The True Crime Weblog Message Board

I'll just copy what I put in the most recent open thread intro at The True Crime Weblog:

[M]y feelings, my opinions about this crime have changed over time. For instance, while I think Amanda Knox may be a troubled young woman, possibly mentally ill, I'm more doubtful than I once was that she took part in any kind of murder plot. Truth is, we still don't know, though. Hence my willingness to let you have another open thread. (There is another entry in this blog -- about another crime -- that is just as popular, but due to the acid, ugly nature of much of the commentary, I've never even considered opening a new thread for general commentary on that case.)

As with comments on my blog, I always reserve the right to delete posts here for any reason. Please remember that before you go off half-cocked.

As usual, please keep the following sane, civil, and on-topic.

Hi Folks,

Don't be shy. I will make an attempt to post an overview of the case in this thread sometime this weekend unless someone else does it first. People are free to start new threads about different topics relevant to the Kercher murder in this particular forum as well. I'm going to set up another thread titled Timeline, but fair warning -- I suck at making timelines. I'd be doing more but I'm on a bit of a deadline for Radar in addition to helping new bloggers get set up at the True Crime Weblog and taking in some new info on a case I'm investigating that may one day lead to a book.

Thanks,

Steve

A lot is said about Italy in relation to this case. Of course there is good and bad in every country in varying degrees. Italy being a developed country in Europe, has also a rich history, to start with, the Romans having led a vast empire that paved the way for so many things we have. People who have never been to Italy have at times, it seems, no idea of how the cultural heritage still is visible in so many things and people in Italy. The expertise Italians develop in all fields they concentrate on is seen in so many things they have made and what they do. As a place to study, I'd say it'd be one of my favourites. There are many very talented and knowledgeable people in Italy and I'm sure the facts about what happened to Meredith are going to come out in a fair trial, in a court of law, in Italy.

Thanks for the site devoted to Meredith.

I know there are some excellent timelines already out there. Xin has made one. Is this the definitive one now?
Maybe we could use color for some of the hearsay, or at least create a 'legend' to keep it clear. Maybe black for agreed upon fact, and colors for others that may have said something in a diary or press. This way several points can be used for the same time and compared easily.

Black = Accepted fact
Red = AK
Blue = RS
Green = SP
Orange = PL

Example:
13:00 Lunch at the cottage with Meredith

18:25 Spotted by some witness

11:00 awoke as AK was leaving

Just a few ideas.
I'm not around in the next few days, so can't help out much.

best,
May

May

That's a good idea as long as nobody is colour blind.

I think the colour idea is a good one only I ask is it workable?

Will people endlessly argue about what is accepted fact or not? Who decides what is what?

The concept of getting facts right is a brilliant idea though, as it is very tiring to see speculation and rumour diverting the direction of what the discussions are meant (supposed) to focus on, I think anyhow.

The edit function,

that's one of my favourite things

this is daunting stuff coming from the simple black and white text of the old haloscan

i can see the back and forth replies of a live discussion faltering in this format

the halo format is almost like jamming in a musical sense - quick moving and highly interactive
this format may turn out more like 'overdubbing' that is adding a musical part to a recording after it has been made
maybe karaoke could be a simile for people who dont get the overdub thing.

at least seems better than the beta-test boardware from january that was tried, and the quick post in the lower left may prove the key...

.

Looks promising, I have to figure out the buttons (I always liked the Apple mouse, with just one button).
------------------
Currently, the two suspects seem to be like the main character of L'Etranger (by Albert Camus). There's a first part to the book, where he seems completely emotionally detached from society around him. He gets news that his mother died, and he has a ho-hum attitude; his girlfriend asks why don't they get married, and he says "if you want to"; he walks along a beach, gets confused or deranged by a flash of light and kills the man with whom he crossed paths, for no apparent reason.

The second part of the book is the murder trial. The main character is different here, he's not totally detached from his environment and from feelings. The trial is not Kafka-style, with a total lack of understanding of what he's there for; instead, he knows why he's there, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the positioning of this man against society: that pack of public who want to see him executed. Instead of dealing with moral or legal issues of why he killed, and how does he feel now, Camus shows a more primitive man, who scowls back at the crowd, and hopes that they will be howling back at him on the day of his execution.
-----------
No one is going to be executed in Perugia. But neither is anyone stepping up to deal with moral issues. And while the suspects are following SOP legal advice (don't declare anything), they are not affording themselves a path of backing out of prior declarations (if that is a viable, truthful path). And I fear that, like the main character in L'Etranger, they may be advancing inexorably towards a legal decision from which it will be too late to avoid, and they will feel that there is no alternative but to hope for a howling crowd. Make my day.
-

Bonjourno!



Thanks Steve.

I love the fancy colors!

if different aspects of discussion about this case are given different threads it will NOT be the same experience that has been shared previously through Steve's use of the haloscan software.

i find the threaded format here only useful when seeking information held in many threads about a specific item...like a DVD burner model DVR-109 that you want to find peoples comments/solutions about.

.

Hi Rob,
I don't think this blog should replace the haloscan thread that is a very good place for quick exchanges, but it is useful to file all the info that can be retrieved much easier and used for our enlightening discussions!
PS: I really like your posts

Jumpy wrote:Bonjourno!



Thanks Steve.

I love the fancy colors!

Wow -- that IS fancy. Glad I could set this up. Some people may find it very useful. For others the comments on the blog will suffice. Here, formatting direct replies is much easier. Like the one I'm posting to you now!

Steve

Thanks, Steve...

This will take some getting used to, I reckon.

i can see the back and forth replies of a live discussion faltering in this format - Rob

rob, I think it will useful to segregate certain parts of the case here in the message board.
Halo (for me) is still the main 'conference' place, but it gets loaded up really fast.
If we just wanted to concentrate on one aspect, ie, the injuries, the alibis, etc etc, we could just devote a thread to that
without overloading Halo. I think all message boards take time to develop.
I'm sure this will take of fast, especially after Saturday.

Maybe Kermit could use a new topic to post links out to his powerpoints.

I know it's my bad organisation but every time I want one I have to track it down all over.

:/

anyone see the documentary tonight about this case? It was on channel 4 in the UK, Dont think there was much new in it, but it was pretty interesting.

Oh and hi by the way!

Hi GameFace!
I did not see it, but there was some discussion among our UK participants over on the open thread. Would you like to write a little review of what was interesting or noteworthy? The Times carried a rather harsh review of the program.

This is a good place to start. Experiment. Don't let the different look and feel bother you. It will be better than bad mojo.

skeptical bystander wrote:This is a good place to start. Experiment. Don't let the different look and feel bother you. It will be better than bad mojo.

Your wayward flock is balking at the change. But in the end, they will see how much better this is.

Charlie

Hi Guys, what a calamity as the ship went down !
Yep I'm sure we'll get used to the new forum, we humans seem resistant to change but then once we try something new we then wonder why we didn't do it ages ago. The three main blogs covering MK all seem a bit crazy at the moment, maybe it's full moon or something. I'm still curious how the pages thing is going to pan out, are we going to end up with hundreds of pages ?
Avanti !

I got rather lost with the Cassazione discussion. Is it correct to summarise the following:?

- Up until Nov. 5 evening RS and AK have more or less coinciding alibis (light on details but coinciding)
- RS admits in Police Station at 22.40 that AK was not with him between 21.30 h and 1.00 h on night of Nov.1. He is still a witness, as there is no implication of himself in the crime(s)
- Interrogation with AK begins, at 1.45 she "confesses". But we don't know exactly what she confessed at that point, do we? (I think there are two key issues: her being in the cottage - covering ears - and Patrick killing the victim). Matteini's report says AK is not sure if RS was there or not.

With this confession she and RS are no longer simple witness, but turn into suspects (she may have some involvement with the crime having been present at the crime, and he ... well why? ... other than the fact that he has been telling lies and the cops probably don't believe that his 22.40 confession stops there). Her testimony can't be used against her (due to the respect of her right to a lawyer), but it is very valid for use against others suspects not only to put them in preventive prison, but also as evidence in a future trial.

The 5.45 confession I don't understand, yesterday some attempt was made to explain it, but for whatever reason it occurred, it's content can't be used as no lawyer was present (I would like to know the difference between the content of the 1.45 and the 5.45 confession ... did 5.45 go well beyond 1.45, or was it just a repetition?).

- The next day (it is understood in the afternoon of Nov.6) Amanda writes her "spontaneous" 4 page document.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wmeredith222.xml
By now she probably formally has a lawyer, who may or may not have read the Amanda's document, but since she officially has a lawyer, that document can be used. Poster Chris Mellas accepts and does not dispute either the authenticity nor the validity nor the usefulness of this document, because for him it cancels the effect of the 1.45 confession (5.45 is already cancelled not due to police brutality - which isn't mentioned anywhere in the April Cassazione proceedings - but because of the absence of a lawyer).

He may feel it cancels out 1.45, but it still repeats the possibility that the story of the night before is true. And in that light, just as Chris / the defence team want to use that document in a favourable way, so does ILE from the point of view of the prosecution. Since the document is "spontaneous" it can be used not only against other suspects, but also Amanda.

(BTW, there's an interesting line in that document: "I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom." .... what about the call home to Edda and Chris, when she woke them up at 2 a.m.? Didn't they tell her to call the cops? When did the call that Signora Elisabetta received on one of the mobile phones occur? Also, there must have been at least two calls to Edda, the wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night call, and then the call when the cops were actually there and Rafaele was relaying to Amanda the hoof-and-foot story, if it actually happened like that.)

As we make the transition, there may be posts on the thread currently in flames that people may want to retrieve and post here for discussion.

