The True Crime Weblog Message Board

We have managed to create nearly 100 pages in the current topic thread.
I think it's time to start afresh.
The thread in question will remain unlocked, but please start posting here.
I've put up a notice over there, directing people here.
Skeptical Bystander (Moderator)

Franzoni got thirty years for killing he son at the first trial. There are various rumours about possible connections this woman may or may not have. At appeal, the sentence was cut to 16 years because she was apparently not in control of her faculties when she committed murder. This verdict and sentence was upheld by the Cassazione the other day, 6 and a half years after the crime. 'Indulto' (a type of pardon) will automatically take 3 years off this sentence. There's another super discount thingy which takes time off too, a certain number of days for each year. If she behaves herself and because she is a mother she probably won't serve more that 4 years of her sentence.
On the 2nd March 2006, a young boy was kidnapped and killed. Of the 3 suspects, one went for the rito abbreviato and was sentenced to 20 years prison a while ago. The other two went for the full trial and were sentenced yesterday. The man got life with 2 years of isolation and the woman got 30 years at the Corte di Assise, the first grade.
http://tinyurl.com/52fog

Manganelli: ci troviamo in una situazione di «indulto quotidiano in cui tutti parlano, ma nessuno fa

ROMA - La certezza della pena non esiste più. Ci troviamo in una situazione di «indulto quotidiano», in cui tutti parlano ma nessuno fa. Il capo della Polizia, prefetto Antonio Manganelli, non usa mezzi termini per definire lo stato della certezza della pena in Italia.

NON SI E' FATTO NULLA - «Viviamo una situazione di indulto quotidiano - dice alle commissioni Affari Costituzionali e Giustizia del Senato - di cui tutti parlano. Ma su cui non si è fatto nulla negli ultimi anni».

Antonio Manganelli (Emblema)
La pena, aggiunge Manganelli, «oggi è quando di più incerto esiste in Italia»; un qualcosa che rende «assolutamente inutile» la risposta dello Stato e «vanifica» gli sforzi di polizia e magistratura. «Non gioco a fare il giurista - prosegue il capo della Polizia - nè voglio entrare nelle prerogative del Parlamento, ma quella che abbiamo oggi è una situazione vergognosa».


"The certainty of punishment doesn't exist anymore. We find ourselves in a situation of everyday indulto...everbody talks about it but nobody has done anything about it in recent years...what we have today is a disgraceful sitation."
Manganelli is the head of the Italian police. Indulto should not be confused with 'la grazia' or 'l'amnistia'...but they are all pretty cool if you happen to be a criminal. Indulto cancels the sentence, not the crime. 27 000 criminals were released from Italian prisons last year because of this forgiving law. For very serious crimes, indulto provides an automatic discount of the sentence.
http://tinyurl.com/54bf6r

Skep, thanks for the info on Comodi. Just to clarify my post, she'll be working alongside Mignini on the case, due to the the fact that there are 3 suspects, lots of hearings, perizie etc...

TLC wrote:It's complicated when it is unknown...when what happened is revealed I think it will be simple. It's just a little secret going on and either one, two or all three hold that secret.

There you have it! And for various reasons, all three have reasons to hold on to their personal secrets. There is little doubt in my mind that Amanda met Rudy and took him home for sex - I personally can't make the drug deal theory work, though the influence of drugs and alcohol on behavior was, without a doubt, a factor. So this is where things become open to speculation. If you want to take the premeditated theory to its extreme, then Amanda conspired with Raffaele to seduce an unsuspecting Rudy into a thrill-kill trap. I do find some evidence to support this theory. You would think there would have been a lot more planning if that were the case, but that does not rule it out.

At the other extreme we find a completely self-interest fueled scenario and what follows is one way things might have played out. Man-eating Amanda finds she has the night off and by chance meets and seduces the girl-chasing petty thief Rudy. Once at the cottage, Rudy has a moment to himself in which he quickly pockets Meredith's cash. Poor Meredith comes home and discovers her missing money, and is further surprised to find Amanda in bed with yet another man - she may have thought at first that it was Raffaele. Tensions rise and accusations are hurled. Rudy might excuse himself to use the bathroom at this point, thinking that he caused all this by stealing the money and getting involved with Amanda. Meanwhile, a jealous Raffaele wonders what happened to Amanda and winds up ringing the bell at the cottage only to walk into a bitter dispute - but you have to wonder why the cell phones were turned off and he couldn't just call her. Raffaele is angry and confused but compulsively steps up to defend Amanda against Meredith's angry verbal attack (i.e. "your girlfriend is nothing but a drugged up whore"). Pent up resentments come to a head and then quickly escalate into something no one could have imagined, but largely the way the Rudy has described it. Perhaps Rudy was over-infatuated with Amanda and felt the need to protect her, or perhaps he played a larger role in the attack on Meredith.

We know certain things that support either of these extremes, or anything in between. I have no doubt that this case will eventually be resolved to most people’s satisfaction. For some people, on the other hand, there could never be enough evidence.

Damian wrote:

Just to clarify my post, she'll be working alongside Mignini on the case, due to the the fact that there are 3 suspects, lots of hearings, perizie etc...

Thanks, Damian. I didn't mean to imply anything by posting the information I found about her. It's just that it is recent and I was struck by the coincidence that the second officer in command, also newly elected, is Claudia Matteini.

Fly by Night wrote:

TLC wrote:It's complicated when it is unknown...when what happened is revealed I think it will be simple. It's just a little secret going on and either one, two or all three hold that secret.

Well there you have it! And for various reasons, all three have reasons to hold on to their personal secrets. There is little doubt in my mind that Amanda met Rudy and took him home for sex - I personally can't make the drug deal theory work, though the influence of drugs and alcohol on behavior was, without a doubt, a factor. So this is where things become open to speculation. If you want to take the premeditated theory to its extreme, then Amanda conspired with Raffaele to seduce an unsuspecting Rudy into a thrill-kill trap. I do find some evidence to support this theory. You would think there would have been a lot more planning if that were the case, but that does not rule it out.

At the other extreme we find a completely self-interest fueled scenario and what follows is one way things might have played out. Man-eating Amanda finds she has the night off and by chance meets and seduces the girl-chasing petty thief Rudy. Once at the cottage, Rudy has a moment to himself in which he quickly pockets Meredith's cash. Poor Meredith comes home and discovers her missing money, and is further surprised to find Amanda in bed with yet another man - she may have thought at first that it was Raffaele. Tensions rise and accusations are hurled. Rudy might excuse himself to use the bathroom at this point, thinking that he caused all this by stealing the money and getting involved with Amanda. Meanwhile, a jealous Raffaele wonders what happened to Amanda and winds up ringing the bell at the cottage only to walk into a bitter dispute - but you have to wonder why the cell phones were turned off and he couldn't just call her. Raffaele is angry and confused but compulsively steps up to defend Amanda against Meredith's angry verbal attack (i.e. "your girlfriend is nothing but a drugged up whore"). Pent up resentments come to a head and then quickly escalate into something no one could have imagined, but largely the way the Rudy has described it. Perhaps Rudy was over-infatuated with Amanda and felt the need to protect her, or perhaps he played a larger role in the attack on Meredith.

We know certain things that support either of these extremes, or anything in between. I have no doubt that this case will eventually be resolved to most people’s satisfaction. For some people, on the other hand, there could never be enough evidence.

_____________

Hello Flybynight

Thanks for reply and thoughts.

1/ I cannot let go of the feeling that Knox and Guede have a secret. maybe one even siollecito does not fully understand, or, at least, did not fully understand.

2/ If premeditation had taken place, then the only way I can see it is that it was not long before and didn't take much away from the spontaneity of a possible cathymic episode.

all in all I am thinking this is a case of:

ACUTE CATATHYMIC HOMICIDE.

acute catathymic homicides: sexual murders involving a sudden loss of control when an under-lying conflict is triggered by an external circumstance.

Catathymia explains the development of delusions.

The term describes various forms of violent behavior.
The homicidal deas Wertham's subjects developed were not exactly delusional, but Wertham considered them quasi-delusional in that they were fixed, rootlike, and inaccessible to reason.

Not all authors have used the theory of catathymia to explain violence that is preceded by a protracted period of obsessional rumination.

Some have used the term to explain sudden unplanned acts of extreme violence.

Schlesinger

TLC wrote:If premeditation had taken place, then the only way I can see it is that it was not long before and didn't take much away from the spontaneity of a possible cathymic episode....acute catathymic homicides: sexual murders involving a sudden loss of control when an under-lying conflict is triggered by an external circumstance.

Interesting. Is there more to the profile? Is this more likely among single perpetrators, or can enablers be involved.

TLC,

"Yet, I kept feeling, and I have learned never to ignore gut instinct and feelings/hunches, that he arranged to be there or went there with Knox. "

It has been said that in order to solve a crime, one has to follow the evidence, no matter how awkward a position it requires you to look at.

Yesterday, when I was talking to SB, we were discussing the issue of the phones. Formerly, I had believed that they were thrown there in the garden by either Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox. There had been two hypothesis discussed here before, one by Sparrow and one by Kermit. Sparrow believed that the perpetrators stopped there after the crime for a breather and they fell out, unbeknownst to them. kermit hypothesized that they might have been thrown from a moving car. However, FBN stated yesterday that perhaps, Rudy Guede himself picked them up in panic, after being deserted by either of the other two and ran off with them. (Maybe the two people heard running from the house were Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede!!) SB brought up an important point which I had previously ignored and that is there might be a bloody finger print from Rudy in Meredith's purse. Along with this evidence, and the fact that Brian S. and I were discussing the issue of why his lawyer even brought this up in the first place and Rudy Guede's statement to the Court,

"In my case, then, I knew that the cell phones were found next to my house (and Sollecito's house) and, because of this, I was afraid that I would be unjustly charged. Because of this fear the alibi I provided can only be defined as comprehensibly not true but certainly not false"

has led me to believe that it was he and he alone who took the phones and discarded them as hypothesized by FBN

Secondly, and this is bold to say, but it was brought on by SB yesterday, if we substitute Patrick's name with Rudy Guede's name in Amanda Knox's confession, why we might be closer to the truth. The thing that brought me here were two things really. FBN's assertion about the phones, and TLC's statement about a rape not looking like a rape. And we know from the evidence, that Rudy Guede was involved in a sexual liaison with Meredith. We also know that the knife found in Raffaele Sollecito's flat has the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda Knox and Amanda Knox does have strong hands. This is where the evidence leads us to, whether we like it or not. I am not saying Amanda Knox committed the crime, but that kitchen knife is strong evidence.

Thirdly, how does Raffaele Sollecito get involved in all of this? Well maybe most people here are correct in saying that he is involved in the cleanup. We do not have solid evidence that he was anywhere near the cottage at the time of the murder yet. We know he does not have an alibi either. Why did he abandon Amanda Knox so easily? Is it that his part in this crime is only in the cover up and he feels confident that he can be vindicated on this? Why does the Amanda Knox camp cling so heavily on her being with Raffaele Sollecito even though there is solid evidence to the contrary.

Just maybe, just maybe, TLC and SB and FBN are correct, that a series of events took place at the cottage, a prearranged meeting between the two maybe, either for sex or a drug deal and something went terribly wrong at the cottage; Meredith reached a breaking point with all the strange men, the sex, the stolen money and just had it out with Amanda Knox; and there is this issue of the kitchen knife as well that could be telling evidence.

And I apologize to all of you for the rather long post. I knew it was long. I like to keep them short and will try in the future to do so. Rhonda has asked me to keep them short.

I see Amanda Knox in the following:


Menninger and Mayman (1956) viewed personality disintegration as a series of stages of adaptation to life's stresses.

Their notion is based on Freud's (1923) concept of the protective function of the ego.

With increasingly greater degrees of failure in adaptation come correspondingly lower levels of functioning.

Their “first order” of adaptation is the experience of anxiety.

If anxiety becomes too intense, neurotic defenses are formed, which constitute a”second order” of adaptation.

The “third order” of adaptation is episodic dyscontrol. This explosive outburst of violence represents a failure of the higher order stages to prevent disintegration.


___________


Some have said she was able to get money with a click of her fingers, easy peazy pudding and pie but her blood parents stated on TV the opposite.

They said: Well we said this is what we have this is what you can get. But Amanda said that's okay I will work.

She may have had 5000 dollars but if I was able to live a year on that in Italy or somewhere pleasant like that I'd be off this very evening.

