You sound like Claude Raines in Casablanca "I'm shocked, SHOCKED"
-
Kermit wrote:
If you are concerned about this characteristic of legal systems in continental Europe (Italy's system is not the only one), then I suggest you join Amnesty International and work to change a general judicial feature which is not specific to this case.
The purpose of my question was not to complain about Italy's legal system but to inquire about Fly by Night's opinion as to where the burden of proof should lie.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 4:14 am | "where the burden of proof should lie."
Save that for the trial. In this, the investigative stage, it would be nice for you to admit that Amanda and Raffaele possess information which could help clear up investigative lines which arise from their conflicting alibis.
As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?.
-
Charlie Boy
What did you think of the show as an intelligent neutral person?
LW
Hi Love Wolf. I think Charlie - who likes to remind persons when they haven't answered his questions - is going to think about the last couple of ones.
I didn't see the CBS report, but from the tenor of our fellow posters here, I didn't get the feeling that there was anything "explosive" about it, one way or the other.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
-
Lets all hope the Italian police do their job a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight since they are tasked with the investigation not a mystery show.
anonymous | 04.13.08 - 2:50 am | #
Anon I think any criticism that you have should be directed to the producers, directors and participants of the mystery show..... Italian police are doing a good job very little help of the lies given by the suspects and all 3 of them are in the right place at this point in time and will remain there until the court case no matter what firestorm the American media try to generate.
Good morning Kermit....
Sitting in bed slugging coffee here in London, cloudy skies with nice pockets of blue skies!
I did not see it but by the sounds it of it did not disappoint regarding what we thought would be in it... very little in the way of content.
What is really strange in all this is that the BRitish media are saying very little, I think the global economy and credit crunch has taken care of that but people in the UK have not forgotten about this case. I think the show on C4 if it is the same rubbish that was on C4 will create uproar and I think they will be naive and stupid to come out with the same c*ap and disrespect for the ONLY innocent victim in this case and her family.
I feel sorry for AK's family... but I think that blind faith could destroy them even more in this case if they are not careful.
LW
I have seen nothing in his posts that leads me to suspect he is purposefully lying to us.
kb | 04.12.08 - 3:50 pm | #
I have to say I was genuinely moved by seeing how emotionally devastated Amanda's mother is.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 12:49 am
I'm with the both of you on this. Though I have the utmost sympathy for Meredith's family, I sympathize with AK's family as well, and would like nothing more than for AK to be proven innocent of any wrong doing with regard to this case. I was brought to tears watching AK's Mother tonight, and I don't think I would have been as saddened if I could believe that AK is innocent. What truly broke my heart was watching Edda, and thinking it's likely her daughter is involved in this, even with as much faith as Edda has that she is not.
Charlie, (or anyone), IMHO, the theory of AK and RS being "railroaded" is a viable one, and those who believe that to be true, are just as entitled to post your opinions as any of the rest of us. Your opinions actually do give me food for thought. Still, as Kermit posted earlier, AK and RS's stories were changing even before the theorized unfair/abusive questioning of AK took place. I cannot for the life of me understand the strange behavior of the two of them in the days immediately following this tragedy, before they were detained. There are just TOO MANY points to be explained in order for them to be totally innocent or, at the very least, void of any information relating to the crime. Assuming we give AK the FULL benefit of doubt on every single point,(i.e.: her "confession" being coerced, the mop, the washing machine, the fresh mixed blood, her inconsistent alibis, lying about or mistaking Lumbumba for RG, the statements from Meredith's friends, etc.)then....
1. Why did RS tell the journalist he and AK had been at a party with friends the night of the murder?
2. Why did RS then tell a different story to the authorities?
3. Why did RS then claim that AK asked him to give her a false alibi?
4. Why did RS claim to have spoken to his father at 11:00 PM on the night of the murder?
5. Why did RS claim that his pot smoking on that day caused his memory loss and he would never smoke pot again because of it? (not really relevant but IMO, another blatant lie).
6. Why would RS admit to the authorities before he was even a suspect, that he had smoked a joint after speaking with his Father (at least I think this was about the time he said he smoked a joint when speaking with ILE), if he was innocent? It seems to me that he would not have shared this piece of information before he was even a suspect, if he was innocent of all events that took place on Nov. 1st. Wouldn't he be afraid to admit to the ILE that he smoked pot (hashish), unless he had something much more to fear than a drug arrest? The fact that he disclosed this so early on sounds to me as if he were already making excuses (can't remember because I smoked a joint) in case he became a suspect.
I'm only prompted to ask these things about RS because Paul C. is of the same opinion as you with regard to the innocence of AK and RS. He obviously believes (as stated at the end of the 48 Hours program) that if AK is innocent, then so must be RS. If that is the case, it has to work both ways. If RS is guilty, then so is AK. How do these statements by RS fit into your theory?
Sorry for the long post. Thank you for your input.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 4:49 am
Kermit, you didn't miss a thing. "Much ado about nothing" is exactly how I would describe it.
Thanks so much for all you contribute to this blog.
Michael | 04.12.08 - 7:30 pm | #
Replies to your questions....
'Where does he see her? why was he there?'
RG sees Meredith while she is walking home from her friends. He is known to hang out in Piazza Grimana playing basketball, it was well known to be his stomping ground. I don't believe it was a pre-arranged date with M as RG wants everyone to believe as per his diary.
'Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? '
I posted a profile of RG after reading his diary. His history is full of abandonment and rejection by his birth mother and later his father. He writes of fairly horrific childhood abuse at the hands of his father. He was unable to maintain a deep and meaningful relationships.
He also was known to lie, he was also known to the police in Perugia. He was in every sense a real lone wolf, a wolf in sheeps clothing. I surmised that Meredith's rejection triggered something inside RG.
'Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts'.. '
The knifing in the Piazza was widely reported in the early days as was the break in at the daycare. Even if these events hadn't been reported, it is not too much of a stretch to have a character like RG carry a knife with him, as he certainly did on this particular occasion. My conjecture stated as fact is no different from yours.
'Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?'
It is in the room where Meredith was murdered, he cleaned most other blood spots from outside the room. The ILE may have other blood traces from him that weren't obvious to the human eye after his clean up. I don't think there is any question about RG's blood or cut hand. He admits it himself, he tried to explain it away in his diary.
'Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her?'
No-one knows the exact details of how long there was between stab wounds. They have been reported as occuring over an up to 30 min period. Within the time frame of one hour to kill M and clean up, it's impossible to account for the exact time allocation to each and every task he did. The end result is that after one hour he had completed all those tasks.
'Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason?'
Maybe those blood drops are mixed RG and M blood and not mixed AK and M blood. Maybe another one of those carefully chopped up select pieces of information they were notorious for leaking ie. It is AK's blood spot on the faucet and mixed blood spots in other parts of the bathroom. The media put together the rest of the story for them in their usual obliging way.
Who knows why RG didn't flush, the fact is he didn't, the important thing is he had to find an excuse for why it was there and he concocted the story of 'strange man rushing in and murdered M'.
'Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?'
He didn't try to stem her bleeding, he has hooked you into his story. He was only taking care of himself, I think it will be mainly RG's blood on those towels (there only seems to be one in the photo's I have seen, but it could have been two).
'He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?'
She has bruise marks around her neck. He may have also tried suffocation, hence the towel/s. I get the impression that she didn't die quickly from the stab wounds and so he used other methods to 'finish her off'.
'Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room?'
He cleans outside of M's room to buy himself some time, it worked intially when AK came in the next morning. No one knows what goes on inside a murderers head and why they make the decisions they do at the time of the crime. We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story.
There's still a lot more questions to answer Michael, I'll try and address them in another post. Long day today.
Stacey...
I like the posting and the angle you are going.
Irrespective of believing AK's story, Raf is the silent one in all this probably with the least evidence and DNA stacked against him at the same time IMHO he is the the loose canon regarding the fact that he had a knife collection, has taken acid and cocaine (according the AK) was a regular user of drugs, had an over protective father, mother committed suicide, I think somewhere was stated that he took drugs for depression....... and IMHO I think he was probably the one that flipped that night. Guede story states this also for what it is worth. AK and Raf need each other to change their alibi's (again) trouble is though if they do they are basically admitting their guilt.... ONly option now is to remain silent say nothing and try and create a media firestorm and discredit evidence (we call this the Charlie Theory!).
Kermit wrote:
Save that for the trial. In this, the investigative stage, it would be nice for you to admit that Amanda and Raffaele possess information which could help clear up investigative lines which arise from their conflicting alibis.
As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?.
Are you suggesting they could resolve inconsistencies that are perplexing the authorities? If so, I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort.
They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | #
Charlie - you are an idiot, have you got nothing better to do on a Sunday like go walk your dog and clean up it's poop?!
Oceania
If it is proven that the washing machine that was running on the morning after the murder contains bloodied soiled clothes of AK and Meredith would you change your theory?
Best regards, LW
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am |"Are you suggesting they could resolve inconsistencies that are perplexing the authorities?"
Blimey, you're catching on.
"... I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort."
My question was posed independently of their legal situation or their legal posture (invoking right to not declare). It is hypothetical. I'll repeat it, if you didn't catch it:
Kermit: "As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?."
Now, please respond to that specific, hypothetical question (I have responded in the past when you have felt I haven't replied to your questions). Thanks.
-
We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story.
There's still a lot more questions to answer Michael, I'll try and address them in another post. Long day today.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | #
Oceania if this is the case where are the cleaning materials and bloodied rags that he created in the 'big clean up'......... when he was seen running from the cottage I do not think he was riding a broom (or a mop) with a bucket on his head?!
If they exist the police would have found them at the scene.. no?
As far as I am aware some of the cleaning materials and rags etc were found at Raf's and are being analysed by forensics.
LW
As some one mentioned yesterday the cleaning materials, mop, rags, bleach bottles / receipts will be key in the case......... if some of this material is found at Raf's place... then the rest as they say is history!
Hi Stacey, Love Wolf, Oceania - good to see you out here with your questions, doubts and opinions. Even if it seems like Charlie and I are pummelling each other, the exercise of going through different points with him is a "Brain Training" sort of activity which is actually positive, at least for me: I have gone back to and dug up old and new stories over the last few days thanks to Charlie.
I can only hope that he does some additional work on the basis of our comments too, and doesn't just cling to the premises that he had when he started here, or at least shows openness for entertaining other scenarios.
As I state at the start of the powerpoint presentations, 1) all scenarios are valid for discussion, and 2) we'll just have to wait for the investigation to end to see the evidence.
-
Kermit,
I see the show did not quite get the desired reaction on Seattle PI regarding its airing....
The feedback blog postings are very interesting!
LW
Stacey wrote:
I'm only prompted to ask these things about RS because Paul C. is of the same opinion as you with regard to the innocence of AK and RS. He obviously believes (as stated at the end of the 48 Hours program) that if AK is innocent, then so must be RS. If that is the case, it has to work both ways. If RS is guilty, then so is AK. How do these statements by RS fit into your theory?
I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other. I also doubt whether we have accurate information with regard to what statements they actually made.
Charlie,
I your last posting was that a yes or a no?
If RS is guilty then is AK guilty?
Irrespective of statements etc.
We are talking about doing the murder not the police statements buddy?!
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I also doubt whether we have accurate information with regard to what statements they actually made."
Are you suggesting that Judge Claudia Matteini introduced false testimony on the part of Amanda and Raffaele in her initial report, which is the ONLY legal document we have access to. (ie., that is NOT news reporting, nor Joe the Sleuth, nor even Paul C.)?
BTW, don't forget about my question ...
-
That would be a serious charge to make against Claudia.
-
Neither Sollecito, nor his father, nor his legal teams have ever complained nor even gotten close to suggesting that he suffered abuse on Nov.5. What do you base your claim on in the case of Raffaele?
Remember that the alibis were already conflicting before Amanda even started declaring on Nov. 5
-
Charlie,
In response to Kermit you can use 'yes or no' it really is quite simple to day and the letters are easy to find on a keyboard....
Regards, LW
Oceania
If it is proven that the washing machine that was running on the morning after the murder contains bloodied soiled clothes of AK and Meredith would you change your theory?
Best regards, LW
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 5:15 am | #
The washing machine is one of those things that could turn out be a completely false story, same as RS googling bleach and blood. Neither RS or AK mentioned the washing machine in their statements of that morning. If it was running when the PP arrived, they couldn't have hidden that fact so would have of course explained that AK had put a load of washing on when she come home earlier or at least tried to explain it or include it in their statements in some way.
It is highly unlikey they would have waited until that late hour in the morning to be washing the victims bloody clothes (and which ones exactly ? as all M's clothes seem to have been found on or around her body, mixed with AK's. And there goes that dreaded bleach again. If they were still 'cleaning up' in the morning, it's reasonable to assume they would have picked up the bloody tissues from outside the cottage, rinsed AK's & M's 'mixed' blood from the tap and flushed the toilet.
However, if the washing machine is proven to be running, it could easily have been done purely circumstantially by AK the next morning. Some of Meredith's clothes may have been placed in the machine at an earlier time and day. AK put her clothes on top and started the machine, the PP happened to arrived as it was finishing its cycle.
The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story.
OT. Funnily enough in a famous murder case in Dunedin, NZ, the entire Bain family was found murdered in their beds early one morning. Only one son remained alive, he was out on his paper run. When the police arrived the washing machine was on its spin cycle and 'you are the only one who deserves to stay' was written on the family computer. David Bain was convicted of the murders but recently released after the Privy Council in London over turned the verdit. Much of that case hinged around that spinning washing machine.
Oceania
My view is that they were cleaning all night (AK and RS) so it was not unreasonable for the machine to be running.
Based on what you are saying if those clothes had blood stains on them then Guede would have put the bloodied clothes in the washing machine on the night of the murder but not bothered turning the machine on....
He sure was the dumbest murderer in history if that was the case!
Also neither Raf or AK has made any reference to AK having put on the washing machine in any story so far. You may want them to include that in any alibi changes gong forward if those clothes were indeed soiled or bleach had been used in the cleaning process.
Best regards LW
My view is that they were cleaning all night (AK and RS) so it was not unreasonable for the machine to be running.
Based on what you are saying if those clothes had blood stains on them then Guede would have put the bloodied clothes in the washing machine on the night of the murder but not bothered turning the machine on....
He sure was the dumbest murderer in history if that was the case!
My view is the cottage was far too small to take that long to clean, considering they didn't even touch M's bedroom. Most murders try and get away as quick as possible. They would have finished their clean well before daybreak and the chance of being 'sprung' by unexpected guests.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s. RG was quite smart up until he started using the internet and Skyping with friends. He could have gone to ground and still be a free man today if his curiosity hadn't got the better of him.
Oceania... You are wrong I am sorry!!
The Police knew it was Guede as they had his prints on record..... They set the trap very quickly and were trying to track him down, they knew he was there that night. Only problem was AK's lies about PL that delayed and confused things.. that was a deliberate ploy by her as she knew Guede was there with her and Raf and she was creating the false trail not Guede.
Oceania - This was a thorough cleaning exercise, not ONE print of AK in her own bloody bedroom.. excuse the pun! Even a professional cleaning team would struggle to achieve that... let alone Guede in the 30 minutes he had to clean a 'small cottage'... of which this was not as evidence was planted along with cleaning all over the cottage....