Oceania8 wrote:I'm still curious how the pages thing is going to pan out, are we going to end up with hundreds of pages ?
Avanti !

Do you have any options Skep to change the number of posts per page?

I can't find any user options to make this change and I'm inclined to agree with Oceania8 and we could well find ourselves up to 100 pages before next week.

Kermit wrote:The 5.45 confession I don't understand, yesterday some attempt was made to explain it, but for whatever reason it occurred, it's content can't be used as no lawyer was present (I would like to know the difference between the content of the 1.45 and the 5.45 confession ... did 5.45 go well beyond 1.45, or was it just a repetition?).

This is the bit I was trying to clarify a few days ago, Kermit.

The way I understand it, there are three parts to Amanda Knox's testimony.

1: 2240-0145 a three hour interrogation that makes her a suspect, may involve a beating, and is "a chaos".
2: from 0545 a detailed voluntary lawyerless description of sitting in the kitchen listening to Lumumba committing the crime
3: later that day the written testimony that attempts to withdraw from the 0545 declaration

I understood the Cassazione decisions a bit differently from you. I thought they meant that what Amanda Knox said in the first part, from 2240-0145, can't be used either against her or against anybody else, because she was a witness who was turning into a suspect, and as such had no legal representation. In any case, we don't know any details of what was said in this one (apart from Frank Perugia Shock's explanation that it was "a chaos", as he told Skep).

NB For anyone rereading this post - I got the Cassazione rulings mixed up here. See below.

Then I understood them to mean that in the second part, from 0545, she is now officially a suspect and is entitled to make a spontaneous declaration, but because she has no lawyer, this means that it can be used against other people, but not against her.

Finally, I understood them to mean that the third part, being written testimony, falls into a different category and can be used in its entirety. Chris Mellas seems to believe there was no lawyer involved for this one either, but he's quite happy for it to be used, so it doesn't seem to be in dispute.

Brian S. wrote:

Oceania8 wrote:I'm still curious how the pages thing is going to pan out, are we going to end up with hundreds of pages ?
Avanti !

Do you have any options Skep to change the number of posts per page?

I can't find any user options to make this change and I'm inclined to agree with Oceania8 and we could well find ourselves up to 100 pages before next week.

Ha! Problem fixed.

Just use the display post from previous option at the bottom of the page.

I was gone for a few days and had a lot ofcatching up do... I don't need to say that I was flabbergasted in reading some of the posts and I 100% agree with the move, perhaps it was overdue. We just have to get used to a slightly different way of posting!

My last post to Beep was about PL and what was reported by the English press. PL appeared immediaterly afterwards on several TV shows and spoke to the press, denying that
-Police hit him
-He intended to fire Amanda
-He intended to replace Amanda with Meredith.

He made it very clear that Amanda was a waitress, wheras he had asked Meredith to be the bartender ONLY on the next upcoming ladies night. He stated that Amanda was not a good waitress because she would flirt non-stop with some customers, and ignore customers at other tables that were waiting to be served, BUT at the time he wasn't thinking to fire her. He just said that if she had quit it wouldn't have been a great loss.

FinnMacCool wrote:I understood the Cassazione decisions a bit differently from you. I thought they meant that what Amanda Knox said in the first part, from 2240-0145, can't be used either against her or against anybody else, because she was a witness who was turning into a suspect, and as such had no legal representation. In any case, we don't know any details of what was said in this one (apart from Frank Perugia Shock's explanation that it was "a chaos", as he told Skep).

Thanks Finn for your comments. I'm no lawyer, but I think it makes sense that if a witness of a crime (any crime) gives useful testimony which the police incorporate into the case, then that testimony is very valid. (with the special consideration I describe below):

Why shouldn't the 1.45 testimony be valid? AK is a witness, she has seen or heard things, and she declares that. The testimony has to be useable against third parties, otherwise there's no sense to taking testimony from witnesses. The catch is simply that a witness has the right to not implicate himself or herself, and so I think that the 1.45 testimony gets split into two parts: that which is valid and useable against third parties (and I would say that Patrick's name came up then, in the first part), and that which implicates the witness (which can't be used in court against the witness, but within the framework of an investigation is enough to make them a suspect).

Kermit, that's more or less what I was thinking, and I asked for clarification about it. Skep contacted Frank, who said (I think I'm quoting properly) that she the first part of her interrogation was "a chaos" that resulted in her status being changed to a suspect, and that she started implicating Patrick Lumumba at 0545.

I imagine that the police asked her about the text messages before 0145, and told her that Raffaele had denied she told him she didn't have to go to work. At least, that seems to be the implication of what she wrote the following day.

Also, I've reread the Cassazione decisions and I realize that I'd misremembered them - you're quite right, it's the 0145 declarations that can be used against other people, but not against Amanda, while the 0545 declaration is ruled completely out, and the later written testimony is ruled completely in.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to know too much about what was said before 0145 ("chaos" aside). It's the 0545 testimony (now ruled completely out) that was extensively leaked.

Okay Finn, I understand the prior references to "chaos" better now. So .... after those reflections on the questioning of Nov. 5-6, we can go back to something that you and I were saying yesterday, which is that at this stage in the game, the content of that questioning doesn't really mean all that much to the case: Patrick is a minor or non-existent character, and neither the 1.45 nor the 5.45 testimony can be used against Amanda. The later document on Nov. 6 is partially useful for both Defence and Prosecution, but it is nothing definitive (maybe I was there, maybe I wasn't, I'm awfully confused).

So the case will have to be built on other evidence: forensic and human (witnesses).

[quote="FinnMacCool"]

"The way I understand it, there are three parts to Amanda Knox's testimony."

Hi Finn, Isn't there four parts to her testimony? Where does the original statement that AK made, the one that originally tied in RS's fit in here ? Do we know all the cirucumstances surrounding that, presumably no lawyer there either ? And which of the four are currently classed as admissable, the first and the fourth ? Beating or no beating, that particular statement, the second one, now seems to be inadmissable.

I copied one of your posts over from the other thread and would like to pose some answers.

This defense, as it stands, needs four things:
1. A lot of the forensic evidence has to be discredited, or disappear.

I think much of it has been discredited to date. The DNA on the knife we have learnt has apparently never been submitted as evidence as it wasn't of high enough quality. The latest on the shoeprint seems to be it is RG's. The bra clip is contested as contaminated over handling issues etc. The supposed mixed blood and footprints we still have no further clarification, why don't they submit it for the court's forensic experts to confirm ? In terms of forensics for AK and RS, as far as we know, that's about it.

2. It needs the "false confession" to be thrown out.

It has been, no ?

3. It would like Sollecito's confession to be revised to square up with Amanda's. In fact, Chris Mellas believes this is already the case. He may know something we don't, or it may just be wishful thinking.

If they stick with version one they won't have any problems. Damian asked me the other day why I think RS may have said the 'sack of sh**' line. I answered him, but forgot to include the possibilty that the interogators may have been up to their standard old tricks of saying "We have evidence that AK was at the scene of the crime, this dosn't tie in with what you first said" (that's a polite interpretation by the way) they cornered him and he started back peddling. Both AK and RS continued to question through their diaries etc about each others involvement, perhaps ideas had been put into their heads and through their diaries an attempt made to try and make sense of it.


4. It wants Rudy Guede, with a mountain of DNA evidence against him and an unbelievable story, to carry the can for the whole thing.
There's an "all or nothing" approach to this that seems to me quite high-risk. If some of the forensic evidence is ruled in (like the notorious DNA on the knife, for example), then that's very bad news for a defense that depends on it being thrown out.

The main thing AK and RS defence have got going for them is, as you say, the mountain of DNA evidence and unbelievable story of RG. AK and RS lawyers are trying to prove their innocence, why would they go with anything less than all or nothing ? It seems Biscotti has chosen the most high risk road of all, considering the forensics that points to his clients involvement in this crime. However with virtually no hope anyway for RG, he might as well go for broke.

Oceania8 wrote:1. A lot of the forensic evidence has to be discredited, or disappear.

I think much of it has been discredited to date. The DNA on the knife we have learnt has apparently never been submitted as evidence as it wasn't of high enough quality. The latest on the shoeprint seems to be it is RG's. The bra clip is contested as contaminated over handling issues etc. The supposed mixed blood and footprints we still have no further clarification, why don't they submit it for the court's forensic experts to confirm ? In terms of forensics for AK and RS, as far as we know, that's about it.

Hi Oceania. Ref the DNA on the knife, as far as we know it wasn't submitted, but I have yet to see that it "wasn't of high enough quality". I'm not saying that's not the case, but apart from Joe the Sleuth, I still haven't seen any reference whatsoever to the quality of the DNA. Is there new news on that that I'm not aware of?

Ref. the shoeprint, ditto. I understand it is definitely too small to be RG's. Now, there's a debate if, being the shoesize that Raffaele wears, if it could be from him or another person. But I'm quite sure it's not RG. Unless if there is new news I'm not aware of.

Ref. the bra clip, it is contested as contaminated by the RS defence team, I'm not sure if by anyone else. It's not surprising they do that, that's their job. (Their claim was backed up by the famous Telenorba video)

Ref. the mixed blood drops, what further clarification is needed or is possible?

Ref. further foot prints, yes, we're waiting for analysis of what supposedly are barefoot prints in blood, not visible to the eye. We'll see if that's true or a rumour.

Conclusion: There are forensics, some may be slightly less definitive (blood drops of two housemates in a shared bathroom) others more (DNA on knife - unless if there is news that it's not useable for some reason). I would say that all form part of the case, and the trial judge will have to decide what's valid and what's not.

