The True Crime Weblog Message Board

New Italian Woman blog:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/demp ... 137718.asp

Oceania8 wrote:[font=Arial] [/font]

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.”

It's always good to have the facts. So he was known to police for the one fight with local drug dealers and his night in the kindergarten, but had never been convicted of a crime.

Does this mean he used his knife to pick locks?
Did he steal stuff or just break in?
Anyway, it's interesting that he may have used his knife to get inside people's houses.
There was no sign of breaking and entering at the cottage, so he didn't need to do that.
This casts doubt on Rudy as the rock thrower, though.
And apparently no history of rape or serious violence.
Thanks for checking, Oceania.

My approach to trying to figure out this crime is to weigh possibilities based on the best information we know. If I trusted it to be true that Rudy was breaking into houses with a knife "all the time" I'd have to alter my range of possibilities. But like Michael, I've seen you, Oceania, twist things that people say or write so they're unrecognizable, and condemn people for no good reason at all. I speak from experience, by the way, Oceania, as you condemned me up and down in a lacerating post for something that was written by someone else. And you, Oceania, never acknowledged your mistake after it was pointed out, and never apologized. So forgive me if I don't take any post of yours seriously.

Michael wrote:Oceania,

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.

Your last wo sentences amusing in you doing what you are accusing me of doing. I'm just putting it out there as I see it. You are free to sympathise with Rudy Guede in the face of overwhelming evidence against him and his obvious involvement in this crime and to give him such loyal benefit of doubt. This guy has socialised with my son and friends, he dosn't have horns or claws. He presented as a fun and friendly human being, how could he have possibly have done this terrible thing ? I present my take on Guede's known background in an attempt to work out what happened that night . None of us know the exact truth as yet, why are you so anti any negative assessments of Guede ? This strikes me as bizarre, so easy to condemn AK and RS yet so willing to humanise Guede. Interesting how Frank's word is considered gospel when it suits.

Oceania8 wrote:[font=Arial] [/font] There is only one person who knows the truth of what happened that night, Rudy Guede.

[font=Trebuchet]If that were truly the case and it was as black and white as you paint it, then Amanda and RS would not have spent the last 6 months in prison. They are being detained for a reason. It's too easy for too many people to keep dumping the whole thing on Rudy. Oceania8, you've stressed over and over and over again that it was a one-man job. The police clearly feel there were others involved. I always thought you claimed to keep an open mind, yet I never witness it. If I had a young daughter in Perugia right now, and Amanda and RS were let out (under house arrest), I most certainly wouldn't be happy to let her go 'party' with them or have anything to do with them. Are you so 100% convinced of their total innocence that you would risk your childs safety on that blind faith? I know I wouldn't. They're in jail for a reason. They have been refused release on each appeal for "indications of serious guilt."

There is more going on than any of us know about but I cannot see Amanda and RS coming out of this innocent in any respect. Rudy already stated they were both there. Your argument that he knew they were lacking an alibi (when he was on the run) and that's why he identified them, isn't the only explanation. If they were really NOT present all, then Rudy would have to prepare for an alibi to pop up for them at any time, or for their, umm, MEMORY to return. I honestly don't think he's that stupid. I believe he identified them because at some point they were there. He knows they don't have an alibi - because they were all there together.[/font]

Oceania,

I have to say I also find it no little suspiscious that Frank suddenly appears to confirm all the things you were arguing but couldn't prove...for example, his being intercepted by police in the square for a fight over drugs...and now, very conveniently, in some guys 'home' with a 'knife'. These are things of amazing importance yet Frank has not posted them. Moreover, the guy who's home Rudy was in with a 'knife'...yet this guy never called the police? Hmmm....strange.

[quote="Sparrow"] If I trusted it to be true that Rudy was breaking into houses with a knife "all the time" I'd have to alter my range of possibilities.(quote)

Why don't you check with Frank if you don't trust this information, if you could get your head around it, it may indeed help alter your 'range of possibilities'.

For the rest of your post, build a bridge and get over it, just like I have done on many occasions to deal with the insults, twisting of my words and meanings of my posts and various other unpleasantries directed towards me for committing the unpseakable crime of having a different opinion.