5000 will not take a person far.
Especially if they smoke a lot of weed.

I know because I used to smoke a lot of weed.

If there is any truth to the story of Amanda having a debt I can imagine that losing her job had not just to do with anxiety, faced with personal failure to cope financially and in her mind the idea she wanted to continue the life she had found in Italy, by not having to return to America immediately she may have become very uptight.
There was criticism and there was failure on Amanda's part to get on with people.

This may have been new to her. It may have started in Italy. But it did happen.

I think she was unwillingly to accept criticism.
I also feel somehow that Meredith's death saw Amanda as Sonny Liston and an opponent out cold.
The winner says too bad but I won and is not sorry for the opponent because it was a fight.

That's the way I see Amanda.

I do not think only Guede can reveal all, but I think it may well be him who does reveal all.

Even though I don't get the idea Guede was the killer because if he was I know the others based on their behaviour up until now, would have shopped him, turned him in, told the lot. The only reason they cannot is because that is not what happened.
I feel Guede's guilt is elsewhere. I definitely do think he has great guilt.

Even if you do not do the killiing taking part in some way or hiding what you know makes you as bad as the killer, in certain cases.

I see Sollecito under the banner Acute Catathymic Homicide but not necesssarily sexual.

His seems like pent up wee little angers all over the place.

I think it burst out and caused murder.

His bursting out may have chimed in and been in unison with the same underlying tensions coming to a head through a trigger that others had.

That is why it does not seem logical or explainable because if they really had planned it this crime would have taken place in a very different way.

They were led by compulsion, spontaneity, and kicks. They were not thinking rationally and their intent to upset Meredith, tease and humiliate her went way too far and in an instant turned into a nightmare.

Still, at least two of these find that they were in the right.

That's where delusion come back imntro play. That explains the lack of ability to feel how and what it is others are feeling.
The delusions have not allowed it.

Amanda felt she was wronged and to make it right for her in her head so she can live with it as though it were not real or at least not her fault this taking her guilt away, she has to believe she was right. So, she believes she was right and still does.

If she did not believe that she would break down. I think Guede knows he was not right.

I think Sollecito is many things above all the most calculated and clever of them all.

He has been far more cautious than Knox was anyway.










t's normal, millions of people find new lives or travel the globe especially young people.

BEEP: Why did he abandon Amanda Knox so easily? Is it that his part in this crime is only in the cover up and he feels confident that he can be vindicated on this

____________

Yes the same question crossed my mind 45 thousand times.

I do not think he thinks he can get off because of only having helped clean up. If he thought that, he'd have saved himself a lot of time by already giving it up.

But the reason he has not given that much up, is because he did more than clean up. Where he has positioned himself on the chess board does mean he thinks he still has that way out but it seems he will admit nothing unless he is absolutely sure there is no other way. But he may just be so stubborn that he will refuse to ever admit anything and fight for his so-called good name.

After all, if he serves a sentence gets out he can still play on saying I was innocent, I was framed, and in that way fake being able to hold his head up high for the rest of his life.
He won't care as long as he gets around the shame somehow. He may commit suicide later on. If the family were to abandon him but they won't as long as he denies everything for his dad and his dad's name. My boy was set up he never did anything he is a good boy.

He has that kind of responsibility towards the family name and the family name and honour cannot be underestimated when it concerns Italy and Italians, especially involves a high-standing Italian like Dad Sollecito, what a disgrace, look what you have done to us all son!

I think Guede will have less of this, and if Amanda could she'd admit to helping if it saved her neck, pride might not get in her way as much as it will with Sollecito.

So he may give that up at the end, that he only helped Amanda bla bla yet he may avoid ever admitting any wrongdoing at all.

He will admit nothing unless there is some evidence apart from his peculiar behaviour like maybe two (Knox and Gude) people saying, yes he was there, we all did it.

TLC,

"He will admit nothing unless there is some evidence apart from his peculiar behaviour like maybe two (Knox and Gude) people saying, yes he was there, we all did it."

Yes you are correct. Before, I honestly believed that the truth of this crime could be told by Rudy Guede, but after resizing the evidence, it might take at least two of them to tell. And it won't be Raffaele Sollecito as you say.

Fly by Night wrote:At the other extreme we find a completely self-interest fueled scenario.

Fly by Night,
I think your second scenario may well be close to some or most of the actual events. May I add another twist ? Perhaps I am unduly influenced by the racism issue which has been rammed down our throats from the start, but I can't help wondering whether it might not have something to do with AK's and RS's very strange behaviour (while in jail, I mean -- conflicting alibis, obstinate silence, etc.) : they seem to be trying to hide some awful secret(s) (on top of their connection with the murder, I mean) -- awful in their own eyes or their families' and friends' ?

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that :
(a) AK's Seattle family and friends are not particularly liberal-minded, and AK herself is somewhat racist (there are some indications pointing that way), but not adverse to having sex with a black man as the ultimate adventurous experience,
(b) RS comes from a Pugliese conservative society which (probably) implicitly considers bi-racial sexual intercourse shameful, unspeakable, etc.,
(c) both AK and RS realize that nowadays [thank God -- my comment. B] racist behaviour is generally considered unforgivable (especially when in connection with serious criminal circumstances).

Now, suppose AK took RG into the house for sex (plus perhaps drugs, money for drugs ...). Suppose that Meredith came in (or walked out of her room if she was already in the house) as AK and RG were having sex (perhaps in a common room -- kitchen ? living room ? -- or in AK's room but with the door open). She (Meredith) might have tartly commented "you are disgusting, have you no shame ?" -- not because RG was black, but because of the indiscriminate and unashamed character of this (and previous ?) sexual encounter(s) of AK's with any Tom, Dick and Harry (that's how I presume Meredith would have reacted in the hypothetical case I am writing about). This far it's more or less your second scenario, FBN.

Now, how did RS get onto the scene ? There are several possibilities, which I won't go into here.

But I think his outrage at AK's unfaithfulness with a black man (rather than a chivalrous defence of her against Meredith's reproaches) might have made him mad with rage. For some reason this rage would have turned against Meredith. What reason ? Well, first, AK would have egged him on. But mostly, I hypothesize, it might have had something to do with Meredith's own mixed origin ("These interfering, stupid blacks !" RS would have thought). RG was able to defend himself if attacked (or had disappeared into the bathroom), but poor Meredith obviously was not. So RS attacked the weaker (or only present) "non-white" person (perhaps threatening her at first with rape by RG or himself as a "punishment" ?).

There are many unanswered questions with this kind of scenario, I know. In fact, it's full of holes. But the racism factor might go some way towards explaining the reasons why AK and RS refuse to tell the truth. What would Seattle say if AK were proved to have behaved like that ? And what would Bari (and Papa) say if RS were proved to have been mixed with this kind of thing ?

Just an idea ...

PS. Beep, thanks for a thoughtful post (as always).
One point of disagreement, though : you wrote " we know from the evidence, that Rudy Guede was involved in a sexual liaison with Meredith." Do we know such a thing ??

Fly by Night wrote:

TLC wrote:If premeditation had taken place, then the only way I can see it is that it was not long before and didn't take much away from the spontaneity of a possible catathymic episode....acute catathymic homicides: sexual murders involving a sudden loss of control when an under-lying conflict is triggered by an external circumstance.

Interesting. Is there more to the profile? Is this more likely among single perpetrators, or can enablers be involved.

Well, there are endless possibilities, no two crimes are identical.

There is planned compulsive catathymix homicide
There is unplanned compulsive catathymic homicide.

Acute catathymic homicide sees the compulsion not involved. It is the spur of the moment thing, the moment of rage. Those events are not planned.

Knox and Sollecito would hardly have planned to kill Meredith then getting into it all, ending up in rage. No, the cool and cold-blooded nature of planned homicide is what says for you dear friend there are no mitigating circumstances, you knew what you was doing, you planned it, somehow you could have stopped.
But then I say this whilst it is not entirely true because if someone is committing compulsive crime then they will be treated for mental illness on being found to be guilty of crime.

Any one of these three will have to take part in psycho-analyisis too if found guilty that is if they wish to benefit from any of the sentence reductions that Damian explained to us.

This is what the studies show in one way. That many killers like the Korean boy who massacred the kids at school/college actually gave out clear signs of his level of mentality and it could have been read as danger signs but it was ignored and cost many people their lives, each victim having at least three gunshot wounds, the cruelty there was typical of such a person's profile, his lack of empathy and level of cruelty was not new to those cursed with having to deal with it.

Depending on who killed Meredith and why, a profile can be built about the possibility of recidivism.
Based on all that is known as fact and judging by their particular choices and behavioural patterns these past months, I see this as a one-off, a spur of the moment episode. But I may be wrong because I do not know who killed Meredith, nobody knows except those who were there. The investigators may have a more complete idea of who did what, because they have their evidence.
We do not have the evidence, they have evidence.

Years ago it was said that certain criminals would commit murder again, they were kept in jail for forever, on the grounds that they'd definitely commit murder again. It was later found out through study that this is mostly not the case.

Professional killers are different to murderers like this.

If any one of the three is found in the profie underneath then it does not have to be a one-off thing. And it does not have to have been planned

Unplanned Compulsive Homicides


Sexually motivated compulsive homicides are fueled by a combination of sadism, fantasy, and a compulsion to kill. These elements, to one degree or another, are present in both compulsive murderers who plan their crimes and compulsive murderers who act in an unplanned, impulsive, and spontaneous manner. Whether the murder is planned or spontaneous, however, is not a result of the compulsion or various sadistic fantasies; rather, it is a result primarily of the offender's personality makeup. Thus, the individual's personality is an intervening variable between the three elements and the way the crime is committed.

bpcl wrote:...And we know from the evidence, that Rudy Guede was involved in a sexual liaison with Meredith.

But this has been a tough point for the ILE to reconcile. Rudy says he had consensual contact, but it could also have occured during/after her murder, or this could have been staged by someone else.

On the other hand, for some yet unkown reason I suspect the ILE has a clear idea about those phones. My guess is that they too believe Rudy tossed them. And if Mignini is ready to file charges at this time, I believe the guesswork has truly been put to rest.

Bluetit wrote:...the racism factor might go some way towards explaining the reasons why AK and RS refuse to tell the truth.

I have to agree, if only because of the way some die-hard Amanda supporters go on and on about certain things. That really brings the racism issue full circle

Bluetit,

"One point of disagreement, though : you wrote " we know from the evidence, that Rudy Guede was involved in a sexual liaison with Meredith." Do we know such a thing ??"

I do not know this for a fact and my statement should be qualified. And thank you for pointing it out to me.

From Frank's Shock: I quote,

"The suspect Guede offered this version of the facts:

He met Meredith Kercher at a friend's house on October 31. The next day he went to her house, where his sexual advances were interrupted only because he did not have a condom and the victim did not want to have unprotected intercourse."

So I should not have used the term sexual liaison in my post. Instead of saying,

"And we know from the evidence, that Rudy Guede was involved in a sexual liaison with Meredith. "

I should have said,

And we know from the sexual evidence, that Rudy Guede did have some form of sexual contact with Meredith, however, there is nothing from the evidence that can lead us to believe that the contact was consensual or not.

bpcl wrote:I should have said,
And we know from the sexual evidence, that Rudy Guede did have some form of sexual contact with Meredith, however, there is nothing from the evidence that can lead us to believe that the contact was consensual or not.

Now we are in perfect agreement (unless, of course, one thinks the post-mortem bottle violation theory likely).

Bluetit,

"Now we are in perfect agreement (unless, of course, one thinks the post-mortem bottle violation theory likely."

Wow, you are way ahead of me on this. I do not know if you had a chance to read some of TLC's earlier posts on the issue of sexual contact between both Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede, but IMHO, it does bear some consideration as to how this form of sexual contact might be considered. Respect to you!

Skep,

In your post entitled Sacré Raffaele! (Thu May 29, 2008 11:14 am) you provided us with illuminating extracts from both RS's blog (retrieved and translated by Kermit) and his prison diary (translated by Belle). Thanks !

Do you think it would be possible to post both texts (in their entirety) in the "In their own words" topic ? I believe they would be most useful additions.