Oceania8 wrote:The latest on the shoeprint seems to be it is RG's. ...

Not so:

From the appeal court (which was based on the original appeals of December) which had access to updated evidence on those subjects.

Raffaele:
None of my biological material was found at the crime scene.
Supreme Court:
The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant. Moreover, there is a Nike shoe print compatible with the shoes you were wearing at the time of your arrest. 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. However, the real value of the print resides in the fact that just a few people may be involved in the crime and not even Knox --who admitted her presence in the house -- has excluded your presence at the crime scene. And since you said you never entered the room we have no reason to believe that the print was left the following day.

Perugia Shock

Oceania8 wrote:It seems Biscotti has chosen the most high risk road of all, considering the forensics that points to his clients involvement in this crime. However with virtually no hope anyway for RG, he might as well go for broke.

Well I suspect Rudy also had a choice in this matter.

It's known that a guilty plea and co-operation with the prosecution before trial will produce a reduced sentence.

In the words of Frank:

It would be much easier to point to a lesser crime and then with confession, cooperation, abbreviated trial, extenuating circumstances, repayment to the family and good conduct in jail, Rudy could be in semi-freedom by the time he was 25.

.

Hi Kermit, I think it has been established that the reason it was not admissable was because the match wasn't strong enough to be considered as belonging to MK. Chris Mellas posted this over at CD's the other day

"In this hearing, the DNA on the knife was brought up, and discounted by the courts own experts upon questioning of them in regards to its accuracy. They stated that the DNA on the knife could match half of Italy. In light of this, they were not able to enter it into evidence due to its lack of relevance. I believe the lawyers for all parties were rather taken aback by this revelation."

Kermit: "the mixed blood drops, what further clarification is needed or is possible? "

To my way of thinking, a lot. In the same way we have some problems with the shoeprint, the bra clip and the knife, all originally reported as 'definites' I am not prepared to take this evidence as gospel until we hear exactly what the mix is by way of a court appointed expert or whatever independent assessment is required. Many seem to think it is samples of mixed blood from both AK and MK. Because I think the prosecution are clutching at straws and I don't trust a lot of what they have leaked, I think they are holding back on clarification of this for reasons known only to them at this stage.

Oceania8 wrote:
The latest on the shoeprint seems to be it is RG's. ...
Brian: Not so

We have no way of knowing whether the original shoeprint interpretation as being RS's from this report was updated or whether it relates to now outdated information. It is possible that Mignini may not have updated that part of the report. I'm inclined to think it wasn't, in view of several reports since that time (over 4 months ago )that say the shoeprint matches one from a shoebox taken from RG's (re: Damain's posts on this topic). Irrespective of this, I think RS's defence will have no problem proving conclusively this was not RS's shoeprint. To my mind there is only one person that shoeprint could have belonged to, the same person that left their bloody prints in the rest of that room.

Past midnight now NZ time, hope to see some more here soon.

Hello, Oceania. Here's what I think.

Oceania8 wrote:Hi Finn, Isn't there four parts to her testimony?

I just meant there are three parts on the night/day of the 5th/6th November.

Where does the original statement that AK made, the one that originally tied in RS's fit in here ?

I don't really know what they said over the weekend of the 2nd/3rd/4th, although judging from the newspapers it seems to have included a visit to a non-existent party, at some stage. There wouldn't have been a lawyer present, because they were just witness statements.

And which of the four are currently classed as admissable, the first and the fourth ? Beating or no beating, that particular statement, the second one, now seems to be inadmissable.

The Cassazione has ruled (I think) that the one between 2040 and 0145 can be used against other people, but not against Amanda, because of her mixed suspect/witness standing during that session. I suppose that her earlier witness statements would have a similar status.

I think much of [the forensic evidence] has been discredited to date. The DNA on the knife we have learnt has apparently never been submitted as evidence as it wasn't of high enough quality. The latest on the shoeprint seems to be it is RG's. The bra clip is contested as contaminated over handling issues etc. The supposed mixed blood and footprints we still have no further clarification, why don't they submit it for the court's forensic experts to confirm ? In terms of forensics for AK and RS, as far as we know, that's about it.

I've never really been sure what's been ruled in or out. It seems to me that there's a whole bunch of evidence out there that hasn't even been talked about yet.

2. It needs the "false confession" to be thrown out.

It has been, no ?

The written testimonial is ruled in - that's the one where she's still seeing Patrick Lumumba doing the deed, but wouldn't like to swear to it in court on the grounds of being confused (or something). From my non-partisan and non-legal point of view, it still looks like a very odd thing to tell the police, and certainly isn't helpful to Patrick Lumumba, who had to spend a further two weeks in jail while Amanda said precisely nothing further about whether Lumumba did or did not do it. It may be that legally this is a good line to take, but I can see where it doesn't win you many friends among the general public.

3. It would like Sollecito's confession to be revised to square up with Amanda's. In fact, Chris Mellas believes this is already the case. He may know something we don't, or it may just be wishful thinking.

If they stick with version one they won't have any problems. Damian asked me the other day why I think RS may have said the 'sack of sh**' line. I answered him, but forgot to include the possibilty that the interogators may have been up to their standard old tricks of saying "We have evidence that AK was at the scene of the crime, this dosn't tie in with what you first said" (that's a polite interpretation by the way) they cornered him and he started back peddling. Both AK and RS continued to question through their diaries etc about each others involvement, perhaps ideas had been put into their heads and through their diaries an attempt made to try and make sense of it.

I'm not too sure what "version one" was, but Raffaele's current version, that he still hasn't retracted, places Amanda Knox outside his apartment during the hours when the murder took place. If they really did have a version one that was consistent and hung together, it's not a question of "sticking" to it - he'll have to change his testimony and "go back" to it. From what we heard of the Cassazione sessions, he doesn't seem ready to do that just yet.

AK and RS lawyers are trying to prove their innocence, why would they go with anything less than all or nothing ?

If they're really innocent, and if the police really have got this as badly wrong as their blogworld supporters suggest, then they're absolutely right to go for an all-or-nothing strategy - they didn't do it, and the evidence will back them up.

But if it turns out that they really did turn on their phones/computer at five in the morning, for example, then the all-or-nothing strategy starts to backfire. (A different strategy might have argued for an innocent reason for their doing this, rather than a flat-out denial that it happened at all.) Or if the bleach receipts turn out to be credible. And if there really is blood on that famous mop, for example, then they're in serious trouble.

Hi Guy's just thpoght I'd say 'Hello' and glad we're all on board here.
Can't quite belive how the other board we used ended up as a big sqabble, when all of us just want to find the truth about what happened to Meredith...

Hello everyone. I'm so excited to be a comic book character...

What a mess! Hope this works out better than haloscan. I'm going to sit back and see how it all pans out because right now, it seems a little wonky and awkward...(though apparently there is no ban on ellipses)

soozie UK wrote:Hi Pandora. Nice to see you! I think it's going to have a much more alien feel here for a while, due to the non-live aspect of it. But now we're migrating here in droves, it might actually develop into a much more 'controlled' discussion. We've kind of 'lost the plot' over at Haloscan
Here's hoping it works out.

Yeah, here's hoping it works out too
Im so trying to adjust to this new board...

As for the Supreme Court ruling and the lack of "biological material" at the crime scene, let's not forget that the Court was not looking at any evidence other than what was available on November 30. The results from the bra clasp analysis were not known until well after that. Also, as one angry poster on Frank's blog noted, there is a ton of evidence that Mignini has been sitting on since November 8. What this means is that Mignini submitted enough evidence to keep the suspects in custody while the investigation was being carried out. Indeed, this has driven his critics and people not familiar with Italian criminal proces mad.
Finally, as Kermit has pointed out, the debate over forensics has been a public debate led by Sollecito's defense team to cast doubt. I have read that this is standard practice in Italy. What is discredited by the defense on Porta à Porta and what happens when charges are brought and the case heard are two different things.

About the new board: It feels different to everyone and will take some adjustment. But don't worry too much about it. Circumstances change and one has to adjust. The alternative would have been to continue putting up with two or three trolls who would like nothing more than to prevent people from questioning the media plan being executed with respect to this case and one of its suspects.

I have rarely seen Frank at Perugia Shock delete as many posts as he did yesterday, and they were all from the same source. Unfortunately, Frank was under the impression that these were Haloscan posters (because one of the posts referred to "Halotards," a term of endearment for us). I think he has been set straight.
Anyway, it's over now. This board has tools for preventing people from derailing discussion.

There is one small but significant thing I had missed in Frank's account of the SC's reasoning about RS. He reports the SC as saying to RS:

"However, the real value of the [shoe]print resides in the fact that just a few people may be involved in the crime and not even Knox --who admitted her presence in the house -- has excluded your presence at the crime scene."

What do they mean by this?

It cannot be the 05.45 statement, which is inadmissable both against herself and against others. It is unlikely to be the written statement, which is at best equivocal. It may be the 01.45 statement, which is admissable contra alios, but not against herself. And it is unlikely to be the remarks she was overheard making to her mother, which require interpretation.

Or did she make an admission on some occasion we do not know about?

This is all speculation until we have the exact wording of the SC: but if it really did say without any qualification "who admitted her presence.." then she must have done so.

Finna: do not try to extract too much from the SC's judgment. They are mainly about tiny legal technicalities through which the defence lawyers are hoping to trip up the prosecutors. And all we hear about are those technicalities.