Oceania,
In Meredith's bedroom there was blood everywhere and if AK did have a nose bleed or had got blood on clothing as a result of the murder or cleaning then the last thing she would have done is put that clothing to be cleaned as the final task of the overnight cleaning exercise.... if any of AK's clothes were in that machine and she signs of Meredith's blood on them would you start to doubt your theory. Or can you explain why (if it is is true) and how AK's clothes with Meredith's blood stains would be in that washing machine?
Yesterday when we were discussing AK's alleged treatment by the ILE, I thought of PL's 'exclusive' story that he sold to one paper. I tried to find it but didn't have any luck, I also couldn't remember which paper ran it. It was a fairly grim account of his treatment at the ILE's hands at the time of his arrest. Does anyone have a link to this story ?
I noted with interest when PL was interviewed by Frank at PS a while back that PL said that story was not correct and that the police had treated him well. But I don't believe that. That was such a well anticipated story the whole world was waitng for, he would have said something a lot sooner if that had been the case. I think him saying something different to Frank was more about his relationship going forward with the Perugian police.
Also of interest is that in spite of the things PL said about AK and her work performance etc, replacing her with M etc. AK was by all accounts still working for him and seemingly on friendly terms right up to the night of the murder.
Also of interest is that in spite of the things PL said about AK and her work performance etc, replacing her with M etc. AK was by all accounts still working for him and seemingly on friendly terms right up to the night of the murder.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:18 am | #
Good question Oceania..... the text message confirmed she was still working for PL and I also would be interested in peoples views... unless he was going to fire her but had not got around to doing the deed.... that is IMHO
LW
Oceania... You are wrong I am sorry!!
The Police knew it was Guede as they had his prints on record..... They set the trap very quickly and were trying to track him down, they knew he was there that night. Only problem was AK's lies about PL that delayed and confused things.. that was a deliberate ploy by her as she knew Guede was there with her and Raf and she was creating the false trail not Guede.
Yes Love Wolf, and I'm happy to meet you half way and say I'm just as wrong as you are !
The police didn't know it was RG until they got the DNA results back, this took some time. The didn't have them before the overnight interogation of AK. Chris Mellas has said that according to a report the family has seen, the police had the black mans hair from M's hand. They saw the txts on AK's phone to PL. CW explains well how she was co-erced into making that damning statement. To my mind this is a very real possibility and it is the possibility I am more inclined to go with. The reason the ILE went to so much expense to provide/back up PL with his alibi was because by that stage they did have the prelim. scientific reports back and knew it was RG and not PL, they knew he had to be released. By that stage AK had already unwittingly been trapped. At this stage I'm more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper. Mignini was under a lot of pressure to close this case extremely quickly and he made a lot of incorrect judgements and assumptions.
Oceania, they had a set of prints within hours and knew there was a 4th person (thinking that PL was the 3rd) it was not DNA but his fingerprints on the pillow and other things. It was mentioned very early on.
She was not co-erced into making out a story involving her holding her hands over her ears, hearing the murder..... that was her own doing and probably does describe the real events if you replace PL name with RS or Guede
Also at this point in time I am not inclined to believe ANYTHING C Mellas (or whoever it is) as like last nights show he is completely one sided regarding the case, the evidence and real events.
Sorry but happy to meet you half way for the time being but I am certain more of thi supposed evidence will actually turn out to be real along with things that you and I and everyone here are not aware of.
The Mignini thing is a red herring and part of the defense strategy... it is easier to persue that to tell their clients to tell the truth.... that is what it is all about Oceania
Regards, LW
Im sure your typing furiously your reply Love Wolf ! and I look forward to reading it, but I will catch up with you tomorrow as it's late here ow. Have a lovely Sunday, if yours is just beginning I can report it was a very good day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1811
From Patrick Lumumba: "She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge," he says.
"By the end, she hated me. But I don't even think she's evil.
To be evil you have to have a soul. "Amanda doesn't. She's empty; dead inside. She's the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant.
I don't believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me for ever"
------------------
For what it's worth, I don't think (and didn't think) that Lumumba was involved after the first few days. But I recall him saying that he had NO IDEA why Amanda would want to frame him. Then when he was released he said she wanted to get her revenge because he was firing her.
Seems to me a pretty good reason for Amanda being hacked off at him, but I wondered why Lumumba hadn't mentioned it from the start.
-----------------
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
Are YOU the one whose deeply held beliefs are threatened, Charlie?
You don't even feel that you should make a response to a high-school debate question of if it is theoretically possible to reconcile or at least understand the differences between two conflicting alibis - ceteris paribus (no legal strategies, no police abuse ...). I think the answer is self evident, and is on a simple logic level that any third-grader (or even younger) would understand.
You're threatened by what might be the next question. Don't worry, there is no next question. Maybe knowing that will alleviate you, and help you answer the question. I'm still waiting.
Look at the posts here. Sometimes we get heated up. There's Love Wolf and Oceania going at it. Two persons who have quite different views on what happened. No one expects them to change their respective gut feelings. But, Love Wolf just said | 04.13.08 - 6:24 am | "Good question Oceania..... the text message confirmed she was still working for PL ..."
And I won't go searching through O88's postings, but she has also recognised issues with scenarios she has described.
Calling different fellow posters "naive" from your pedestal doesn't help your integration in the board. You have lots to contribute. But there's give and take. There's recognising that all scenarios, not just yours, are valid.
-
That was such a well anticipated story the whole world was waiting for, he would have said something a lot sooner if that had been the case.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:18 am |
He stated that the day after the interviews came out, on the TV news and on the Matrix show back in November,
He stated that in countless newspaper interviews in November
He stated that on the Nero su Bianco show in November,
And I could go on and on as to how and where Lumumba declared he has been misquoted, including about him firing AK and hiring MK.
How many times does the poor man have to declare the English press got it wrong before you believe him??
How many times does the poor man have to declare the English press got it wrong before you believe him??
nicki | 04.13.08 - 6:48 am | #
Not as many as AK...
See you tommorow.
Bye Oceania.
-
nicki - that article I provided the link was supposed to be an "exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday"
Did I miss his retractment of it?
Dazed and Confused
-----------
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 6:57 am |
Hi Soozie,
Lumumba immediately retracted the ILE mistreatment and the firing of Amanda both on TV and to the press.
What he really said is that he was not happy with Amanda's performance, and if she had decided to quit he was only going to be happy about it. He also said that he had asked Meredith to work as bartender because he had tried her vodka based cocktail and it was great, but only on one specific upcoming ladies'night when dj, bartender, waitresses would all be females.
Thanks for the clarification nicki. I guess I must have had my ears blocked and eyes shut when that came out. I note that he didn't say he'd fired her, only that he was thinking of firing her. Still, shame on The Mail for such misquoting!!
P.S The other relevant date for more information is due on the 19th April - which is a Saturday?
--------
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | "I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty."
Don't worry Charlie, the pummelling session ended. (Although, I am still waiting for your reply, just as you have waited for mine).
We're back to normal discussion and analysis here.
If you read Matteini's original report and news reports from early November, the focus was on Patrick as a key figure, perhaps / probably even being THE KILLER.
What happened? He seemed initially like the perfect suspect, even better than Amanda: black, immigrant, works in a bar, a musician.
He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime, and say that the investigators are working to frame someone.
-
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 7:26 am |
Yes Soozie, the results of the medical examiners will be discussed in court with the GIP on April 19the. I don't know if there are going to be leaks before that date, it seems that everyone if keeping their mouth shut.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime, and say that the investigators are working to frame someone.
-
Kermit| 04.13.08 - 7:47 am |
-------------
That's a really good point Kermit! They set him FREE, despite the phone-pinging incident and Amanda's claim that he MURDERED Meredith. If anyone was going to be beaten and railroaded into a confession, it would have been him, and yet it wasn't, because his story did not keep changing with the seasons.
I wonder what Charlie Wilkes thinks about that??
nicki - I'm surprised the court is open for business on a Saturday, I figured it would be on a working day.
----------
Nicki, Soozie et al
They probably get paid double time at the weekend so its a nice little earner as Del Boy Trotter would say!
This after all is becoming a nice cash cow for certain people heavily involved which in its self is sad and poor reflection of today's society!
nicki - I'm surprised the court is open for business on a Saturday, I figured it would be on a working day.
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 8:03 am |
Soozie, LW
Courts are opened on Saturdays here (morning), as well as post offices and government offices in general.
PS LW are my initials
Have a nice day you all!
Yeah, me, I'm getting so tired of listening to that crap from Wilkes over and over again, I'm putting him in court today again, "Book'im Danno!"
Such weak arguments, it's like, if he was employed to do a job, he'd go there, open his bag, pull out theme called, ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL, look in his book, 'theme one'; undermining a case, accuse everyone expect those who are going to be on trial and then, never stray from that, until the very last, and when, if the suspects are convicted, and guilt is proved and suspects, all or one or two or even three even admit to their guilt, he'd still say, it is not how it happened.
Yet, I know later, this dummy job Mc Garrett is going to chew and choke on his own baseless non-starter ideas.
See you tommorow.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:52 am | #
________________________________
You are in court soon, accused of condescension and being "The Only One Who Seem To Here, bla bla bla"
the theory of "I know it all" will be tried, you are not obliged to say anything
hopefully that will be the case
I having a sneaky suspicion TLC looks like Detective Colombo with his dirty raincoat....... but is more 'Defective' than 'Detective' regarding his theories....
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 8:28 am | #
________________________________
No, I have two eyes that see, not one blind one
I get the feeling Oceania just posted under Love Wolf's name.
Oopppsss Sorry TLC
That was actually me (LW) but I meant to type Charlie Wilkes not you!!!!
Sorry buddy
LW
more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper. Mignini was under a lot of pressure to close this case extremely quickly and he made a lot of incorrect judgements and assumptions.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:34 am | #
_______________________________
Hilarious statements as usual.
Chris who just makes things worse for Amanda. It is good he is in the states because he is in a right state, coming onto a blog, and giving out all kinds of contradictory info can't be a helpful thing for his step-daughter, who is 13 years younger than he is. More like Chris under pressure.
What Mignini did was not make judgements that is what the courts do, he made the best use of what qwas coming out and as it goes it is absolutely normal for ideas about motives et cetera, to change as a case progresses, when it is vital all of what is known and compiled in is court. What is vital now, to know and understand, is that the investigation had enough information with which to keep these three people safely locked up in jail, safely, for the rest of the world, because they could kill again, whoever it was of the three. And, it may turn out to be all of them.
Saying Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, is the same as saying Guede is innocent.
They are as deep in the proverbial dungheap as he is.
LW
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 8:39 am | #
ha haa, that's funny, I actually thought those people were developing a sense of humour and an ability with wit.
Thought I'd managed to upset oceania so much that she'd reverted to false evidence, as the case goes for steaklling someone elses nickname.
Colombo, I hadn't though of him, he'll have to be introduced,
wid 'im wonky eye,
bookasha, aye,
and that Ali G,
now you says innit,
right, that me Jooly, was
bla bla bla
Having Captain EWilkes defend you would be about as much usew as having Ali G in employment. Give it up fa Mc Garrett Wilkes.
Correction, sounds Chinese what I wrote
What Mignini did was not make judgements, that is what the courts do, he made the best use of what was coming out and as it goes, it is absolutely normal for ideas about motives, et cetera, to change as a case progresses.
The moment it is vital what is said and done is when all of what is known and compiled in is court.
What is vital now, to know and understand, is that the investigation had enough information with which to keep these three people safely locked up in jail.
Safely, for the rest of the world, because they could kill again if released, whoever it was of the three. And, it may turn out to be all of them involved, just like the prosecution realized early on.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s. RG was quite smart up until he started using the internet and Skyping with friends. He could have gone to ground and still be a free man today if his curiosity hadn't got the better of him.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:03 am | #
______________________
Nonsense, of course he would not have been free. The police had his fingerprints already and then when they recovered them on Meredith's pillow, it was only a matter of time.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:03 am | #
________________________________
You are imagining things deary, you can't know that, you are making sweeping statements based on hearsay.
And in the green corner....
introducing speculation and hearsay, we have Baroness Oceania
And in the corner with the light on, we have sound reasoning and facts based on evidence and therefore truth
Ding ding
No low punches though TLC!
The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 5:44 am |
________________________________
Aye, says you, but you do not KNOW.
A lot of bleach was used, it appears according to all accounts, except yours.
Court time will reveal what is needed.
If they are innocent, they will walk, if they are guilty, that will be theend of the talk.
Lurker Boy | 04.13.08 - 9:18 am |
_____________________________
It is entirely reasonable in a murder case if people are undermining the case using character assassination against the prosecution team to then use sarcasm against such people. Because to endlessly undermine a case based on speculation is not fair to the Meredith family and to Meredith. I object to that happening, it's not fair to say things like this case is one where they just want to convict any old one, it is simply untrue that this is what is going on.
TLC....
I am in agreement there was clear evidence of 'bleaching' both at the murder scene and Raf's... and that this will become clearer as the case moves forward.. the cleaning or attempted cleaning will be crucial....
Burst pipe..... load of old codswollop!
KNOX:
The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide?
3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
______________________
Herewith, if it is true she was coaxed and coerced into saying untrue things then she could have left this out about Patrick.
She never changed her story about Patrick right up until there was no other way out, namely, he was released. To me it means she never would have changed her twisted story about Patrick if proceedings had seen him not being believed and especially if she had gotten out of prison, never would she have backed down, I say this then based on what she did and her behaviour. He would have remained in jail and possibly even somehow been jailed for life for a crime he did not commit. If Amanda is guilty of murder to have edone this kind of thing on top of the murder would indicate that she is very sick. If Sollecito is involved, if he took part in the murder he too is wicked, but at least he didn't accuse a person who was entirely uninvolved. To me it points to Amanda being the most wicked in this. Potentially then, because Guede, has, as things stand, potential to be on equal footing with Knox in the wickeness stakes, they may be involved together.
Not much can be counted out as things stand, not until the meat of the evidence id revealed properly in court, the only thing that can, in real terms, be counted out and dismissed, is that all three have been entirely truthful.
Then that apology, was as meaningless as someone saying sorry to you after beating you up and putting you in a coma for six months. It reeked of insincerity.
Burst pipe..... load of old codswollop!
LOVE WOLF | 04.13.08 - 9:38 am | #
________________________________
Hi
Yes, it does seem to go without saying that there is a lot of unrevealed links, evidence, and that the prosecution, in fact, has been building up a strong case all the way along. They've shown themselves to be reasonable, after all, taking in the reality of the case, a girl found with throat cut, and a girl accusing a local, what were they to do? allow Patrick to roam free? if a girl who at first, by all acounts ought to have been trustworthy, said he was there, that is a damning statement from her. if it had been them getting her to say that, for their sake, then they'd have kept him inside, even if they had no evidence, they could have always said, well, we expect to find some evidence in future and our investigation is continuing we are happy with it, she said she saw him go in there, she heard the screams but instead they let the man go.
They let the man go when it became clear to them that she had lied, and that the man they needed to lock up was Guede.
Because she lied, about Patrick, she them gravely indicated, through having done that and more, that she was hiding the truth, and because all of her excuses were so transparent and flimsy, they have continued to see her as being dishonest and have also reasonably, been able to keep her in prison.
Good morning all,
Just wondering if all of you (Traduco, Sparrow, a2, LW, Kermit, TLC, Lurker Boy, Stacey, Rob, damian, and more), are planning to sign up for the other blog Steve Huff started? I just checked and there are 12 signed up now. Skeptical Bystander is the moderator. Steve assures me that we just may prefer it to this format. Since he posted a second time reminding us, maybe we should give it a try.