If it's too much trouble, never mind, don't bother.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi everyone

It seems Joe Tacopina is finalising the deal for Roma Football club today...ker-ching!. Something else I didn't know, he also used to represent the late great Peter Cook apparently:

http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=715378

Also, please read the 'Forum News' thread as I've just posted in regard to slow forum load times:

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/p ... .html#2197[/font]

The problem with nearly all of the theories that keep coming up involving all three is that most, if not all completely ignore the known facts . That Meredith phoned her mother at 9.30pm and seemed her usual self. That Guede was seen running from the direction of the cottage at approx 10.30pm. I think we can safely ascertain she met her fate in that hour. Guedes DNA was found inside her, his bloody finger and footprints found around her, on her bag etc. So you need to come up with a compelling and plausible theory that gets all three suddenly at the cottage at the same time, after 9.30pm and before 10.30pm and to have left the DNA that was left and to have killed her. Remembering that both AK and RS had previous arrangements only cancelled at approx 20 minutes to 9.

Suggestions that AK was covering for Guede when she named PL in her controversial interrogation are somewhat unbelievable considering she walked past bloody tissues at the entrance to the cottage and didn't bother to flush the toilet. If she was in any way trying to clean up or cover for anyone she would have of course completed these simple tasks.

Another interesting point for me is that none of you have offered up your versions of what you think really went on between AK and RS that morning. If you believe they were involved then the conversations and actions they said they had and did in their alibi's would of course have been completely different. I find it fascinating that no-one has offered up what they think they ‘really’ said and did. Here's a suggestion:-

Amanda on returning to Raffaeles:-

"Hey Raff, things look pretty good at the cottage, I got all Meredith's bloody clothes into the machine, should be finished soon, I put in tons of bleach and set it on a really high temp that should do the trick. What about the bra and her jeans and top and all the clothes that she was wearing they are still lying next to her ? I think I selectively erased most of our DNA but left the other flatmates fingerprints etc, do you think that might arouse suspicion ? I didn't pick up Rudy's tissues or flush the toilet, what do you think ? do you want to come and have a look and see if we should leave it or not ? There was some blood spots in the bathroom but I thought I might leave them just to give those stupid cops something to chew on. Hey, here's the mop to clean up all the bloody footprints etc at your apartment, better take it back with us because they if they find it here that wouldn't look good. How did you get on with the knife?"

Raffaele:

"Don't worry I googled bleach and blood on my computer, then I went out to the local shop and got a huge bottle of bleach. It wasn't enough to get rid of all the blood around my flat so I had to go back and get another one to finish the job off. I was thinking we should say my pipes burst and that's why we needed the mop and all the bleach. I bleached the knife and placed it back in the drawer, I doubt if they will ever find it. People will think it is part of a new set and it would create suspicion if we didn’t put it back. Gosh life is so much more interesting since you came into mine Amanda”

Amanda:

“Come on let’s get back to the cottage, let’s pretend we have arrived innocently and that we know nothing. They might find the phones soon so we don’t have much time. We’ll just hang around and call all our flatmates etc until someone turns up then we can pretend to be shocked and fake helping them find the murderer, I saw that once in a movie”

Raffaele:

“God your brilliant, we should get away with this for sure, I’m just so pleased you didn’t have to work and I didn’t have to take my stupid friend to the station.”

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

Just to clarify my post, she'll be working alongside Mignini on the case, due to the the fact that there are 3 suspects, lots of hearings, perizie etc...

Thanks, Damian. I didn't mean to imply anything by posting the information I found about her. It's just that it is recent and I was struck by the coincidence that the second officer in command, also newly elected, is Claudia Matteini.

Hi Skep, I know you weren't implying anything, I was genuinely grateful. It's just that my previous post could've been clearer. I think I may have caused the confusion with my sarcastic comment the other day.

damian wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

Just to clarify my post, she'll be working alongside Mignini on the case, due to the the fact that there are 3 suspects, lots of hearings, perizie etc...

Thanks, Damian. I didn't mean to imply anything by posting the information I found about her. It's just that it is recent and I was struck by the coincidence that the second officer in command, also newly elected, is Claudia Matteini.

Hi Skep, I know you weren't implying anything, I was genuinely grateful. It's just that my previous post could've been clearer. I think I may have caused the confusion with my sarcastic comment the other day.

I think these close relationships between the Judges and PM's is exactly what Frank (and myself and others) have been lamenting as wrong with the system and in particular as it relates to this case. It is completely counter to how an impartial justice system should work, Judges and PM's should be kept seperate at all times, the sooner they get the biased Matteini off this case the better. If future hearings (before any trial) are to be handled by a GUP I certainly hope they ask for conclusive proof of forensics and don't continue to pass decisions based on outdated copy and pasted theories and so far unproven forensics.

Oceania wrote:

The problem with nearly all of the theories that keep coming up involving all three is that most, if not all completely ignore the known facts. That Meredith phoned her mother at 9.30pm and seemed her usual self.

In what way do any of the known theories ignore this fact or are incompatible with it? Do you know what was said during this conversation? Do you know how long it lasted? I think we can safely assume that the investigators and Mignini have a good idea of the details of this conversation. However, in your world of unfalsifiable notions, this has no importance because you have already determined they are corrupt and/or incompetent.

Oceania wrote:

That Guede was seen running from the direction of the cottage at approx 10.30pm. I think we can safely ascertain she met her fate in that hour.

First of all, the exact time has not been confirmed and second, but more importantly, the witness did not identify the person she saw as Rudy Guede. She said she saw a black man. Believe it or not, there is a nuance there, and it is not that they all look alike. It may well turn out to be Rudy, but this is not what the witness has said as far as we know. Again, how are the scenarios being put forward incompatible with this fact, corrected for your own mistake? And what about the ear witness? Why are you ignoring this known fact?

Oceania wrote:

Guedes DNA was found inside her, his bloody finger and footprints found around her, on her bag etc. So you need to come up with a compelling and plausible theory that gets all three suddenly at the cottage at the same time, after 9.30pm and before 10.30pm and to have left the DNA that was left and to have killed her. Remembering that both AK and RS had previous arrangements only cancelled at approx 20 minutes to 9.

I don't see how your known fact about Guede's DNA is ignored in the other scenarios, but more importantly I don't see how you get from there to: "so you have to get all three at the cottage at the same time, after 9:30." Why must all three arrive at the cottage at the same time? And once again, for the twentieth time, what do these previous engagements have to do with anything except your antiquated notion of premeditation? Yes, we have known since Nov 5 that AK was supposed to have worked that night. We have also known since then that she did not work that night. Some people have put forward the idea that she may just have run into Rudy shortly after having been seen leaving RS's apartment by an eye witness. Guess what? She was supposed to work but did not. RS was supposed to drive somebody to the train station but did not. Plans have a way of changing like that. And once again, unless the train station was in Milan I doubt RS's entire evening would have been taken up with driving the Polish student to the train station. Are you suggesting that because X had plans at time T and even though X's plans fell through, X has an alibi for the murder of Y because it in fact did occur at time T?

Oceania wrote:

Suggestions that AK was covering for Guede when she named PL in her controversial interrogation are somewhat unbelievable considering she walked past bloody tissues at the entrance to the cottage and didn't bother to flush the toilet. If she was in any way trying to clean up or cover for anyone she would have of course completed these simple tasks.

The fact that AK did not deliver up Rudy's name does not mean she was covering for him. If she was there when Meredith was killed, then not delivering Rudy's name would be a way of covering for herself and RS and buying time. The fact that she did not flush his shit away is neither here nor there. Indeed, we know that flushing was not her forte. Once again, Oceania, you misinterpret what has been said so that it is easier for you to evacuate the problem. The same can be said for the bloody tissues. How do you know AK walked past them? How do you know she saw them? Do you know where and when they were found? Do you know whose blood is on those bloody tissues?

You have failed to show in any kind of plausible detail how the ideas put forth by various people ignore the known facts. Worse, you misrepresent some of the known facts and ignore others.

Oceania wrote:

I think these close relationships between the Judges and PM's is exactly what Frank (and myself and others) have been lamenting as wrong with the system and in particular as it relates to this case. It is completely counter to how an impartial justice system should work, Judges and PM's should be kept seperate at all times, the sooner they get the biased Matteini off this case the better

Damian will correct me if I am wrong, but from my translation of the information in question, Manuela Comodi is a "substitut du procureur," which in the French judiciary is an assistant to the Procureur. In other words, Mignini and Comodi are professional peers. As for the organization that just elected Comodi as president and Matteini as vice-president, it sounds to me like the sort of peer organization that exists all over the world and for most professions. Again, Damian probably knows more about it.

I doubt there is anything sinister or surprising in this latest information, but then I have never been prone to a belief in conspiracies or flying saucers either.

Michael wrote:[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi everyone
(...) Something else I didn't know, he also used to represent the late great Peter Cook apparently:
http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=715378

I believe the Peter Cook Taco represented was not the great one ... The article seems to have mixed up the late lamented Cook with a living American playboy / architect / Lothario (whom Taco fought, I think, since he represented the man's young mistress, another so-called "victim" ...).

Michael wrote:Also, please read the 'Forum News' thread as I've just posted in regard to slow forum load times:
http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/p ... .html#2197[/font]

Thanks, Michael !

Bluetit wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to post both texts (in their entirety) in the "In their own words" topic ? I believe they would be most useful additions.

I just posted the October 13 blog entry and will post the diary. As a reminder, the blog entry was translated by Kermit and posted on an early Haloscan. The diary was translated by Belle, who also posted on Haloscan.

oceania8,

One correction on your post:

"his bloody finger and footprints found around her"

You may believe that the bloody footprint is Rudy Guede's but this is what the court said about that foot print to Raffaele Sollecito on his April 1st hearing:

"It is true that the identification with your own pair of Nikes is still uncertain, as the Court itself admits, but the size of the print left in the victim's blood excludes the possibility of its being attributable to Rudy Guede, since he has a much bigger shoe size."

This may be old news, but Frank has a new post on his website.

Michael,

Good to see you back here posting!

From Frank's website:

"Let's remember that, unlike Rudy and Raffaele, there is not a trace of Amanda on the crime scene."

He has got to be kidding us on this statement! Really now. Her blood was found mixed with that of Meredith from what we know. She has lied about this case from the get go. She has said she was with Raffaele Sollecito on the night of the murder and he has categorically stated on April 1st that he was alone. Her DNA was found on the handle of a kitchen knife with Meredith Kercher's on the tip from what we have heard. You can never, ever discount DNA because it is the silent witness. Is he going to downplay even that as being suspect? Frank's posts have begun to lack any kind of decent credibility I daresay.

I have mixed feelings about Frank too, Beep. And he sure is angry at Patrick, for what I do not understand!

Beep wrote:

Let's remember that, unlike Rudy and Raffaele, there is not a trace of Amanda on the crime scene.

Frank would have to verify this, but I think he means in the room where Meredith's body was found.

Jumpy,

I do not understand his reasoning really. He has completely forgotten that a young women was brutally murdered. There is compelling evidence that shows that all three persons in custody played some role in her death. He should just let the system perform its proper role out of respect to the Kercher family and most especially, to Meredith Kercher.

SB,

"Frank would have to verify this, but I think he means in the room where Meredith's body was found."

Per my last posting, I would like to see Frank observe the proper role of the courts and let them perform their sacred duty to perform proper justice for the Kercher family. He is beginning to sound like a 'sound bite' with no proper direction.

I consider the entire cottage part of the crime scene. Not just the bedroom.

Jumpy

I have mixed feelings about Frank too, Beep. And he sure is angry at Patrick, for what I do not understand!"

Patrick Lumumba was falsely accused by Amanda Knox. This is a fact that we know. We always say, "Please Lord let me walk a mile in the moccasins of my neighbor before I criticize him."

Soozie UK laid out the case yesterday about what it feels like to be falsely accused. Patrick Lumumba did nothing to merit this accusation. He will be forever associated with this sordid case. This is a 'forever' punishment. This case is only 7 months old and is frequently in the News, especially in Perugia. It will take time for the wounds to heal. Christian or not, the man needs time to heal and Frank should have respected that instead of devoting a posting to his problems. There is certainly more to this case, then what is happening in the life of Patrick Lumumba. He had absolutely nothing and I mean nothing to do with the demise of Meredith Kercher.

Jumpy,

'I consider the entire cottage part of the crime scene. Not just the bedroom."

Right on.

SB.

"Let's remember that, unlike Rudy and Raffaele, there is not a trace of Amanda on the crime scene."