Nevertheless we can extrapolate some hard facts:

1. The shoeprint in the blood is not compatible with RG; it IS compatible with RS. No more no less.

2. The absence of any mention of coercion under questioning means that the defence teams do not know of any. If a complaint had been filed, that would certainly have been mentioned, whether or not it was upheld/rejected/still under investigation. They have not played this card. They only used the sob-story: "I'm a young foreigner; I have a clean record; and my behavior was influenced by the use of cannabis", as Frank paraphrases it.

3. The DNA evidence on the knife is still admissable. Had it seriously been challenged that would have come up. All we have heard about it is from an American TV-personality, who can know nothing about it. If it was in doubt, the defence teams would have demanded a re-examination by their own experts as they did with their computers. They may still do so, but their silence about this so far is deafening.

4. The change of status from witness to suspect is crucial for the legal process. The SC is satisfied that that all due diligence was applied by the investigators, who terminated the 01.45 interview at the moment when AK had said something potentially incriminating.

5. The only error in proceedure concerned the interpreations as to the applicability of statements RG had made in Germany to AK. But this error has no material consequences.

I.e. All procedures had been satisfactorily followed, taking account of all laws governing the treatment of witnesses and suspects (laws, I may add, which are formulated specifically to protect witnesses and suspects, and not prosecutors or investigators). We are not dealing here with scandals such as Berlusconi's notorious statute of limitation. The SC would have had all the transcripts, and also the tape-., of all interviews available to them. (But then again: wretches hang that jurymen may dine...

Most interesting is the silence of the SC about the blood on the Nike's, and the discovery of the corpse. The SC either felt that there was enough evidence against RS not to address these points: or that definite evidence on these points had emerged between the defence teams launching the appeal and the actual hearing of the appeal. We wait with bated breath (and we also note that they were not similarly reticent about the DNA on the knife).

And once again. Do not forget the mop!

"serious and concordant evidence of the active participation, conscious and voluntary, of Guede in the murder," Cassazione quote from Frank. In light of this comment, does anyone have any idea what Biscuits's tactics are?
Could it be that this comment is based on information which hasn't been 'officially released yet? I have no idea but if it is, obviously Biscuits is aware of this information. If it's based on what we already know, (or even if it's not) then he would have known, presumably, that the Cassazione would say things along these lines. How then do you explain the lies RG told to the pm (according to the Cassazione) and the various performances his lawyer has made on TV?
At the end of the preliminary investigation, all the lawyers will have to decide how best to defend the interests of their clients. Some of the lawyers, if the case agaisnt their client looks strong, may go for 'rito abbreviato'. This would mean avoiding a proper trial and getting a less serious sentence, reduced by a third I think. I say a less serious sentence because I don't think we are just talking abot the length. I believe that in trials involving murder, where there are many 'aggravante', the judge can also recommend 1-2 years in isolation.

Hi Damian

Here is my comment from last night, which may have got lost in the fray:

Thanks again, caro Damiano, for posting those two links while I was writing my three volume novel about the mop.
I find this most interesting: 'come autore o coautore materiale, mandante o istigatore'; quel che conta - per rendere legittima la prosecuzione della sua carcerazione cautelare – è che lui abbia preso parte 'coscientemente e volontariamente all'azione omicidiaria'.
The SC did not scruple to say this about RG; but we hear nothing along the lines of coautore or mandante in what they say about the others.
We seem to be looking at accessories after the fact for the dynamic duo. But subsequent findings may change that.
Minotaur | 04.28.08 - 12:59 pm | #

Biscotti's tactics seem to be damage limitation: he is trying to turn RG from principal actor to accessory, or aider and abettor, or negligence of duty, or whatever. I don't know post-Napoleonic Italian law well enough, but I assume these all have equivalents, as has indeed been discussed here with valuable input from yourself

Hi Minatour. I think our understanding of the Cassazione's ruling depends alot on what 'bits' have been leaked and why. Anyway, as you and others say, it's technical stuff based on what the pm gave way back when in order to keep them in prison. I still am a bit puzzled by Biscuits tactics. The way I see it is either you co-operate with the police and tell them what happened, or you keep your mouth shut and wait and see what they've got.

damian wrote:I still am a bit puzzled by Biscuits tactics. The way I see it is either you co-operate with the police and tell them what happened, or you keep your mouth shut and wait and see what they've got.

An interesting comment by Frank over at Perugia Shock.

Anonymous: The most interesting thing is that Rudy's lawyer asked him if he was guilty of this crime, most defense attorneys would never ask such a questions for fear they would say yes....

Frank: That's also why I wanted to know that detail from mr Biscotti. Of course he could tell me anything but he looked sincere and his aids were confirming it....

Perhaps this explains why Biscotti is going for broke?

It may also explain why Rudy felt able to tell the PM to give him 30 years.

He too knows he is going for broke.

Brian S. wrote:It may also explain why Rudy felt able to tell the PM to give him 30 years.

He too knows he is going for broke.

I have read in various places and I know we have touched on it here (well, there), but isn't it the case that by cooperating and confessing to his role Rudy can get his sentence reduced, maybe by up to one-third? I apologize if I am repeating something that was recently discussed. So if it's a 30-year sentence as "author" and he is convicted of that, given that he's just 20, his life will be far from over when he gets out.
And maybe I'm suffering from the diary influence, but I see Rudy as salvageable. Having said that, I don't currently see him as the main knife wielder, so it will depend on what ultimately emerges. He may end up with a lighter sentence.

Hi,

Skep, I tried to explain this before, but, the 1/3 off does not always apply.

When the crimes can bring life imprisonment, then it does not apply. This means, are any of the three going to be formally charged with crimes which together form grounds to merit being sentenced to life in prison?

There is a chance, I feel, that at least one of these three can be deemed so vicious that the type and nature of crimes committed merits the most severe of punishments.
And, I think that person, if the others did not conspire with this person to kill Meredith, will be the one who actually killed Meredith.

Yet, until it is known for sure how it is that all three became involved in Meredith's murder, it cannot be determined that the one that did the actual klilling was any worse than the other two. This is if the three are guilty.

The way the 1/3 off works is that it has to be asked for by the defendant before trial.

You said they are not defendants, I disagree with you there.
Maybe this has something to do with American law, but, as accused, and having been made to stay in detention longer than the four days maximum in Italy, they are, under the Italian system, seen as having been charged and it is this point again and again that seems impossible for most people to grasp.

I'll say it one more time, the word charge is an English word, the words that lead to the sense of things and lies underneath at the base of the concepts are different in different languages.
These people, are in a sense, already at the same level as someone who has been formally charged in Britain or the USA, the formal charging, is just part of the process to be brought forward later after the full investigation. There was already serious grounds pointing to these three suspects which said, We think there is more than a great chance that they are all involved in the murder.
If this was not so, then they'd have to have been released. Four days is the maximum in Italy to hold a person without charging them.
Understanding the concepts properly is the only way to follow what is going on in and under the Italian system.

Rudy Guede can admit to his part but if his part was stabbing Meredith (and the preliminariy investigation has concluded this much), that with the other aggravated circumstances, sees him, (and it could be one of the others too if there is conspiracy involved) looking at a life sentence, because it is not just murder, in that case the prosecutor would never agree to the speeded up process, where the defendant saves the state money and a lot of trouble by simply agreeing with what the prosecutor has made of it in the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor would not agree to letting the defendant have the 1/3 off because the crimes are too severe and the prosecutor would want the accused to get the full and what is in the prosecutor's eyes, deserved punishment.

___________________________________________
In addition, there are 3 pre-trial alternatives:

1)
Short trial (guidizio abbreviato). Upon a defendant's formal request, the case is decided in the course of the preliminary hearing on the basis of findings of the preliminary investigation, providing that the Public Prosecutor agrees with it.

If found guilty, the defendant is entitled to a reduction of one-third of the penalty provided for the crime (for instance, 6 years in prison instead of 9).

The reduction applies to all crimes except those incurring a life sentence.

Minotaur wrote:3. The DNA evidence on the knife is still admissable. Had it seriously been challenged that would have come up. All we have heard about it is from an American TV-personality, who can know nothing about it. If it was in doubt, the defence teams would have demanded a re-examination by their own experts as they did with their computers. They may still do so, but their silence about this so far is deafening.

Hang on to your dreams while you still can.

Charlie

Charlie,
If you've got a source for your belief other than Joe T and/or Mr. Insider CM, please share. Otherwise, I think I'll stick with the known facts, eliminating and adding when appropriate.

That's an odd way to put it, Charlie. Is that some sort of threat? It sounds remotely creepy as I don't think anyone here, let alone Minotaur considers this a dream. Nightmare is more like it.

TLC,
Thanks for that clarification about the 1/3 rule. I knew there was something. Do you know what the average prison term is for someone convicted of murder and given a life sentence? I'm assuming, of course, that things work in Italy like they do in France. For one-time offenders who cause no trouble and are rehabilitated while in prison, a life sentence usually means sixteen to twenty years with the possibility of parole after that.

As for my comment about Knox possibly being a witness, it was really intended to underscore my view, which is that I don't think Knox dealt any physical blows. I think her role lies elsewhere. I believe that she may be an eye witness and that she may have played a role in bringing the protagonists together.

Love Wolf - you can de-flea a cat - but there's always going to be one left hanging on!
It would be preferable if Charlie Wilkes 'spread the awareness' somewhere else. We don't really need him dragging his cronies here for a Halo repeat after eveything that happened.

And he's not even here for Meredith. He's made that patently clear on several occasions. Now this is when an 'ignore' button would come in handy

Charlie Wilkes, haven't you caused enough disruption already? You have no interest here except to antagonise people. You must feel extraordinarily proud of yourself. How very sad.

