The True Crime Weblog Message Board

I wrote what follows about 10 days ago as an exercise in creating a narrative that would include all the established (or establishable) facts, and would rely as little as possible on the testimony of any of the suspects either in what has been leaked from the verbali, or from their prison diaries.

I didn’t indtend to post it: it is very long. I hate long posts, and seldom read them. Now that the latest leaks of the past three days seem to support it even further, I submit it for those who may have the patience to read it.

I am very much aware of its inadequacies. I would be very happy for anyone to blow it out of the water; and delighted for people to pick holes in it. And I apologise for the operatic asides. They are not intended to be parodic; they can be taken much further, and I have removed several.

As you will see, I have relied on RG’s prison diary rather more than I had intended to. But his successive statements do at least have the advantage of consistency. I personally think that he may well have been far more involved in the actual torture/killing of MK than emerges from this dramatised account; but I simply can’t get the facts to gel sufficiently to bring that out.

I am posting this on a new thread, so that it doesn’t clog up the ongoing discussions and you are very welcome to ignore it. I will post it in bits, because I don’t know if there is a limit on how long a post can be.

I don't think there's a limit, but small chunks are easier to digest.
Thanks, Minotaur.

Murder in Perugia

ACT I.

I:1, Prologue. The waste-pipe of the sink in RS’s small studio apartment in Corso Garibaldi spontaneously breaks on 31 October or 1st November. AK may or may not go to fetch a magic mop from her cottage to clean up the mess.


I:2. 1st November ca. 20.15: RS and AK are at Corso Garibaldi.

AK to RS: “What are we going to do about supper? It would be easier to go and eat at the cottage.. This sink is broken, so we can’t really do much here; in any case Filomena and Laura and all the boys downstairs are away for Ognisanti; and MK’s going to her English friends. So no one else will be using the kitchen there. But we’d better be quick; Patrick’s expecting me to start work at Le Chic at [TIME?]. When I’ve finished there, we can come back here to Corso Garibaldi and watch that movie you’re busy downloading.”

RS to AK: “OK; but I’ve promised to take Popovic down to the station in a few minutes. I’ll come up to the cottage in the car afterwards.”


I:3. At 20.18 AK receives an SMS from PL saying: “Don’t bother to come to work, it’s really quiet.”

AK to RS: “Great news; Patrick’s just texted that I don’t have to work tonight. What shall we eat? [rummaging in fridge] I’ll take these mushrooms, and we might as well also use up this [INGREDIENT] and this [INGREDIENT]; and I think there’s some pasta asciutta at the cottage. And I’ll take this knife as well: the ones at the cottage are hopeless for chopping mushrooms. The landlord said he left a whole suitcase full of knives in my bedroom, but they’re all even blunter than the ones in the kitchen, and most of them are rusty. Anything else you think I should take? Just put it in this bag. That swimcap you were wearing as part of your halowe’en costume last night, for example. I’ve got to do a major wash tomorrow: I’ve got no clean underwear left; and you know your cleaner won’t launder my things as well as yours.”


I:4.: At circa 20.35 AK replies to PL, saying message received, and ending “c u l8r. gd nt.”

I:5. Around 20.40, just as she is about to leave, several things occur more or less simultaneously.

I:5.A Popovic rings the intercom to say she doesn’t need a lift to the station after all.

I:5.B. RS’s phone rings (doesn’t matter whether it’s the land-line or the mobile).
RS to AK: “It’s my fucking father again He can’t leave me alone for 5 minutes. He really tries to control my life. I’m going to switch my mobile off. ‘They really fuck you up, your mom and dad’. Christ! I need a smoke.”

I:5.C. AK to RS: I’ll turn mine off too, just in case PL decides he does need me at Le Chic after all. It might get busier there later, and I could do with a night off after all that I drank and smoked last night during Halowe’en. Come on then, let’s go down to The Cottage”.

I:5.D. RS to[/color] AK: “Hang on, darling: there’s only X megabytes left to go of this film I’m downloading. It won’t take more than twenty minutes, and we’ve got all the time in the world now. If I don’t finish now, we won’t be able to watch it later.”

I:5.E. AK to RS: “OK, then. I’ll go ahead and start cutting up the mushrooms. Come as soon as you’re finished. I’m a really good cook as you know. The boys downstairs say they just love my cornbread.”

I:5.F. AK departs.
As she walks up Corso Garibaldi and is seen by Jovanovic.

Curtain falls at 20.41 (give or take a few minutes).


End of Act I.

Entr’acte:

Ballet des ondes éléctroniques:

[At 20.38 PL’s phone pings in the area of Piazza Grimana. This is probably the same occurence recorded in Act I, scene 4, above. Remember that we have no certainty as to precise times and that those, especially the ones from witnesses, have a margin of error of up to 10 minutes or more. The telecommunication times will provide exactitude, but we do not know these yet and probably won’t until the trial].

It is possible that AK may have texted PL while walking towards the cottage, perhaps sending the message while entering piazza Grimana; and that she only then decided then to switch her phone off for the same reason as given in I:5C above, knowing that RS had already switched his off.]

While I was posting this, a chunk at the end fell off. I have restored it today, at the time stamped on the edit at the bottom. The recorded edits on the other bits only concern typos.

Act II.


II:1. Entering piazza Grimana at 20.41 or thereabouts, AK encounters RG.
RG to AK: “Hi Amanda, you still owe me XX euros for the shit I gave you last week. And I’ve got some really top-quality stuff, just arrived from Morocco, that you can smoke tonight”.
AK to RG: “Great! Come home and have a smoke and eat some supper: I’ve got button mushrooms in this bag. My boyfriend’s coming along in a minute. I’ll pay you as soon as we get inside, and we can have a jolly evening. These public holidays are really boring, and I just heard I don’t have to go to work at Le Chic tonight. I’m so glad you turned up! We’ve completely run out of weed.”

II:2: AK is seen by the carpark CCTV at 20.43 [again, as regards time, who knows how accurate the settings on that camera were?}; RG, being black and wearing dark clothing may not have shown up in the footage.]

II.3. They enter the cottage at c.20.50. AK, who has no cash on her, but knows that MK keeps cash, passports, etc in her bedside drawer, filches the 250 euros to pay RG. While she does so, RG swigs from a bottle of fruit-juice in the kitchen [there has to be some reason why he mentions this: he thinks or knows that his saliva has been found on it].
[Alternative: while AK chops up the mushrooms, RG swigs from the bottle and then wanders around the house opening drawers, and is pleasantly surprised to find 250 euros in cash which he pockets].

II:4. Meanwhile:
A. at 21.00, MK, having eaten a meal at 18.00 which included no mushrooms and no alcohol, bids farewall to Sophie Purton, and begins to walk home. She arrives ca. 21.15.
B. At 21.10 RS finishes downloading film, disconnects from the internet, and leaves for the cottage. He arrives ca. 21.15 – 21.30.

II:5. MK opens the front door and sees AK and RG in the kitchen.
She thinks: “Oh fuck, not another one; that boy from the Internet café was weird enough...”.

But she says: “Hi Amanda, what a surprise: I thought you were always at Raff’s place these days. Or has he gone to Bari for Ognisanti?’

AK replies: “No, he’s just on his way down here. His sink’s broken, so we have to make supper here. You know Rudy, don’t you?; you’ve met him with your Giacomo and his chums downstairs. Your Giacomo’s gone home to mummy, hasn’t he? My Raf puts me above his family, ha ha!
Anyway, take your mind off it, and have a spliff: Rudy’s brought some fabulous shit. And have one of these mushrooms I’m chopping. We’ve just got enough dinner for three; but can probably stretch it further”.

MK: “Oh, you’re called Rudy; I thought you were ‘the baron’”. But in any case, No thanks. I ate with the Sophie and Robyhn’; and I’m pretty tired”. [May or may not nibble on a mushroom]. “In any case, I must go and phone my mum. I usually phone her around now, but didn’t last night because of Halowe’en. Back in a second.”