Perhaps we're just waiting for the hostess to raise her fork?
Sollecito in testimony to police
"She went off about half past ten and I went back to sleep. When she went off Amanda took an empty plastic bag, telling me it was for DIRTY washing.
______________________________
Dirty, notice freshly washed and cleaned clothes, dirty washing.
__________________________________
KNOX
and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths
________________________________
takle back my dirty clothes (to Raffaele's place)
I know all this has been argued out long ago but because Oceania brought it forward arguing about the washing machine running when the Polizia Postale arrived and the reasons for all of that, then here we see that in both statements to the police it is a bag, seemingly with which to transport Amanda's dirty clothes back to Raffaele's house to be washed at his house. The police though, will be able to report in court, facts about whether Raffaele had a washing machine at his home. It seems likely his dad would have gotten him a good one.
May said:Just wondering if all of you (Traduco, Sparrow, a2, LW, Kermit, TLC, Lurker Boy, Stacey, Rob, damian, and more), are planning to sign up for the other blog Steve Huff started?
May -- people are signing up, but not using yet. I did want one thing clear -- this new site is not a blog. I'm not being persnickety so much as just trying to clarify. There are substantial differences in structure, for one thing. The new site is a message board. In a way, it is more democratic than a blog, and the potential for discussion is broader. There are more tools to format your messages and people are perhaps a little freer to establish new topics 'within a topic.' For instance, readers who have been using these open threads could go to the new board and start a new thread in the Kercher discussion forum that just lays out a timeline of the case. Another thread could be used to discuss the diaries of some of the accused. Things can be better broken down and parsed if you wish in message board format. In short, you all would have more control over the flow and organization of the discussion. I'm the board admin and Skep is my first moderator, and we may have to enforce board rules (usually simple netiquette), but short of creating a forum and naming it, all I do is say "discuss" and let you go.
Hope this clarified things a little. These various social media may have marked similarities, but there really are concrete differences between blogging, commenting on blogs, using message boards, etc. The mainstream media, ever reductive to the point of stupidity, has blurred the definitions over time. I'm just stubborn enough to keep trying to correct that, but am not sure I ever will.
Thanks May, for the note to others, by the way. It is much appreciated.
Steve
Thanks Steve for the clarification. When one enters through the kitchen door, often the rules of the house are not so clear...please leave shoes at the door, etc.
thnx,
I can extend the house analogy for you -- the blog is like my home. Comments are where folks visit, perhaps the parlor, and chat. At the end of the day, I should be able to tell them if the party is over and they need to move on. A message board is like a commune, where people can flit in and out at any time, find the niche where their subject is under discussion, and have at it.
And no, using a message board doesn't make you a communist
Thanks again.
Steve
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 1:14 am wrote: "Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?"
The high court of Italy has upheld the evidence and reasoning behind keeping these 3 suspects in jail. Perhaps it is unfortunate that in Italy there is no provision for bail, but who are you or I to argue against the Italian justice system? There is, in fact, a tremendous burden on the prosecution to prove their guilt and if this can't be done these suspects will find their freedom. The suspects don't have to do a thing to try to prove their innocence, and that appears to be exactly what a few of them are doing. The time-line seems to stretch a bit long in Italy, but I do believe that their system is perfectly capable of providing a just outcome.
Fly By
ON BAIL
Ah, but the bail thing.
Though there is no bail system as applied in Britain and USA, if these charges were not so serious, of course in Italy, as in most other developed countries, people accused of crimes do not always have to wait in prison.
It is the level of crime committed that dictates that these people stay in jail.
If there had been a bail option/possibility, these suspects would not have been elligible for it, the severity of the crimes is too great.
Difference is, like Spector in the states, suspected of killing a woman, he was able to get bail, the bail bond (money- though it could have been property, anything worth money even put up by someone else is acceptable) amount was very high.
In this way, it can be argued, if Spector is suspected of such a serious crime but nevertheless could get bail because he had money, is that the most justified system, where money does the talking?
In Italy, it is not the money that dictates procedure.
Money does affect choice of counsel, just as it does in Britain and America, mostly the top lawyers charge unspeakable amounts for their services, services those with enough money are willing to pay if the top lawyer has a big chance of getting a person off.
Luckily, there will always be a certain amount of people who train to learn about law and who value justice above money and also value humanity, it means not all of the best people will work only privately, some will choose to serve those who have no money at all.
On proving innocence
I do not agree entirely with the summation that a person on trial will nbot have to prove innovcence.
If the prosecution starts gaining solid ground in the courtroom then the defence lawyers are going to have to counter attack to go against wha the prosecution has made good, if they don't then the prosecution wins. Point for point.
It the prosecution lays a strong case at the feet of defence then to sit by and say nothing will not help them a lot to get off and released.
If Amanda's story held any credence whatsoever - I imagine she would have been released under house arrest while the investigation continued.
The fact she wasn't probably indicates they have a lot more on her than we know, and perhaps even more than she knows.
------------
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 12:23 pm | #
I second that
After watching Edda state her absolute, 100% belief in her perfect angelic daughter's innocence, I wondered if Amanda's parents have left any room for Amanda to tell the truth. Sometimes as a parent, one needs to give the child permission to tell the truth and that one CAN and WILL accept the truth no matter how painful.
~
Dirty washing, not nice freshly washed and cleaned clothes, dirty washing
______________________
Some of this stuff defies logic.
Like, would Amanda take a bag to pick up DIRTY laundry, only to take the dirty washing back to Raffaele's house, only to take it back later on unwashed to the cottage?
"Perhaps we're just waiting for the hostess to raise her fork?
May | 04.13.08 - 10:28 am | #"
She's still trying to swallow the last fifteen minutes of 48 Hours, the only part she saw, and is finding it very hard to digest.
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
...imagine all the leaked evidence would have had little value had the theory of the crime not been so outlandish.
Thanks to Seattleite for introducing me to that possible angle of the case. Knox appears to be Mignini's ace in the hole.
Pinecone | 04.12.08 - 1:35 am | #
Thanks for the shout out about "ace in the hole"--I guess they basically said that on the 48 Hours program last night but I haven't seen the whole thing, but it's on the DVR.
Yes the theory you proposed back on November 18, 2007 looks more solid to me now than it did then.
I was trying to find out how the disposition of Spezi case was actually handled and what Mignini's part was in that disposition. There is a stray comment I found regarding a person who has a relative who is a "capitano" in the police in Italy that if true is illuminating.
I think this link will work: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...5474799/
#105691
Good luck to all at their new home on Steve's blog.
She's still trying to swallow the last fifteen minutes of 48 Hours, the only part she saw, and is finding it very hard to digest.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 12:50 pm | #
The last part was definitely the most flammatory - there were some attempts to appear to present a balanced perspective earlier in the program. The other, less featured, PI maintained that the evidence certainly raised many questions regarding all of the suspects' guilt. But I can't think of ANYTHING new that was presented in the program. (Unless you count the ridiculous through-the-closed-shutters "interview" of the witness from across the street.)
Why would an innocent suspect keep their mouth shut?
Soozie:
Because the police know how to make innocent people incriminate themselves, and they do so on a regular basis.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 8:47 pm
------------------
Do you have a reason why they failed to get Lumumba to incriminate himself? Bearing in mind Amanda had accused him of killing Meredith while she covered her ears? I can't think of anything more damning than being identified as the murderer, and placed at the scene of the crime killing the victim. Can you? Especially if the accuser is a white American girl and the accused is a black man.
How did the 'bumbling' police screw that up? With all their 'know how' and powers, how did they miss the 'opportunity' to stitch him up when it was presented to them on a plate? This is not rhetorical, I'd actually appreciate your views on that.
------------------
G'Day all! Buona Domenica!
By the way, I say "G'day" to remind myself... to ask everybody. . . is that the correct way to pronounce Rudy's surname? (i.e. Rudy "G'Day?"--as I heard on last night's broadcast. I guess I'd been thinking "Gway'-day" with the emphasis on the first syllable. But, no matter, you say tomato and I say to MAH to...
Next, under the heading of "meglio tardi che mai"....(better later than never)...I wanted to tell **MAY** how much I enjoyed her clever and hilarious "presentation."
And, I agree with the Lupo D'Amore (Love Wolf) that TLC's "screenplays" are a riot! There was one in particular that had me "ridendo a crepapelle"...literally "splitting my skin" from laughter!! (Don't worry, I used some healing lotion and balm to repair that splitting skin of mine.)
Thanks, Steve, for clarifying the interloper smiley. Alas, my wayward typing created that monster.
BTW, where can I find Skeptical Bystander's "blogette?" (or whatever it's called--I just think blogette has a nice French-sounding flavor to it, an homage to Skep!)
OK, now back to everyone's favorite TV program, the "48 Hours" show.
I must ask the group what they think of the charge that part of Rudy's criminal record includes him being banned from the Merlin club for having attempted to rob the bar owner at gunpoint.
How can this possibly be true (i.e., that he was "banned") since by all accounts, he went dancing there the night of the murder!! Furthermore, this is a very serious charge, if true. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding this "incident."
If NOT true, wouldn't that bring Rudy-bashing to a new level of well, libel. It's one thing to say that Rudy is a liar, he's a no-good, drug-using nuisance.
But to broadcast that he's committed ARMED ROBBERY (i.e., use of force with a deadly weapon), if this isn't true, no matter how the defense sees Rudy as a menace to society...it's criminal, it's libel. I know, I know, it's not going to be seen by the Italians...
I've tried to look up any documentation of this alleged earlier "crime", but have not been successful. Of course, my failure to locate information doesn't mean it's not true. But, how DID he enter "MERLIN" that night if he was "banned." I mean, it's not like Rudy would blend easily in a crowded club.
Feedback, anyone?
P.S. Oh, and now I read that Paul Ciolino is a LAWYER, as well as a PI? Ma...scherziamo?!!!??
To answer this:2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
Technically, yes. But I do NOT like that, and will work to weed out people using multiple "hats." The admin has tools on that board that will help. That's all I'll say, so the more determined don't get ideas. If I get someone who's trying to use multiple nicks to make it seem as if they have a great cloud of witnesses backing up their stuff, I'll ban that person.
Steve
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
damian | 04.13.08 - 12:53 pm |
__________________________
I missed that, the translations, like to see them though.
2. That's a good point.
I'll ban that person.
Steve
Steve Huff | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 1:09 pm | #
_________________________________
That is good news Steve.
Just to clarify:
"Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint. "We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things," he says. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...725_page5.shtml
cbs news story:
"Jesuit educated high school girls who are high honors students 18 months ago don’t participate in orgies and homicides."
However, they do have sex with strangers on trains, smoke a lot of dope, and implicate innocent men of murder.
--------------
"But I can't think of ANYTHING new that was presented in the program. (Unless you count the ridiculous through-the-closed-shutters "interview" of the witness from across the street.)
kb | 04.13.08 - 1:00 pm | #"
I was hoping the interview was a low point, and was surprised to hear that the police learned of this witness's statement when it was shown on Italian television, which makes you wonder if her account has any bearing whatsoever on the investigation of this case.
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
damian | 04.13.08 - 12:53 pm | #
damian,
Please post it again. If one is not reading this comment section every single day it is extremely easy to not realize one is reading new material. It definitely was not intentional.
My mother was pick pocketed in Florence by a Gypsy needless to say we ended up at the police station for an interview. The police man who interviewed us spoke very good English but I have no idea how it was interpreted into Italian. We laughed because we had no ideas what we signed. As with every language interruption is in the mind of the one doing the interruption. Even with a full grasp of the English language it is very hard not all words and sayings match. Having said that what language did Amanda sign her statement in. Was it written in Italian or English? It may have been covered here I am new.
damian,
Please post it again. If one is not reading this comment section every single day it is extremely easy to not realize one is reading new material. It definitely was not intentional.
indie | 04.13.08 - 1:33 pm | #
I second that!
Thanks Traduco,
I agree, if a bartender had been threatened at knifepoint I cannot imagine that the barkeeper would not have called the police.
This = hearsay, nothing more.
Character assassination is what it is part of.
At the same time, stereotyping but then absolutely so simple-mindedly so, that it doesn't even bear thinking about, it would mean, that if you fall into and conform to that category of stereotyping, 'like nice girls like that don't do these things', then anyone who wishes to commit crime just needs to go to University, and nobody will ever suspect you when you rob, rape and kill.
I have never heard such preposterous ill-reasoned-out points in my entire life as these nutty theories of nonsense.
Signed
Judge Dread
let em go they're too good looking
"As with every language interruption is in the mind of the one doing the interruption."
Anon
Come again?
You should give yourself a handle. Anonymous posts tend to get ignored. This one caught my eye because I didn't understand it.
I have the feeling Sir Wilkes will not be back.
I may be wrong though.
Still, I keep thinking his presence here was in line with whatever it was on TV
Watched the 48 hour mystery show last night. I was really underwhelmed. Also the first part of the show was like something you would watch on the biography channel. Local girl makes good. Nothing much new. In the second part Paul Ciolino hits on this 14 hr interrogation of Amanda a lot. I was under the impression that she implicated herself well before the 14 hrs. Poor girl, no food, no water(?), hard to imagine going thru that. I’d tell the cops anything they wanted to hear. Just tell me who to implicate.
He sorts of discredited that one witness that was located across the street and heard the screams and footsteps. She may have heard something, maybe not. But it doesn’t seem like the police are banking to much on her. She doesn’t make or break the case. Also PC floats out the idea that Rudy wasn’t allowed back in one of the bars because he threatened a bar tender with a knife. He said he talked to a bar manager. But he doesn’t develop the story, he just tosses it out there. All news to me. Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash. How would he know Meredith had cash. Does anybody over there use checks to pay rent?? I agree with him that Rudy most likely didn’t know Meredith well enough to get in the flat. So how did he get in? PC doesn’t elaborate. From what I know she wasn’t accosted as soon as she walked in the flat, as a surprised robber would do..
If I was new to the case, I would be intrigued enough to find out more about what the investigators had on this girl. And what actually happened that night and more about the victim But I certainly wouldn’t have taken this ‘private I’s word for it. He kind of reminded me of a pushy used car salesman trying to get me to buy an old clunker.
Also does Rudy have TV privileges? He wasn’t particularly wild about the 20/20 show, and what Joe T. said about him. Or maybe they feel Rudy wouldn’t hurt them any more, or they are becoming more and more desperate. Also if CBS wants to give this case more airtime, I’m all for it. Remember, fair and balanced..
Below is a link to an interesting piece on media coverage of the murder. There is discussion of police leaks, sensationalism and ethics.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
gree..._have_ital.html
What I was trying to say since we spoke in English to the police and the police interpreted it on paper in Italian. He did read it to us but I had no idea if that was what he wrote. Word in different languages are used differently and are hard to translate. Like in England they say "the food was brilliant " we would say "the food was delicious" to us brilliant is someone who is smart or something bright. But this does not matter if she wrote her own confession in English and signed it.
Over at the new message board it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case in fewer than 100 lines! Go there and give it a try!
How can this possibly be true (i.e., that he was "banned") since by all accounts, he went dancing there the night of the murder!! Furthermore, this is a very serious charge, if true. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding this "incident."
If NOT true, wouldn't that bring Rudy-bashing to a new level of well, libel. It's one thing to say that Rudy is a liar, he's a no-good, drug-using nuisance.
But to broadcast that he's committed ARMED ROBBERY (i.e., use of force with a deadly weapon), if this isn't true, no matter how the defense sees Rudy as a menace to society...it's criminal, it's libel. I know, I know, it's not going to be seen by the Italians...