Personally, I don’t think that I could be pursueded to buy anything from Charlie, no matter what he was selling. Aside from the fact that he never reasons, or states anything other than his cynical, grumpy life view, his imperious, smug, self-satisfied attitude is anything but pursuasive. He is someone who, as a friend of mine delicately puts it, is fond of sitting in an asparagus patch. If that is his choice, so be it, but he shouldn’t be angry at those of us who don’t want to join him there.

Charlie, I suspect that there is intellegence behind the imperious, self-important façade—but I associate intelligence with an open mind and willingness to listen and consider before responding. I guess I also consider respect for others as another integral part of intelligent discussion. Do ya think you could go there, Charlie? Otherwise, what’s the point?

PS—A haloscon by any other name (True Crime Weblog Message Board), is just as sweet...

a2 wrote:I guess I also consider respect for others as another integral part of intelligent discussion. Do ya think you could go there, Charlie?

Hmmm.

I recall that the last (and I believe the only) time you addressed me, you labeled me an "insane zealot" and a "pain in the ass" and announced that henceforth you would not respond to anything I posted. That was 04.11.08 - 7:02 pm if you wish to check.

Please refresh my recollection if I have addressed any similarly disrespectful comments toward you.

Charlie

Hmmmm. Perhaps I gave you too much credit in the intelligence department, Charlie.

I have never addressed you, nor used the words that you quoted. The Haloscan is still up the last time I looked, and i would challenge you to find any such post.

I guess your fondness for sitting in the asparagus patch over rules all other instincts. Its a shame, because unlike Oceana88 who has genuinely given me reason to consider other possibilities, you change no one's heart or mind on this subject; Certainly not mine.

Hey everyone, let's just forget about this poster until he has some content to offer. There's lots to deal with regarding Perugia.

I agree, Kermit. Charlie is nothing more than a aritificially well-mannored troll. But, I do feel that I must defend myself against his ridiculous accusation (his way of avoiding sunstantive discussion). The following is the only time that I referenced, rather than addressed Charlie:

"...I know there are people who believe that the ILE are corrupt and without conscience. But I'm not convinced. In fact, I tend to think more that solving this murder--and getting it right, is of great importance both personally and professionally to the investigators. I suspect that they are just as offended (for lack of a stronger word) by this crime, and want to do right by Meredith and by her family. And obviously, theres a ton of people watching from around the world so its also critical for them professionally that they get the evidence right.

Charlie would say I'm a pitiful victim of naiveté. I say he's blinded by cynicism...
a2 | 04.17.08 - 5:17 pm

That is the sum total of my "interaction with Charlie up until tonight. And, I agree, it's not worth the energy to address or reference him again. Let's move on...

a2 wrote:Hmmmm. Perhaps I gave you too much credit in the intelligence department, Charlie.

I have never addressed you, nor used the words that you quoted. The Haloscan is still up the last time I looked, and i would challenge you to find any such post.

It's from the previous Haloscan. Here is the post:

It was only when they were questioned separately several days later that their stories changed, and they began to implicate each other as well as themselves.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 6:56 pm

Hahaha, Charlie! You're either an insane zealot or on the Knox payroll! Either way I think with a little thought my point was clear(the unchanging nature of truth). And either way, you're a pain in the ass...With that, I'm done with responding to your obstinate drivel. Good luck with the crusade!
a2 | 04.11.08 - 7:02 pm | #

Well, I'll be darned--I did get a little feisty that evening. You're correct and I applogize. The remark was a little crude compared with my normal style, but I think you and your artificially polite troll behavior had worn me down. I must ask, do you keep a catolog of all slights? No wonder you're so grumpy.

It's been, well, its been interesting, Charlie. So long.

Just so you know, Charlie's post on the PI blog is being removed at my request. I gave Charlie the option of asking that it be removed but he declined.

The posts I just erased were directly related to Charlie's original post and the reaction to it. I just want to keep the board free of the off-topic clutter so we can focus on our pursuit.

And Charlie, if your commentary on the PI reflects what you think of that pursuit, then I would invite you to find a pursuit that is worthy of your talent, in a community of your peers. If you have anything further to say on this subject, which is off-topic, please send me a private message. Or take it up with Steve Huff.

Skep,
I just want to thank you for working on this message board. I think it will help with what so many have contributed so far. Just wanted to say thanks!

Life imprisonment (ergastolo in Italian) has an indeterminate length. After 10 years (8 in case of good behavior) the prisoner may be given permission to work outside the prison during the day, or to spend up to 45 days a year at home. After 26 (or 21 in case of good behavior) years, they may be paroled. The admission to work outside the jail or to be paroled needs to be approved by a special court (Tribunale di Sorveglianza) which determines whether or not an inmate is suitable for parole. Prisoners sentenced for associations with either mafia activities or terrorism that do not cooperate with law enforcement agencies are not eligible for parole. Under any circumstance, however, the admission to parole in Italy libertà condizionata is not easy. An inmate that has received more than one life sentence has to spend a period from 6 months to 3 years in solitary confinement. In 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that giving a life sentence to a person under the age of 18 was cruel and unusual.

Skep sorry I had a far better post but I posted and it said I had to log in and I lost it. But anyway, life imprisonment means 21 years before elligible for parole. And, if they think you are a raving vicious nutter they will not give you parole.
Seeing how far this lot have gone in their hurt, their deceit, it looks bad from where I'm standing. It's not straightforward because the first crimes are already terrible but this where they go to extreme lengths to avoid being prosecuted for it, means, if they are guilty, they are real savages.

Anyway, I have experience with liars and all sorts of difficult people, I can't say I feel much pity at all for these three, not after whatthey did to seet Meredith.

TLC wrote:In 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that giving a life sentence to a person under the age of 18 was cruel and unusual.

That's all very humane, but kids under 18 are capable of committing the most horrible of crimes. There have been several cases in the UK recently of people being quite literally stamped to death by gangs of teenagers. The only 'provocation' needed appears to be if you dress differently to the crowd, or if you challenge youths who are wrecking your car - in other words, the kids don't need a reason to kill. They just do it. In the cases which came to trial, it was said that none of the culprits exhibited any remorse for their actions.

What's very disturbing is with the lack of rehabilitation facilities, these young people simply build up more anger and rage against society, and very often re-offend when they're released. When I think back to being under 18, I know one thing. I knew the difference between right and wrong, just as I still know the difference now.

This is my first venture on the Message Board. I hope I can get used to it in time !

I have two questions about Patrick L's firing of AK and the precise contents of his sms to her. But it would be a rather long post ...

Perhaps we might we have a new thead under the heading "details (or facts ?) needing clarification", or something of the sort ?

Thanks. Bluetit

PS. Since HTML is OFF, how can we apply bold or italics ? Sorry to be so slow !

Bluetit wrote:PS. Since HTML is OFF, how can we apply bold or italics ? Sorry to be so slow !

If you click on the post reply button a box will appear with tool bars at the top. Just select the text you wish to bold and click on B.

Alternatively you can use the BB Code which uses square brackets [ and ] in place of HTML < and >.

Bluetit (hi!!!) - you can also get the editing features to display when you 'preview' the message before submitting. It takes some getting used to as what you preview is not necessarily how it will display. I know because I tried to edit an earlier post (which had 3 words on one line instead of a whole sentence), but it didn't show like that in the preview. The more I edited it, the worse it became LOL! Still, it's fun to play around with all the different features!

ok people frank deleted my last ever post to his site - that fact really gives some perspective on HIS truth and how egos have gotten waaaay out of control through the pandora's box that was opened last november. here it is for your consideration and my right to free speech and proper representation of my voice -

rob said:
frank and candace - i left the first comment, a light-hearted joke. i resent being deleted and called a troll but of course you can delete me and call me whatever names you want.

on the interweb somebody asked if candace was good looking and did she use her charms to turn you around when you blogged that it would be gentlemanly to give the big a house arrest. this light-hearted comment was backed up by the 'sexy pose' photo candace put up of frank on her blog. i commented that i dont know if she's good looking she looks like a cartoon to me. this is an OBVIOUS joke on the fact candace uses that painted picture with the bats flying by a black-haired woman's head. you both clearly enjoy each others mutual respect and that's a great thing to see.

i will not be posting anymore and have appreciated both of you being interested in the work to find justice for Meredith with the conviction of her killer(s).

as a final word i just say that i had an italian brother-in-law who at the family table HAD TO BE THE ONLY ONE making jokes, he could not appreciate anybody else's humour and got annoyed when others made the grannies giggle uncontrollably - which you know at the family table is often hard to do! and oh i'm not insulting italians with this statement - it was just his character i wanted to share with you for reflection.

good luck to you and i hope you dont get any troll abuse or paranoid from past abuse and i hope you are both able to laugh and see when abuse is actually not there.

ciao.


i trust you can all see how inoffensive this posting is, it is a shame when people cannot allow comments to stand for themselves.

good luck people, i have learned much from reading your comments and stories. have an enjoyable spring and good health to you and your loved ones.

.

Bluetit wrote:This is my first venture on the Message Board. I hope I can get used to it in time !

I have two questions about Patrick L's firing of AK and the precise contents of his sms to her. But it would be a rather long post ...

Perhaps we might we have a new thead under the heading "details (or facts ?) needing clarification", or something of the sort ?

Thanks. Bluetit

PS. Since HTML is OFF, how can we apply bold or italics ? Sorry to be so slow !

Bluetit, IMO it best not to start too many threads but just keep the conversation going here kind of like the way we did on the Haloscan. I don't see any harm in a long post. The separate threads on actual media links, timeline and legal issues are perfect. I do wish there was a thread with the names of all the key people in this case. It is especially hard for me to keep the lawyers straight in this case. I need to make a cheat sheet.