II:6.: MK goes to her room and at 21.30 phones mother. Having done so she tidies up a bit, and finds that her 250 euros are missing. Around this time RS arrives.

End of Act II.

Act III.

Dénouement: Plays between ca. 21.45 and ca.23.55
(Chronology is fluid here; scenes are not numbered and régisseurs may choose their own sequence)

MK comes out of her room and confronts AK about the 250 euros, accusing her and possibly using the words “you drugged-up tart.”

MK goes into AK’s bedroom to look for the money. AK follows her, and, quite by chance, she is still holding the knife with which she was chopping the mushrooms.

The Southern blood of RS boils: with all the cavalleria rusticana of his Puglian ancestry he launches into the highly original aria: “‘Una troia drogata’ la mia ragazza tu chiamavi, come mai!!” [if RG did indeed hear those three words (which we cannot be sure of) he would have heard them from RS and not from the Anglophone girls; we do not know how good RG’s English is.]

RS, on hearing them, pulls his flick-knife out of his pocket and holds it at MK’s neck to frighten her. He knows about omertà.


Things now get out of hand over a period of some 20 minutes, and the initial knife-wounds may well have been “accidental”. Witnessing the episode the bowels of RG, who is a coward, give way - perhaps assisted by having earlier eaten something that disagreed with him. He rushes to the lavatory to avoid shitting his pants.

While he is there, MK manages to stagger (or crawl) to her own room desperately seeking her phone(s) to call help. She finds a phone, but presses the speed-dial key that she had set up in order to check her bank-balance. She is by now drowning in her own blood.

RG emerges from the bathroom; he enters MK’s bedroom; he examines her; he leaves a bloody fingerprint on her pillow and plenty of other evidence..

AK and RS, who have not followed MK into her room, taunt him from the doorway: “A black man found is a black man guilty, etc.”

RG scarpers;. He is seen by Alessandra Formica running through Piazza Grimana around 22.30.

The full horror of the situation dawns on RS and AK; they panic and run out of the house: one takes the iron stair; the other runs through the gravel on the car-park. They are heard by Nara Capezalli (who happened to have got up to pee).

At 23.00 or shortly thereafter, their tortured souls come together at the basketball-pitch. They sing a duet, during which they realise that as all the evidence will points to RG, they, a convent-educated American and the son of an eminent urologist from Bari with a sister in the carabinieri, are unlikely to be suspected, especially if they were not there.
[
Finally, as the orchestra soars to unprecedented cadences, AK and RS swear eternal love based on the blood that binds them and the secret they never can betray. They descend (facilis descensus Averno) toward the cottage; and as they do so, a spotlight illuminates the figure of Toto Curato, smoking on a bench.]

Curtain.

Sketch for Act IV.

Back in the cottage, RS and AK realise that the most hopeful scenario for them is a casual break-in, motive theft, followed by rape when the burglar was surprised by MK, and culminating in murder. This will be blamed on the black-man RG who has left indications of himself all over the place.

They stage the break-in - broken window and rock. They stage the rape: they pull down MK’s Jeans, failing to realise that her exposed legs will have no spots of blood and that investigators will realise this happened after her death.

They violate MK using the most convenient instrument to hand: the bottle that RG had drunk out of. Although may not realise it, this has the co-incidental effect of introducing traces of RG’s saliva inside MK’s vagina. Because MK is dead, the pathology does not suggest forced sexual intercourse.

They know that that they must thoroughly clean up AK’s room, where the greater part of the action occurred, and also the passage between AK’s room and MK’s room, plus any traces of themselves within MK’s own room (which they had not entered other than to violate the corpse).

To do this they need bleach. That must wait for the shops to open in the morning.

They think that the theft of the 250 euros and MK mobile phones will be sufficient motive. With or without the aid of RS’s car, they go down out of the town and throw the phones into what they think is a ravine; but is actually the top of Elisabetta Lana’s garden.

Having set the stage, they go, exhausted, to Corso Garibaldi arriving at 05.30. RS switches on his computer, and they switch on their phones to see if anyone has tried to contact them during the night.

They work out a scheme for mutual alibis in which they were together the whole night, and never at the cottage.

As early as possible they buy bleach, and return to the cottage (with or without the magic mop; depending on whether it ever was at Corso Garibaldi) and go to work. A second bottle of bleach is needed. They put all loose bloodstained clothes in the washing-machine (by this time they are so exhausted that they begin to lose it; and have also failed to realise that when moving the corpse, RS had stepped on a spot now covered by the duvet;. AK also manages to leave a trace of blood on the handbasin).

Thinking that they had finished, and being careful to leave RG’s shit in the bog, they go to Corso Garibaldi again, taking the bleach bottles: but a fatal attraction makes them go back to check some detail they are not sure of. They check it, and come outside. They are standing there deciding what their course of action should be, when the postal police arrive.

"To do this they need bleach. That must wait for the shops to open in the morning.

They think that the theft of the 250 euros and MK mobile phones will be sufficient motive. With or without the aid of RS’s car, they go down out of the town and throw the phones into what they think is a ravine; but is actually the top of Elisabetta Lana’s garden.

Having set the stage, they go, exhausted, to Corso Garibaldi arriving at 05.30. RS switches on his computer, and they switch on their phones to see if anyone has tried to contact them during the night."


1. Makes more sense that they throw the phones in the wrong place. RG has lived in Perugia since the age of 5 and would probably know better.

2. What about the shower? Did AK and/or RS take a shower at the cottage before returning to his apartment at 5:30 am?

3. Maybe the fatal detail they went back to check is related to clothes washing?

Just random thoughts.

If I may be the first to cast doubt...

I have taken the liberty to assume that RS's cleaner would also have done his laundry: probably by taking it home with her every week, and bringing it back washed and ironed. U.S. readers will find this outrageous; but it still happens in most of Latin Europe (though not, I fear, for much longer).

The bottle theory is the only one I could come up with to explain the presence of RG's DNA within MK's vagina.
There seems to be little doubt that she was stripped only after she was killed. (no bloodspots on legs; bra cut off).

Could there have been time for her to have consensual sex with RG between her arrival home ca. 21.15 and her death before c. 23.00? Yes, but it would seem out of character: and if so why would they have got dressed again? A romantic assignation with RG seems to be very improbable; Butterworth and Purton's testimony will be crucial here.

The only other solution is that RG was involved in what we might term a "torture session", during which he inserted a finger while others (guess who?) were holding knives as MK's neck. That she was subsequently allowed to put her clothes back again. And that the torture then began again, with (possibly accidental) fatal results. This doesn't wash.

I should add that a situation that got out of hand, has always been the most attractive solution. And the excellent DAMIAN's reporting of Maresca's pregnant phrase, 'disgraziata coincidenza', seems to suggest that he (privy to all verbali and processes released to the defence teams) thinks so too.

RE casting doubt: Skep beat me to it.

I exclude the shower as from a tainted source.

Your point about the phones is interesting: we need to hear about this from Perugiani.

The tainted source being AK, of course. Makes sense. As in, seeking an explanation for something that she was asked about and had to explain. Maybe this and the need to wash clothese were given as reasons for returning to the cottage.
This is a good method, i.e. discarding all information from tainted/self-interested sources.

"They stage the break-in - broken window and rock. They stage the rape: they pull down MK’s Jeans, failing to realise that her exposed legs will have no spots of blood and that investigators will realise this happened after her death.

They violate MK using the most convenient instrument to hand: the bottle that RG had drunk out of. Although may not realise it, this has the co-incidental effect of introducing traces of RG’s saliva inside MK’s vagina. Because MK is dead, the pathology does not suggest forced sexual intercourse."

It is possible that most of this staging was done by one of the two (RS), while the other took care of her room and other parts of the house. This could explain why RS apparently left more traces in the room.