This is a classic situation, you refuse to see what is staring you in the face about Rudy Guede. Skirting around and contemplating all the possibilites about how he could possibly be somehow innocently caught up in all this. You demand proof, I check with someone whose word you always take, but no, it dosn't suit your take on things so it is rejected. Those wonderful double standards alive and well in this forum.

Oceania8 wrote:

Michael wrote:Oceania,

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.

Your last wo sentences amusing in you doing what you are accusing me of doing. I'm just putting it out there as I see it. You are free to sympathise with Rudy Guede in the face of overwhelming evidence against him and his obvious involvement in this crime and to give him such loyal benefit of doubt. This guy has socialised with my son and friends, he dosn't have horns or claws. He presented as a fun and friendly human being, how could he have possibly have done this terrible thing ? I present my take on Guede's known background in an attempt to work out what happened that night . None of us know the exact truth as yet, why are you so anti any negative assessments of Guede ? This strikes me as bizarre, so easy to condemn AK and RS yet so willing to humanise Guede. Interesting how Frank's word is considered gospel when it suits.

I'm not anti any negative assessments of Guede Oceania. What I am 'anti', is people using falsehoods, exagerations and the twisting of the facts to do it. You for me, are the very definition of 'intellectualy dishonest' in my view, simply by having witnessed first hand on many occassions how you treat facts and information, whilst at the same time completely ignoring all that is inconvenient.

Oceania wrote:You demand proof, I check with someone whose word you always take, but no, it dosn't suit your take on things so it is rejected.

No, I think it's more a case of 'crying wolf'.

skeptical bystander wrote:[




It's always good to have the facts. So he was known to police for the one fight with local drug dealers and his night in the kindergarten, but had never been convicted of a crime.

Does this mean he used his knife to pick locks?
Did he steal stuff or just break in?
Anyway, it's interesting that he may have used his knife to get inside people's houses.
There was no sign of breaking and entering at the cottage, so he didn't need to do that.
This casts doubt on Rudy as the rock thrower, though.
And apparently no history of rape or serious violence.
Thanks for checking, Oceania.

I, like you SB, have no reason to doubt Franks word, he has done the background work on this case as we all know. I checked if it was okay to quote him and he said fine, although he was a bit bemused to think that people at Haloscan would not already be aware of these things. One could suppose that the usual reason for breaking in is to steal things, unless he has an underwear fetish or something, god knows anything is possible ! Yes, I'm in agreement there were no signs of breaking and entry and that he gained entry with Meredith, he talks about her getting her keys out of her bag etc (although I take that with a grain of salt). I don't see how it could cast doubt about RG being the rock thrower ? to my mind the rock throwing came at the end of the crime. It was done spontaneously and quickly by RG along with a frantic attempt at a partial cleanup before he departed. And yes, no previous crimes of rape etc that we know of.

Well, it seems to me that we can now give a rest to the convicted drug dealer label, for one thing.

A knife fight but no one was arrested or hurt. I guess the police got it under control pretty quickly.

The kindergarten incident seems not to have been serious enough for the police to get too excited. I find it sad that somebody spent the night in a kindergarten. However, when I was 20 and under age, I spent the night in a public park, inside a gazebo, with a couple of drunk friends in a strange town. We spent the whole weekend hitchhiking and drinking.

The local incidents that seem to be known but not reported are part of the background. How many times? Did he steal stuff? Like Sparrow said, why didn't the one guy call the police? Because he knew Rudy? Did Rudy threaten him with a knife?

It's difficult to go logically from these fairly minor incidents to what happened on November first, however. Rudy was adrift and perhaps heading toward a life of crime.

But I'm surprised, if he is such an obvious candidate, that the investigators still believe there's more to this story than meets the eye.

In other words, it is not because Rudy has had a couple of scrapes with the law that he is the best or only candidate for this heinous crime. If Rudy were being tried for this crime in the US, these incidents would probable not even be admissible as evidence against him.

Oceania8, you point out:

None of us know the exact truth as yet, why are you so anti any negative assessments of Guede ?

And yet you get defensive when Amanda and RS are bought into the equation? If you accept we don't know the exact truth yet, then you must also accept that you can't be sure RS and Amanda are innocent. More cake and eating it too.