Thank you, Brian S. Soozie UK and Indie

Patrick Lumumba and hired help

That PL seems to have appreciably changed his tune when speaking of AK is no surprise. Of course natural resentment and media opportunities would have prodded him into fleshing the story a little over time. He's human, after all.
But
(I) Did he or did he not explicitly fire AK ? hire Meredith ? tell AK (assuming he had just fired her) that he was asking Meredith to help him ? -- The answer(s) might well either confirm or invalidate one of the reasons which may have made AK hate Meredith.
(II) What about the PL - AK situation on Nov. 1st (late afternoon or evening) ? -- This has much to do with the message(s) between them, obviously, plus AK's and PL's reported version(s) of its/their contents. The one from AK has been discussed ad nauseam, but the previous one (from PL) remains unclear ...

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to try and list relevant passages from official documents and/or the media. What little I have found to date :

1. " Mr Lumumba admitted to Ms Matteini that he had met Ms Kercher a month before her death. This, however, contradicts his claim made at the time of his arrest that he did not know her at all." [The Times, November 9, 2007]

2. " Police found a text message from Ms Knox to Mr Lumumba on Thursday evening saying "See you later", implying that she and Mr Lumumba had arranged to meet. Mr Lumumba told the judge, however, that this was not an assignation but rather a general greeting on the lines of "See you around". He said Ms Knox's message had been in reply to one from him telling her not to bother coming to the bar to help out because there were few customers and it was a quiet night." [The Times, November 9, 2007]

3. "Amanda veniva a lavorare da me il martedì e il giovedì. Con lei non ho mai avuto discussioni, avevamo un bel rapporto. L’ultima volta che l’ho vista è stato il 5 novembre, la Bbc cercava una ragazza straniera per fare una dichiarazione e io l’ho proposto a lei, ma Amanda mi disse che con le sue amiche avevano deciso che non avrebbero detto nulla in merito. Ho conosciuto Meredith tramite Amanda e non le ho mai detto che mi piaceva Meredith e non mi piaceva. Con lei non ci sono stati rapporti particolari, era solo una conoscenza. Non ho mai avuto il suo numero di telefono." [Il Giornale, Sabato 10 novembre 2007]

4. " He was rather taken by the much younger Meredith, according to some testimony [source ? B]. The following Sunday, Lumumba asked Knox to bring Meredith along for an evening of free pizza. On that occasion, Lumumba again spoke to Meredith. “Why don’t you come back and make mojitos with that Polish vodka one evening?” he asked her. According to Lumumba’s later testimony, these were the only two occasions on which he met Meredith, apart from a brief greeting in the street. [The Sunday Times, November 11, 2007]

5. " IL PRIMO [= 1st message. B] è quello in cui Patrick avvertiva Amanda di non andare al locale a lavorare — così ha detto lui — perché c’era poca gente (mentre la studentessa americana ha sostenuto che il pub era chiuso): il messaggio è solo tracciato alle 20,18 ma non ne esiste il testo."
[Quotidiano Net, 14 novenbre 2007]
http://qn.quotidiano.net/2007/11/14/470 ... itto.shtml

6. On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, ...
[Telegraph (date ?)]

7. A : " Dopo il film ho ricevuto un messaggio da Patrick (Lumumba - ndr), per il quale lavoro al pub 'Le Chic'. Nel messaggio mi diceva che non era necessario che andassi a lavorare quella sera perchè non c'era nessuno."
[La Repubblica, 21 novembre 2007]
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezion ... riale.html

8. " It was at that moment that the club's owner, Patrick Lumumba, finally realised he'd had enough and told the brash blonde American he wouldn't be requiring her services any more. For four weeks he had quietly tolerated her wild mood swings, crass sexual innuendo and complete unwillingness to do any work so terminating her employment was, on the face of it, a wise decision." [Thisislondon, Evening Standard, 25.11.07. Heading : "I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder". Unreliable source, I'd say]

9. " Lumumba was thinking of firing her. " [NBC News, Dec. 21, 2007]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332240/page/2/

10. Mr Lumumba has said he fired Ms Knox as part-time barmaid at his pub because she spent all her time flirting with male customers. He then offered the job to Ms Kercher, a move which is reported to have further inflamed rivalry between the two women (...) [Times Online, February 17, 2008]

11. She, for her part (dal canto suo) told the investigators twice, at 01.45 and again at 05.45, that it was while she was chez RS that she had received a message at 20.30 on her mobile (voicemail or SMs we do not know) from Patrick saying that Le Chic would stay closed that night, [even though we now know (from the evidence of the Swiss academic) that it was open when this alleged message was sent. That important fact was still unconfirmed on 8th November].
'[AK] prima alle ore 1.45, poi alle ore 5.45, dichiarava al P.M che ... alle ore 20.30, mentre si trovava presso l'abitazione di Sollectito Raffaele, receveva un messaggio sul proprio telefono cellulare inviatole da tale Patrick, titolare del pub Le Chic, dove la stessa lavorava, con il quale il predetto [PL] la avvisava che quella sera il locale sarebbe rimasto chiuso e che quindi non sarebbe dovuta andare, la medesima gle rispondeve che si sarebbero visti dopo....'
[HaloScan - Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 10:51 am |]

QUESTIONS

I. " Why didnt Patrick mention he fired Amanda in the beginning? It wasnt known that he fired her until after his release in an interview. Why didnt he mention this earlier? " [HaloScan, h0lym0n | 12.03.07 - 3:49 am |]

II. What were the contents of PL's 20.18 message/sms to AK according to
(a) PL,
(b) AK,
(c) RL (from what he says -- or once said -- AK told him) ?
That AK need not go to the pub because of a dearth of customers ? Or that it would be closed that night ? Or ... ?

PS. I am not suggesting that PL had anything to do with the murder. But he may know a little more than he lets on and/or have small things to hide (some tax fiddle, for instance -- cf. the missing bills). His nice face and engaging smile must not blind us to such a possibility.

Hi Soozie,

Yeah, I know all about that. I haven't offered any opinion on that bit of Italian law. My mother was almost, and really really almost, last year, robbed in her home by three 15 yr olds. One asked her, Where's John (or some name I can't remember) she said there wasn't any John here and she didn't know. He said, yeah, but where is he.
I was on the phone to her and I realized it wasn't okay but she realized it too, at the same moment, and she closed the door fast because the boy asking her questioned spoke to someone at the moment he was asking my mother Where's John, my mother couldn't see the other persons there were two others just out of my mothers line of vision as she stood at the front door, and the boy asked them, what do I do now, just barge in.

At that moment my mother slammed the door closed.
It was horrible for me too because I was here, far from her, and the idea that I could very well have witnessed by and through an open phone line something awful happening to my mother was an unbearable thought/idea.

These slap happy videos are a things youths do now.
I'm sorry to say, but a lot of it happens in the USA first and then other kids around the world, pick up on it, like all of the violence.
The bravado, the ego tripping, part of it in the culture of expensive material possessions, is entitrely out of all proportion now, it is never enough, discipline used to be all wrong then the solution was not to change society but to just not discipline anymore. society is in many ways sick and always has been in my iopinion, nothing can truly be separated like the leaders in this world not using diplomacy and honesty in dealing with peoples in this world, big business rules and people are still sent off to fight useless wars, diplomacy is not made use of the example set, is that violence rules and in this world it does, that youth now has had only very violent examples like the government in America where the whole vibration of Bush has been typified by his ridiculous inability to show he has any insight into the world problematic, leads to that big-headed behaviour being mirrored and copied by children, what else can they do they've been exposed to it? slogans like, We'll burn them outta their caves, talking in fact to peoples from civilizations that existed far longer than any western ones, and that is not the way to bring the best out in people even if those countries, like Irak, have, in the meantime, become backward, in their not being able to have any type of harmonious life-styles, be it so because they are, and have been, downtrodden by dictators and religious zealotry.

I see huge problems but, it isn't approachable opnly at surface level, I even see this murdeer of Meredith in a greater scheme of things where youth is already behaving, communally in super-materialistic ways and it is all me me me.
But in a way, it is at the top level that this bad way is started.
People and especially children need good examples.
If anyone cares to think of Isaiah, he said Violence Begets Violence and the only true sword is the tongue.
Lao Tzu already long before Jesus left the civilized world on the back of a bull, because he could not stand mankind's inhumanity to mankind.

In this way I see it as a communal responsibility to create a better way, and part of the bad is the negative energies attached to non-inclusion on the greater scale where as first world and developed countries we have living in these countries been able to profit on and from theweakness of a division of the world populace. Now it is all breaking down and there are incredible problems that seem to have no end and no solution but I believe this is part of the lie too. Look at China, so now we must be nice to China, while it does anything for money, hoists dogs and cats onto lines in the air, supports them that way, whilst they are skinned alive for profit from the fur trade and trade done with developed and oh-so-civilized western world countries.
Countries like China spit on human rights and rights of other life forms too, but if business is involved blind eyes are turned to everything and a privileged few, comparitively, relatively, enjoy the profits from the spills.

I think it is that we all need to see that only together is there a world solution to the lie of ages where violence hhas always been the main contender but there are reasons for why it always runs the show and it is people that cement the foundations thereof.


It is no wonder that the world is overrun with refugees fleeing from violence and from economic woe and that the world is just increasing in violence.


America has one of the highest rates of murder in the world and certainly for a country from the so-called/categorized Western World.

Canada, for instance has far far less murders than America has. America has about 17,000 murders per year.