"It is possible that MK may have texted PL while walking towards the cottage, perhaps sending the message while entering piazza Grimana; and that she only then decided then to switch her phone off for the same reason as given in I:5C above, knowing that RS had already switched his off.] "


From your Entr'acte: May we change MK to AK here? I assume this is a typo.

I am amazed by the prudery of this forum.

For the record: when I typed fucked and fucking it appeard sic.

When I typed sh*t it appeared as "sheezy".

And there is one other thing that appeared as a euphemism, which in my anger I have forgotten.

MODERATOR: Will you please switch off this censorship. We are dealing with a brutal murder. Words are needed such as

Sh*t
C*nt
F*ck
C*ock
Pr*ck
F*nny
T*t
etc.

In the above list the asterisks are mine. In the one below, I have typed out the received spellings out of curiosity to see how they will appear:

Shit
Cunt
Fuck
Cock
Prick
Tit
Fanny

skeptical bystander wrote:"It is possible that MK may have texted PL while walking towards the cottage, perhaps sending the message while entering piazza Grimana; and that she only then decided then to switch her phone off for the same reason as given in I:5C above, knowing that RS had already switched his off.] "


From your Entr'acte: May we change MK to AK here? I assume this is a typo.

Yes. Thanks. I will correct it now!

"MODERATOR: Will you please switch off this censorship. We are dealing with a brutal murder. Words are needed such as "

I'll try! Have come up against the same problem myself. But I have to warn you, I'm still learning how my control panel works. Will try now.

I think it worked. The only one I left in place was maternalfornicator because I am so enamored of maternal fornicator as a substitute. Who comes up with these things?
We could also use words from another language as a workaround. Here is a test:

Merde
Chier
Niquer
Foutre
Con
Conasse
Poufiasse
Et ainsi de suite

Maternalfornicator is priceless! Moan over.

I'm curious to know how the forum might react to a discussion on recent events in Austria. They are a salutory reminder that we are dealing only with a giallo.

I don't know if you remember Derek Jarman's film about St Sebastian with the dialogue in Latin. When one soldier hurled the insult "Oedipus" at another, the subtitle read "maternalfornicator".

Minotaur wrote:Maternalfornicator is priceless! Moan over.

I'm curious to know how the forum might react to a discussion on recent events in Austria. They are a salutory reminder that we are dealing only with a giallo.

I don't know if you remember Derek Jarman's film about St Sebastian with the dialogue in Latin. When one soldier hurled the insult "Oedipus" at another, the subtitle read "maternalfornicator".

I must say, maternalfornicator is exactly the right translation of Oedipus! My favorite Jarman film is Caravaggio.

As for Josef F in Austria, I noticed that the place where he kept his daughter in the cellar for 24 years has also been referred to as the "house of horrors."

I'll see what SOP is for getting a discusion going on that one.

When I said 'how the forum might react', I meant the censorship programme, not what individual posters might feel. The latter is obvious enough.

Please do not not take this discussion to Ammerstatten (or whatever it's called). Focus is everythihng...

Minotaur wrote:When I said 'how the forum might react', I meant the censorship programme, not what individual posters might feel. The latter is obvious enough.

Please do not not take this discussion to Ammerstatten (or whatever it's called). Focus is everythihng...

Actually, I was thinking of another crime of the day topic for the general board.
But this is actually more of an abomination. Dotterfornication....

skeptical bystander wrote:The tainted source being AK, of course. Makes sense. As in, seeking an explanation for something that she was asked about and had to explain. Maybe this and the need to wash clothese were given as reasons for returning to the cottage.
This is a good method, i.e. discarding all information from tainted/self-interested sources.

But of course Guede's statement that Knox stole the victim's money is above reproach. Not a hint of self-interest there, no siree. The poor boy only left his fingerprints on the purse because he was looking for a breath mint.

Charlie

Actually, Charlie, you've taken my comment out of context. Minotaur came up with a scenario that treats all of the suspects' statements as untrustworthy, in the sense that he tried to build a scenario that did not make use of them.
It isn't a question of believing Rudy and nobody else. It's a thought experiment

skeptical bystander wrote:Actually, I was thinking of another crime of the day topic for the general board.
But this is actually more of an abomination. Dotterfornication....

That's what I thought you meant. I wouldn't dream of using Meredith's space for a different case, but I was compelled to make a comment about the 'other' one when it was mentioned. I couldn't help myself!

Minotaur wrote:Sketch for Act IV.
They know that that they must thoroughly clean up AK’s room, where the greater part of the action occurred, and also the passage between AK’s room and MK’s room, plus any traces of themselves within MK’s own room (which they had not entered other than to violate the corpse).

Except Knox's room does not appear to have been cleaned, per Kermit's corrected slide deck. The bedding is in disarray, there is something on the floor, an article of clothing draped over a chair, etc. Wouldn't those things have been spattered with blood?

Charlie

skeptical bystander wrote:Actually, Charlie, you've taken my comment out of context. Minotaur came up with a scenario that treats all of the suspects' statements as untrustworthy, in the sense that he tried to build a scenario that did not make use of them.
It isn't a question of believing Rudy and nobody else. It's a thought experiment

But stolen money, per Guede's statement, is the linchpin of his entire theory.

Charlie

"would rely as little as possible on the testimony of any of the suspects" - Minotaur

As little as possible. How's that? We do know that money was missing, so we will allow Minotaur to make use of that fact, okay? So let me repeat, it is not a question of believing one suspect and not the others.
"Except Knox's room does not appear to have been cleaned, per Kermit's corrected slide deck" - C Wilkes

Cf. Difference between cleaned as in tidied up and cleaned as in bleached.

"But stolen money, per Guede's statement, is the linchpin of his entire theory. " - C Wilkes

Not just his theory, by the way. It is known that the 250 euros withdrawn by MK to pay her rent were not received by the landlord and that they are missing from the crime scene. Presumably, the money was taken by someone. So regardless of who took it, I think we can work it into a thought experiment.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:But of course Guede's statement that Knox stole the victim's money is above reproach. Not a hint of self-interest there, no siree. The poor boy only left his fingerprints on the purse because he was looking for a breath mint.

Charlie

Charlie, it seems that with Rudy, just like on Haloscan, you are trying to force us to take a stand that either he is a convicted drug-dealer with an extensive criminal history and a penchant for rape, or that we are saying that he is an angel.

Isn't it possible, in fact appropriate, to clarify the lies (or at the very least mis-statements) that some people sow about Rudy (and any other suspect, for that matter), without having to say that he is a choir boy? Was he a convicted drug-dealer? No (or at least as far as I am aware he is not). So let's stop talking in those terms. Is the Christian episode believable? Yes, so let's include that in his "discussion board record". Was he a choir boy? Not by any means.

I get the feeling that a couple of persons in this discussion feel there is a need and an end to pushing posters to a group on either end of the spectrum, with the deciding values being "if you're not with Amanda, then you're against her. And if you're with Rudy, you think he's a choir boy and you're also against Amanda".
---------------------

Minotaur, thanks for your scenario, it's a good framework for putting together the pieces with the limited data we have.

Kermit wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:But of course Guede's statement that Knox stole the victim's money is above reproach. Not a hint of self-interest there, no siree. The poor boy only left his fingerprints on the purse because he was looking for a breath mint.

Charlie

Charlie, it seems that with Rudy, just like on Haloscan, you are trying to force us to take a stand that either he is a convicted drug-dealer with an extensive criminal history and a penchant for rape, or that we are saying that he is an angel.

I have not made any reference to drug dealing or Guede's criminal history. I'm talking about his fingerprints on the victim's purse, as in, maybe the person whose fingerprints are on the purse is the person who took the money. As far-fetched as that might seem to you, it is a possiblity to consider.

Charlie

"I have not made any reference to drug dealing or Guede's criminal history. I'm talking about his fingerprints on the victim's purse, as in, maybe the person whose fingerprints are on the purse is the person who took the money. As far-fetched as that might seem to you, it is a possiblity to consider."