But there is a DNA trace of Meredith Kercher on the tip of a kitchen knife and a DNA trace of Amanda Knox on the handle. Meredith Kercher was stabbed in the neck by a knife. We know this to be true. And a kitchen knife has been found with the DNA of the murder victim on it. I think that is pretty compelling evidence against Amanda Knox.

From the Supreme Court on April 1st to Amanda Knox:

"The clues against you are serious. The knife that was seized at Raffaele's house belongs to Raffaele's house, not to the victim's house, and has traces of Meredith's DNA on the blade and of your DNA on the handle."

Why has Frank dedicated three out of his last five posts to 'Freeing Amanda Knox?" Does he know something more about this case than we do? If the Supreme Court brings up this issue with the knife lest than two months ago, they must be pretty serious about it. Why else would they bring it up along with a litany of other circumstantial evidence against Amanda Knox?

Bluetit wrote:I believe the Peter Cook Taco represented was not the great one ... The article seems to have mixed up the late lamented Cook with a living American playboy / architect / Lothario (whom Taco fought, I think, since he represented the man's young mistress, another so-called "victim" ...).

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi Bluetit Ahh, thanks for setting me straight. I thought it was majorly odd that he could have represented Peter Cook and I'd never heard about it.[/font]

Beep wrote:Michael,

Good to see you back here posting!

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi Beep and thanks, it's good to see you still here carrying the flame also I won't be posting as much as I'd like though, as I now find myself behind on several forum based projects I had been working on. I shall post sporadically though and shall always read everyones posts.

All,

In the 'Forum News' thread I've posted once again, this time with some very good general tips on how to speed up forum surfing, indeed...Web surfing as a whole, which hopefully some may find quite useful.[/font]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Oceania,[/font]

Oceania wrote:...considering she walked past bloody tissues at the entrance to the cottage...

[font=Comic Sans MS]Who's to say AK and RS didn't plant them there in the first place? [/font]

Beep wrote:

Why has Frank dedicated three out of his last five posts to 'Freeing Amanda Knox?" Does he know something more about this case than we do? If the Supreme Court brings up this issue with the knife lest than two months ago, they must be pretty serious about it. Why else would they bring it up along with a litany of other circumstantial evidence against Amanda Knox?

I think you should ask Frank this question! Seriously. He's the only one who can answer. On February 2, his blog entry was about Amanda being "out of the room." So we can say that, at least since then, he has not considered Amanda Knox to be the person who physically murdered her roommate. Rudy himself places Amanda at the door but not in the room. There may be a reason for this.

I do agree with Jumpy, however. The crime scene extends beyond Meredith's bedroom. I can't answer for Frank, but I doubt he would disagree with this either.

Frank is only human and English is not his native language. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that Frank has certain limitations and is under pressure from many sides. He can't even make jokes about Amanda any more without having a small but vocal group on his back. We remember these people and how abusive they became when posters here asked certain questions or expressed certain views. They are now pestering Frank.

Skep wrote:Frank is only human and English is not his native language. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that Frank has certain limitations and is under pressure from many sides. He can't even make jokes about Amanda any more without having a small but vocal group on his back. We remember these people and how abusive they became when posters here asked certain questions or expressed certain views. They are now pestering Frank.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Straight forward bullying is what it is, made all the worse for Frank because he feels he has one hand tied behind his back in that his natural honour makes him loathe to do anything he feels may seem like kicking someone when they're down. I understand how he feels. But, at the same time, one can only humour them to a certain point and accept so much. One cannot tolerate the intolerable. Using forums such as these as a punch bag for their pent up frustrations helps neither Amanda nor Meredith, quite the opposite in fact. They do this at the expense of their 'dignity' and therefore Amanda's, since they are her public face. People cannot help, at least in part, but judge her on how 'they' behave. It is a great pity when held in contrast to the dignity shown by the Kerchers.[/font]

Truly, the crime scene entirely extends beyond the cottage to the homes of Rafe Sollecito and Rudy Guede, the location where the phones were found, the internet, phone and text records in Perugia and to friends and family members (even overseas), eye witnesses, cars, mops, receipts, bank records, cameras in parking lots and lingerie stores, witness and "suspect" statements, police reports, club goers, train missers, roommates, etc. And DNA. Just because the bedroom door was locked does not lock out evidence which will be presented by the state in a trial. There is no getting around it.

Meredith Kercher did not lock her own door.

Michael wrote:

Skep wrote:Frank is only human and English is not his native language. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that Frank has certain limitations and is under pressure from many sides. He can't even make jokes about Amanda any more without having a small but vocal group on his back. We remember these people and how abusive they became when posters here asked certain questions or expressed certain views. They are now pestering Frank.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Straight forward bullying is what it is, made all the worse for Frank because he feels he has one hand tied behind his back in that his natural honour makes him loathe to do anything he feels may seem like kicking someone when they're down. I understand how he feels. But, at the same time, one can only humour them to a certain point and accept so much. One cannot tolerate the intolerable. Using forums such as these as a punch bag for their pent up frustrations helps neither Amanda nor Meredith, quite the opposite in fact. They do this at the expense of their 'dignity' and therefore Amanda's, since they are her public face. People cannot help, at least in part, but judge her on how 'they' behave. It is a great pity when held in contrast to the dignity shown by the Kerchers.[/font]

I think you are very generous Michael. '..his natural honour makes him loathe to do anything he feels may seem like kicking someone when they're down...'
How come his 'honour' extends only to Amanda? He doesn't seem to mind kicking other folk 'when they're down'. From what you and Skep have said, it seems PS has become somekind of popularity contest. For me, this would be the best case scenario but I'm not sure how plausible it is. Things changed over there at a certain point a while back.

GIP, Matteini, Ricciarelli, De Robertis, Restivo, Micheli. Frank mentioning Micheli may be another sign that Biscuits wants the rito abbreviato.

At least we got the Messaggero Umbria link....can anyone get in their archive?

bpcl wrote:Jumpy,

I do not understand his reasoning really. He has completely forgotten that a young women was brutally murdered. There is compelling evidence that shows that all three persons in custody played some role in her death. He should just let the system perform its proper role out of respect to the Kercher family and most especially, to Meredith Kercher.

Hi bpcl. As I've been saying for a long while, Ricciarelli's decision to keep the suspects in prison was the big one. It would have been easy for him to overturn some of the things in Matteini's previous ruling if things weren't as you described in your post. He does it all the time.

I know it's a little superficial, but here's the length of the Cassazione's rulings on each suspect; AK 13 pages, RG 11 pages and RS 5 pages. This may not tell us much but these rulings include a list of the serious, concordant, precise indications of guilt. Maresca, in the interview in Messaggero Umbria, seemed to be implying that he believes AK was right in the middle of this horrific murder.

skeptical bystander wrote:Bluetit wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to post both texts (in their entirety) in the "In their own words" topic ? I believe they would be most useful additions.

I just posted the October 13 blog entry and will post the diary. As a reminder, the blog entry was translated by Kermit and posted on an early Haloscan. The diary was translated by Belle, who also posted on Haloscan.

Thank you very much, Skep.
These writings of RS's make fascinating reading (though sometimes unclear -- to me, at least).

I agree Damian,

I think that's nasty how Frank has treated Patrick.

I thought it ages ago but now I'm sure, Im'sure I have a low opinion of Frank.

I thought once when he replied to someone ages ago about how he had no timre to visit blogs, I though wow he does really think he is important.
He is not important, not to me anyway.
He doesn't reveal anything much.
But even if he did, i'm not interested in what he has to say any more not now I am sure that he decided to be a twat towards Patrick, I thought it before and I imagined that Patrick wasn't going to be happy with Frank, now frank has said what I thought, Patrick kicked him out.
As friend. Rightly too.
He is bang out of order to call Patrick a friend and then to shit on him as he did.That's what I think anyhow.
I think he has a nerve, callng himself a friend I mean who treats a friend that way?

Everything he says in his latest post, just about all of it was already known, here at least.
He did notr explain it well but I think he thinks he has.
He has'nt explained anything about the rito abbreviato just that people who go for it get a 1/3 off.
But, they have to go along with the findings of the prosecutor, with what he or she found in the preliminary investigation, it's for the judges then to decide whether they think the suspects are innocent or guilty.
If the judges think the suspects are guilty, they may get 1/3 off but that is it then, no appeal rights.
Accept what the judges say.

As far as I have understood it anyway.

What Knox did with blaming Patrick may not be evidence that can be entered as a confession but it is entered as evidence as to what went on,m who did what and why, and that is what the prosecutor will be compiling backed up by all of the people involved, forensics, the police, the evidence of people who are to be trusted and those people are Meredith's friends, who have nothing to gain at all by seeing anyone being found guilty for something they have not done. This means this will be taken into acount, as cgharacter assessment of those individuals it will be brought across how their positions are not biased, and what they say will have great importance. They stated that Knox told them that Meredith had died slowly. All of that, has great value, because it is fact that will be accepted as such by the judges based on professional analyasis and statements from experts saying yes, it is true, Knox could never have known this if she had not seen Meredith, because our forensic department did not even know at that time what was what.

This is hard evidence against Amanda Knox.
And there's more.
Based on it all, if Amanda Knox goes for rito abbreviato she runs a big chance of being found guilty.
she may get one third off but she'll serve 20 years or 30 if she is given life imprisonment.

Skep, for transparency's sake, are you also known as Margaret Ganong?
Just out of curiosity, why on earth are you proof-reading Frank's posts? I don't get it. If anyone else was leading a campaign to free AK, I think you would be one of the first to try and put things in perspective. If anyone else was trying to discredit Mignini, you'd normally pick them up on it. The fact that you disagree with some things he writes is neither here nor there for me, the fact that you constantly defend him here is. You blame AK's supporters for what some people have perceived as a change of tack at PS. I think there might be something in this but not the way you describe it.
The way you describe it doesn't make any sense at all to me. It's not logical, which worries me coming from you. If you know something we don't, please tell us.

Frank is only human and English is not his native language. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that Frank has certain limitations and is under pressure from many sides. He can't even make jokes about Amanda any more without having a small but vocal group on his back. We remember these people and how abusive they became when posters here asked certain questions or expressed certain views. They are now pestering Frank.[/quote] Skeptical Bystander

Did we start a Free AK campaign?
Did we start twisting things?
Is he saying things he doesn't mean because English isn't his native language?
Are you sure your explanation is plausible?
Could there be a simpler explanation for his change of tack?
I don't get it.
Sorry for bringing this irrelevant crap here but unfortunately, it's inevitable.

From RS's prison diary (Nov. 12) :

"As soon as I'm out I want to make my biggest apologies cordially to the parents of Amanda, who are totally destroyed and devastated."

This is an extraordinary statement !

1. The word "apologies" looks very strange ; I wonder what the Italian is (scuse ?). If the original does mean "apologies", this sentence reads like a confession of serious wrongdoing to me (see also "forgive me" below).

2. Even stranger : the name "Amanda". One would expect "Meredith", both for decency's sake and because the initial sentence in the paragraph is " You say that it is not a happy ending for Meredith " ... Freudian slip of the tongue ? That would be the charitable explanation. But I am afraid the immediate context (both before and after "As soon ... devastated") proves that RS was thinking of Amanda's and his own families. RS repeatedly apologizes and asks for dear Papa's forgiveness ("forgive me papà and forgive me Vanessa").

There are many other "strange things" in the diary. For instance (Nov. 7) :

" I tried to help in the investigation trying to remember and now I've brought myself to this place, better I did nothing and limit myself to say that I remained at my house and I would be spared so much unrest. "

What on earth is he talking about ? If he meant "remained at my house during the evening and night of the murder" ... isn't that what he had been saying all along ? And if he meant "in the morning", why, he was at the house when the postal police arrived ... I really don't understand this passage ! Unless he meant that what made him a suspect was what he had said (with only small variations, at the time) about AK's movements and words ?? But then he had to be asked about her, hadn't he, and he had to answer something !

Damian wrote:

Skep, for transparency's sake, are you also known as Margaret Ganong?
Just out of curiosity, why on earth are you proof-reading Frank's posts?

I thought everyone knew that already. If not, my cover is definitively blown. This is the name on my birth certificate, passport and any number of translated documents you will probably never read but could easily find! Goofy and the poster known as C Mellas exposed my dual identity to the whole world as Haloscan was shutting down--I guess you missed that one! When Steve invited me to co-blog (something I have yet to do) and moderate this board, we talked about what name I should use. He usually prefers real names, but likes my handle and advised me to keep it. So I did.