I've tried to look up any documentation of this alleged earlier "crime", but have not been successful. Of course, my failure to locate information doesn't mean it's not true. But, how DID he enter "MERLIN" that night if he was "banned." I mean, it's not like Rudy would blend easily in a crowded club.
Feedback, anyone?---Traduco
Buon Giorno, Traduco. So good to see you. You're always a breath of fresh air. Your reasoning is sound. How could Rudy have gone dancing at the Merlin if he was banned? But we also know that in the US, lies are easy to tell, as libel laws are very lax. The idea of telling lies in public is that even if they are proven wrong, so many people remember the lie, and ignore the correction. It doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's planted well. I do Biscotti gets wind of this one, and makes a lot of noise on the Italian side.
That was supposed to say, "I do HOPE Biscotti gets wind of this one..."
"I didn't see the CBS report, but from the tenor of our fellow posters here, I didn't get the feeling that there was anything "explosive" about it, one way or the other.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 4:49 am | #"
Kermit:
Paul C. stated on Monica Guzman's blog (where he had posted an infomercial prior to Saturday night's program) that his pay was not at all ratings dependent. But CBS sure hyped the show, with or without Paul C's help. I saw only the last 15 minutes of the show, and only because my husband made me watch. He was right to do so; we both needed to get an idea of the level and content of the program. Our conclusion? The level was lower than even we expected and no new content. Maybe this week's hype had inured us. As kb pointed out, the interview behind closed shutters was simply ludicrous. And so was the "test" to see if the sound of running footsteps could be heard with the window closed. Finally, Edda Mellas is by now so distraught and weary that putting a camera in front of her seems almost cruel. It is difficult not to be moved by her obvious distress. But as indie pointed out, while it is hard to remain indifferent to that as a human being, you have to wonder if the families of both Knox and Sollecito are not making it more difficult for their adult children. They simply aren't leaving them any wiggle room at all.
Hi Sparrow. According to the papers, RG said he went to Domus and then onto Velvet the night of the murder.
and as indie pointed out, here is a link to the transcript of the 48 hours show:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...725_page5.shtml
indie | 04.13.08 - 1:17 pm | #
Over here it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case up front, maybe they are two cowardly, that or they have simply nothing to say!
By the way how are you Lv2rgu?
I noticed you sometimes only you never say anything
I see, another Amanda is innocent fantatic. lv2rgu I doubt at all that you are doing anyone a favour by posting a link to that so thanks for nothing.
Let em go, they went to college.
damian | 04.13.08 - 2:53 pm |
__________________________________
If it had been true then the barkeeper wouldn't have just let someone threaten him with a knife without doing something about it, I can't see it.
seattleite, try this link to read about the famous Giuttari and Mignini
http://www.cpj.org/protests/
06lt...y19apr06pl.html
No, there wasn't much new on the 48 Hours show, but media coverage has been generally sketchy -- and the investigation might be in the same condition.
I don't know what the police will ultimately put on the table, but as some media sources are now pointing out, there seems to be a lack of resolution on important aspects like the murder weapon, time of death, connections between the suspects and motive.
Evidence being collected late, witnesses who emerge months after the killing and an overall shortage of forensic evidence on Knox and Sollecito give me doubts. Their problems with alibis definitely weighs against them, but one would need to know how the police handled the questioning before accepting that as proof of guilt. We'll see what happens next, but if conclusive evidence exists on the group murder theory, I don't think it's been revealed yet.
daniel mintz | 04.13.08 - 2:12 pm | #
_________________________________
Any journalist that quotes a Daily Mail reporter isn't worth much to me.
The Daily Mail, was owned by people who supported the Nazi's and those people were personal friends of Adolf Hitler, having visited their pal Adolf and Mussolini too, many times.
This journalist was editor of the Sun and The Daily Mirror, the crappiest papers in Britain along with the Mail, he must be very proud of his accomplishments as a journalist.
I found his article uninformed and uninteresting.
He wrote something about the uproar the video of Meredith's corpse caused and the upset to her family, without stating that the video got there, in all likelyhood, through Sollecito's lawyers putting into the TV station's hands.
"Over at the new message board it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case in fewer than 100 lines! Go there and give it a try!
Lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 2:29 pm | #"
I don't think it is easier. And I don't think line length is the best way to judge the content of a post. Some short ones are equally annoying. Thanks for reposting the CBS transcript link, just in case anyone missed it.
One clear bonus is that using multiple handles will be more difficult in the other forum.
Perhaps, rather than saying "easier", I should have pointed out that we don't need to scroll past the post to see who posted it, in order to decide whether to read it. Some posters just go on and on with the same drivel and personal attacks. I choose to look to the ones whose opinion I've come to respect.
"That is why I am so bewildered that you are willing to assume these Italian investigators, who have been floundering for nearly six months, speculating wildly without arriving at a coherent theory about how and why this crime was committed, are competent people acting in good faith. I can only attribute this credulous streak to a lack of familiarity with normal criminal investigations and police procedures."
Perhaps it is because we ARE familiar with criminal investigations and police procedures outside the US, conducted within Napoleonic code-inspired systems, that we do not assume this case IS floundering. I don't know how many other ways to say this: it was announced at the outset that the investigation would take AT LEAST six months and possibly until summer. The PM has been understandably reticent as the investigation is conducted; it would be abnormal otherwise. However, he has noted that the investigation is proceeding. How do you know that these professionals, whose competency and good faith you question, don't already have a pretty good idea of what happened? They aren't showing their hand to US media giants that manufacture true crime stories, and that is as it should be. The matter is pending (pendant); it has not yet been judged. Charges have yet to be filed, so it seems early to get all bent out of shape. If these suspects stand trial, they might even be acquitted. It happens all the time. A case is made; it is debated and rebutted; witnesses are called and evidence is produced; a judgement is rendered.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 3:41 pm
________________
When you say WE you mean you.
Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer about truth who you probably never heard about, you never write anything. I cannot help it if you have no appreciation of literature so why don't you have the guts to say it straight what you mean? I also do not happen to like you, no big deal, you don't like me and I don't like you.
I'll get over it have already and I hope you can.
Seeing as there were several posts asking people to take a look and Steve asking people to write I thought I would, write, and my posts there are short, you have posted nothing.
"Also, I'm not sure the police need or want any information. They seem confident they are holding the right people, and so they must think they have the crime all figured out. Now all they have to do is weather a few publicity squalls until they can present their case in court.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm |#"
Charlie,
This statement seems at odds with your view that the police and investigators haven't got a clue after six months of work.
"They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm | #"
There was no forensic evidence whatsover on Lumumba, so that may also have had something to do with it.
"I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #"
Actually, it was Sollecito père who told police he HAD called his son's land line and spoken to him that night at 11 pm. He had to back-peddle when it transpired that phone records did not support this assertion.
It's funny those who are unable to articulate what they want to say, and then also wanting to defy a legal system and dictate their cut on a case to everyone else, use any old way they can to put that frame-up theory across, but to have the investigation railroaded by this complot theory by people who do not know the first thing about their own laws in their own country is ridiculous, as things go to see them picking holes in a system they have no idea about at all is insane.
Anyone who is able to express points better, they hate it.
Wilkes will not be back now that TV programme came out.
I expect anyhow.
When programmes like that, are about to be released, people like Wilkes seem to pop out of nowhere, say they became interested by something they read, but the truth is, they are momentarily interested as far as they are concerned themselves through their work. They try to get people to see things their way, then with the TV clips themselves, it could swing popular public opinion around, I call that low down dirty tricks.
That's one thing I am not guilty of, getting someone to believe everything I say, to some this whole story has drawn them in on nationalistic grounds not for the value of justice or for any feeling of sorrow for Meredith.
OT. What's your moniker on the message board lv2rgu?
"One clear bonus is that using multiple handles will be more difficult in the other forum."
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 3:32 pm | #
Sorry to trouble you SB, but why will it be more difficult there than it is here?
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm
I suppose it would add nothing for me to mention that I have only popped in at the other site in order to bookmark it and while there, noticed that the handles were to the left of the text, rather than below it, as in this blog. I've not read anything over there.
My interest in this blog is about justice and the murderers being punished, not whether my posts are the most popular. And as a mater of fact, I go out of my way to not divulge which "side" I'm on, but, unlike you, I do not judge.
Here is something about Giuttari, Mignini, and the police. It's a good read.
http://www.cpj.org/protests/
06lt...y19apr06pl.html
damian | 04.13.08 - 4:04 pm |
If I ever post there, it'll remain the same.
I can answer your question Damian -- basically, while people can sneak things by, there are administrative tools available to a message board admin that I don't have with Haloscan. Past that I'd rather not be much more specific. It's no guarantee that the trolls will be caught every time, but it's an improvement. The admin functions for Haloscan are very simple, black & white. People are banned or not. Their posts are published or deleted. You can's specifically ban a certain screen name choice here, or easily ferret out all the posts by one person. Hope that helped.
ETA: The message board has a function that doesn't allow for duplicate screen names. That doesn't exist here. Three different people could post as Damian. If they were all using the same computer, I wouldn't know it.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 4:07 pm | #
______________________
I don't believe you on that you were making a sideways dig at me. That's all there is too it.
Write what you like.
I noticed you were one of those in for the conspiracy against Amanda theme so after that I took you with a dose of salt.
Jus the way it is. I don't like that crap, it isn't helping anything.
That's all there is to it too
I'm going to post the bit about how suspects can be held for up to two years not one.
I think nobody takes it seriously, but it is true.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 4:08 pm |
Over the course of the last few threads we have been inundated with alarmed postings concerning Mignini and the Florence case (about a serial killer who liked to multilate - as in cut off - the sexual organs of his victims).
I personally don't feel it is directly related to how the Perugia crime is being directed by Judge Claudia Matteini, but just in case Mignini is pulling the wool over her eyes, as well as all the judge's who have gone through the three levels of appeal ref. the preventive prison, I would like to ask you (it would be easier to do if you assumed - or reassumed - a moniker) do you have any references to Mignini's perspective on this issue?
It would help obtain a balanced perspective, and not make us feel we are participating in some book promotion a la the spamming of Paul C. to promote the CBS show.
-
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 4:07 pm | #
______________
I would have liked to believe you when you say you are here because you are concerned about justice and getting the murderers but, seeing as how so many people have taken that crap up about Amanda being hit, et cetera, it has pissed me off, that nobody of that theme, does seem to care about Meredith, it is all poor Amanda.
Where I come from, London, people are murdered every day, and brutalized, raped, robbed, but there's no way that I'd be sticking up for any potential crook just because I lived near them or that it was in my town. I hate nationalism, and if these people who keep going on about the prosecutor had real valid lines of reasoning, based on facts I'd take them up on it, and debate it but to debate in response to unfounded catcalling is a waste of time.
Pre-trial detention can be adopted only for crimes for which a sentence of four years or more can be imposed.
The aim of the detention is to allow the prosecuting authority to gather sufficient evidence during the preliminary investigation phase (which can last no more than two years).
Article 303, paragraph 1(a), point 3 in conjunction with article 407, paragraph 2(a), point 4 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure states tha the maximum for pre-trial detention is one year. This one year period runs from the hrearing in which the GIP decides to order pre-trial detention in order to safeguard the investigation and the course of the criminal trial. However, the judge has the authority to grant an extension to the above mentioned period if so rewquested by the PM under certain circumstances, most notably when there are serious precautionary needs.
______________
The suspects, it was said, by the prosecution, that they thought they'd need to detain these suspects for a year, that is why it was reported as "can detain them for up to a year" and the year is the normal amount but in more difficult cases where more people are involved, not specifically this case, the possibility exists to detain a suspect for up to two years.
Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer...
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm | #
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
dashing again,
Sorry, message said error - not sent, and then it did anyway. Hmmm
OT Thanks for the clarification Steve. I'm naive about these things. It never occurred to me that people would post here under different names until Rob pointed it out on Haloscan 1 and 2. It still took me a couple of weeks to believe it, but that person having "a great cloud of witnesses backing up their stuff," was never really a problem for me. It's other stuff that irritates me.
Sorry lvr2gu, I thought you had to sign up to read the message board.
Anyway, if anyone is interested, Mr Maresca said that there was no phone contact between the couple and RG in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder. I thought that was interesting, he didn't have to say that. He also said that he believes a 'disgraziata coincidenza' was key with regard to the motive. He was referring to the crossing of paths between Meredith and AK. Again, I thought that was interesting, he didn't have to say that. Mr Maresca has read Ricciarelli's report.
Damian, what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today? I would love to read it.
Damian, re this post:
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
Kermit
I am not participating in anyway with a book promotion. As I stated earlier my ties are in Italy with family that are involved with the politics in Italy. So many people here trust every word that comes out of the papers I wanted you to see how the journalist in Italy sometimes fear the law makers. Mignini will have his day in court pertaining to this case with Mario Spezi so I guess we will get his perspective then. I personally do feel it is related to how the Perugia crime is being directed the character of this prosecutor comes into play. Just as the character of all those accused. I hope Mignini does bring TRUTH and justice to Meredith's family
"Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer...
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm | #
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
dashing again,
May | 04.13.08 - 4:50 pm | #"
Yes, and May has a good idea about how to go about upgrading the timeline. Now, if we can just find someone willing and able to do it.
It is really very easy to sign up, by the way. Just scroll up to Steve's first post on the subject. Plus, you can complete a profile for yourself and even upload a photo if you like (no obligation).
And best of all, no Anonymous posters.
TLC, I too appreciated it that you brought Chaucer on board, so to speak.
Lv2..."what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today?"
I bought the newspaper, I decided to translate the interview, I posted my translation. It was about a week ago.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 5:04 pm |
I hear you, Anonymous (please, give yourself a moniker!). Obviously I hope that the investigation (and later, trial, if there is one) is carried out to the maximum degree of professionalism, from the Postal Police, to the Homicide Squad, to the forensic teams, to the Prosecutor (Mignini), to the investigating judge (Matteini), the jail guards, and everyone else involved.
I would hope that there are numerous checks and controls in place to identify and act upon unprofessional conduct.
A curiosity, why do you refer to "the character of all those accused" .... as a balance to the reference of "the character of the prosecutor", or because of some negative aspect regarding the suspects (they're actually not "accused" yet)? It's neither here nor there, just wondering.
Please continue posting ...
-
Kermit
In regard to the suspects I feel there has been false information all around. I feel the press really had a free hand in that. Hey it sells papers.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 1:06 pm |
Sei troppo carino!!!hai un modo ironico di porre le cose che mi fa morire
Grazie dei tuoi post, illuminano la giornata (o meglio la notte qui)
sciaoooo
N.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 5:34 pm |
Granted, but the suspects, their families and their lawyers have all participated directly in the circus.
At least we have the original Matteini report, untouched by any intermediary.
PLEASE give yourself a moniker
-
About these 'new' results from the autopsy, the alcohol in the blood, the compatability of the knife, the time of death etc. I believe it was Patrick's lawyers who first asked for this (tod), and then the gip asked for various other things. Does anyone know if the defence team's experts were present when these tests were carried out? If not, I guess they will have to do them again. Does it work like this in the US too?
With regards to the media circus, just a fast general question to anyone who saw the CBS show last night, concerning one of my favourite peeves:
Was any mention made of Joe the Sleuth's "20% Solution"? (that the victim's DNA on Raffaele's knife is only a "20% match"). I just wanted to know if that comment, which made it to newspaper headlines and fuelled many blogs, has vapourised and floated off into the aether.