Charlie,
We don't know that the money was in the purse. Maybe the cellphones were in the purse. Early on, it was reported that 2 credit cards had been taken as well. The fact is, we don't know at this point and neither do you. I don't see that Kermit or anyone else here has discarded the possibility that the money was in the purse as far-fetched.
What I'm trying to figure out is why you can't put aside your hostility for one minute and rejoin the discussion here, instead of sniping from the sidelines like a bad sport. It gets kind of tiresome after awhile.

Kermit wrote:I get the feeling that a couple of persons in this discussion feel there is a need and an end to pushing posters to a group on either end of the spectrum, with the deciding values being "if you're not with Amanda, then you're against her. And if you're with Rudy, you think he's a choir boy and you're also against Amanda".

Seriously, Charlie, it would be more interesting for everyone, maybe even you, if you addressed this statement. Personally, I don't think it's very productive when you just put together little straw men and toss them in the ring rather than making an honest, good-faith effort to discuss the various angles of the case that interest people here. When the US wanted to invade Iraq and found itself lacking the support it needed from its historical allies, the populist argument in the US was a version of "if you're not behind us on this then you are our enemy." Lots of well-respected nations with a long tradition of supporting the US tried to say we are not your enemy but we do not support this endeavor. Unfortunately, no rational discussion was possible because the terms of discussion prevented it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be your strategy here. Is it not possible for you to accept that some people have doubts about the involvement of various suspects in this case but that this does not mean they are for Rudy and against Amanda (and incidentally, against Raffaele)?
I guess what I'm suggesting is that you make the effort to be a worthy opponent of the views espoused here--if you consider yourself to be an opponent. I know you can do it.

Wilkes wrote:Except Knox's room does not appear to have been cleaned, per Kermit's corrected slide deck. The bedding is in disarray, there is something on the floor, an article of clothing draped over a chair, etc. Wouldn't those things have been spattered with blood?

[font=Comic Sans MS]We've always maintained that there was a 'Clean-Up' and 'Staging'...not 'tidy-Up'. Firstly, we don't know how much of that untidyness was created 'after' the actual cleaning was done and secondly, have you considered that some of that untidyness may actually be the 'result' of hurried cleaning? I'm talking about things hurriedly being picked up, wiped over and then just thrown down...things being thrown aside without care so the area below could be cleaned. The 'cleaners' would have been panicked and working against the clock don't forget. Things spattered with blood? Sure...if they walked into the room 'dripping' with blood and started breakdancing, flinging it about. Since I think we can safely assume they didn't do that...no, I wouldn't expect to see blood 'spattered' about and any that 'was'...was 'cleaned'. Like the bloody footprints on the floor Wilkes that only showed up under luminol...luminol being required to show them up because...wait for it....they'd been 'cleaned'. With what? Bleach and a 'Magic Mop' I'd say

Talking of blood spatter...since you seem keen on it, do you have any explanations as to why no micro traces of blood was found on the phones and we know Guede was covered in it?[/font]

Wilkes wrote:I'm talking about his fingerprints on the victim's purse, as in, maybe the person whose fingerprints are on the purse is the person who took the money. As far-fetched as that might seem to you, it is a possiblity to consider.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Oh, I'm so glad you brought that up Wilkes. I have noted that it's being touted as exhibit 'A' on 'another blog' as proof Guede took the money. Just 'perhaps' he did...but I don't see his DNA being on that bag as powerful evidence that he did. That is because the outright 'assumption' that appears to be being made is that is where Meredith kept her money. Indeed, women tend to keep money in their purse. But wait...let's think about this. We are not talking about some 'spends' here, a bit of change...we are talking about a lot of money for a student, especially Meredith...important money...this was for her rent, which wasn't due for two days due to the holiday. Now a purse is a portable device, women take them with them wherever they go. Now, these can be snatched, stolen, pickpocketed, forgotten or left somewhere. Do you walk about with that kind of cash in your wallet? Better to keep it stashed in her room somewhere until she needed to pay it in my book and it 'should' have been safe there. We have heard no reports Meredith thought anyone in her house a 'thief', at least...not until 'after' she found the money gone. We have also heard no reports that her purse was where it was kept and the 'only' report we 'have' heard is that it was in her underwear draw and whilst that report came from Guede, I see little reason for him to lie about 'where' she kept it and in my view it's a logical place for it to have been kept in lieu of a safe. Guede has also given alternative reasons for going in there...looking for phones and a pen, so believe him or not...he does have an 'explanation' for it.

Minotaur,

A well put together scenario with entertaining highlights. Thank you for putting in the work. Something to consider.[/font]

skeptical bystander wrote:"I have not made any reference to drug dealing or Guede's criminal history. I'm talking about his fingerprints on the victim's purse, as in, maybe the person whose fingerprints are on the purse is the person who took the money. As far-fetched as that might seem to you, it is a possiblity to consider."

Charlie,
We don't know that the money was in the purse. Maybe the cellphones were in the purse. Early on, it was reported that 2 credit cards had been taken as well. The fact is, we don't know at this point and neither do you. I don't see that Kermit or anyone else here has discarded the possibility that the money was in the purse as far-fetched.
What I'm trying to figure out is why you can't put aside your hostility for one minute and rejoin the discussion here, instead of sniping from the sidelines like a bad sport. It gets kind of tiresome after awhile.

OK, I apologize. I do not wish to come across as hostile. I am merely exasperated by what I see as tortured reasoning. To me, what happened is obvious: Guede stabbed Meredith during a struggle that took place in the course of an attempted rape. When blood started spurting out, he panicked and did not complete the rape.

Minotaur, on the other hand, reasons that Guede may have left bloody fingerprints next to the victim when he entered the room to "examine" her after Sollecito had inflicted the fatal wound. And he explains Guede's DNA inside the victim by suggesting that Guede had been drinking from a bottle that Knox or Sollecito inserted into her vagina.

That seems about as improbable and counter-intuitive as any speculation can get. It means the physical evidence in this case is grossly misleading, which would be most unusual in a murder committed without careful planning. I realize, however, that those who think this investigation is on the right track have no choice but to rule out the obvious in favor of a more complex explanation that runs against intuition.

Charlie

If evidence had not been hidden by suspects then the word obvious might have some meaning, as things stand, the word obvious is void and meaningless.

I see some possibilities in Minotaur's sequences.

The setting up, of evidence, I also think such things, but, the using a bottle to insert evidence into Meredith's body, I don't know about that.

Still, when people go as far as killing a defenceless human being, anything is possible, well, just about anyway.

Guede isn't a garden flower though.

Saying Guede was the one and then finish, is rather short-sighted considering all of the other known facts concerning the two others, considering Knox and Sollecito work against one and other, whether intentionally and opportunistically (Sollecito) or carelessly, unfortunately and helplessly (Knox) in the face of that attack from Sollecito.
If they were innocent surely they'd be together in word and deed and against Guede.

But they are not against him. They are against each other now.

Then it is OBVIOUS they are dishonest and OBVIOUS they have something to hide and OBVIOUS that all is not as it appears because this is a murder not a children's afternoon.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:... those who think this investigation is on the right track have no choice but to rule out the obvious in favor of a more complex explanation that runs against intuition.

Charlie

The Lone-Wolf Rudy-did-it-all-by-himself is a scenario, Charlie, which shouldn't be excluded (once again, why do you keep telling us how we think? ... even though it is not my preferred scenario, I haven't "ruled it out" as you suggest "we" the monolith have done). There you go again.

Now, while it is a scenario, I don't understand why you call it the "obvious" scenario.

Why do you rule out as evidence which gives rise to a valid scenario, a knife which has Amanda's and the victim's DNA on it? Scenarios which have Amanda either as a killer, or a support person, or a clean up person, or an instigator could more easily give rise to the double DNA being on that knife than the Lone-Wolf theory. I'm not saying that one of those scenarios is the way it was and that Rudy is a choir boy (quite the opposite, Rudy fits very well into those DNA knife scenarios as just another participant or spectator).