In answer to your second question, I began proof-reading for Frank because he asked me to. I am a translator, writer and editor by trade. I am doing it pro bono for Frank, as a professional courtesy. All I really do is remove the misspellings, try to correct the most serious grammatical errors and note sentences that I can't understand. I have no role in determining the content. Changes are often made after I proof-read, which is why errors creep back in.

As you noted, there was a shift in focus or maybe editorial slant a while back. In my opinion, this is due to issues that have nothing to do with this case. I think this is a shame. But I still believe his blog can be a good source of information. Personally, I just skip over the stuff that doesn't interest me and I assume other readers do the same.

For the sake of transparency, I will also say (with respect to the main blogs about this case) that I have tried to stay on good terms with their "owners" for pragmatic reasons. Last February, somebody posted something horrible about the owner of the PI blog on Frank's blog, and I was publicly accused and assumed guilty of it. I didn't even see the offensive post before it was removed, as I was away from my computer for most of that day (I had an alibi, with store receipts and everything). It was a pretty harrowing experience for me, however. As a result, I decided the best course of action with respect to other blogs was neutrality and mutual cooperation.

I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to ask for further clarifications. As for the Messagero archives, are you looking for a particular article? I might be able to get it for you.

Skeptical Bystander (Moderator)

Damian wrote:

Could there be a simpler explanation for his change of tack?
I don't get it.

There could be. But quite honestly, I don't know what it is and I don't really care. Anyone could send Frank an email and ask. I could, but when I say I really don't care I mean it. I know how to read and assess the information I read from various sources. Frank is just one more source.

As for the notion of a free AK campaign, I know you're being sarcastic but I doubt that would fly over here. CW and Oceania would certainly be interested, and I wonder why they continue to peddle their sophistry here when they could put their considerable energy to work on that campaign. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't organized any marches, held candlelight vigils or gone on a hunger strike.

Damian wrote:

I know it's a little superficial, but here's the length of the Cassazione's rulings on each suspect; AK 13 pages, RG 11 pages and RS 5 pages. This may not tell us much but these rulings include a list of the serious, concordant, precise indications of guilt. Maresca, in the interview in Messaggero Umbria, seemed to be implying that he believes AK was right in the middle of this horrific murder.

I don't think this is superficial at all. And if Maresca implies that AK was right in the middle of this, then there are good reasons for that. Are you referring to the interview you translated and posted on Haloscan (in late March, I think)?

I don't have the exact scenario worked out, unlike many posters here who are far better at this kind of thing, but for me AK is the linchpin. I don't see this as premeditated in the sense that the three perpetrators got together, explicitly stated what they planned to do and then executed their plan. I think there was jealousy and manipulation of that jealousy. The Serbian witness who saw AK leaving RS's place will be very important. Not to dwell on Frank, but one thing he did say in his most recent post is that we have not seen any new evidence since Nov 30 and won't until it is formally presented. What has come out has been leaked, and it's pretty easy to guess the source of the leaks on a case-by-case basis. A qui profite la fuite?

Damian wrote:

The way you describe it doesn't make any sense at all to me. It's not logical, which worries me coming from you. If you know something we don't, please tell us.

I know absolutely nothing that you don't know. In fact, I think you know far more than I do. I am actually glad that Frank talks openly about Mignini's pending trial, rather than sweeping it under the rug. But I don't see him as attacking the guy. I will stop defending Frank, though.

The fact is, and I think he probably realizes this, I don't like the turn his blog has taken lately. I wish he would stick to providing Supreme Court summaries and other documents. As beep said, three of the last five posts have been about Amanda. What's up with that?

Skep, I had no idea that was your name. I also had no idea you were proof-reading for PS till you told me the other day. I was reading some comments on PS, something about an heroic effort and I thought oh no, is that skep? I apologise to you for mentioning it...feel free to erase any reference I've made to it here today.
When I asked you if you knew something we didn't, I was obviously referring to Frank and his change of tack. You certainly are in a position to know more about that than us.
When I spoke of a Free AK campaign, I was not being sarcastic;it's as plain as day.

Damian wrote:

When I asked you if you knew something we didn't, I was obviously referring to Frank and his change of tack. You certainly are in a position to know more about that than us.
When I spoke of a Free AK campaign, I was not being sarcastic;it's as plain as day, don't you think?

No need to erase any of this. It's better to be transparent. But I want to be clear on one thing: I don't know if I am in a better position to know about this change of tack than anyone else. Anyone can ask the question. Didn't Frank write, in his post about Patrick, that he thought any kind of freedom campaign would be in bad taste? Or did I imagine that? Frankly (no pun intended), he sounds kind of confused to me lately.

Somebody should go over to his blog and put the question to him openly in the comments page: what are you saying, Frank? Do you know something other people don't? Stop being coy... In fact, there was a post the other day (is it still there?) from a Knox clan member implying that Frank had "seen" the evidence that we peons haven't seen. I was surprised nobody followed up with a question. Why didn't I? Because when Goofy and the gang see my name, they go ape shit. I'd rather not go there.

In fact, I just saw a post there that was pretty clear in its dismay of his recent blog entries. The person had sussed out the personal angle, the relationship with Patrick. I think that's a legitimate thing to voice and I'm glad it's out in the open. Nobody is supremely objective and above the fray. Maybe it's time to stop hiding behind the cloak of journalistic objectivity.

I wrote:

In fact, there was a post the other day (is it still there?) from a Knox clan member implying that Frank had "seen" the evidence that we peons haven't seen.

Here's the comment:

Amanda will be freed and will never be convicted of this crime because of the facts of this case. Many of you think that nobody has any inside access to the information surrounding this case but just as Frank has access, so do others and from what I have seen the Italians don't have a hole to Sh*t in!

I think this was written by Goofy, C Mellas' friend. What information is he referring to? Who are the "others" he mentions? Frank did not respond to this post. Why not? Is it because he doesn't read them closely? And why don't people press him on this?

skeptical bystander wrote:I wrote:

In fact, there was a post the other day (is it still there?) from a Knox clan member implying that Frank had "seen" the evidence that we peons haven't seen.

Here's the comment:

Amanda will be freed and will never be convicted of this crime because of the facts of this case. Many of you think that nobody has any inside access to the information surrounding this case but just as Frank has access, so do others and from what I have seen the Italians don't have a hole to Sh*t in!

I think this was written by Goofy, C Mellas' friend. What information is he referring to? Who are the "others" he mentions? Frank did not respond to this post. Why not? Is it because he doesn't read them closely? And why don't people press him on this?

ETA - I just deleted my post b/c it was kind of fanning flames. I will say that the quote you posted shows me that the writer (and probably is Goofy) seems very very young, hence the language and all of the "hahahhhah" stuff, the lack of empathy for what really happened to Meredith. I don't give those posts credibility.

Skep, I agree with you that Frank is a source of information. The stuff from the Cassazione wasn't available anywhere else. He also seems to have contact with at least one of the defence lawyers, which can be interesting because it gives his/their point of view. I don't like it when he doesn't give his source though, since this causes confusion. I imagine people are never quite sure if some of what he writes is his opinion, taken from a local rag, from one of the lawyers, from sources close to the police, based on Italian law etc... Also recently, some people have had suspicions about somekind of hidden agenda that he may have. He seems to have become partisan, which would further lessen his worth.

When I first came across his blog, I thought it was in extremely bad taste. After that though, I remember reading his posts and thinking, 'Nice one Frank, I didn't know that', or 'I'm pleased you explained that'. As others have said here, some of what he has written has been in excruciatingly bad taste too, and I'm not sure the language problem explains everything. Over the past few months, I've noticed a really big difference in what he writes and how he writes it. It all seems to be slanted now but it didn't used to be. I don't know why this is but I'm sure there's a reason. If I was trying to be nice, I'd say that '...be a gent, let her out, she's a girl..' stuff could be understood better in it's social and cultural context. When he says he believes the police believe that AK didn't stab Meredith, I say that's irrelevant in deciding whether she should stay in prison until trial. I say that in the context of both Ricciarelli's decision and that of the Cassazione. That said, I know where we are, I heard Manganelli's words yesterday and I know about the Franzoni case.

I tried to delete my post but you saw it. Skep, I was trying to be all nice karma today and behave. Don't get me all started. Ok fine, but if he is 30 yr pizza delivery/grocery checker/lawn boy that is even worse!

Damian wrote:

Also recently, some people have had suspicions about some kind of hidden agenda that he may have. He seems to have become partisan, which would further lessen his worth.

.... I remember reading his posts and thinking, 'Nice one Frank, I didn't know that', or 'I'm pleased you explained that'. As others have said here, some of what he has written has been in excruciatingly bad taste too, and I'm not sure the language problem explains everything. Over the past few months, I've noticed a really big difference in what he writes and how he writes it. It all seems to be slanted now but it didn't used to be. I don't know why this is but I'm sure there's a reason.

I think it is good that people take a critical view of what they read from all sources and ask questions. Nobody is above reproach. I have taken some heat, which I really don't understand, from Minotaur for thinking the Le Monde article was a good source. I never said it was 100% accurate, but that the journalist was extremely knowledgeable about Italy and that the paper backing him has a reputation for being factual and avoiding sensationalism.

My discovery of and experience with Frank's blog are similar to yours. It was a good place to get explanations, in English, from the perspective of an Italian. It has become less useful of late, because there is a slant, although it still provides useful information. For example, the Cassazione posts.

If there is an explanation for the change, I think it is that Frank has gotten more emotionally involved in this case and has become conflicted about it. It shows in his choice of subject matter and writing. Again, I think the "people" have to keep him on his toes. Since I edit his work, and since I seem to attract the pizza delivery boy goofy whenever I post on his blog, I try not to. But I encourage others to question his sources, his ideas, etc.

Jumpy, it's a fanning flames kind of day...there must be something in the air.

Some have used stereotyping in this case.
People with money in the family don't do bad things, like get angry, they are not prone to rage.

Sollecito is not the football supporting, beer swigging, foul mouthed abusive type, that gets drunk on Friday night and has a fight.

He's from a more than well-to-do family, yet it is no cloak and veil for things that may possibly be wrong about him.

I notice a certain attitude in nearly all he says, of a rich son, an arrogance I recognise from people I know and have known, who were positioned in life like him, variously they were sons and daughters of directors at BMW cars, Philips.

Through personal experience I found out that living in all kinds of houses, not just because someone came from a good family or studied were they particulary and as a rule well behaved.

On the contrary I discovered that like here where I live in the student flats an enormous complex it was an ongoing joke of the past 30 or 40 yeears that many of the students live in a complete mess, with washing up right up to the ceiling, living like filthy beasts in that way, drinking a lot, having a merry old time of student life.

Until a few years ago, it was, in fact, also an ongoing joke about the eternal student, because many didn't do their studying they did the partying or whatever, failing exams but then carrying on for years and years.

Many not actually hardly ever getting down to going and getting a job in the end but finding a way to do a new study so they would not have to get a job.

It was allowed/permitted for students to keep re-taking the exams, but, they decided to put a stop to that, because it cost the state a fortune, students got their grants but most of the year many didn't even attend any lectures or classes.

For me, living in big houses with many people, it was often easier to get along with an ordinary person, even one with not an awful lot of education, than it was to get on with people who were used to having everything they wanted, all of their lives.

I found that certain types of people when living out of the parental dwelling, were quite prepared to rip someone off or not pull their weight, be tight so they would not have to do with any less if it meant they could continue as though they were still living at home with mum and dad where they had what is, compared to having to do it all by yourself, a luxurious position, you come home mum has cooked, or you open the fridge and grab what you want, never thinking what it cost or how much is left.

This is all what becoming independent means, coming to face up to what life is about, values, what things are worth, when a friend gives you something they've worked for when they do not have lots of money, means something, and it is different to at home wher everything is taken for granted, often by the best of us, it's normal as children to not have to think too muchabout all of the responsibility of living in the big bad world.

Some people adjust and become independent and likeable, sociable, others never do because right through college or university the parents pay everything, some play plenty, so that type of child doesn't get the chance to feel what values are, in one way at least.

Not all students are in this position, many have to work to get through university some pay the entire study themselves simply because they are on bad terms with their parents or their parents do not have that much money or the parents purposely wish to let their children grow into the real orld and learn properly what it means to pay your own way and then as an added extra that the child learns to be somewhat more humble, instead of a spoilt brat.