--------------------
Nope, Damian, not familiar with that, sorry.
-
This, unfortunately, will go on for years. The trial will not be the end of it. After that, there's the appeal and after that there is the Cassazione. It will take between 3 and 6 years. We are in Italy. Just wondering if people were aware of that.
"Lv2..."what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today?"
I bought the newspaper, I decided to translate the interview, I posted my translation. It was about a week ago.
damian | 04.13.08 - 5:13 pm | #"
Lv2:
You can go to the previous thread yourself and reread Damian's post. There's no reason to repost it here or ask Damian to spend time looking for it. Reposting takes up needless space and asking Damian to do the leg work doesn't seem quite right.
I'll make it easy. You will find it here:
"Messaggero article contd...
damian | 04.07.08 - 6:04 pm | #"
"PLEASE give yourself a moniker
-
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 5:41 pm | #"
Kermit:
One, two, three strikes and you're ignored?
"One, two, three strikes and you're ignored?" Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 6:11 pm |
I'm patient, Skep. Baseball batters inevitably have to put on their own shirt with a name. It may be "Jones" or "Slugger", doesn't matter.
-
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 6:10 pm | #
Thanks for that! I had misunderstood and was asking for what I thought was just a link, not a complete repost. Lord knows I wouldn't want to take up needless space here.
Was any mention made of Joe the Sleuth's "20% Solution"? (that the victim's DNA on Raffaele's knife is only a "20% match"). I just wanted to know if that comment, which made it to newspaper headlines and fuelled many blogs, has vapourised and floated off into the aether…….Kermit
The knife was mentioned by Paul C., and all he said was that the cops weren’t even sure if it’s the murder weapon. Nothing about 20% match.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 6:33 pm | "Nothing about 20% match."
Thanks DLW. I suspected as much. I think someone has told Joe the Sleuth to dump boron on that one.
-
Just to bring Damian's piece over to this thread. I was surprised at the time when very few picked up on the inferences to be made from the things Maresca (The Kircher family lawyer) said.
Journalist. "What do you think the motive was for the murder?
Maresca. "I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda. That night, there could have been a triggering element, like, for example, the missing money. Certainly, pieces are still missing from the investaigation, but the essential points ('punti essenziale') are there. 'I riscontri che vengono fatti vanno tutti a rafforzare le indagine svolte fino ad ora'. There are also witness's statements which have been confirmed 'dai riscontri', like, for example the foriegn citizen who saw them the night before the crime was committed. And there are also 'riscontri' to what Rudy has said. I believe the investigation is going very well (stia andando avanti nel migliore dei modi) The Cassazione didn't reject either the 'teorema accusatorio' or the indications of guilt; the three suspects remained in prison."
Help please on the bits I didn't do...esp riscontri, confirm/verify/check??
Damian
Maresca seems to believe that Knox and Sollecito are well involved and that there appears to be at least some confirmation of Rudy's story.
Lord knows I wouldn't want to take up needless space here.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 6:20 pm | #
____________________________________
Indeed, that would be terrible!
Kermit wrote:
Now, please respond to that specific, hypothetical question (I have responded in the past when you have felt I haven't replied to your questions). Thanks.
My short answer is no. I don't believe Knox and Sollecito can contribute to the investigation or improve the investigators' understanding of how and why Meredith was murdered. I think the investigators already know what happened but are lying about it to the public. I also think they know exactly why problems and inconsistencies developed as Knox and Sollecito were interrogated. They separated these people and played them against each other. They told Knox that Sollecito was incriminating her and vice versa. They assured the suspects they would rot in a cell if they didn't tell the investigators what they wanted to hear, or sign the statements put in front of them. This is SOP for lazy cops and the techniques are clearly reflected in Knox's written statement of November 6.
The fundamental disconnect between how you and I view this case is based on the fact that you trust the authorities. You think they are honest people who only want the truth. I think they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway, because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers.
So, I respect your opinion but I think it is wrong, just as you think my opinion is wrong. We will never convince each other because our opinions are based on our much different views of how the world operates, which neither of us is likely to change.
nd after that there is the Cassazione. It will take between 3 and 6 years. We are in Italy. Just wondering if people were aware of that.
damian | 04.13.08 - 6:08 pm | #
_____________________
Yeah usually the Cassationary Court is third step, in this case they'll be saying, Oh no, not you lot again, what's up now, you love us, our coffee our pizza but you slag us Italians off and think we live in caves for the rest, now what can we do you for?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | "I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators ... are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other."
1. If you haven't yet had time to read one of the key documents in this case, you should go through Matteini's original report where it's clear from the time of the first arrests, the focus was on Patrick as a key figure, perhaps / probably even being THE KILLER.
What happened? He seemed initially like the perfect suspect, even better than Amanda: black, immigrant, works in a bar, a part-time musician. He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Instead of trying to "build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty", (paraphrasing what you state in your post), the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime and say that the investigators are working to frame someone. If they clearly didn't do it in the case of Patrick, the perfect suspect, then how can you suggest that the ILE is trying to frame Amanda and Raffaele?
2. How can you call us naive and suggest that Raffaele was coerced or abused inappropriately on November 5? At no point has there been any suggestion that between the crime and the end of his questioning on Nov. 5 was there any mistreatment. His father and his team are theatrical experts, they are on all the Italian talk shows, and while they have talked about wild and crazy things like the victim and Amanda sharing bras, they haven't come anywhere near suggesting abuse of Raffaele or coercion to extract from him a change in his alibi before or during his Nov. 5 questioning.
I can understand your concern with this issue, as it neutralises the complaint that Amanda was physically or psychologically abused. If she was, that is a process which should follow its own course, and if there is any doubt about the value of her declaration on the night of Nov.5-6, then let's throw it out ... but even if it is thrown out, Amanda still has a problem, as her alibi was already openly at odds with Raffaele's before her Nov. 5 questioning began.
-
TLC, I too appreciated it that you brought Chaucer on board, so to speak.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 5:13 pm
______________________________
Thanks Skep, I really did mean it with a good heart in memory of Meredith, and to raise our sense of dignity up, I thought it was fitting, thanks again.
May
Ooops sorry, my apologies, I didn't intend calling you nobody, I did read and respond to you as you may have seen, sorry, correction, was tired (in Italian from Napoli tired = Stan Getz = stanco) three of us had posted four including Steve.
May wrote:
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
Kermit wrote:
He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes:
I don't believe Knox and Sollecito can contribute to the investigation or improve the investigators' understanding of how and why Meredith was murdered.
Maresca, the Kercher's lawyer:
"I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda. That night, there could have been a triggering element, like, for example, the missing money. Certainly, pieces are still missing from the investaigation, but the essential points ('punti essenziale') are there.
Wilkes wrore:
1/ The fundamental disconnect between how you and I view this case is based on the fact that you trust the authorities.
2/ You think they are honest people who only want the truth.
3/ a) I think they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway,
b) because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers.
__________________________________________
That is such a misrepresentation by you, of what Kermit MAY believe, just because in this case he trusts that it is all going according to how it ought to, does not mean you have any right to decide for him what his opinion is on whether people in positions of authority are always honest, he may have been hit by a cop himself, or mistreated somewhere, your point is of no value at all because you are making up stuff about someone else and generalizing with sweeping statemnents based on assumption and an ignorance of factual knowledge. First the authorities and now Kermit.
Simply bullshit sorry Wilkes, you will need to do far better.
1/ Untrue
2/ Yes, he may well do, at least until there is a valid reason to believe that this is a wrong idea.
3/ Your number 3 makes me want to puke for the cheapness and bad smell of it.
a) Simply untrue and based on your unfair and warped idea based not on fact but a will to say that this case is a frame-up
b) that is utter nonsense, nothing anywhere says that would be the case
"It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm | #"
And yet, there is apparently at least one witness who saw and spoke to Knox outside the apartment where she was allegedly holed up. And Sollecito has written that after leaving the cottage at 6pm, he and Knox went into town for two hours and hung out before she left him to hang out with friends at Le Chic. Surely they were seen by at least one person who might have come forward to vouch for them if in fact they went into town. In fact, both have stated and written that they don't really remember what they were doing that night, so how can they know whether they were at the apartment or elsewhere, alone or together? Sollecito in particular will have a problem finding his way back to Amanda as alibi because he has denounced her so categorically. And she will have a problem if the evidence places him at the crime scene. So far, this evidence has been contested ONLY via the press by Sollecito's defense team, which I have read is fairly standard practice in Italy. In fact, it will ONLY really stand or fall once it is presented for consideration in a court of law.
What I wonder if whether the memory lapses they both appear to have suffered from will turn out to be temporary or permanent. I think this will prove to be of critical importance in the case.
It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm | #
___________________
Untrue, as most or all of your ideas are, sadly.
If they had been at home, then they may have picked up a phone, you don't know but maybe Solecito had a landline phone as well and if, as Amanda says, they were home all evening as well as night, then there was a chance they'd have had their mobile phones on, instead of turning them off for so long.
Then maybe what Sollecito senior had said about talking with his son at 11 at night would have been true as it is, it shows that not only son-love is a liar but daddio as well.
If they had really been at home and Soll had been on the computer so long then that too would have been evidence wouldnt'it, as it is, they found up until now no evidence of a person having been online at the times Soll said he had been online.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other
___________________
Millionth time
Yes okay Wilkes but if that is so why the fook does Sollecito not say that was the case, only you say that, about him, not even he says it, don't you see how lame your conjecture is?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm|
Charlie, they had conflicting alibis before Amanda started her questioning on Nov. 5. Do you now agree that Raffaele wasn't abused or mishandled inappropriately? Jeepers, as long as the cops don't beat him up, it's their job to ask probing questions that might give way to contradictions, isn't it? And, in fact, there were contradictions. Is that sinister? You make it sound like SOP should from now on exclude asking if one has an alibi, then looking into inconsistencies. That's basic cop work.
Of course Amanda and Raffaele don't have witnesses who can confirm they were in the privacy of Raffaele's flat, because, as Skep said, there are witnesses who say they weren't there.
Regarding Mignini, you seem to say that he only tries to frame people who don't have witnesses backing their alibis.
Alibis are important. Very important. The problem, I don't think is that Amanda and Raffaele contradicted themselves in any of the basic points they may have agreed in their initial common alibi. Alibis fall apart not because cops getting you to denounce your girlfriend or boyfriend, nor because of what's there, but because of what's not there: new details that the suspects didn't think about how to deal with. (She: "Yikes, I forgot to tell him I bumped into Jovanovic". He: "Momma mia, didn't I tell her to ditch the knife in the dumpster?")
((Those are hypothetical examples. Also, I have no idea of if Amanda and Raffaele went over their alibis together ... although even in the most innocent scenario, it would have been normal for them - at the end of the day on Nov.2 - to have gone over what the ILE had asked, and how they replied)).
-
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This statement seems at odds with your view that the police and investigators haven't got a clue after six months of work.
I said they're floundering, not that they don't have a clue. In my opinion, they know what happened. But they got ahead of the evidence when they were preening for the media last fall, and now it's too late to climb down without losing face and damaging their careers. So they are struggling to come up with a narrative that will somehow implicate three people in a straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator.
Many who post here are concerned about inconsistencies and changes in the statements made by suspects last fall. But no one seems bothered by the fact that the police have radically changed their theory with regard to how and why this crime happened. It's no longer a sex orgy turned deadly... now it's some kind of robbery scenario.
But either way, they don't offer much detail, do they? They're throwing out all these circumstantial tidbits to implicate Knox and Sollecito -- supposed bleach receipts indicating a cleanup, supposed tiny fragments of victim DNA on a knife in Sollecito's apartment, hints that Knox owed money to a drug dealer -- but they can't come up with a narrative that makes sense.
Nor can anyone here I have noticed.
Your explanation of Rudy throwing the rock through the window didn't really convince many of us.
-
You know, this with Mr Wilkes, with all respect (mmmmnn) er, what world are we living in here?
Anyone who knows anything knows that even if a person, even me dear ol'mam, is pulled up by the cops they don't pass a bunch of flowers first and then say well if you don't want to answer our questions, you don't have to, still, you did just nearly run that little old man over at the crossing, never mind.
Bankrobber: hit the floor muthaf---
Cops: I say, I saw you do that you baddy, would you mind coming out with your hands up, please do not try anything funny or my colleague will give you one of her Chinese burns. We also happen to have a very fierce dog. Rocky gettem.
A small chihuahua runs out shivering,
Dog: Roof, roof, ruuuf, dressed in his best little jacket of velvet tartan with police written on it both sides.
Ah says the cops the dog says they're up on the roof. Much like the Captain's theories skywards.
Charlie Wilkes:
But either way, they don't offer much detail, do they?
And why should they?
This is still an ongoing investigation.
"But no one seems bothered by the fact that the police have radically changed their theory with regard to how and why this crime happened."
If they were unable to do that, then they would be guilty of what you suspect them of, i.e. to quote your post above: "they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway, because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers."
I think the circular reasoning on display here is the main reason I disagree so profoundly with what you say here. That and your description of the investigators as "preening" last fall. I have seen a lot of preening, but not from that corner.
All who are on board:
I'm off for the evening. I have a lot of work to catch up on.
Mr Wilkes public enemy nr.1
Darn, did you ever get lost in Disneyland as a kid and instead of looking for you your parents said, "Thank f-- fa that, let's go Martha?"
Bye Skep.
-
Charlie, just a thought regarding witnesses who claim that Amanda wasn't in Raffaele's flat during the evening of Nov. 1. .... in addition to Jovanovic, the 60 year old man, the driver, etc., the number one witness if Raffaele himself.
It's kind of hard for Amanda to place herself there, if Raffaele, the person whose flat she says she was in, says she wasn't there.
Any thoughts on that, other than "they beat him up in ways he never realised were so dastardly"?
-
Night Skep
straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator
_______________________________
These are the exact words of Doug Preston, come on, who are you? I can reproduce those words he wrote, and you just did here, word for word, I think you are him.
Wilkes wrote
It's no longer a sex orgy turned deadly... now it's some kind of robbery scenario.
_________________________________
It is not, that is what you are making of it, it is a selection of concurrent events that led to Meredith being murdered so no one part is alone responsible.
You are saying stuff for others who have not even stated exactly what their case is yet. The prosecution has said no such thing, such as, it is a pure robbery case.
You are not very good at whatever it is you do are you.
What I wonder if whether the memory lapses they both appear to have suffered from will turn out to be temporary or permanent. I think this will prove to be of critical importance in the case.
If they had witnesses who could put them somewhere else at the time of the murder, which Lumumba does have, I think they'd have told the authorities about it, and their situation would be much different.
More Maresca courtesy of Damian:
"What are the facts of the investigation?
Maresca. "Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith. Raffaelle and Amanda's presence in the house the evening the crime was committed ('nella casa la sera del delitto'). Also, something which is rarely considered, is the contradictory behaviour ('comportamenti contadditori') of Raffaele and Amanda during the first days that the police interviewed them. (before they were arrested d) These are also serious indications of guilt. As the tribunale del riesame stated, the role that the 3 suspects had in the crime is yet to be ascertained, their positions are yet to be clarified. It's true for example, that there was no contact ('non ci sono stati contatti'. for me he's talking phone contact. It's inferred for me. d) between the couple and Rudy neither in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder."