Why do you rule out the importance of Raffaele (or his legal team) making statements in recent judicial sessions to the effect that "the clues against Amanda have been arbitrarily transferred to me on the erroneous assumption that we must have been together that evening." No reference to torture or police abuse, nor has there ever been. Since before Amanda's supposed coerced testimony, their alibis have been at odds. I'm not saying there are any obvious conclusions that this points to, but you certainly shouldn't dismiss it as begging for a "more complex explanation that runs against intuition".

Please, allow us the pluralism of thought that we have, and don't keep accusing us of thinking in some way, when that isn't the case. In fact, your "agenda" is much clearer ("obvious", in your terminology), than any "agenda" on the part of a supposed monolith, or of specific posters.

PLURALISM, Charlie, try it out.

[quote="Charlie Wilkes"OK, I apologize. I do not wish to come across as hostile. I am merely exasperated by what I see as tortured reasoning. To me, what happened is obvious: Guede stabbed Meredith during a struggle that took place in the course of an attempted rape. When blood started spurting out, he panicked and did not complete the rape.
Minotaur, on the other hand, reasons that Guede may have left bloody fingerprints next to the victim when he entered the room to "examine" her after Sollecito had inflicted the fatal wound.
That seems about as improbable and counter-intuitive as any speculation can get. I realize, however, that those who think this investigation is on the right track have no choice but to rule out the obvious in favor of a more complex explanation that runs against intuition.
Charlie[/quote]

If we had every scrap of evidence in hand, and if this were a straightforward case with no attempt (as TLC notes) to alter the crime scene, things might be different and more obvious. Your scenario, that Guede simply tried to rape the victim, could turn out to be true, but there are good reasons to think it might not be.
For one thing, Guede has no history of sexual assault. I realize there is always a first time, but the medical examiner found no signs of rape. I realize that many cases of rape present no signs of rape; it is probably also true that rough consensual sex may result in signs that look like rape; tender consensual sex does not normally result in signs of rape, and so on. The jury is still out, so to speak. In any case, we have to at least consider the initial report (by Lalli) and the report on the second post-mortem: the certainty of rape is far from established.
What about Minotaur's scenario? It is consistent with the physical evidence and so worthy of considering. It is not true that all the physical evidence points in the direction of your scenario. It just doesn't for now and, anyway, we don't have it all in hand.
As for whether or not the investigation is on track, we have three sources of information: the defense team of Raffaele Sollecito (led by Dad), Amanda Knox supporters (family and friends, the PR firm, US network television) and the Kerchers via their lawyer, Francesco Maresca. So it all comes down to this for me: The families of two of the suspects are crying foul, and that is not surprising. They want us to overlook some circumstantial evidence, believe that Amanda's confession was coerced and that the police, the prosecution, indeed the entire justice system in Italy are corrupt (although some supporters do not buy this last point) and, in the case of the smiling team, that the forensics (except evidence pointing to Rudy) are bad. This last point is a standard defense tactic, being played out during the investigation, in the media. And that is a key point: nothing has been presented by the prosecution formally and rebutted formally.

Maresca and the Kerchers do not think the investigation is off track. I take a leap of faith here, but I believe the Kerchers want to know what happened more than anyone. If they have faith in the investigation, so do I.

skeptical bystander wrote:For one thing, Guede has no history of sexual assault. I realize there is always a first time, but the medical examiner found no signs of rape.

Knox and Sollecito have no history of theft or murder, but people here seem quite willing to assume they are guilty of both.

As for the medical examiner, he claims to have found evidence of an incomplete sex act, consistent with a rape attempt that was abandoned when the victim's throat was cut open in a struggle. Guede was, as you suggest, inexperienced. He apparently has some history of home invasion, per Frank, but this may have been the first time he attempted a sexual assault. It didn't go at all as he planned, he made a lot of mistakes, and he left behind a lot of physical evidence.

skeptical bystander wrote:I realize that many cases of rape present no signs of rape; it is probably also true that rough consensual sex may result in signs that look like rape; tender consensual sex does not normally result in signs of rape, and so on. The jury is still out, so to speak. In any case, we have to at least consider the initial report (by Lalli) and the report on the second post-mortem: the certainty of rape is far from established.
What about Minotaur's scenario? It is consistent with the physical evidence and so worthy of considering. It is not true that all the physical evidence points in the direction of your scenario. It just doesn't for now and, anyway, we don't have it all in hand.

Minotaur's scenario is convoluted and requires many assumptions for which there is no evidence whatsoever, such as:

- a pre-existing relationship between Guede and the other two suspects,
- a quarrel over stolen money,
- a bottle with Guede's DNA inserted in the victim's vagina,
- Guede interacting with the victim after someone else had slashed her throat.

I have mentioned Occam's razor before and this is a good place to apply that kind of thinking

skeptical bystander wrote:As for whether or not the investigation is on track, we have three sources of information: the defense team of Raffaele Sollecito (led by Dad), Amanda Knox supporters (family and friends, the PR firm, US network television)

Obviously U.S. network television does not go to bat for every American who gets in trouble with the law overseas, so how do you account for this apparent support of Amanda Knox? Do you think it is possible that they see a real story here, about an incompetent police investigation?

skeptical bystander wrote:Maresca and the Kerchers do not think the investigation is off track. I take a leap of faith here, but I believe the Kerchers want to know what happened more than anyone. If they have faith in the investigation, so do I.

Sure. It was like that in the Nicarico case, too. The prosecutor is the victim's natural ally. But the Kerchers' faith, as well as yours, is ill-placed, and I think you will eventually realize that.

Charlie

Wilkes wrote

But the Kerchers' faith, as well as yours, is ill-placed, and I think you will eventually realize that.

__________________________________________
That is only your opinion Wilkes, what you think is misguided.

I think you'll find you are wrong in the end Wilkes.
And you are stuck on one thing like a fucking parrot.

If you are going to try and take over here with that crap by playing out the theme about the prosecutor having it all wrong, I think I'm going to complain about you and your presence, you've been saying this same line over and over you remind me of Tazia from Seattle, that is a person who also is just very irritating, you say names as if everyone is up on all of that what you are talking about, as if everyone is INTERESTED in it, but that is something in your head not everyone is interested in it.

I have told you a lot of times that I do not believe you are credible, you are someone who is not an independent soul, you have ulterior motives and you keep hammering on as if the entire Italian country is a cess-pit, so if you keep on, along that line, I'm complaining because I do no like what you are (trying to do) doing.

You are trying to force your opinion onto others, relentlessly. That stance is unacceptable.

It is no wonder you do not reply to me, I'm glad ecaue I do not want to talk with you at all.


I say it once again, you are a fake, you are working for someone involved, I dare you to declare yor real identity here.

Go on, who the f--- are you?

How dare you say the Kercher's do not know what they do.

Get to fuck.

Now I have really had enough of you

Kermit wrote:Why do you rule out as evidence which gives rise to a valid scenario, a knife which has Amanda's and the victim's DNA on it? Scenarios which have Amanda either as a killer, or a support person, or a clean up person, or an instigator could more easily give rise to the double DNA being on that knife than the Lone-Wolf theory.

The knife could be critical, but what is the real status of the DNA supposedly found on it? I have said before that if independent experts confirm that it does indeed contain Knox's DNA on the handle and the victim's DNA on the blade, I will have to revise my thinking drastically. So let me ask you a question. If it goes the other way, and we learn conclusively that the knife is no good as DNA evidence, will that affect your opinion as to the credibility of the authorities?