I see Sollecito as the latter here.
His attitude.
I do not see Amanda the same way.

And of course, I do not see Guede this way, but, he may be a lazy guy, a hedonist. I think he takes advantage of the opportunities that come across his path.

Whether he is a wicked soul or not I cannot quite make up my mind, my feeling is no he isn't wicked.
He may be though.

In fact, if he really has been speaking the truth, then it's silly what
I just said, he is definitely wicked, by his own admittance, he left Meredith to it.

He is wicked based on that, and I see no way around it.

Amanda, is she wicked?

Well,

1/ she framed Patrick
I don't believe she was forced.

2/ she told Meredith's friends that Meredith had died slowly this means she was there, one way or the other, and so she watched Meredith die, to me this is two counts of wickedness and cruelty.

Damian wrote:

Jumpy, it's a fanning flames kind of day...there must be something in the air.

If I may mix metaphors, sometimes fanning flames helps to let off steam.

I truly believe it is better to discuss things openly than to engage in covert warfare or insert cryptic, nasty remarks that make most people say "huh?"

You might have missed my question earlier, Damian. Did you want access to a particular article from Messagero? I guess you need to subscribe (and pay) to have access to the archives.

It was my posts Frank removed.

I asked how it could be that if a suspect, one who is suspected of bring involved in murder, is just let out, how is this safe for society?

Because, if the person turns out to be guilty, then if this is the method of dealing with suspects in murder cases, the world or Italy can't be very safe.

All the time the suspect is allowed to roam when in fact being guilty of murder, means that killer would be free to be killing in the meantime, until found guilty or innocent.

What if it's a serial killer of children?

Is what I asked.

I said I thought that his idea that they'd all be released was a strange idea, and I was not sure whether I believed him (Frank) to be accurate on this.
I think he did not like being told that.

That's what I said.

But as Damian says, his omittance of sources shows how he sees himself as important and exclusive, to me it does not matter WHO brings the material, it's not about egos.

To me, it comes across as if he plays the Mr Know-it-all by just saying something, with no clue to how he knows it, like Mr Mystery Man. His word is god's law or something!

So I said, I was getting in touch, which I was, with a person at Bologna University head of law department, to ask a few things.

Frank obviously, well, obvious to me, did not like that, as he seems to want to be Mr Big Shot know-it-all like nobody else.
I don't dig self-important people, it is an illusionary state of mind and is meaningless.

As far as I know Frank is not a lawyer, and, he is just Frank, I haven't seen that he is a journalist, though someone called him one.

What I mostly have not liked from the start is his poor attempts at sarcasm which seemed always very badly done mainly because he said some mother SOB things about people, not just Patrick but some titles of his concerning Meredith, I can't remember off-hand but I can definitely find what I mean by looking at his back-log of threads.

Some of those titles, I will give the man his due, may have to do with his limited grasp of English.

But conscious rotten egg throwing at Patrick it doesn't matter which language nor which level of ability, he knew and knows what he is doing, he doesn't care, doesn't care one bit about Patrick or the so-called friendshiip he had, I find it really shit how he has commented on Patrick.
I do not believe Frank was one of Patrick's friends.

I have protected names of people, Italian things, but my little secret is I do not dig blindly everything about Italy and Italians, a certain arrogance had by some in Italy is what I dislike but Sollecito's type of arrogance is in a class of its own, it is in the extreme of it.

I mean, in Italy I met some of the very best people I ever met and I have met some of the worst people there and they were Italians too.

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

Jumpy, it's a fanning flames kind of day...there must be something in the air.

If I may mix metaphors, sometimes fanning flames helps to let off steam.

I truly believe it is better to discuss things openly than to engage in covert warfare or insert cryptic, nasty remarks that make most people say "huh?"

You might have missed my question earlier, Damian. Did you want access to a particular article from Messagero? I guess you need to subscribe (and pay) to have access to the archives.

Skep, there's been a misunderstanding. I just saw jumpy's post and it struck a chord with me. I like jumpy and have hardly ever 'chatted' with him. It was a spontaneous thing. I don't want to sound like Candace, but I've just finished a long shitty week. It's been 35'C, humid with storms. As you alluded to, today I've let off a bit of steam. It's been building up for a while and it's about Frank's change of tack. I haven't given my opinion here for months. I really don't want to give anyone any heat and would certainly never engage in those things you said. I just get frustrated when I see people creating confusion, as I know you do too. I never doubted we agreed on this, and am sorry if it seemed I was having a go at you. Really skep, the same things annoy both of us. We want to understand the best we can, and we try to curtail the effect of things which work agaisnt this. We express ourselves differently and I'm sorry if anything I've said has caused confusion. Whenever it's not clear, ask me and I'll clarify best I can. Sorry for creating this confusion.

About the Messaggero, I was just wondering if editions for the first couple of weeks in november would be available.

Damian,

I want to thank you for your posts this morning. By the way, it is interesting that one of those Court Officials had Amanda Knox in the thick of the murder. I am slowly losing my confidence in Rudy Guede. And this really started with the issue of the phones. I believe that FBN's hypothesis about the cell phones will stand up. I also believe now that SB's switcheroo of Patrick Lumumba with Rudy Guede will stand up too.

And one more piece of compelling evidence; the kitchen knife with the DNA of both Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. That is the evidence that we have before us. And we must accept it. A knife was used to kill Meredith Kercher

And the thought here by many that maybe, just maybe Amanda Knox had either a pre-arranged rendezvous with Rudy Guede or an accidental encounter, is looking really, really good.

SB questioned me the other day about this; about whether or not Rudy Guede had a date with Meredith Kercher. And this is the quote I posted.

"I also met Phillip beforehand, in front of the Kehap neart La Tana dell'Orso. We had decided to meet at Alex's place, and I told him that I had to meet a person, and he understood immediately that it was a girl."

At first I thought this might be Meredith. I told SB that Rudy Guede never said he had a date with Meredith. Just maybe he did not after all. SB mentioned about the switcheroo of Rudy Guede with Patrick Lumumba in Amanda Knox's confession and a light bulb turned on for me! Rudy Guede might have had a date with Amanda Knox! Amanda Knox was pinged in the vicinity of the cottage at 8:40 pm. The CCTV shows a person just like her in the tunnel. Rudy Guede was adamant that he was at the cottage around this time as well (Rudy Guede time) There is a shadow there which we could almost detect. Was it a drug deal or was it for sex? Meredith, unfortunately, shows up at around 9:15 pm and the rest is history.

Two quotes from Rudy Guede's statement:

"That evening my glance and Amanda's glance kept meeting a lot, and she exchanged a smile with me a smile of the type...."

"That evening, I don't remember exactly what I said about her [Amanda Knox], but to go to bed with her, yes because all of us guys ended up with that as the goal"

We have been so close to solving this brutal crime. I have to honestly say that I might have taken a few of you off track on my support of Rudy Guede. I apologize for that because many of you were so suspicious of him. I tried not to be because I thought he was an important clue to solving this crime. SB has tried to remind me that he too is throwing sand into our ability to solve Meredith's murder. Also, I could not understand why the Court was still putting him at the heart of this murder. But now, I believe I can see why.

After discussing this issue of Rudy Guede with SB, I remembered that when he was initially captured, he clearly stated that Amanda Knox was not inside the cottage, but that other people were. Was he trying to protect her/ In his most recent deposition, he has her oustide the cottage. Someone here as of late, I do not know who, has been saying that all three of these people have dark secrets that they do not wish to divulge.

Was Amanda Knox two-timing Raffaele Sollecito on the night of the murder? Or was she just interested in getting drugs. It almost seems like she was two-timing Raffaele Sollecito. Both she and Rudy Guede are in and near the cottage at the same time. Or is it really as the Court says, that all three of them conspired to cause physical harm towards the person of Meredith Kercher

Oceania8 wrote:The problem with nearly all of the theories that keep coming up involving all three is that most, if not all completely ignore the known facts . That Meredith phoned her mother at 9.30pm and seemed her usual self. That Rudy was seen running from the direction of the cottage at approx 10.30pm. I think we can safely ascertain she met her fate in that hour. Rudys DNA was found inside her, his bloody finger and footprints found around her, on her bag etc. So you need to come up with a compelling and plausible theory that gets all three suddenly at the cottage at the same time, after 9.30pm and before 10.30pm and to have left the DNA that was left and to have killed her. Remembering that both AK and RS had previous arrangements only cancelled at approx 20 minutes to 9. .”

Oceania8!!! Take a deep breath, breath out releasing your exasperation, and try to grasp the essence of what I am saying here. The scenario I have proposed fits exceptionally well with all known facts and timelines. We understand that Knox was planning on working for Patrick the night of the murder. She apparently told Raffaele that she was leaving to go to work at the bar, but then got the text message saying she was not needed. She was out on the street when this happened, she bumped into Rudy, one thing led to another, and they went off to her bedroom at the cottage to "have some fun". Raffaele was supposed to meet someone and would not have had a clue regarding this spontaneous hookup. This all makes sense because Knox was known for her spontaneous encounters with near strangers and Meredith is on record as having a problem with her brings these guys home to the cottage. We also understand that Rudy mentioned flirting with Knox, previously, in his diary and that he had a reputation for hitting on college girls. You have to agree, this makes far too much sense, Oceania8.

So off to the cottage they go. I am suggesting that Knox was in her bedroom with Rudy when Meredith arrived home. Meredith called her mom, then went into her bedroom and discovered that money was missing. I am suggesting that known petty-thief Rudy pocketed the money while Knox was distracted or in the bathroom. Opportunistic Rudy would do this kind of thing. I’m thinking a furious Meredith pounded on Amanda’s door, to find that Amanda was with Rudy, not Raffaele, and the whole thing just blew up. To make things worse, Raffaele may have unexpectedly showed up at some point and race may have become a factor in the explosion of emotion. This lays the groundwork for the Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity, but I do not require that Raffaele be there for the murder as he may only have been part of a cleanup attempt. You can draw your own conclusions as to how things played out from the time Meredith confronted Amanda and Rudy. I’m only saying this is how the stage was set and , given everything we know, it fits and makes perfect sense. We don’t know how Rudy’s DNA got inside Meredith, but we understand that it wasn’t sperm. I suspect it could have happened during the murder or as a part of a cover-up after the murder took place. Oceania, by now you must KNOW that the visible bloody footprint found in Meredith’s bedroom does not belong to Rudy! Bloody tissues at the entrance to the cottage and Rudy’s unflushed business have nothing to do with this pre-murder scenario. After the murder, it becomes obvious that Amanda began a subtle effort point a finger in Rudy’s direction, but she only wanted the investigation to take its course, without naming names. Both she and Raffaele would know that when Rudy was caught he would be saying some very strange things. What is a bit surprising is that it took him so long to do so, which leads directly to the Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity concept. What happened the following morning and beyond is not my concern here, as I’m only interested in describing SUPERBLY PROBABLE THEORIES regarding how the stage was set. There may be variations to this, but you should now be aware that IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. Are you reading me, Oceania8?

Damian wrote:

I don't want to sound like Candace, but I've just finished a long shitty week. It's been 35'C, humid with storms. As you alluded to, today I've let off a bit of steam. It's been building up for a while and it's about Frank's change of tack. I haven't given my opinion here for months. I really don't want to give anyone any heat and would certainly never engage in those things you said. I just get frustrated when I see people creating confusion, as I know you do too. I never doubted we agreed on this, and am sorry if it seemed I was having a go at you. Really skep, the same things annoy both of us.

You're quite right about the same things annoying us, including the fact that it sounds like we both have a weekend of work ahead of us (saw your post subject).

The thing about people creating confusion really resonates with me. The only thing you can do is try and untangle it, knowing that there will be more confusion to come. And honestly, I appreciate your posts today because some of the content I've been editing of late has bothered me personally.

I'll see if I can get ahold of the articles you're interested in. If I do, I'll post them somewhere on the board. In the meantime, I can offer no solace for your weather woes. That kind of humidity is such a drag. It always makes me feel aggressive yet powerless. I don't miss that aspect of Paris at all!

FBN,

Great post there. Some one said here yesterday, that some people will never be convinced of Amanda Knox's guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. My take on Oceania8 is that she will fight this case all the way to the bitter end. I do not mean any disrespect towards her, but her agenda is not about the truth of what happened to Meredith. Her agenda is about defending both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. She has been doing this since her arrival. And Charlie Wilkes follows similar patterns. And I am completely okay with that.