Kermit wrote:
Charlie, just a thought regarding witnesses who claim that Amanda wasn't in Raffaele's flat during the evening of Nov. 1. .... in addition to Jovanovic, the 60 year old man, the driver, etc., the number one witness if Raffaele himself.
Exactly my point. The only witness who can confirm the suspect's alibi is another suspect. Lumumba didn't have that problem.
It's kind of hard for Amanda to place herself there, if Raffaele, the person whose flat she says she was in, says she wasn't there.
He did at first. Why do you suppose he changed his story, assuming he did?
TLC wrote:
"If it had been true then the barkeeper wouldn't have just let someone threaten him with a knife without doing something about it, I can't see it."
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:24 pm | #
TRADUCO responds:
Precisely.
And as SPARROW reminds us:
"The idea of telling lies in public is that even if they are proven wrong, so many people remember the lie, and ignore the correction. It doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's planted well."
It's all subliminal, or as George W. says, it's "sub-lim-inable."
BUT- what I found REALLY jarring in that segment was hearing this report that Rudy had been attempting to rob the bar NOT with a knife, but "AT GUNPOINT".. We've heard that Rudy has been found carrying around a knife. That's not news.
But, now he possesses/had possessed a GUN?! And this alleged act of intimidation with a deadly weapon merely warrants the owner barring him from returning. I don't think so!
Which would beg the question, where did Rudy acquire said gun?
Hmmmm...Ya think maybe he might have "borrowed" one from Papa Sollecito's vast gun collection? !(Remember, of course, that Raffaele has got the knife collection, Papa Sollecito has got the gun collection, Nonno Sollecito had the venomous snake collection, the Bisnonno had ... )
Kermit wrote:
Regarding Mignini, you seem to say that he only tries to frame people who don't have witnesses backing their alibis
Of course. Police frameups always involve people who can't prove an alibi. Otherwise the frameups don't work. Read about a few cases and you'll see what I mean.
Alibis fall apart not because cops getting you to denounce your girlfriend or boyfriend, nor because of what's there, but because of what's not there:
Believe whatever you want. As I have already said, we aren't going to agree on this because we have fundamentally different views of how the world operates.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 8:24 pm |
____________________________
Hi Traduco,
Yes, I do not believe that for a moment about Guede holding a barman up with a gun. I've lived in Italy too, and I know the way things go, if that had happened aftewrwards the guy would have called the police especially because he'd have known Guede, like the tourist guide did too.
Well, Sollecito's dad, to me seems like not an upstanding citizen but a liar too, I mean, saying to police he'd spoken to his somn on the phone on the night of the murder then after tests were carried out it turning out to be the case that he had in fact called but there had been no connection, the phone had not been answered, yes, because they also determined both phones had been turned of simultaneously in the early evening.
I mean, the prosecution has not brought out a whole statement of what they think happened, not at all, so anyone who says they know what the prosecution has or thinks exactly, is talking rubbish.
Are you in Italy Traduco?
You can't help noticing:
Il Messaggero Umbria. 7April.2008
Journalists Carmignani Ugolini
"Until a few days ago, the Kercher family was in silence, closed in their pain, with just the hope that their daughter could at least have justice. Then, the violation, the footage transmitted by a private tv company from Bari. The news that Meredith was drunk (without doubting the fact that mistakes may have been made in the analysis of the blood sample taken from the victim), and the pain has turned to anger. A sense of desecration, of respect being trodden on (respetto calpestato. Meredith Kercher's family have spoken out, and they've done so through their lawyer, Francesco Maresca, because "there's a clear attempt to discredit Meredith, and this goes completely agaisnt the truth."
My translation of the article.
damian | 04.07.08 - 4:28 pm | #
A Google search for "Meredith Kercher" sorted by date on Italian news gives the most recent entry:
Immagini Meredith, Ordine dei giornalisti avvia procedimento ...
BariLive.it - 8 apr 2008
... in cui furono mandate in onda le immagini del cadavere di Meredith Kercher (girate dalla polizia scientifica a Perugia la sera del ritrovamento della ...
Francesco Maresca: "You have been warned!"
Believe whatever you want. As I have already said, we aren't going to agree on this because we have fundamentally different views of how the world operates.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 8:31 p
_______________________
You do seem to talk out of your posterior Wilkes.
How do you know where Kermit lived, where he was born, what things he has done, whether he has lived in all kinds of places and seen all types of people, you just don't know, it is not a question of what you say it is, that you have different views on the world, it is that you are not a true thinker, you get an idea in your brain then you are like a lump of concrete, like a mule stuck in clay ground, stubborn and unable to reason, you are like someone spewing out words like grey lava of dogma that smothers all colour and signs of life.
BUT- what I found REALLY jarring in that segment was hearing this report that Rudy had been attempting to rob the bar NOT with a knife, but "AT GUNPOINT"..
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 8:24 pm |
He attempted to rob the bartender at KNIFEPOINT.
Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...725_page5.shtml
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 7:01 pm
re Damian's translation
Yes, and I was struck by another point too :
Maresca seems to know that the Albanian witness's testimony has been checked and found trustworthy.
("There are also witness's statements which have been confirmed by evidence ('dai riscontri'), like, for example the foreign citizen who saw them the night before the crime was committed.")
Now, Maresca is the Kerchers' lawyer, and I think he cannot be suspected of any bias or 'idée fixe' -- unlike some defense lawyers (and at least one unpaid and unacknowledged consultant) I could name !
Charlie, sometimes it's hard to engage you because one may get the feeling that you're ducking and bobbing and weaving.
For example, at times you direct all of your criticism of Amanda's current situation (it appears you are quite concerned about her) towards Prosecutor Mignini and his evil tactics. Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
At other times, like now, you start talking about the ways the world operates, about how in cases like this, certainly things inevitably happen (whoever the prosecutor may be).
At some moments alibis are important, at other moments they aren't. At some moments the ILE in this Perugia case are a farce because they're taking six months for a "straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator"
(BTW, can you confirm / deny TLC's statement that you are Douglas Preston ... that's how rumours start)
And at other times you say they already have the investigation wrapped up. At times your focus is on Amanda, at other times on Amanda and Raffaele.
The only thing that is clear is that you have a critical view of Amanda's situation, but some of your angles of analysis are at odds with other angles you take at times.
Sorry, I'm off to bed, will see your reply in the morning...
-
NICKI HA SCRITTO:
Sei troppo carino!!!hai un modo ironico di porre le cose che mi fa morire
Grazie dei tuoi post, illuminano la giornata (o meglio la notte qui)
sciaoooo
N.
nicki | 04.13.08 - 5:35 pm | #
TRADUCO RISPONDE:
Ti ringrazio, cara! Ehhh..Ci vuole un pizzico di ironia per poter affrontare certe cose, vero? Comunque, mi fa piacere che io possa averti dato in qualche modo un po' d'illuminazione--cosi`facendo ti faccio risparmiare un po' sulla tua bolletta della luce?!!
Ma,sul serio--Complimenti a TE! Hai dimostrato qui, come la nostra amica Sparrow, di essere molto in gamba, informatissima e svelta. Sogni d'oro, Nicki, sono le 3,55 orario milanese in questo momento...zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry for "ide fixe". Accented letters seem to disappear into thin air. I should have typed 'idee fixe'.
--
Pinecone | 04.13.08 - 8:43 pm
at KNIFEpoint : yes, that is what I heard on the radio programme.
So let no one get excited about this. No gun.
If I were to read between the lines of Maresca's interview:
I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda...
And there are also 'riscontri' (confirmations??) to what Rudy has said. I believe the investigation is going very well...
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith...something which is rarely considered, is the contradictory behaviour ('comportamenti contadditori') of Raffaele and Amanda during the first days that the police interviewed them. (before they were arrested d) These are also serious indications of guilt...
It's true for example, that there was no contact ('non ci sono stati contatti'. for me he's talking phone contact. It's inferred for me. d) between the couple and Rudy neither in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder.
This from a man who has no interest except in representing the position of the victim and her family in ensuring a correct outcome to this investigation.
A man who has also been privy to all relevant documents, statements, witness statements, court documents etc. etc. and has been present at the various court proceedings.
I'd say that man was pointing a finger at Amanda and Raffaele far more than he was pointing a finger at Rudy.
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 9:03 pm |
Exactly !
Pinecone:
My bad. Thanks for the correction!
Perhaps it's time for me to invest in a hearing aide!
OT Thanks for the clarification Steve. I'm naive about these things. It never occurred to me that people would post here under different names until Rob pointed it out on Haloscan 1 and 2.---Damian
OT: Sometimes they use different computers too, so they wouldn't be detected in the way Steve mentioned. Oh well, we have to live with devils sometimes.
Damian, thanks for the correction regarding the discos at which Rudy danced that night. A strange development of my following this story, is that I get excited at the idea of Biscotti getting excited. I hope you're laughing now. Anyway you slice it, we should find out if this story about the attempted robbery is true or false.
"Anyway you slice it, we should find out if this story about the attempted robbery is true or false.
Sparrow | 04.13.08 - 9:32 pm | #"
I'm working on that right now. Can someone who actually saw this part of the show tell me if Ciolino reported the conversation with the bartender or if the bartender actually recounted it on camera?
I'm working on that right now. Can someone who actually saw this part of the show tell me if Ciolino reported the conversation with the bartender or if the bartender actually recounted it on camera?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 9:39 pm | #
He reported it-- no interview. Hot air, maybe? And didn't mention a source...
SB
He said he talked to the bar owner.
"He reported it-- no interview. Hot air, maybe? And didn't mention a source...
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 9:44 pm |#"
Thanks! That helps. I'm trying to find a local source or confirmation for it.
My bad, he did source it:
Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint. "We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things," he says.
Thanks to both of you for that.
So we have a source, given by Ciolino himself, but no confirmation and no face on camera, no name, no direct quotes.
Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?
From Rudy's diary page 16:
I often saw Meredith at the Merlin and spoke to her...
It wouldn't appear that he was banned.
He was well-known in the student community and frequented the Merlin bar where Kercher was known to go, according to media reports...
ABC News - Nov. 19, 2007
A local barman confirmed seeing Guede walking in Perugia on October 31, the night before her death. Police have been showing a photograph of Guede around Perugia bars in recent days.
Pasquale Alessi, the co-owner of the city's Merlin pub, said Guede was a frequent visitor to the Domus nightclub in Perugia, where Kercher danced the night before she was killed...
The Guardian - 19th November
Knox said she had arranged to meet Diya on the night of the killing via text and he had told Meredith they wanted to "have some fun". She added: "Patrick wanted her.
I get the feeling this "have some fun"
might have been what Amanda told to Meredith.
Meredith's boyfriend, on the one hand, said that he wasn't sure abot leaving to visit his family for that short holiday, but, Meredith had assured him it was okay and that she would wait for him.
On the other hand, he said, that they felt things for each other but then described it as though they were both quite free. He said he wasn't jealous at all even though he was fond of Meredith.
This is the only way, I can see a possibility of something consensual between Meredith and Guede happening being reality.
I mean, if it wasn't exactly the case that Meredith and Guede were boyfriend and girlfriend. Yet, seeing as how Meredith's friends will know whether or not Meredith really was with Giacomo Silenzi, then, in a way it's mad to think of a theory, where Meredith did willingly see Guede, if later anyway, the girls, Meredith's friends, are going to quite plainly state, no, definitely, Meredith was crazy about Giacomo and didn't stop talking about him. Or things like that.
But if it was, as Giacomo said, that they were loose, and he wouldn't have been jealous he had not claimed her, and Meredith did see Guede, the possibility exists that Amanda went off her head with jealousy, or she set Meredith up with Guede but then Guede went all too far, too quick.
Seeing as how, even if she liked Guede, she took two weeks of knowing Giacomo before having a kiss.
Which to me sounds nice, loving, romantic, not cheap, not promiscuous.
The scene where it is Amanda telling Meredith that they just want to have some fun would be with Sollecito not there, and Amanda arriving to the cottage with Guede.
Then something going on between the three of them, like Amanda getting enraged, that's how she looks to me, not tearful but very angry in her eye, eye not eyes. She looks livid in the moments when the Polizia Postale had arrived. Like someone who'd had a fight would be, not be always so fast to feel any compassion or anything much for the one the fight was with.
Anoher idea is Amanda and Guede being in the cottage and Guede having stolen Meredith's money.
Meredith arriving later but joining in the social chat, eating a little a glas of wine, and later finding her money gone. Meredith would never have instantly accused Guede, even if she thought he'd done it, because Amanda was responsible for having brought him into the house.
That might have been where the movements in that house slid into insanity.
I can't see it being that Meredith was with Guede in her room then Amanda got jealous of Meredith.
This
"have some fun
bit seems to strike a cord.
It was stupid
Want to have some fun
He wanted her
Bits like that strike me as being real but used in a setting that is fake, not the way it happened.
The barman saying Guede robbed him with a knife, sounds like a made up story like a rascist would use, whilst not having reported it, and not having said a thing up until now. I think unimportant of no value just more bull put in to lead away from staying focussed on the things that are important.
Kermit wrote:
Charlie, sometimes it's hard to engage you because one may get the feeling that you're ducking and bobbing and weaving.
For example, at times you direct all of your criticism of Amanda's current situation (it appears you are quite concerned about her) towards Prosecutor Mignini and his evil tactics. Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
I've never put it that way.
I think Mignini is a problem. But at this point a number of people have signed off on the theory that three people were involved in this murder. If they release Knox and Sollecito now without charging them, they'll all look foolish. They have a shared interest in railroading these two. And they won't let go without a fight.
The Jeanine Nicarico case was like this, if you care to read about it. Half a dozen cops and prosecutors fought tooth and nail to keep the wrong guys behind bars for years, even after DNA evidence proved their innocence, even after the real killer confessed and was proven guilty by DNA evidence, and despite public outrage and a steady rain of fire and brimstone from the Chicago Tribune.
At other times, like now, you start talking about the ways the world operates, about how in cases like this, certainly things inevitably happen (whoever the prosecutor may be).
My point is that we don't agree and I don't think that will change.
At some moments alibis are important, at other moments they aren't.
Whether alibis matter depends on the cicrumstances. All (or almost all) people who can prove their alibis are innocent, but not all people who cannot prove their alibis are guilty.
At some moments the ILE in this Perugia case are a farce because they're taking six months for a "straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator"
(BTW, can you confirm / deny TLC's statement that you are Douglas Preston ... that's how rumours start)
I am not Douglas Preston, nor do I know him, nor had I ever heard of him until I read Candace Dempsey's interview.
And at other times you say they already have the investigation wrapped up.
I think they know what happened, but I don't think the investigation is wrapped up. They still have to coach witnesses, teach them how to perjure themselves without getting caught, etc. etc. It takes a lot of work to get an innocent person convicted of murder.
At times your focus is on Amanda, at other times on Amanda and Raffaele.
The only thing that is clear is that you have a critical view of Amanda's situation, but some of your angles of analysis are at odds with other angles you take at times.
You need to be more specific if you want a meaningful response.
Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?……..SB
A former student (from America) and now working in Perugia; said that Rudy danced on a table during a party, and would sometimes be harassing girls.
Meredith arriving later but joining in the social chat, eating, drinking a little a glas of wine, and later finding her money gone. Meredith would never have instantly accused Guede, even if she thought he'd done it, because Amanda was responsible for having brought him into the house.
said that Rudy danced on a table during a party
_________________________
The amount of criminals I know then based on that
"Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?……..SB
A former student (from America) and now working in Perugia; said that Rudy danced on a table during a party, and would sometimes be harassing girls.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 10:19 pm | #"
Would that be Zach Nowak, the recently published crime novel author?