Charlie

Wilkes wrote:Knox and Sollecito have no history of theft or murder, but people here seem quite willing to assume they are guilty of both.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Neither does Rudy have history of murder...so I guess that makes them equal doesn't it?[/font]

Wilkes wrote:Minotaur's scenario is convoluted and requires many assumptions for which there is no evidence whatsoever, such as:

- a pre-existing relationship between Guede and the other two suspects,

[font=Comic Sans MS]Not true. Early in the case the police stated there had been phone calls between AK and Rudy and this has not been disproved or retracted by the ILE. Rudy himself admits in his diary he met Amanda on a number of soccasions before the crime. Finally, there is the testimony of the Albanian witness who claims to have met all three on Halloween. You may not 'believe' the evidence, but you cannot catorgorically state there is 'no' evidence for it.[/font]

Wilkes wrote:I have mentioned Occam's razor before and this is a good place to apply that kind of thinking

[font=Comic Sans MS]However, this is not a law...it often happens but not always.[/font]

Wilkes wrote:Obviously U.S. network television does not go to bat for every American who gets in trouble with the law overseas, so how do you account for this apparent support of Amanda Knox?

[font=Comic Sans MS]You call that evidence? US TV??? Are you getting desperate Wilkes?[/font]

Wilkes wrote:Sure. It was like that in the Nicarico case, too...

[font=Comic Sans MS]This is 'not' the Nicario case. how about focusing on this case just for a change? Why do you think we still continue the quaint old fashioned tradition of still having criminal trials when we can simply forego the whole expense and hassle, and simply declare who is innocent and who is guilty on the basis of what happened in previous cases?[/font]

"The prosecutor is the victim's natural ally. But the Kerchers' faith, as well as yours, is ill-placed, and I think you will eventually realize that."

Not just the Kerchers, but also their lawyer. My faith may be ill-placed, and theirs may be too, but for now you have nothing but your own faith that the contrary is true to go on.

The Kerchers' lawyer, Francesco Maresca, is an excellent one. He knows Italy and its criminal justice system very well, because he is Italian and a lawyer. I have seen him on television and am impressed with the quiet way he corrects the many falsehoods spinning around. I like the simple and direct way he expresses himself. Maybe the Kerchers chose the wrong guy, and they will be disappointed. But they don't seem to be for now, and I can see why. I don't have your certainty, but I think it's sometimes better not to be too certain. Certainty can be blinding.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:But the Kerchers' faith, as well as yours, is ill-placed, and I think you will eventually realize that.

Charlie

Charlie, you are starting to sound sickeningly like poster Kelly13 on SPI who suggested that the Kerchers put aside their grief and support Amanda (in those words). There's a difference between you and most of the posters here in that your position (I believe you called it "the seeds" you are trying to sow here) does not allow for doubt or revising or even minor reconsiderations. For everyone else here you can find a post at some point in time where we say, "I stand corrected on this point", or "I'll take that possibility into account in today's scenario". Not you.

From your secret hideaway on Puget Sound you feel you know more about this case than the Italian lawyers for the Kerchers and each of the suspects. If you read the recent judicial proceedings, you'll see that both Amanda's and Raffaele's lawyers say things which are contrary to some of your most sacred truths.

We're still waiting to see what you have to say about Raffaele's uncoerced testimony on Nov.5 (before Amanda even stepped up to the plate) placing her out of Raffaele's house on Nov.1. That position was reinforced by his team stressing to the Court in April that it should not "err" in believing that Amanda was with him in his house.

Forget Raffaele being coerced. If his Dream Team 3 member legal staff, now increased to 4 members with Giulia Buongiorno - one of the highest profile lawyers in all of Italy - hasn't yet made any formal complaint nor even informal comments in their numerous media appearances about coercion of their client on Nov. 5 (and they certainly have criticised most aspects of the investigation) then I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you that they will make such a complaint, nor even that that action which you have alleged happened (from your Puget Sound armchair) actually occurred.

Open up your mind, Charlie. The suspects and their lawyers are leaving you and your sacred truths behind in the dust.

Kermit wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:But the Kerchers' faith, as well as yours, is ill-placed, and I think you will eventually realize that.

Charlie

Charlie, you are starting to sound sickeningly like poster Kelly13 on SPI who suggested that the Kerchers put aside their grief and support Amanda (in those words).

I am not Kelly13 nor am I responsible for what he posts. I think the Kerchers are being duped if they believe this investigation is on the right track. But I would not presume to say what they should do, and I certainly would not suggest they should put aside their grief.

Kermit wrote:There's a difference between you and most of the posters here in that your position (I believe you called it "the seeds" you are trying to sow here) does not allow for doubt or revising or even minor reconsiderations. For everyone else here you can find a post at some point in time where we say, "I stand corrected on this point", or "I'll take that possibility into account in today's scenario". Not you.

You may think this group is open-minded, but it doesn't look that way from outside your clubhouse. It's true that you bat around a variety of ideas and scenarios, but they all share a key assumption -- that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

But you are right that I am confident that Knox/Sollecito are innocent, and nothing said here is likely to change my mind. What would change my mind is new information or real, physical evidence confirmed by someone outside the investigation. For example, there was an early report that the police seized a number of blood-soaked rags and towels from Sollecito's apartment. If that turns out to be true, and the towels were soaked with the victim's blood, I'll have to change my thinking completely. But I doubt if that will happen. I think we will eventually learn that the physical evidence against Knox and Sollecito is poppycock.

But of course they could still be convicted of murder. The authorities have Guede over a barrel, and he may cut a deal that would involve a confession in which he implicates Knox and Sollecito. And the prosecutors have had plenty of time to groom their witnesses. Lots of innocent people go to prison because of perjured testimony. But most are dirt poor with a criminal record and no family to support them. These two aren't like that. They will have excellent representation, and the whole world will be watching.

Kermit wrote:Open up your mind, Charlie. The suspects and their lawyers are leaving you and your sacred truths behind in the dust.

I don't think so. If and when this case goes to trial, Knox and Sollecito, or their attorneys, will say they spent the night together at his apartment, and that any statements to the contrary were coerced. And I believe that is the simple truth of this matter.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:But you are right that I am confident that Knox/Sollecito are innocent, and nothing said here is likely to change my mind.

I think you have summarised quite well your vision of dialogue.

¡AnnA! My apologies for not taking my own medicine!

In the small number of posts I've made so far I've managed to keep to my resolution to avoid commenting on other posters or other meta-goings-on and stick to the case, but I can't hold my tongue any longer on this one thing--guys, I think you're wasting your time with Charlie Wilkes. He uses logical fallacies, his arguments turn into ever-moving targets, and he misconstrues and exaggerates peoples' positions to make his point. Whenever I see a poster on a forum start complaining that a place is a "clubhouse," or a clique, or a gang, or whatever, I turn off--that's a warning sign. Not all trolls come clothed in bad spelling and abusive language--sometimes they just like to wind you up with a variety of (fallacious, I say again) argumentative approaches. (I'm not saying CW is a troll, but he exhibits trollish behavior.) Honestly, anyone who says this board is a monolith of opinion is doing so for their own purposes, has not read it, or has reading comprehension problems--every view from Oceania at one end to bcpl at the other is listened to and analyzed and the majority (not all, but most) people are far from making up their minds about who is guilty of what, if anything.

I just hate seeing us get sidetracked again like this--one person can really end up dominating the board if we aren't careful. I think this is a really interesting thread and it's turning into the Charlie Wilkes show again--which would maybe be okay if he was a poster in good faith, but even he admits to having made up his mind and having an agenda--to sow seeds in our poor deluded lockstep minds.

And now I'll go back to mostly lurking and sticking to the case and facts at hand.

Hey Scout, you should post more, not about other posters, but about the case.

Scout, you are quite right. It's easy to get sidetracked. I hope to see more of your posts.

…….the crew take to a secondary craft and abandon the alien-infested mother ship. They prepare to blow it to smithereens. As the credits roll, there lurking in the shadows…..aaaarrggghhhhh! Wilkes!

Well, thank you, Sparrow and Kermit! My internet connection has been a bit on the unreliable side lately, so when I can, I've been trying to catch up on and mull over the information that's being collected and organized here and new (or tweaked) scenarios put forth, as well as following the interesting developments over at Perugia Shock. More when I've had the change to read more carefully and ponder, on Minotaur's ideas as well as others.