The Good News for Meredith Kercher is that here on this message board, there are far more intelligent people who are interested in the truth of what happened to her than not. That is the strength that she derives from each of us. It is the strength that sustains us. I doubt your post will go far with Oceania8, but at the very least, its thought process is in line with the available evidence. Respect.

FBN wrote:

I am suggesting that Knox was in her bedroom with Rudy when Meredith arrived home. Meredith called her mom, then went into her bedroom and discovered that money was missing. I am suggesting that known petty-thief Rudy pocketed the money while Knox was distracted or in the bathroom. Opportunistic Rudy would do this kind of thing. I’m thinking a furious Meredith pounded on Amanda’s door, to find that Amanda was with Rudy, not Raffaele, and the whole thing just blew up. To make things worse, Raffaele may have unexpectedly showed up at some point and race may have become a factor in the explosion of emotion. This lays the groundwork for the Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity, but I do not require that Raffaele be there for the murder as he may only have been part of a cleanup attempt.

What is interesting about your idea is that it would explain why (if it turns out to be so) Knox's bedroom got a bleach job.
It also clears up another problem. We know that both Rudy and Raffaele can be placed forensically in the immediate crime scene (as opposed to the extended one). I think Raffaele's defense team has worked hard to discredit the forensic evidence against him because it is critical. Again, both AK and RG have, implicitly or now explicitly, placed AK not in the room but on the premises. If Rudy and Raffaele did not already know one another (this has not been proven either way), and if forensic evidence places them both in the room, then what is the bridge that leads from one to the other?

And yes, following SB's line of reasoning, by changing characters; Rudy Guede's real statement.

"Some time later, here's Meredith[Amanda Knox]. She was smiling and asked me how long I'd been waiting, and I told her for about one minute. She smiled, then took the keys out of her purse, opened the door and we entered."

I wonder if Meredith's friends can remember whether or not she had a purse with her.

FBN wrote: To make things worse, Raffaele may have unexpectedly showed up at some point and race may have become a factor in the explosion of emotion. This lays the groundwork for the Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity, but I do not require that Raffaele be there for the murder as he may only have been part of a cleanup attempt.

If they didn't have fish....

Maybe the knife and the mushrooms arrived at the cottage together with Raffaele and Amanda. Maybe Amanda was going to cook dinner after she wasn't required at the pub? Don't forget the sychronised phone switch off at around 9:00. Maybe they both met Rudy in the Piazza and invited him back for a smoke?

A 7" kitchen knife is just right for peeling mushrooms.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

If Rudy and Raffaele did not already know one another (this has not been proven either way), and if forensic evidence places them both in the room, then what is the bridge that leads from one to the other?

If I might just finish this thought, and at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if both RS and RG can be placed at the crime scene, then what happens to AK's alibi that she was with RS all night?

SB,

"If I might just finish this thought, and at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if both RS and RG can be placed at the crime scene, then what happens to AK's alibi that she was with RS all night?"

Raffaele Sollecito has clearly stated that he was at home alone on the night of the murder. But as the Court said to him on April 1st,

"The proof that you were home is acquired until 20.40 pm (Popovic visit) or 20.10 pm (last interaction with computer). But this does not cover your whereabouts at the time of the murder, set at between 22 pm and 23 pm"

damian wrote:Over the past few months, I've noticed a really big difference in what he writes and how he writes it. It all seems to be slanted now but it didn't used to be.

His perception of this case has changed, just as mine did. Last fall it was easy to think Knox and Sollecito were involved in this murder. Now it doesn't look that way at all.

You folks have circled your wagons and assured one another that the cloud over Mignini's head is irrelevant to this investigation. You have assured yourselves that what C. Mellas has posted about the DNA on the knife and other evidence is apocryphal. You have assured yourselves that the CBS program was part of a PR campaign paid for by the Knox family and therefore not worth considering. You have rejected a lot of information in order to protect your beliefs. That is your right. But you can't expect Frank or anyone else to follow suit.

CW,

Why do you care about us so much? Why do you even bother to come here if you think we are so narrow minded? I think you show up here every once in awhile to put your 2 cents in, just to see if you can change an opinion or two. We quote from Frank from time to time. Neither Frank, you nor I will have any effect on this case. This place is not a defense blog. We are not here to defend anyone. We are not here to discuss about a particular member of the Italian Court system

We are here to determine what happened to Meredith Kercher. If you are not happy with the way we go about our investigation you are free not to come. You sound like a parent who has to force his way down his child's mind. Get a grip. We are just discussing this case here. Your patronage of our efforts is childish to say the least.

CW wrote:

His perception of this case has changed, just as mine did. Last fall it was easy to think Knox and Sollecito were involved in this murder. Now it doesn't look that way at all.

Actually, I think you are misrepresenting Frank's view now as well as the views of people on this board. I have never read a word by him that suggests RS was not involved, and I don't think this view has changed. As for AK, Frank has stated that he thinks her position has "improved," and has gone so far as to state that he doesn't believe she murdered her roommate. But I have yet to read a word from Frank that suggests he believes that AK had nothing whatsoever to do this. In his post yesterday, he noted that we have not seen any new evidence since Nov 30.

AK's supporters are happy with Frank right now because he's keeping the house arrest idea alive. We have seen them in earlier days not at all happy with Frank. Recently, when he said it is the citizen's duty to cooperate with an investigation, even if this means remaining in custody, he got flak from those quarters. The investigation is now almost over. From what I understand, for Frank this means that the suspects can no longer tamper with the evidence or actively obstruct the investigation and, if they pose no danger to society, they should not be held in prison while awaiting trial.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Of the three, RS alone was moved to a maximum security prison. Is it because he is considered to be dangerous? Does this mean he is less likely to be released before the trial than the others? Does Rudy have a shot at house arrest status? I have no idea, frankly.

In any case, I don't know many people who have not changed their view of this case over time. But I know of no one but you whose view changed radically after reading the Doug Preston interview. I would be most surprised to learn that Frank's perception bears any resemblance to yours.

SB,

Would any judicial system in the world let a suspect go free while awaiting trial, when there is compelling evidence that that suspect was involved in a brutal murder; how about if we call it a slaughter? Because Meredith Kercher received a knife wound right through her neck; let me put it this way. The knife penetrated one side of her neck and came out the other side. I think that is a succinct way of putting it.

And because of this wound that went in one side of her neck and came out the other side, she bled to death. The Pathologist has stated that she suffocated with her blood. And the killers left her to die in her blood.

Now tell me, based on this murder, and it was a murder, three people are in custody and there is absolutely compelling evidence that these three persons were involved. Why would any Court system in the world let them out, I pose the question. Maybe Frank can answer it for me.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

damian wrote:Over the past few months, I've noticed a really big difference in what he writes and how he writes it. It all seems to be slanted now but it didn't used to be.

His perception of this case has changed, just as mine did. Last fall it was easy to think Knox and Sollecito were involved in this murder. Now it doesn't look that way at all.

You folks have circled your wagons and assured one another that the cloud over Mignini's head is irrelevant to this investigation. You have assured yourselves that what C. Mellas has posted about the DNA on the knife and other evidence is apocryphal. You have assured yourselves that the CBS program was part of a PR campaign paid for by the Knox family and therefore not worth considering. You have rejected a lot of information in order to protect your beliefs. That is your right. But you can't expect Frank or anyone else to follow suit.

Charlie, what information have I rejected? I don't expect anything from Frank and I have never said anything about a paid campaign by the Knox family. I'm not sure even Frank is quite with you on your lone-wolf theory. From what I gather, he thinks that it would probably be appropiate if AK is not in prison as she awaits any trial. I'm not sure if he thinks this because she's a girl and the police should be gents, or because he thinks the police think she didn't stab Meredith. You never can tell, but I don't see how either are relevant.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:You have assured yourselves that what C. Mellas has posted about the DNA on the knife and other evidence is apocryphal.

[font=Times New Roman]For someone who apparently focuses so hard to separate fact from fiction, I'm very suprised that you put such stock by 'CMellas' claims. You don't even have a clue who he really is do you? Yet because he takes the same stance as you do, you take everything he says as the gospel truth. He could be a 20-stone lesbian from Ohio for all you know. And you say we are sheep? [/font]

bpcl wrote: three people are in custody and there is absolutely compelling evidence that these three persons were involved. Why would any Court system in the world let them out, I pose the question. Maybe Frank can answer it for me.

[font=Times New Roman]Beep, O666 would be quite happy to let her kids party with RS and AK if they were 'freed' while on trial. This is because she believes they are innocent. However, I love my daughter, and because of that, I would never allow her to go near these 2 if they were released into society while a trial was pending. No alibis, strange behaviour, dna at the crime scene. . . maybe some of us care about keeping our children safe, clearly O666 doesn't. Athough I imagine if RS and AK were both black - O666 would be campaigning to ensure they stayed in jail till they were dead.

And by the way, it was mentioned on PS (in conjunction with what you once said) that O666 should be part of Knox's defence team!!!
I guess that says it all really.[/font]

Soozie UK,

You must realize that Mr. Wilkes has an agenda. His job is to come here from time to time to see if he can change an opinion or two. In his last post for example, did you ever see him state,

You are not helping this investigation into what happened to Meredith Kercher with the current paths you are taking.

Did you ever hear him state, that the tragic death of Meredith Kercher may not have been provoked by your current thought process.

Did you ever hear him say, that the DNA evidence we are discussing here may point to someone other than the three people in custody.

The reason why he is so persistent about the knife is that the knife has evidence. The knife has the DNA of both Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. A knife was used to slaughter Meredith Kercher. That is the evidence and the Court clearly indicated this on April 1st. This evidence leads directly to Amanda Knox.

There is an old adage in Law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if not, argue the Law. And that is precisely what he is doing. His role here is to come and criticize people; because people do not take criticism well. And people feel bad if they are criticized. It is a lot like the Professor who tells you at the beginning of the class, that no question is a dumb question; yet when you ask it, you are told it is a stupid one and you are taking up time. The end result, you don't ever pose another question again.

That is his role here, precisely. The role of the Professor.

bpcl, stranger things have happened. The woman who killed her son was at home for the six and a half years as she waited for the verdict. The expert judge on RAI said she will probably serve no more than 4 years of her 16 year sentence. This is the case Frank was referring to the other day. They're big on pardons and grazia and amnesties at the moment and this takes away alot of the power of the Magistrates. It's a question of politics. Technically though, after Ricciarelli and the Cassazione, I don't see how the risk of leaving the country can suddenly disappear, especially for AK.

Anyway, as Skep said a while back, it's just a side-show.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:Last fall it was easy to think Knox and Sollecito were involved in this murder. Now it doesn't look that way at all.

Last Fall it was tempting to say this was a very simple rape and murder committed by Rudy Guede. But now the forensic evidence now says there was no rape. The case against Rudy has, in fact, become much more difficult to make.

Fly by Night wrote:Oceania8!!! Take a deep breath, breath out releasing your exasperation, and try to grasp the essence of what I am saying here. The scenario I have proposed fits exceptionally well with all known facts and timelines.

You have to agree, this makes far too much sense, Oceania8.

We don’t know how Rudy’s DNA got inside Meredith, but we understand that it wasn’t sperm. I suspect it could have happened during the murder or as a part of a cover-up after the murder took place. Oceania, by now you must KNOW that the visible bloody footprint found in Meredith’s bedroom does not belong to Rudy! Bloody tissues at the entrance to the cottage and Rudy’s unflushed business have nothing to do with this pre-murder scenario. After the murder, it becomes obvious that Amanda began a subtle effort point a finger in Rudy’s direction, but she only wanted the investigation to take its course, without naming names. Both she and Raffaele would know that when Rudy was caught he would be saying some very strange things. What is a bit surprising is that it took him so long to do so, which leads directly to the Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity concept. What happened the following morning and beyond is not my concern here, as I’m only interested in describing SUPERBLY PROBABLE THEORIES regarding how the stage was set. There may be variations to this, but you should now be aware that IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. Are you reading me, Oceania8?