Anyhow, these three suspects, are alolder than 18, thank goodness for that then, if they are guilty they'll be punished properly, faking that they are mentally deficient or ill, will not work, that would have had to have been part of a different strategy, where one of them or more of them admitted to having done something wrong, but we know that these people are all like the baby Jesus and are all seraphim-like beings.

Hey Rob,
I totally got your very nice joke about the cartoon character. I've been thrown off by what seems Frank's new endearment towards "not-yet charged" Amanda Knox. I guess in his mind proper manners when dealing with murder are essential to any investigation. Home arrest? If someone can explain to me what that might accomplish, not resulting in the purchase of one plane ticket back to Seattle, well, then, good luck. Finally I've almosted vomited on my keyboard a few times over the ass-kissing to Frank from that Candace person. But, what can I say? Internet romance isn't what it used to be.

Anyway, Rob, enough nonsense about not posting anymore. It is not acceptable.

I want to talk some more about [fade]the mop[/fade].

Bluetit,

In reply to your PS about PL, remember he is still under investigation and it was reported a month or so ago that some evidence had been seized from Le Chic. That was posted on Frank's blog. I can find the reference if you'd like.
But as Nicki has now demonstrated, PL had not fired Amanda nor hired Meredith.
In any case, PL says he was not pleased with the former's level of service. That's all we can say. Did Amanda realize this? Was she irritated by or jealous of PL's overture to Meredith? I think it is likely.
In the world of appearances, one can pretend this would not be an additional source of tension between two young women in a small town. But under that world there are unseemly emotions and inappropriate wishes that people suppress.
I recall that Meredith's diary was seized in the early days of the investigation. Maybe that will tell her side of the story. The other side of the story told so far is that the two were great friends.

damian wrote:Hi Minatour. I think our understanding of the Cassazione's ruling depends alot on what 'bits' have been leaked and why. Anyway, as you and others say, it's technical stuff based on what the pm gave way back when in order to keep them in prison. I still am a bit puzzled by Biscuits tactics. The way I see it is either you co-operate with the police and tell them what happened, or you keep your mouth shut and wait and see what they've got.

As with the other two, the Court's ruling has nothing to do with any testimony since December 14, right?

Also, have you read any reliable Italian source indicating that the knife was never entered as evidence and that the DNA has been thrown out, as an anonymous poster has been claiming of late (as repeated by Wilkes)?

Finally, any information about a possible face-off?

Rob,

You would see bats!
Don't go, Rob. There are grannies here who need a giggle.
Not me though. I'm hot!
But Skep's immune to my charms, so...
It's still a fair place!

Seriously though I think this place is the least corrupt of those following the case, and you're a big part of that. I've thought about leaving too, as have many, I'm sure. Well, go if you must, but as you say you've appreciated some of us, you should know that many feel the same about you. A lot goes unwritten, you know. Dramas are watched and absorbed. Ciao.

Rob,
You already know how I feel. Something you wrote last weekend and the reaction to it have helped me to see some of the psychological aspects of this case much more clearly. Thanks for that!
And you know, in one of the recent evidence seizures the vampire costume and teeth were taken....

One of the problems I have had about bpcl's theory is believing Rudy when he says he had a date with Meredith. My main stumbling block here is that Meredith didn't say so when she left her friends. But what if, in the 500 meters she walked alone, she happened to run into Rudy? I see no reason that they might not have walked along together, Rudy perhaps insisting that he accompany her. She invites him in for a drink. I know some people have a problem with this because of the profile they have cobbled together of Rudy, but Meredith's take on Rudy would not have come from the press. In other words, she had no reason to fear him. I doubt his skin color would have triggered fear--Meredith herself was what we call in French métisse--and she knew him from the boys downstairs at least.
Can this scenario work with the rest of bpcl's theory?

Hi, Rob.

I want to second--or is that third or fourth? -- Sparrow's, Jumpy's and Skep's request that you stay. You know, I lurk as much if not more, than I post; like you, I’ve been here since the start, consistently follow the discussion, and feel that your contributions, as well as your wit, have been welcome and valuable here. As far as I can tell, that’s at least 4 against two in favor of your staying. Hope you’ll reconsider.

I think the scenario you describe is very plausible, Skep. But I wonder why he would lie about that. If it was an innocent chance encounter, there wouldn't be a reasonn to say otherwise, would there?
It seems somewhat more possible to me that Meredith might not tell her friends about the date if she was trying to explore some kind of relationship with Rudy without her boyfriend finding out. But that is speculation on my part.

skeptical bystander wrote:One of the problems I have had about bpcl's theory is believing Rudy when he says he had a date with Meredith. My main stumbling block here is that Meredith didn't say so when she left her friends. But what if, in the 500 meters she walked alone, she happened to run into Rudy? I see no reason that they might not have walked along together, Rudy perhaps insisting that he accompany her. She invites him in for a drink. I know some people have a problem with this because of the profile they have cobbled together of Rudy, but Meredith's take on Rudy would not have come from the press. In other words, she had no reason to fear him. I doubt his skin color would have triggered fear--Meredith herself was what we call in French métisse--and she knew him from the boys downstairs at least.
Can this scenario work with the rest of bpcl's theory?

Yeah, I think it can work.

a2 wrote:I think the scenario you describe is very plausible, Skep. But I wonder why he would lie about that. If it was an innocent chance encounter, there wouldn't be a reasonn to say otherwise, would there?
It seems somewhat more possible to me that Meredith might not tell her friends about the date if she was trying to explore some kind of relationship with Rudy without her boyfriend finding out. But that is speculation on my part.

Yes, the lie is the question.
Could it be Rudy thinking a date is more legitimate than a chance encounter? Not thinking that one through? He says he told Alex he had a date, so we shall see based on what Alex says whether that is true or not. But even then, Rudy may have been lying to Alex or just showing off, the way guys do.
As we grow older, most of us learn to lie as little as possible. That is a lesson we learn by making mistakes (getting caught in our lies because they're too elaborate), but I'm not sure the average 20-year old has enough experience to know better.
When people tell lies, they don't always think about the plausibility of their story, the ease with which it can be corroborated or falsified, the full ramifications.
Maybe Rudy isn't lying about the date. Or as Sparrow suggested (was that you, Sparrow?), Rudy got his vampires mixed up. Or maybe Meredith didn't want her friends to know she was seeing someone behind her boyfriend's back. In any case, it's clear that Meredith felt safe enough to walk the last 500 meters home alone.
And then there's the fact that Rudy has told his lawyer he didn't kill Meredith. I find that significant.

Rob,

Love Wolf would miss you very much too buddy so please hang around and add real value to the blog with all the others on here... you are part of the fabric Rob

LW

Maybe we need to start a new topic or something, but for what it's worth, I throw in my two cents:

Rob...

Come back!

Vampires, bats and mops, oh my...

indie wrote:I do wish there was a thread with the names of all the key people in this case. It is especially hard for me to keep the lawyers straight in this case. I need to make a cheat sheet.

Indie,
Great idea. I promise nothing but will see what I can do. It will help me as well!

"Give me 30 years!" --Rudy told the PM

I don't think that Rudy is just going to go ride off quietly into the sunset, no matter what he may have said. Bisquits, and by default Rudy, don't seem to have a problem with this face to face meeting with the other two suspects. Apparently plan A isn’t working for Rudy, the courts don’t even believe he had a date with Meredith, let alone a free pass into her bedroom (unless somebody else issued him one). I think it’s time for them to start fully implementing plan B. They already have a head start. Getting info out of Rudy seems like pulling teeth now, but the pressure is becoming more & more to tell more. Rudy think about all those Ivory Coast Nationalist’s rooting for you, and the memory of Meredith whom you speak highly of now.
Also Rudy may not realize it now, but they probably even have some version of the witness protection program, with reduced jail time. That’s because the leg men are tired of spending the rest of their lives in prison; while the masterminds get off lightly, and spend their time writing book deals and relax in relative luxury. Rudy, we’re all counting on you to do the right by Meredith this time.

DLW wrote:"Give me 30 years!" --Rudy told the PM

I don't think that Rudy is just going to go ride off quietly into the sunset, no matter what he may have said. Bisquits, and by default Rudy, don't seem to have a problem with this face to face meeting with the other two suspects. Apparently plan A isn’t working for Rudy, the courts don’t even believe he had a date with Meredith, let alone a free pass into her bedroom (unless somebody else issued him one). I think it’s time for them to start fully implementing plan B. They already have a head start. Getting info out of Rudy seems like pulling teeth now, but the pressure is becoming more & more to tell more. Rudy think about all those Ivory Coast Nationalist’s rooting for you, and the memory of Meredith whom you speak highly of now.
Also Rudy may not realize it now, but they probably even have some version of the witness protection program, with reduced jail time. That’s because the leg men are tired of spending the rest of their lives in prison; while the masterminds get off lightly, and spend their time writing book deals and relax in relative luxury. Rudy, we’re all counting on you to do the right by Meredith this time.

DLW I agree it is now time for Rudy to spill the beans on that full evening, from before gong to the cottage and why, what happened afterwards and all the other horrible bits.... his 80% is not enough but more like 110% truth is now needed so that there is no question about if he did or did not play a role in the death of Meredith.

Otherwise the boy is going to take the full rap for this and as I have always stated this was not a lone wolf operation.... the mop proves that!!

LW

skeptical bystander wrote:Maybe Rudy isn't lying about the date. Or as Sparrow suggested (was that you, Sparrow?), Rudy got his vampires mixed up. Or maybe Meredith didn't want her friends to know she was seeing someone behind her boyfriend's back. In any case, it's clear that Meredith felt safe enough to walk the last 500 meters home alone.
And then there's the fact that Rudy has told his lawyer he didn't kill Meredith. I find that significant.