Nowo:

I just hate seeing us get sidetracked again like this--one person can really end up dominating the board if we aren't careful. I think this is a really interesting thread and it's turning into the Charlie Wilkes show again--which would maybe be okay if he was a poster in good faith, but even he admits to having made up his mind and having an agenda--to sow seeds in our poor deluded lockstep minds.

And now I'll go back to mostly lurking and sticking to the case and facts at hand.
________
Well said and to put it softly and in French-English I'm going to ignore the c--- from now on.

I hope everyone else does too because what you have explained now Scout is exactly what I object to with this character AND he isn't as polite as he poses at a certain point then he left the oh-so-very-politeness, to directly disrupt.

Scout wrote:I just hate seeing us get sidetracked again like this--one person can really end up dominating the board if we aren't careful.

Right. You and your playmates can't afford to get sidetracked. You have too much important detective work to do.

Charlie

Wilkes to be banned.

Your agenda is full, the disruption stops here, you are a fake, you belittle the board.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:You may think this group is open-minded, but it doesn't look that way from outside your clubhouse. It's true that you bat around a variety of ideas and scenarios, but they all share a key assumption -- that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.
Charlie

And your 'key' assumption is that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. So how does that make you any different? At least we DO "bat around a variety of ideas and scenarios" . . it's called being open minded, whereas YOU are fixed on only one scenario - that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. You have locked into one theory, and one theory only - therefore that makes you closed minded, unyielding and unable to enter into discussion, since you cannot open your mind to any other theory.

I believe this makes you the LEAST open-minded of any of us, (how bizarre!) and the biggest hypocrite of all. You have yet to differentiate between discussion (what we do) - and manipulation (what you do). I also find it distasteful that you need to constantly criticise people for being short sighted, 'stupid' etc etc simply because they do not share your view. Do you have low self esteem and need people to bow to your views in order to make you feel important? Perhaps you should look into that. In the meantime, try to remember we are not sheep. Many of us (myself included), have changed their minds about what happened when other evidence has come to light.

This makes us 'neutral' and unbiased'. The same cannot be said for you.

A voice from Perugia:

Anon:...I wasn't asking if there was any brutality in police stations in Perugia but whether it was applied and resulted in false testimony or changed testimony with two principals in the case. In particular, I was asking if any of the attorneys for Raffaele or Amanda had in court filings or before the press made the accusations that brutality resulted in false testimony.


Frank: I don't think they did, anon.

Perugia Shock

More voices from Perugia:

Frank:

...Amanda innocent is possible when an extraordinary amount of coincidences put Meredith's Dna on that knife, Raffaele's Dna on the bra, etc. It's possible.
I've spoken to dr M. and he has no problem in admitting this hypotheses when it should occur.
In case it should happen, just think that a bit of jail never killed anyone. Let's remember that this girl was showing so much happiness right after HER HOUSEMATE was killed. Ask the people who met her, around the town or in the police's waiting room, they ALL agree with that.

Perugia Shock

Charlie Wilkes:

But of course they could still be convicted of murder. The authorities have Guede over a barrel, and he may cut a deal that would involve a confession in which he implicates Knox and Sollecito. And the prosecutors have had plenty of time to groom their witnesses. Lots of innocent people go to prison because of perjured testimony. But most are dirt poor with a criminal record and no family to support them. These two aren't like that. They will have excellent representation, and the whole world will be watching.


World Prison Population Statistics 2001(I couldn't quickly locate the most up to date but I don't belive anything has changed markedly):

The USA has a higher percentage of it's population in prison than any other country in the world (including such places as Russia and China) - 701 per 100,000.

The European average is just over 100 per 100,000.

Italy had exactly 100 prisoners per 100,000 in 2001.

UK Government PDF




Charlie,

You are basing your theories on the American system. Because of the social systems in operation in Europe, access to a high quality defence is NOT dependent on income.
I don't claim to speak 100% for the situation in Italy but if this crime had occurred in the UK all three suspects would be represented by well known, high profile defence lawyers provided by the state.

Perhaps that, more than anything else accounts for the higher percentage of the US prison population. Americans are probably not more criminal but any defence is much more dependent on wealth and maybe this results in the high incidence of wrongful convictions which you claim happens.

"You may think this group is open-minded, but it doesn't look that way from outside your clubhouse. It's true that you bat around a variety of ideas and scenarios, but they all share a key assumption -- that Knox and Sollecito are guilty."

I think I am speaking for nearly everyone when I say that we are a community, not a group, and that this is a message board, not a clubhouse. We do not share one monolithic view and individual views have evolved over time. We do share a certain weariness, the weariness that comes with explaining this simple thing over and over again. So, if Charlie can't or doesn't want to see that, whether he is peering in from the outside or hanging out inside (which means at least one member of the clubhouse has a view that differs from the clubhouse view), then that will have to be Charlie's problem. He can continue to play his one note song until the cows come home, and I will continue to wonder why he would want to waste his time in this way. I wonder why Charlie isn't out there working hard to overturn all those wrongful convictions and, in so doing, transforming all his negative energy into a positive force in the world. He could start with Leonard Peltier, who has been in prison for a very long time.

Personally, I don't want to waste time and space combatting someone whose goal here is to put "us" down for our endeavor and bring us reports from the outside about how "we" appear to the world. We are all big enough to venture out in the world, so we know how things look from out there, and most of us probably don't care too much about what Charlie's world thinks about how "we" appear. I certainly don't. I just wish he had the maturity to stop making snide comments that are just annoying, like a fly in the room is annoying, and not worth bothering over.

I agree wholeheartedly with Scout: trolls often come dressed in fancy clothing. But they all share certain traits:

A limited number of finely honed arguments that they trot out endlessly in lieu of real thought and engagement with others

A tendency to claim they are speaking for the entire civilized world

A desperate need for attention, which they think they can get only by making comments intended to goad people.

The thing about trolls is, they have no magical powers. They are just annoyances that one learns to ignore. They get off on people not ignoring them. Remember that.

Well said Skep. Some posts seem to ignore that this message board is about the murder of Meredith Kercher, and not about demonstrating that AK is the victim of a conspiracy. Nor it is a discussion about unrelated justice miscarriages or the state of the Italian judicial system . Such posts are based on assumptions and personal bias, I have always ignored them and I'll continue to do so.
Just is case someone has forgotten there has been a brutal murder, and the victim's name is Meredith Kercher.

Nicki: good to see you here. Can I ask a particularly nasty question about pathology?

My bottle theory was the only way I could reconcile the presence of RG’s DNA inside MK with the pathologists’ statement that no forced sexual violation occurred. I do not like it very much, but it is consistent with the evidence we have. [It does of course remain possible that they had consensual sex as RG claims; but I save that for another scenario].

If the break-in was a staged break-in, then it seems logical to deduce that the rape may have been a staged rape. And support for this seems to be given by the fact that her jeans were pulled down and her bra was cut off only after she had died. (Had RG got so far as to leave DNA inside her while attempting to violate her, it is unlikely that she would have been able to get her jeans back up while that attempted violation was turning to murder.

My question is: if MK was sexually violated only after her death – and it could have occurred up to several hours later -- I assume that the contusions associated with forced sex would not be present. But could such a violation, with some such instrument as a bottle, also leave evidence that would be consistent with what the perizia described as ‘consensual sex possibly as little as an hour before her death’? (That was the part of the perizia that puzzled me most, as there really doesn’t seem to have been time for a consensual encounter between the time that MK arrived home and the probable time of her death).

The second question is, is the type of DNA found within MK, and which has been specified as possibly coming from a finger and not from seminal fluid, consistent with saliva?

This is not very nice to write about, and if you answer please do so in clinical language (anche in Italiano, se preferiresti).