Charlie Wilkes:
They still have to coach witnesses, teach them how to perjure themselves without getting caught
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
Many places only allow what they call court familiarisation. ie. they are prepared for the process and actuality of giving evidence in court but not on the content of their evidence. I've known judges in the UK throw out witnesses who they consider have been coached.
Would that be Zach Nowak, the recently published crime novel author?......SB
No, it was some African American young man named Nathan. He also spoke very highly of Patrick.
I posted this character assessment of Rudy, which was published in the International Herald Tribune on November 20, 2007:
"Kevin Massoletti, 20, a junior at the University of Oregon who knew Guede when he was studying in Perugia last summer, said he never saw any drug use or selling. In a telephone interview Tuesday he described Guede as "a really friendly guy, really outgoing." He added: "Once you got to know him, a very social guy, kind of the life of the party."
Massoletti said they played basketball several times a week and saw each other at parties or at a local club, where Guede was known as a good dancer. "The whole thing kind of baffles me," he added in the interview."
"Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 2:09 pm | #"
Presumably, if the first of the month is rent day in Perugia (and probably almost everywhere in the wide world, come to think of it), then Rudy was not the only person in the know. Using that line of reasoning, he and about 60,000 other people fit the bill as possible robbers/thieves/burglars.
What is odd, however, is why the victim was still in possession of her money on the night of November 1. Why would she not have paid her rent that day?
Charlie,
Would you care to take up your issues with the Kercher's lawyer?
I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda...I believe the investigation is going very well...
He must have got an idea about those strong disagreements and arguments from somewhere don't you think?
Perhaps from Meredith's family and friends?
Skep,
They also showed a clip of the infamous "vampire" video of Rudy. Which as we have discussed before, doesn't help his image. I actually thought of Sparrow and her "he may have just been horsing around in front of a camera" theory when viewing it last night.
What is odd, however, is why the victim was still in possession of her money on the night of November 1. Why would she not have paid her rent that day?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 10:54 pm | #
Skep,
since she was holding it in cash, it may point to something like the landlord calling around once a month to check out the cottage and collect the rents.
He did at first. Why do you suppose he changed his story, assuming he did?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 8:21 pm
Charlie, if we are to believe Raffaele, he changed his story because he realized he erred in his first story, by giving Amanda the alibi she had requested of him.
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 11:11 pm | #
______
Also, I think November 1 and 2 are both holidays in Italy. All Saints' Day and Day of the Dead. This may explain why she had not yet parted with the cash.
Hi SB
"Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash."
I was just paraphrasing what Paul said, and I don‘t put a lot of faith in what he said, or whatever logic he was trying to convey.
From CBS:
Amanda even got a job in a local bar. "She told me she must work because she need the money," says bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who hired her.
CBS news
What happened to the $5000?
DLW:
Actually, what you posted was quite useful. I'm trying to get an idea of the kind of ideas that were put forward and what conclusions viewers were meant to draw. I saw only a few short minutes of Ciolino, but like you I was seriously underwhelmed. I've been looking at the Soundoff comments board in the Seattle PI that follows yesterday's article/advert for the show, and have been struck by how underwhelmed the public (at least that part of it that chooses this avenue of expression) seems to be with the program. From a PR perspective, the only explosion coming from the people sounds like an engine backfiring.
Stacey wrote:
Charlie, if we are to believe Raffaele, he changed his story because he realized he erred in his first story, by giving Amanda the alibi she had requested of him.
But should we believe him? I'm a little confused about who is alleged to have said what and when. Sollecito destroyed Knox's alibi by saying he was home alone... but didn't they both account for carrying the mop back and forth by saying a pipe broke in his kitchen? Knox supposedly implicated Lumumba to protect Guede, but during the "big cleanup," they left Guede's feces unflushed and set up the murder room to frame him.
I guess maybe Knox is just inconsistent in her whims... she wanted to frame Guede right after the murder, but on reflection, she changed her mind and decided instead to lie for him by implicating Lumumba.
Or maybe she was just bored during the interrogation, and wanted to make the game more interesting.
On this board, any theory is bound to be more popular than my theory, which is that they changed their initial statements to incriminate themselves and each other because they were manipulated by the police.
From CBS:
The windows, Nara told the translator, were closed at the time.
Ciolino wanted to see-or hear-for himself. Nara's upstairs neighbor let Ciolino into her apartment to find out what he could hear.
Outside, 48 Hours got some local kids to do some running to see if the sounds were audible inside the neighbor's apartment, with the window's closed.
The result: Ciolino says he heard something but couldn't tell if it was footsteps; the neighbor, Christine, says she didn't hear anything.
Now do that again at 10:30 at night.
Brian S. wrote:
He must have got an idea about those strong disagreements and arguments from somewhere don't you think?
My guess is he's getting his information from the police.
I wonder what he thinks Guede's role is?
From CBS:
The longer this thing goes on, the longer everybody sits in jail, somebody’s gonna figure out sooner or later: my best chance escaping this nonsense is to hang Amanda out to dry," Ciolino says.
And that’s exactly what happened just two weeks ago: after months of silence, Rudy asked to speak to the prosecutor. Before, Rudy had said he could not identify Meredith’s killer. Now he says he saw Raffaele with a knife in the apartment, and that Amanda was there, too.
I would suggest (metaphorically) that Rudy actually took the knife out of Amanda's hand and very firmly gave it to Raffaele.
http://tinyurl.com/3mj9ay
Advanced Forensic Criminal Investigations
By Paul J. Ciolino, Grace Elting Castle
Some of the pages are available for preview.
CBS certainly did not hire an objective investigator for the show.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
"Kevin Massoletti, 20, a junior at the University of Oregon who knew Guede when he was studying in Perugia last summer, said he never saw any drug use or selling. In a telephone interview Tuesday he described Guede as "a really friendly guy, really outgoing." He added: "Once you got to know him, a very social guy, kind of the life of the party."
Poor, honest Rudy, life of the party, loved by all who knew him. He was just getting cozy with his new friend Meredith when a murderer came along and ruined everything by slitting her throat.
So he got her a towel and went to the disco.
Charlie Wilkes:
My guess is he's getting his information from the police.
You don't think he talks to his clients and Meredith's friends?
Come on Charlie. Just who is this guy representing?
Some of the information has obviously come from the police, but I would suggest that the information on Meredith's relationship with Amanda comes from the people who knew her best. The people he is representing.
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Brian S. wrote:
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
How do they prevent it?
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes:
He was just getting cozy with his new friend Meredith...
Francesco Maresca:
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith...
Brian S. wrote:
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Jeanine Nicarico's parents wanted the wrong people put to death. But it wasn't their fault. They believed the nice, friendly prosecutors and not those nosy reporters from the Chicago Tribune.
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
How do they prevent it?
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:24 am | #
I don't know.
Perhaps judges are taught and learn to recognize the "signs" of coaching.
I'd imagine that witnesses probably appear more "amateur and vulnerable".
All I can tell you is that coaching US style is not allowed.
Brian S. wrote:
All I can tell you is that coaching US style is not allowed.
Lots of things happen even though they're not allowed.
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:18 am | #
Absolutely Brian, but unfortunately they are just as much victims of what's currently going on. Note the horrific pictures of M recently viewed could only have come from one source originally. This was done with no concern out in the public arena where these might end up being shown and viewed and its effect on M's family. The Kerchers, like everyone else, will have to sit it out, waiting patiently for the real truth to come out.
This shouldn't be any problem for the majority here. If you believe that AK and RS are guilty then they are already incarerated. The trial will be a mere formality to make it official for a much longer time.
If it transpires that the instincts of those that believe there is a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice is occuring in this case, then as you say Brian it will be devastating for the Kerchers and do nothing to help with their healing.
Brian S. wrote:
Francesco Maresca:
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith.
Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Lots of things happen even though they're not allowed.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:35 am | #
So now we have amateur witnesses being coached so well in Europe they can "cover up their training" in court.
I suspect it does happen to a degree, but you'll never convince me it's an accepted part of the legal systems over here.
Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:37 am | #
That wasn't my point Charlie.
My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
ie. He didn't arrive at the cottage as a stranger, whatever his motives.
"Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:37 am | #"
I hate to be inflammatory, but could it be that it is because he thinks Rudy was not the only one who left her to die? He may have been the last one out of there, but does that make him the only bad guy?
Charlie, don't you ever feel like maybe you are railroading Rudy? You love to talk at length about people who are wrongly accused and/or convicted, but you have no such qualms about Rudy. Why is that? You cite cases of police abuse, prosecutorial zeal and so on, but you cut Rudy no slack whatsoever. What gives here? You talk about people saving face and career at all costs....
Why do your general theories have such specific limitations? What do you know or think about Rudy that we don't?
What was reported in Patrick Lumumba's exclusive story in The Daily Mail.
6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that – still handcuffed and unfed – he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.
He had then, she claimed, gone into Meredith's room and raped her before killing her while she sat and listened to the screams from the kitchen. She said he was motivated by revenge after Meredith had rejected him.
"It was only then I realised just how mad she was," he says. "I had no sexual feelings towards Meredith, and have never cheated on Aleksandra.
"Although I was filled with anger, I was determined to stay calm in front of the police. What Amanda was saying was insane. I have seven sisters and there's no way I could even imagine hurting a woman."
Her flawed evidence was, however, enough to keep Patrick in custody, as police feared he, Knox and Sollecito, would flee the country.
His fingerprints and a blood sample were taken and he was put in isolation in a sparse 6ft by 12ft cell in the town's Capanne prison.
As the days passed police claimed to have further evidence against him, including proof from his mobile phone that he was near Meredith's house around the time of her death, records of calls to Amanda, whose DNA had allegedly been found on the murder weapon, and a lack of till receipts to substantiate his claim he'd been working behind the bar on the night of the murder.
I did not see this subsequently refutted publicly by PL after this came out. The first I knew he refutted it was his i/v with Frank at PS. Does anyone have links to PL public denials that he did not say these things ?
If he didn't say it, and the Daily Mail made it all up, what about the rest of what we have read ?
Strange tactic to pay him such a huge sum for an exclusive if they were going to make it up anyway.
"My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
ie. He didn't arrive at the cottage as a stranger, whatever his motives.
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:46 am | #"
Many people understood your point. Thanks for making it. For some, it really doesn't matter what the representative of the victim and her family might think. They are pushing a broader agenda. Don't let it bring you down.
Oceania88:
Note the horrific pictures of M recently viewed could only have come from one source originally.
Yes, and that source handed a copy to Raffaele's defense team, one of whom appeared on the show when the video was shown. The video was used as part of an effort on their part to show that the forensics against Raffaele were compromised.
Who do you think gave the video to Telenorba in Raf's home town?
PS It's time for me to call it a day.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Why do your general theories have such specific limitations? What do you know or think about Rudy that we don't?
I know they tracked him down because his bloody fingerprints were at the crime scene. I've never heard of a murder where anyone but the killer left bloody fingerprints at the crime scene. And I've never heard of a killer who left bloody fingerprints having a couple of college students either framing him or assisting him or covering for him, or whatever Knox and Sollecito are supposed to have done in connection with this crime.
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 1:02 pm
Love Wolf - FUCK YOU!
You are a filthy peice of shit.
How is that anywhere near relevent or acceptable in this blog??
If that is, then so is my comment to you.
You all can go to hell.
I will be back when she is found innocent and I will rub your faces in it.
I will not be back till then.
"Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:13 am | #"
Go and lend your services, then. You obviously have this thing figured out, in spite of not knowing the cultural context and not having privileged access to the evidence.
Brian S. wrote:
My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before. Apparently she didn't mention him to her friends when she went to their house to watch a movie.
"I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before. Apparently she didn't mention him to her friends when she went to their house to watch a movie.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:19 am | #"
Actually, he doesn't say that at all. I guess you haven't read his diary. Too busy?
I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before.
Last one Charlie.
Guede says he met Meredith at the guy's flat downstairs a couple of weeks earlier. (presumably they can corroborate this - they said he was a bit drunk). He also bumped into her several times around town, before getting a chance to speak to her on his own on the "night before".
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Actually, he doesn't say that at all. I guess you haven't read his diary. Too busy?
In fact I have read it and should have been more careful in my wording.
"In fact I have read it and should have been more careful in my wording.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:46 am | #"
Or maybe in your reading?
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Or maybe in your reading?
Fair enough. This is a case where I should have been more careful in both.
"Fair enough. This is a case where I should have been more careful in both.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 2:05 am | #"
Thank you. I appreciate that. It does matter, immensely.
Good night.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 11:56 pm | "my theory, which is that they changed their initial statements to incriminate themselves and each other because they were manipulated by the police."
1. At least you're using words like "theory" now, and not "certain", "obvious" concerning your beliefs, or "naive" concerning us.
2. We have already seen that neither Raffaele nor his father nor his legal team have at any point suggested he was manipulated on Nov. 5. (or otherwised abused). His legal team are one of the best. If they really believed that, or if they simply felt that it was a legal strategy, they would have already gone down that road.
And that leaves Amanda with an alibi that even the person in whose house she said she spent the evening, says that she left at 9.30 p.m. and came back at 1 a.m.
I think it's worthwhile for Amanda to try and reconcile her alibi, starting with Raffaele.
(BTW, I don't agree with your analysis regarding alibis in general: You seem to say, alibis are useful in investigations and court if they add up; but they should be removed from lines of investigation if they don't)
-
((you're suggesting police should not be allowed to pursue alibis which don't add up))
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 10:14 pm | "(Kermit: ) Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
(Charlie)I've never put it that way. I think Mignini is a problem. But at this point a number of people have signed off on the theory that three people were involved in this murder. If they release Knox and Sollecito now without charging them, they'll all look foolish."
So, after kicking the dead horse of Mignini and the Monster of Florence for so long, that isn't the issue?
Also, regarding ILE pride / foolishness, they had no problem in releasing Patrick.
The way you state it, it seems that "just because" the police are following the line they are investigating, it must be wrong. What if something extraordinary occurred which is that between the three current suspects, some combination of them are charged with some crimes which are deemed to have occurred on Nov. 1, and aren't charged for other crimes, in a investigation which closes with a set of evidence which is sufficient to convince a trial judge to go forward? (Remember that if someone is in preventive prison, that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she will be charged with any specific crime). Would you find that acceptable under any circumstances, especially now that Mignini isn't the centre of your ire?
-
I have noticed in watching interviews of parents of sociopaths that the parents are in many ways the creators of these folks, they Deny their children are monsters when the evidence is always right there to be seen and instead these parents actually Enable these peopls to become the prepetrators they are, I do not see the parents of AK or RS taking any responsiblility whatsoever for who these people are and they are not innocent, inside they are doing what they have always done, protecting these sociopaths at the extreme expense of others.
Kermit!
I've only been able to skim lately, so am a little out of touch. I saw some discussion above about AK saying she saw MK in the wardrobe. Wasn't there also somewhere where AK said she saw MK in the mirror? And it was determined that even if she were standing in the doorway of the room, she couldn't have seen this because the mirror was on the wall facing the wardrobe, that it the same wall as the doorway? So the speculation was that she was really talking about seeing MK in the mirror when she was in the room, on the night of the murder, and that this was not lost to the ILE? We've been through so much information over such a long period...
I was just reviewing the comments over the past day. I notice the comments are VERY combative, especially the past few hours and also more than usual. Is it the absence of new material? Or possibly the compulsiveness to argue for the sake of arguing?