Fly By Night!!!!!!!! Sorry, I didn’t mean that, just couldn’t resist it. Yep I’m reading you loud and clear FBN, another completely improbable theory . It’s all going along fine until you get the the bit “we don’t know how RG’s DNA got inside Meredith”, hmmm, that’s a shame because that’s a really important part of this puzzle. I suggest it got there because he put it there when he was attempting to have sex with her and not suddenly as a co rapist/murderer with two others during her brutal murder and certainly one of the most outlandish claims, because it was placed there by AK or RS after she died. There is no DNA evidence of the others to support this type of theory. Surely in the scenario you describe it should be Guede that ends up dead and not Meredith, he’s been sprung sleeping with Sollecito’s girlfriend plus he stole the money off Meredith.

You must KNOW that the owner of the bloody footprint is NOT conclusively known at this point. The prosecution have done their best to place ownership to Sollecito or some other unknown person who has the same size feet. I believe the reference to the size of the shoeprint in the judges report is misleading (like many other things in these reports) as it is not backed up with any official forensics, just a hypothesis/words from the great Mignini which the judge has run with. I think in time that Guede will be found to be it’s rightful owner. Same with RS DNA on the bra clip, it was a set up, that’s very obvious to many, but you can cling onto it along with the bloody footprint and the old faithful DNA on the knife tip nonsense if it helps make your theories stick together. The blade of that knife is 3” in length, as someone here said recently, perfect for cutting mushrooms.

Your scenario also has RS happily partaking in a clean up and ongoing cover up as a co conspiritor with a guy he has just sprung sleeping with his girlfriend and who also stole her flatmates money. It is not surprising to me that Guede took four months to get the confidence to weave AK and RS into his story. He was only able to do so once his lawyer had convinced him he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. The length of time it took him to become so bold with his inventing of strange things about AK and RS an obvious sign that he is lying and they weren’t there that night.

Oceania wrote:

You must KNOW that the owner of the bloody footprint is NOT conclusively known at this point. The prosecution have done their best to place ownership to Sollecito or some other unknown person who has the same size feet. I believe the reference to the size of the shoeprint in the judges report is misleading (like many other things in these reports) as it is not backed up with any official forensics, just a hypothesis/words from the great Mignini which the judge has run with. I think in time that Guede will be found to be it’s rightful owner. Same with RS DNA on the bra clip, it was a set up, that’s very obvious to many

So I guess that means if RS's DNA on the bra clasp turns out to be a legitimate piece of evidence and not a set-up as you claim, then you will have to accept that RS was at the crime scene.

Incidentally, what do you mean by "set-up"? Are you saying that this piece of evidence was fabricated by someone? If so, to whom is this obvious?

I have no idea what you mean by "official forensics" (do you mean approved by you?), but again, if the shoe print turns out not to belong to Rudy Guede, then I take it you will have to rethink your position.

soozie UK wrote:

bpcl wrote: three people are in custody and there is absolutely compelling evidence that these three persons were involved. Why would any Court system in the world let them out, I pose the question. Maybe Frank can answer it for me.

[font=Times New Roman]Beep, O666 would be quite happy to let her kids party with RS and AK if they were 'freed' while on trial. This is because she believes they are innocent. However, I love my daughter, and because of that, I would never allow her to go near these 2 if they were released into society while a trial was pending. No alibis, strange behaviour, dna at the crime scene. . . maybe some of us care about keeping our children safe, clearly O666 doesn't. Athough I imagine if RS and AK were both black - O666 would be campaigning to ensure they stayed in jail till they were dead.

And by the way, it was mentioned on PS (in conjunction with what you once said) that O666 should be part of Knox's defence team!!!
I guess that says it all really.[/font]

This post takes your childish vindictivness to a new all time low. At the very least you are in breach of the rules and regulations of this blog about respect to other posters. I ask that you retract it or that it be deleted. You think you are so clever referring to me as the devil, it shows the depth of how threatened you are by my views. You are making completely false claims about what I would or wouldn't do and insuations about my love for my children are despicable. Grow up Soozie, take a break, get some fresh air and come back when you can continue the dicussions without this sort of childish crap.

Oceania8 wrote:It’s all going along fine until you get the the bit “we don’t know how RG’s DNA got inside Meredith”, hmmm, that’s a shame because that’s a really important part of this puzzle. I suggest it got there because he put it there when he was attempting to have sex with her.....Surely in the scenario you describe it should be Guede that ends up dead and not Meredith, he’s been sprung sleeping with Sollecito’s girlfriend plus he stole the money off Meredith.

Your scenario also has RS happily partaking in a clean up and ongoing cover up as a co conspiritor with a guy he has just sprung sleeping with his girlfriend and who also stole her flatmates money. It is not surprising to me that Guede took four months to get the confidence to weave AK and RS into his story. He was only able to do so once his lawyer had convinced him he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. The length of time it took him to become so bold with his inventing of strange things about AK and RS an obvious sign that he is lying and they weren’t there that night.

So Rudy had consensual sex with Meredith, and then up and decided to up and kill her for some unknown reason? Your solution to this murder is very convenient to fall back on, but when you try to work out the details it is not simple by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I can easily place 2, or all 3 if you please, suspects in the cottage at the time of the murder and give them clear motives. Although it's not entirely clear to me when, and under what circumstances, Raffaele came into play, in my view Rudy would have had the least compelling motive (and ability) for being the murderer, or a participant in the murder. Oh yes, I think Raffaele would reluctantly (if not happily) partake in a clean up if it involved framing a guy he had sprung sleeping with his girlfriend and who also stole her flatmates money. And in his writings, Rudy seems confused and betrayed by the way things played out up to and after his arrest. There's more going on there than you are willing to consider and, if you take more evidence into consideration,, his silence is in no way an obvious sign of lying. By the way, Rudy has in fact claimed that the murderer attacked him, so your assumption has some support.

Oceania8 wrote:At the very least you are in breach of the rules and regulations of this blog about respect to other posters. I ask that you retract it or that it be deleted. You think you are so clever referring to me as the devil, it shows the depth of how threatened you are by my views. You are making completely false claims about what I would or wouldn't do and insuations about my love for my children are despicable. Grow up Soozie, take a break, get some fresh air and come back when you can continue the dicussions without this sort of childish crap.

[font=Times New Roman]OOOH, hit a nerve did I? Truth hurts doesn't it? And I will NOT delete a single word. Go and cry to Skep about it if you like. You are in breach of the rules here ALL THE TIME you whining hypocrite. Have you forgotten your constant misrepresentation of the facts??? IN BREACH. Twisting people's words to suit your own agenda? IN BREACH. Even on Frank's blog he thinks you should be part of the AK defence, so much for your supposed neutrality, hahaha bloody ha!

And I'm perfectly entitled to presume that since you want your WHITE suspects to be freed while being IMPRISONED for a possible MURDER rap, that you can't care about you kids safety if you'd be happy for them to mix with them while all this is going on. How many other mothers HERE would be happy to let their kids hang out with 2 murder suspects?? YOU would. What does that say about YOU? You cause rows here ALL the time, you nit-picking hair-splitting cold fish. You make enemies because your agenda is so transparent and heartless.
Take your whining elsewhere.

EDIT: Content edited out of courtesy for Skep and Michael who were being constantly harrassed by O8 about it. I was not instructed to edit OR delete it. While I could have worded my post less aggressively, I stand by what I said. [/font]

Well said Soozie,

It's like dealing with a foaming at the mouth mad person.

Oceania8,

One correction on your post:

"You must KNOW that the owner of the bloody footprint is NOT conclusively known at this point. The prosecution have done their best to place ownership to Sollecito or some other unknown person who has the same size feet."

This is what the Court said to Raffaele Sollecito on April 1st about the bloody shoe print:

"It is true that the identification with your own pair of Nikes is still uncertain, as the Court itself admits, but the size of the print left in the victim's blood excludes the possibility of its being attributable to Rudy Guede, since he has a much bigger shoe size."

From what I read here, they are not saying that it is certain that the shoe print belongs to Raffaele Sollecito. They are saying however, that it does not belong to Rudy Guede. And that is even more significant because the implication here is that more than one person was involved in this crime.

Here's a thought to chew on over the weekend. The more I think about all of this, the more I become convinced that we are dealing with the almost-classic fallout of a love triangle gone wrong. Almost-classic because people (especially innocent people) don't usually wind up being murdered when things unravel, and I'm using the term love in its most dysfunctional sense. But a lot of things start falling into place when you consider things this way. For a period of time, Amanda surely believed she could handle (manipulate) everything and everyone to perfection, but a 20 year old has no way of knowing how badly things can go when it all comes undone. I've seen how this works. Even if she did not physically stab anyone, this girl will carry twice the guilt of anyone else involved for the rest of her life if this is true.

I really do think there's something in this what you are saying Fly.


Somehow, there's a littlle something that explains this weird case.
That makes it then slot into place, as to why it happened.

Now Amanda could have been messed up or screwed up but it took something more that set this off so as to kill such a lovely girl like Meredith. I mean it was absolutely vicious, the attack showed no kind of mercy, because to point with a knife only at the neck indicates a particular emotion, or mental state, very angry, very wound up. Like that American profiler FBI Zandt said, this was saying I'm going to kill you.

it was not joking at all.

He knows what he was saying there.

It is I think only jealousy and rage in the sexual realm that can make a person that vicious and unmerciful.

And Frank talks about Patrick being unforgiving, what a joke!

FBN,

I know I posted this the other day, but I would like to say it again. There is a knife, found in the flat of Raffaele Sollecito which both you and I know has the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda Knox. That is significant IMHO because Meredith was killed by a knife. It cannot be explained away so easily. And I agree with you mostly on your post earlier today. The only part we do not have correctly is Raffaele Sollecito.

And to be honest, Oceania is right in saying this. We know he was at his flat until at the very latest, 8:40 pm or thereabouts. He was supposed to meet with someone whom he was going to drive somewhere. But we know that this witness did not need his services. Amanda Knox could not have known about this. At this time her cell phone was pinged near the vicinity of the cottage and a witness is purported to have seen her on Girabaldi Street. There is also that not so great image of a female seen entering the garage at 8:48 pm or thereabouts.

I think your idea, also espoused by others here, that maybe she had a rendezvous with Rudy Guede is a good start. Was this encounter about drugs, sex or a combination of both? We can prove that Raffaele Sollecito was in the cottage by his DNA on the brassiere clasp of Meredith.

Why is it there? Is it there because he was in the cottage along with Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede or is it there because he is part of the clean up? Did he go to the cottage once his rendezvous with the other person did not pan out? I believe that if he did go there, Amanda Knox would not have known this because she had already left the cottage and the witness for Raffaele Sollecito arrived a little bit later to say that his services would not be needed. Did he go to the cottage and find Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox together as you propose?

How does Meredith find herself in this triangle? By all accounts, she was a very upright girl who did not go out with just any guy. And Oceania8 is right, how does Rudy Guede's DNA get on Meredith? He did state that they had consensual sex. We have to be able to explain that in a way that makes sense.

We do not know yet whether or not it was Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito stealing the money that afternoon. Sparrow has pointed out here that maybe they took it to spite Meredith. But by the evening, Amanda Knox had forgotten about it. I just do not believe that Rudy Guede took the money. He talked about it from the moment he was captured and even said to the Police to ask both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito about it.

At any rate, back to your story of Meredith coming home, finding Amanda Knox with Rudy Guede and that her 'Rent' money to be stolen. She accuses Amanda Knox of stealing it. I think that check of of her account was to prove to either herself or the others that she had withdrawn the money. At that moment something escalated. We do not know what, but whatever it was, it resulted in Meredith's death. Because after 10:30 pm, only Meredith was in the cottage, dying by suffocating in her own blood.

Amanda's team finally distance themselves from Joe Tacopina

In una nota i legali sottolineano che "Tacopina non è mai stato il difensore di Amanda Knox, non rappresenta la famiglia né ha mai ricoperto alcun incarico funzionale alla difesa della giovane americana", uno dei tre arrestati dalla polizia per l'omicidio Kercher. Nessun tentativo di contatto quindi tra Tacopina e i legali italiani, così come gli investigatori o il magistrato che coordina l'indagine. A Perugia l'avvocato americano era invece giunto nel dicembre scorso dopo essersi interessato all'indagine come consulente di un grande network televisivo degli Usa...

www.fondazioneitaliani.it

His connection is apparently with a US TV network.

Why now?

It can't be just because his name is now in the news in connection with the Roma football ream. His name has been in the news in connection with Amanda since forever.

Just an observation.