Skep, it was in one report in an Italian newspaper after Rudy's latest interview with Magnini. It was only one newspaper as far as I recall, so I don't know how reliable it is, but it should be kept in mind as a possibility. It said he rectified the discrepancy regarding meeting MK on Halloween night, while his friends and her friends could not corroborate it. He said it was another girl in a vampire costume who he mistook for MK. At first it might sound farfetched. But remember that in his diary he says he didn't even recognize her because she was in a costume, and that it was SHE who recognized him. So, I think it shouldn't be totally discounted. I also wondered if this was why they took her vampire costume after his interview, to see how it compared to his story. I can't be the only person who remembers this, because it was someone else who posted the article.

Yes the 30 years soft soap approach is not based on reality, obviously no person will receive a 30 year sentence for having not helped a person in need, though, he may be in danger of a prison term only for that crime yet his crimes seem as multiple in nature as any of the others.

I hope they all do get cross-examined in the same very harsh way like the way it happens in America and Britain with common law systems. This is not the way it happens in Italy, but I hope, they are cross-examined in the harshest ways to get at the truth, they need pressure, out in the open. Not like the girlwoman Ms. Knox, where she has simply blamed everyone else for everything, when not being able to be truthful, in court, there's nobody going to get feather dusted about the head, still, it was never necessary, and I think it didn't happen, in court, the pressure and confrontation and the months of pent-up self-inflicted misery is surely going to come out like the truth does always try to as well. I keep seeing Amanda, her stories are too real-like, her descriptions, too real to be fake, but the hitting too fakey to be real.



What do Sollecito and Guede have in common?
What they have in common is they both described how they'd never seen so much blood and how bad it all was!

What do Guede and Knox have in common?
They both heard screams.

So we have all all three linked through screams and blood. Blood of which both stated, Sollecito and Guede, that they'd never seen so much blood and how awful it all was.
Blood and screams, seems like the true crimes were going on between the three of them.

Blood and screams that mean for Meredith she didn't get to be married or have the long term love, and have children, see them grow and watch them laugh and play, hold them tight and kiss them goodnight, she didn't get to be a grandmother. Didn't get to have all of what she was meant to have by God's law.

Mans' law that says I do what I want, robbed Meredith of her rights for forever.

Okay if Guede wants to act the fool, let him, 60 years will do him fine but he'll still never compensate Meredith or her loved ones. What is he some kind of clown!

You know, I’ve had a real problem with the Meredith-didn’t-tell-her-friends aspect of the potential Rudy meeting myself, all along. But, to be perfectly honest, I can think of two occasions (and there may have been more) occasions in my early twenties (I’m in my thirties now) when I didn’t tell my female friends about a planned rendezvous with a guy. Why? I don’t really know. I didn’t feel like it. I thought they would judge me, because it was someone I didn’t know well, or that they thought I shouldn’t be with. Maybe just because I wanted to keep something to myself. I’m not sure, even now, that I know why myself.

I don’t know. That part of Rudy’s tale seems unlikely to me, but if I really think about, I have to acknowledge people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons that aren’t really clear. People are messy. That’s been in the back of my mind as I’ve watched this case unfold, and I think remembering it might be key to getting to the bottom of it.

(Unless , at the end of it all, it is a straightforward case of breaking-and-entering, rape and murder. I don't think so, I will need some convincing about other pieces of evidence to be convinced, but I've certainly been wrong before.)

I agree Scout

But

if a man tries to gain merit and sympathy for having been a coward, a coward who cared so much for a person, was fond of that person

then,

I cannot imagine him not having lifted a finger to help her.

He could have used a call box phone somehow, even if it was too late at least he'd have tried, but, he did not try, I think, because he is not being truthful.

I think if he was so caring like the way he is now acting as though he is, then though he may have ran off scared, still his care thing, would have meant he'd have called for help somehow.

So I don't believe a word of his pleas.

Scout, I was thinking the same thing. That there were times, especially in my youth, when I kept a new relationship to myself till I knew better where it was going to go. I didn't always want to include my friends who would give advice that I didn't seek.

But having said that, I’ve been thinking about how it is that Meredith and Rudy came to be together on that night. I’m sure this doesn’t come as a surprise, but matter which way I look at Rudy’s version, it has some problems.

I started out with the premise that Meredith and Rudy did have a date, and that perhaps Meredith kept it to herself, for the reasons already mentioned. But Rudy tells us that the date was made the night before when he and Meredith met, talked and even kissed at a Halloween party. We now know that they were never at the same party Halloween night, and obviously couldn’t have made the date. It is possible, although a stretch, that Rudy mistook another costumed girl for Meredith, but then, when Meredith found him waiting at her house the next evening, why wasn’t she surprised? He hadn’t made the date with her, but with someone else in error. She hadn’t seen him at all the night before--Why would her first question be, “Have you been waiting long?”

if we consider the scenario that Rudy and Meredith met by chance while she walked home from her friend’s house, why did Rudy say that he waited for Meredith in front of the cottage, even specifying the time that he arrived. Again, why would he tell us that Meredith asked “Have you been waiting long?”

I know these are small details, but as beep mentioned in a post recently, it is this kind of detail, this kind of dialogue, that gives his story a ring of truth. If those details aren’t real, what other details are manufactured, and how do we identify the passages that are true? What does that do to his overall veracity?

I still have a sense that when Maresca, the Kerchers’ attorney, said that Rudy and Meredith knew each other, he was drawing a distinction between Rudy and AK/RS. He seemed to say that while they were all in the cottage that night, Rudy was there for a different purpose than AK and RS. But I’m not convinced that Rudy has really told us what that reason was or how it came about.

a2 wrote:
But I’m not convinced that Rudy has really told us what that reason was or how it came about.

I've always thought it possible that Rudy told this lie because he thought the truth would look bad, even if he wasn't involved in the assault/murder of MK. If he had simply gone to the cottage to see MK on his own, with out a date or meeting of any kind, that could have looked too opportunistic. Remember that when he was on the run the news reports described him as a "drug dealer" and called him "The Baron" with some kind of bad guy reputation. After he was captured, he seemed vehement to deny these allegations. And certainly as we've learned more about him, we've seen that this image isn't true at all. Personally, when I heard that it was a drug dealer they were after, and when I saw the mugshot, I felt relief that they finally caught the "bad guy." I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but in light of this, and what I see as Rudy's low self-esteem, I think it's possible that he feared no one would believe he didn't mean to harm to MK if he went to her place on his own, so he made up a stupid lie.

Tacopina ?

Another high-flying lawyer (female, this time) will probably be joining the Sollecito team.

"Delitto Perugia, l'avvocato Bongiorno verso difesa di Sollecito
30 aprile 2008 - L'avvocato Giulia Bongiorno potrebbe entrare a fare parte del collegio difensivo di Raffaele Sollecito, uno dei tre arrestati per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. La nomina sarà comunque ufficializzata all'inizio della prossima settimana. La Bongiorno, parlamentare del Pdl, entrerà quindi nel collegio difensivo del giovane pugliese del quale già fanno parte gli avvocati Luca Maori e Marco Brusco. A Perugia la penalista ha già difeso, tra gli altri, l'ex presidente del consiglio Giulio Andreotti e il banchiere Pierfrancesco"
ITALIANI
http://www.fondazioneitaliani.it/index. ... ecito.html

Bluetit wrote:Tacopina ?

Another high-flying lawyer (female, this time) will probably be joining the Sollecito team.

L'avvocato Giulia Bongiorno

One more to add to the list I will try and compile in my spare hours.

Sparrow wrote:
I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but in light of this, and what I see as Rudy's low self-esteem, I think it's possible that he feared no one would believe he didn't mean to harm to MK if he went to her place on his own, so he made up a stupid lie.

I do agree with you, Sparrow. What you say makes good sense; I worry, though, that anything that is exposed as a fabrication is going to cast doubt on whatever truth is woven in along with it.

[font=Arial] [/font]

I have posted a few times about my assessment on Rudy Guede's background and psychological make-up and why I think he is more than capable of having commited this crime. Recently I wrote that he was probably no stranger to breaking and entry, and I speculated that it probably formed a significant part of how he supported himself. Many shouted hearsay ! gossip ! etc and some still seemed to doubt the drug dealer reports. So I contacted Frank as I thought he would for sure know Rudy Guede's background being a local Perugino. It turns out that my take on Guede was fairly accurate as this is Franks reply:

“He was stopped by the police for a fight with other drug dealers in Perugia and for the notorious B and A in a Milan Kindergarten. That’s why he’s recorded at both questura but he was never condemned before. By the way, he was entering houses with a knife all the time. I’ve just found a guy that found him in his house in Corso Garibaldi.”

I think it is highly unlikely that RG had a pre-arranged appointment with Meredith, it was a tragiclally opportunistic meeting as she walked home. Being known to her previously on a casual basis, he would have had no problems charming his way in her door. He pumped up the pre arranged meeting part of his diary to give more weight to his consensual sex story. As I have said before, although it may have started out as consensual petting, it quickly escalated when Meredith rejected his more serious advances.There is only one person who knows the truth of what happened that night, Rudy Guede.

Oceania,

I shall wait until I see something more concrete before I come even close to sharing your opinion on RG. Firstly, he has no criminal convictions and secondly the time when he was at the Kindergaten was the first time he was ever taken to the police station by police. Not really the history of the 'career criminal'. It's a bit of a leap to go from this to say 'He did it all alone'. Forgive me if I don't take what you relate as gospel though, I have seen how you tend to twist things to suit. I have to give you 10 out of 10 for effort to paint him as the Anti-Christ incarnate though.