None the less, it does appear that some heartfelt friendships have been developed along the way, in the comments and the alliances that have developed - based on beliefs that are ongoing here in this community. Not criticizing, just observing behaviour.
It is interesting - societies, cultures, and resulting behaviours, well, just being humans - how "group thinking" develops...it certainly Does transcend to "the world wide web."
This comment is only an observation, from someone that has been interested in this case (the Murder of Meredith) and checking in here for quite sometime.
Best,
Gwen
I did not see this subsequently refutted publicly by PL after this came out. The first I knew he refutted it was his i/v with Frank at PS. Does anyone have links to PL public denials that he did not say these things ?
Oceania,
google Matrix Lumumba or Nero e Bianco Lumumba or go to their website and you'll find the several show on which Lumumba made it clear what happened. They speak in Italian, butyou are a fluent speaker aren't you? Oh and please, don't ask the same question again, I think this is the third time I post how to find Lumumba's retractions
Thanks
PS Strange how all in a sudden a "tabloid" becomes the bible! Sometime your logic is very hard to follow Oceanina!
Nicki,
PS Strange how all in a sudden a "tabloid" becomes the bible! Sometime your logic is very hard to follow Oceanina!
nicki | 04.14.08 - 3:15 am | #
Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?
Best,
Gwen
Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?
Best,
Gwen
Gwenyth | 04.14.08 - 3:23 am | #
1)It's your problem, not mine
2)I don't know what you're talking about neither I care
Is there a spell check, hopefully with an audio feature, for people that are drinking and typing?
Please make it so?!
citing: 04.14.08 - 3:15 am | #
I do admit - I just succumbed to arguing with Nicki, for what is easily reasoned as "for the sake of arguing."
Done.
Best,
Gwen
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 1:02 pm
Love Wolf - FUCK YOU!
You are a filthy peice of shit.
How is that anywhere near relevent or acceptable in this blog??
If that is, then so is my comment to you.
You all can go to hell.
I will be back when she is found innocent and I will rub your faces in it.
I will not be back till then.
Chris Mellas | 04.14.08 - 1:14 am | #
--------------------------------
Sorry to hear that Chris, what in my statement was not true? You have maintained her innocence throughtout and stated that she has been telling the truth despite the varying stories and alibis? If the errors in her stories are due to the consumption of drugs or having been beaten or due to a bent judge then I look forward to seeing this in court.
I also look forward to you coming back when you say her innocence will be proven and my nose will be ready.....
LW
TLC....
What was that you said on Sunday about 'Chris under pressure'?
LW
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 2:47 am |"I saw some discussion above about AK saying she saw MK in the wardrobe. Wasn't there also somewhere where AK said she saw MK in the mirror?"
Hi Sparrow! Yeah, I'm not quite sure about the resurgence of the wardrobe discussion. The original issue (which is the same as what was being talked about in the posts you refer to, as far as I am aware) is about if Amanda could have seen the victim's body and it's condition, and have been able to surmise what an agony the victim suffered, as per her comments to the victim's friends. That's great material for transformation in the media, although it may be very valid for the investigation, so I think we'll just have to wait for the formal evidence in order see exactly what the Postal Police's, Amanda's, Raffaele's and Filomena's declarations are to the homicide squad regarding Amanda's and Raffaele's physical situation.
Poster Chris Mellas stated that Amanda was speaking to her mother and him at the time on the phone and that the persons in the cottage were transmitting to her what they saw (the whole "hoof" / "foot" misinterpretation).
The "I saw the victim's body in the mirror" (my paraphrasing) is a confusing reference from supposed comments by Amanda in the police station. The only way for Amanda to see the victim's body in the bedroom mirror is to have been physically next to, basically touching the victim, given the position of the mirror in the room, which is not visible from the doorway.
-
Gwen -
"Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?"
In light of your last comment I find it strange that you start an argument with Nicki.
Kermit wrote:
And that leaves Amanda with an alibi that even the person in whose house she said she spent the evening, says that she left at 9.30 p.m. and came back at 1 a.m.
Why do you think he changed his story that way, instead of sticking with the original account in which the two of them were alone together all evening? It was most useful to the police that he did so, but what did Sollecito gain?
((you're suggesting police should not be allowed to pursue alibis which don't add up))
No, my point is that the lack of an alibi, or even inconsistencies in a suspect's story to police, are not enough in themselves to convict someone of a crime.
Also, regarding ILE pride / foolishness, they had no problem in releasing Patrick.
You circle back to that comparison, and I again point out that Lumumba, unlike Knox and Sollecito, had an alibi he could prove with independent witnesses. If Knox and Sollecito had spent their entire evening at Lumumba's bar instead of Sollecito's apartment, they too would be free today.
What if something extraordinary occurred which is that between the three current suspects, some combination of them are charged with some crimes which are deemed to have occurred on Nov. 1, and aren't charged for other crimes, in a investigation which closes with a set of evidence which is sufficient to convince a trial judge to go forward?
Indeed -- what if? I'm well aware that the Italian authorities have presented this case as an exotic specimen in the annals of crime. Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.
Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story. But I don't. I am one of those people who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We will see if the proof materializes when and if this case moves to trial.
Why do you think he changed his story that way, instead of sticking with the original account in which the two of them were alone together all evening? It was most useful to the police that he did so, but what did Sollecito gain?
What does one gain from insisting on blatant discrepancies and holes in his alibi? If the police point to the sky and say: Look, it really is blue, can RS say, no it's pink?
my point is that the lack of an alibi, or even inconsistencies in a suspect's story to police, are not enough in themselves to convict someone of a crime
So then you do allow that it is useful for the ILE to pursue discrepancies in Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis? (even if it doesn't form the whole of the evidence against them).
-
straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator
_______________________________
These are the exact words of Doug Preston, come on, who are you? I can reproduce those words he wrote, and you just did here, word for word, I think you are him.
TLC | 04.13.08 - 8:08 pm | #
TLC if he is Dougie Boy then that explains a lot.... also I believe his views are doing NOTHING for the cause of AK apart from making himself look and sound like a complete idiot!
If Knox and Sollecito had spent their entire evening ...
Sollecito says they weren't together.
-
And he wasn't beaten up to say so.
-
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 3:55 am | "Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story.
Charlie, I can tell you right now that what Love Wolf believes happened is not what I believed happened. Neither Love Wolf nor I are convinced of Bpcl's theory, although we respect his right to hold it, and I think it has its merits. KB has another point of view. Have you connected recently with Daniel Mintz?, because he has another point of view. Oceania88 has her point of view and defends it, and - as we saw yesterday - can actually agree on certain details with people like Love Wolf who are worlds apart in their scenarios.
What crimes were committed? Which ones do you think I believe were committed by whom?
Please tell me my take on the crime! Please!! I promise you I will confirm honestly those points where you are correct and where you diverge. You seem to know what I think - and what "nearly everyone here" thinks about this crime. While some people may think like me, all of the above persons and many others have different "favourite scenarios" from mine. Please tell me mine, I want to see if it shows through.
(at least you're no longer calling me and others "naive")
-
I've been looking at the Soundoff comments board in the Seattle PI that follows yesterday's article/advert for the show, and have been struck by how underwhelmed the public (at least that part of it that chooses this avenue of expression) seems to be with the program. From a PR perspective, the only explosion coming from the people sounds like an engine backfiring.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 11:47 pm | #
------------------------------------
SB could not agree more.. not quite the effect they were looking for.
LW
Indeed -- what if? I'm well aware that the Italian authorities have presented this case as an exotic specimen in the annals of crime. Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.---CW
Everything in this paragraph is factually wrong.
1. ILE has not presented the case as an exotic specimen.
2. The two college students are not lacking in motive.
3. Rudy has not been proven to be a thief.
4. Not everyone, in fact I would guess very few, believe the three "conspired" to commit murder. And the police have not stated that they believe this either.
5. Some of us have confidence in the police in the case, some do not.
Everything in this paragraph is factually wrong.
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 4:21 am | #
Sparrow that is because this guy is a fiction writer, he does it for a living....
LW
Oceania -
"There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it."
This statement I wholly agree with. They made no attempt to remove evidence of Rudy's involvment in the crime. They did however remove that which showed 'their' involvment in the crime (apart from the few odd bits they missed)..... and that makes 'absolute' sense no matter how you look at it.
"He didn't try to stem her bleeding, he has hooked you into his story. He was only taking care of himself, I think it will be mainly RG's blood on those towels (there only seems to be one in the photo's I have seen, but it could have been two)."
'Will' be his blood on the towels? It will transmute?
"She has bruise marks around her neck. He may have also tried suffocation, hence the towel/s. I get the impression that she didn't die quickly from the stab wounds and so he used other methods to 'finish her off'."
Sort of...trying different ones out?
"He cleans outside of M's room to buy himself some time, it worked intially when AK came in the next morning. No one knows what goes on inside a murderers head and why they make the decisions they do at the time of the crime. We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story."
If he cleans to 'buy himself some time'...why does he then create the obvious impression of a break in to immediately alert people something had happened? Can you help me with the logic of that one? Where are the cleaning things from around the cottage he used?
"The washing machine is one of those things that could turn out be a completely false story"
and
"The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story."
We can easily all elliminate evidence that is 'inconvenient' by saying it will 'probably turn out to not be true'...but that is actually a very desperate and weak argument when constructing a theory.
"Neither RS or AK mentioned the washing machine in their statements of that morning."
Yes, strange that isn't it? Could it be they didn't want to draw attention to it?
"If they were still 'cleaning up' in the morning, it's reasonable to assume they would have picked up the bloody tissues from outside the cottage, rinsed AK's & M's 'mixed' blood from the tap and flushed the toilet."
You can apply the same argument to Rudy not flushing the toilet but you don't (clearly it's different rules for him). It is also 'just' as reasonble to 'assume' they missed them due to shock/fatigue/time restriction/running out of cleaning products. We don't know what time they 'started' the clean-up, so it's a moot point how much time they had. We still don't know if the bloody tissues had anything to do with the crime. They may even have planted them to add to the confusion.
"My view is the cottage was far too small to take that long to clean, considering they didn't even touch M's bedroom."
It's not the size of the cottage, it's the size of the 'job'. Again, we also don't know what time they 'started'.
"all M's clothes were found on or near her"
Are you absoulutely sure about that?
"At this stage I'm more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper."
This then applies to Chris Mellas saying Amanda did 'not' go back to Rafs with the mop in direct contradiction of Raf's statement? You are also not concerned that C Mellas is far from being a non-biased party for your source of information?
Oceania, now onto your 'knife-fight' evidence. 'Nowhere' was it 'ever' reported that Rudy was in a 'knife-fight' and I think your saying so is quite dishonest and cynical. Rudy being in a 'knife-fight' by definition states that he was also armed with a knife and was trying to stab someone with it. What 'was' reported was Rudy was 'stabbed' after getting into an 'argument' with some men in the piazza. That is 'not' a 'knife-fight'! Nice try though. This cannot be used as evidence to say that Rudy carried a knife. Using conjecture in your conclusion is allowed, manipulating the actual facts is not.
While you're thinking of what to reply, Charlie, let me say that I think you just have to accept that the three suspects are in preventive prison, which is not an unusual judicial situation in Italy. This can last up to a year, which is not unusual. And when the investigation winds up, evidence will be presented. Only then will we see if Mignini has a load of prefabricated lies (it seems he's back to being the bad guy). Sit back. Don't hold your breath. We have until November. And at that point each one of us will see if our hunches and scenarios are more or less coincidental with Mignini's.
-
Charlie Wilkes -
"Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.
Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story. But I don't. I am one of those people who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Michael wrote:
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:02 am | #
For breaking into a building (school) and sleeping rough I though Charlie.... he was caught in the morning when police called in with a morning cup of tea to wake him up.......
He he was a hardened criminal I am sure he would have nicked some pens and paper and done a runner!
Charlie Wilkes -
"Why were his fingerprints on file?
They got the prints from his immigration records I believe.
ILE got his DNA from his toothbrush in his flat, if that helps.
-
Sparrow wrote:
1. ILE has not presented the case as an exotic specimen.
2. The two college students are not lacking in motive.
3. Rudy has not been proven to be a thief.
4. Not everyone, in fact I would guess very few, believe the three "conspired" to commit murder. And the police have not stated that they believe this either.
5. Some of us have confidence in the police in the case, some do not.
What is your take on the sequence of events in this murder and the motives of those involved?
Charlie,
I think AK was also fingerprinted in America when she gt busted for a party that she hosted thay went all a bit wild under the influence of alcohol....
Does that mean anything to you either?
Does that mean she is an alcoholic?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:10 am | "What is your take on the sequence of events in this murder and the motives of those involved?"
Wait! Charlie, that's not fair. You said above that "nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story."
Tell us first what our monolithic view is of the crime(s) of Perugia.
-
And Charlie, is it obligatory for each person to have a sequence of events / scenario? Can't some of us just wait for the evidence to be presented? Why do you force us to take sides?
-
Charlie Wilkes -
Charlie, I have noticed that you have regularly asked questions about things that have been discussed in depth throughout past Haloscans, showing you haven't been reading as much as you should have. Yet, despite that, you are very quick and steadfast to convict Rudy of all wrongdoing along with the police and completely absolve AK and RS of being involved in any way. This concerns me.
Wait! Charlie, that's not fair. You said above that "nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story."
Tell us first what our monolithic view is of the crime(s) of Perugia.
-
Kermit | 04.14.08 - 5:13 am | #
-----------
You're flogging a dead horse Kermit! His own 'beguiling' story is apparently much more believable. Remember now, the police WANT to convict 2 'innocent' people based on 'no' evidence because they will look 'stupid' if they don't. There is nothing you (or anyone) can say to open up his mind to any other possibility. For him, it is set in stone. It's a waste of energy to enter into any discussion with him. He is not open to suggestion.
-----------
Kermit wrote:
And Charlie, is it obligatory for each person to have a sequence of events / scenario? Can't some of us just wait for the evidence to be presented? Why do you force us to take sides?
Do you feel that your position now is neutral?
Neutral as regards what exactly?:
- Amanda being guilty of murder? Yes I am neutral.
Are you neutral?
-
Hey, I'm giving you hints to develop the beguiling story which you said I have swallowed, together with the rest of this motley crew of posters. Tell me what is my scenario?
-
Kermit wrote:
Neutral as regards what exactly?:
- Amanda being guilty of murder? Yes I am neutral.
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't believe you are being intellectually honest. I think you are quite convinced of her guilt. You say Mignini has a long leg and he lifts his skirt slowly... that is not the commentary of someone who is neutral.
Are you neutral?
No. Haven't I made that clear? I think she's completely innocent and is being framed. But, I'll change my opinion if the authorities over there can produce some convincing evidence... something better than bleach receipts and fables about a big cleanup that didn't really clean anything up except possibly the fingerprints in Knox's bedroom.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:55 am | "You say Mignini has a long leg and he lifts his skirt slowly... that is not the commentary of someone who is neutral."
I don't understand why not. Mignini has had a long career as a prosecutor and has had to deal with all sorts of defense tactics. While I'm not convinced that the Monster of Florence is an issue here, I certainly don't think that Mignini was born yesterday. When Telenorba comes out with its coverage of the forensic sampling, is it not surprising to see Mignini show a few details of evidence.
I'm sure he hasn't shown it all, and if you just sit on your hands for a while, we'll end up seeing what he has. And much more important than my opinion or yours when that happens, is what the trial judge thinks of the evidence.
-