I must frankly admit that I do not belive a single work in RG’s prison diary (not even the ‘ands’ and the ‘thes’, as Dorothy Parker once remarked). But he does volunteer the information that he drank out of two bottles (dalle bottiglie) in the fridge, one containing apricot juice and the other containing water. He probably intended this as background information for the diarrhoea episode and to give the impression that MK wanted him to feel at home.

But if someone was violating a corpse to make it appear that it had been raped before it had died, what domestic object would come to hand?: a bottle might perhaps be more convenient than, say, the handle of a mop. If there is any possibility that this speculation of mine may be true, then one can assume that the water-bottle was used. Had it been the apricot juice, the pathologists would have found something very surprising on that 'tampone vaginale' that has already caused some confusion on this discussion.

My apologies for this particularly prurient posting.

I shall not be swearing at people anymore all as I can say is;

If CW was hung drawn and quartered would he still go rabbiting on and on about the same stuff?

Answer: maybe yes!

that's why, a delegation would have him shipped off to China, they'd censor him there.

Minotaur,

I thought that the DNA from the vaginal swab was from skin, Rudy's finger...am I not remembering this correctly??

soozie UK wrote:You have locked into one theory, and one theory only - therefore that makes you closed minded, unyielding and unable to enter into discussion, since you cannot open your mind to any other theory.

I can't really deny this.

I suppose a group of people could debate whether the Tooth Fairy is a natural blond or dyes her hair and be very open to all points of view on the subject. On that basis they might conclude that anyone insisting there is no Tooth Fairy has a closed mind. And in a certain sense, they'd be right.

That's my position here. You are all having fun with your elaborate theories about a quarrel over money, DNA traces on a bottle, a big cleanup involving bleach, etc. etc. And I'm spoiling the fun by telling you it's all make-believe. Rudy Guede killed this girl by himself, and nobody else was there. And Mignini is a bad man who is lying to everyone.

There's not much fun to be had with that, but it's the truth, for whatever pittance that might be worth to you.

Charlie

Minotaur wrote:Nicki: good to see you here. Can I ask a particularly nasty question about pathology?

My bottle theory was the only way I could reconcile the presence of RG’s DNA inside MK with the pathologists’ statement that no forced sexual violation occurred. I do not like it very much, but it is consistent with the evidence we have. [It does of course remain possible that they had consensual sex as RG claims; but I save that for another scenario].

If the break-in was a staged break-in, then it seems logical to deduce that the rape may have been a staged rape. And support for this seems to be given by the fact that her jeans were pulled down and her bra was cut off only after she had died. (Had RG got so far as to leave DNA inside her while attempting to violate her, it is unlikely that she would have been able to get her jeans back up while that attempted violation was turning to murder.

My question is: if MK was sexually violated only after her death – and it could have occurred up to several hours later -- I assume that the contusions associated with forced sex would not be present. But could such a violation, with some such instrument as a bottle, also leave evidence that would be consistent with what the perizia described as ‘consensual sex possibly as little as an hour before her death’? (That was the part of the perizia that puzzled me most, as there really doesn’t seem to have been time for a consensual encounter between the time that MK arrived home and the probable time of her death).

The second question is, is the type of DNA found within MK, and which has been specified as possibly coming from a finger and not from seminal fluid, consistent with saliva?

This is not very nice to write about, and if you answer please do so in clinical language (anche in Italiano, se preferiresti).

I must frankly admit that I do not belive a single work in RG’s prison diary (not even the ‘ands’ and the ‘thes’, as Dorothy Parker once remarked). But he does volunteer the information that he drank out of two bottles (dalle bottiglie) in the fridge, one containing apricot juice and the other containing water. He probably intended this as background information for the diarrhoea episode and to give the impression that MK wanted him to feel at home.

But if someone was violating a corpse to make it appear that it had been raped before it had died, what domestic object would come to hand?: a bottle might perhaps be more convenient than, say, the handle of a mop. If there is any possibility that this speculation of mine may be true, then one can assume that the water-bottle was used. Had it been the apricot juice, the pathologists would have found something very surprising on that 'tampone vaginale' that has already caused some confusion on this discussion.

My apologies for this particularly prurient posting.

Hi Minotaur,
I would say that penetration with a foreign object post-mortem would be consistent with the perizia only if it had occured within a max time of 1 to 3 hours, after which rigor mortis occurs and muscles will stiffen. When this happens, any attempt to enter would break the muscles fibers and that would be detectable. Without going over a detailed description of the female anatomy, I think the concept is pretty clear.

As for your second question, epidermial cells (such as finger cells) are different from the cells you'd find in saliva, which are mucosae cells, and have different histological characteristics. What we don't know for sure though is if Rudy's DNA cells were epithelial (finger or any other skin cell) or a different type. Or at least I am not aware of it. In short, DNA doesn't change, it presents the same sequence in every cell. But the morphological characteristics of the cells are very different e.g. we can tell an epidermis cell (skin cell) from a cardiac cell, or from a bladder cell etc. So indeed the ILE was able to type both the DNA and the origin of the cell.

I also find Rudy's account hard to believe when he calls him out. For the rest, I think he is mixing up truth and lies...but what is genuine and is pure fabrication to save his ass I don't truly know.

It 's nice to see you over hee too, and...don't worry about the subject being prurient. Quando occorre parlare di certe cose, bisogna usare le giuste parole.

About finding traces of apricot juice:what you do in a lab is looking for clues...so they look for DNA sequence to match any of the suspects, and then they type the kind of cell they have found which could be epithelial, sperm, buccal (mouth) mucosa etc...but if they are not targeting other material such as apricot juice traces, they wouldn't possible find them.

I think your hypothesis of a post mortem violation is a possibility that cannot be discarded -given the info that are available as of now-

Thanks, Nicki!

P.S. It has been frequently been stated that epithelial cells from RG were found inside MK. This seems to be a false extrapolation from this translation of the AGI bulletin that appeared on Halo2 (unfortunately the link to the original Italian article doesn't work).


AGI) - Perugia, 14 Dec. - The Perugia review tribunal has ruled that Rudy Hermann Guede wil be staying in jail. Four hours after the end of the hearing, the judges ruled that there was enough evidence against the man from Ivory Coast, issuing the authorization for his arrest. The bloodied fingerprint on the pillow found next to Meredith, the DNA traces on the vaginal swab carried out as part of the autopsy and epithelial ones found in the bathroom are the mark left by Rudy Hermann Guede in the house where the crime was committed, the proof of a presence that state attorney Giuliano Mignini believes was not simply that of a witness to the events but a more active participant ...

This is consistent with what Frank wrote at the time. Strangely, I can't find anything in the Corriere or La Reppublica archives that is so specific; they only carry on about the bra.

As far as I can work out, epithelial cells concern the bra and the bathroom; we are told only that RG's DNA was identified from the vaginal swab, nothing more. (And that seems later to have been doubted).

Charlie Wilkes pronounced: "I'm spoiling the fun by telling you it's all make-believe."

Better than vitamins; these daily proclamations for better living by our resident megalomaniac. No fun spoiled here - I'm in giggles all day long.

I'm in giggles all day long.

FBN!
Have you been smoking that wacky weed again?

... it has always been very obvious that charlie has an agenda - prolly part of the pr team - his questions usually are followed by 'will that affect your opinion' - he sticks to his script, thus the 'parroting'

I think it is very interesting that raf and ak attys feel there is a need for a pr team -

Minotaur, Indie, the skin cells of the finger are mentioned in at least one Repubblica article. There might be more, but I'm posting this one first. Strangely, this article is based on an article in the Sun that seems to be based on a leak out of Luca Lalli's office.

The quote: "Inoltre il Dna di Guede trovato in Meredith sono 'cellule della pelle delle dita e non sperma'." --- "Moreover the DNA of Guede found in Meredith are 'cells of the skin of the finger and not sperm.'"

Link to article:
http://tinyurl.com/2v7rog

The fact that they needed to quote The Sun: basterebbe!

bump

[font=Comic Sans MS]Just winding things down on the board a bit now as we move over to the new forum. I am therefore locking this thread.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]