You also say:

Those wonderful double standards alive and well in this forum.

Well, you contribute quite 'wonderfully' to the double standards yourself. Congratulations.
Remember: Don't look for the splinter in someone elses eye before you've removed the plank of wood in your own.

Oceania wrote:to my mind the rock throwing came at the end of the crime. It was done spontaneously and quickly by RG along with a frantic attempt at a partial cleanup before he departed.

Oh my God, why woman?

What Frank says and is reported by Oceania is far closer to what I thought than to what has been bandied about here and there. Rudy is/was a petty thief with practically no record to speak of.
So please, no more talk of Rudy Guede, convicted drug dealer--makes him sound like Scarface!

TLC wrote:

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.

This is an interesting idea, TLC.
On the subject of Rudy's record, let's be happy that we now have some facts and can set aside such notions a Rudy being a male prostitute and a convicted drug dealer.
Rudy apparently had friends and a social life in spite of his occasional run-ins with the local police. It doesn't sound to me like he was viewed as a psychopath.

And yet, if the Lone Wolf theory is true, then he is.
And yet, as we all know the LW theory has some serious flaws that I think even Oceania would admit are not easy to sweep aside in a hasty clean-up effort on Rudy's part, all alone.

So Rudy had time to go out in the dark and find a rock to use to break a window after the fact, and yet left his sh*t in the toilet and blood on the walls.
How extensive was the clean-up? Extensive enough for the police to be suspicious and for Amanda Knox not to be. So I doubt it was as hasty as all that. And yet, there is the witness who was almost knocked over by someone (Rudy, presumably) at 22:30. And yet, there's the ear witness who may not be so easy to dismiss. Frank, our source for all things perugian, doesn't think so. And she heard other people. What about the noise and activity at the cottage far into the night? What about the clothes in the washing machine? Oh, and the traveling mop and the broken pipe and the lie-in until ten that in fact involved activity in the early morning, and the fact that Sollecito cut Knox loose pretty quickly, saying he had told a crock of sh*t.
We've heard all of the attempts to explain these nagging things away. Some have been creative, some have been plausible, some have not been either. Everything may fall into place one day, but they have not just yet.

Personally, I can't wait for the face-to-face.

There are just too many loose ends for this thing to be tied up in a neat little knot and laid at Rudy's feet.

Rudy had a knife, Raffaele had a whole collection, not to mention a fascination with a serial killer.
Rudy had tons of friends, Raffaele appears to have been a bit of a loner. Maybe not, but aside from Dad I don't see legions of people coming out to protest his arrest, as they did for Patrick Lumumba.

Like I said, intriguing loose ends.

Michael wrote:

Oceania wrote:to my mind the rock throwing came at the end of the crime. It was done spontaneously and quickly by RG along with a frantic attempt at a partial cleanup before he departed.

Oh my God, why woman?

Why not ? Why is it so far out of the realm of possibilites? Even if the others were involved we have a one in three guess as to who threw it.

So which one is it going to be with AK and RS (and which one will the prosecution use) Did they stay for the marathon all night bleaching and cleaning ? or will it be Nara's account of people running between 10-11pm ? they won't be able to have it both ways.

Rudy Guede has a police record for two known crimes. He was a known drug dealer in Perugia, small time admittedly, but I think his record no matter how small time has a relevance. I'm prepared to accept AK's noise citation into the equation to be fair. My son's friends made him a scrap book of photo's and momento's when he left for Perugia last year, it had 3 noise citations in it for parties he held before he left.

Oceania8 wrote:

Sparrow wrote:For the rest of your post, build a bridge and get over it, just like I have done on many occasions to deal with the insults, twisting of my words and meanings of my posts and various other unpleasantries directed towards me for committing the unpseakable crime of having a different opinion.

Yeah, I get it. The solution for your own bad behavior is that others get over it. I'm sure it works for you. And that's okay, for you. But I don't need to play. I don't need you. I usually ignore your posts, and will return to that. And if you've been insulted, it's not because you have a different opinion. We all have different opinions. Well, others have told you that so many times, why am I wasting my breath? Anyway, I'm glad I had this chance to remind you how it started with you and me. I know you like to pretend these things never happened. And I will at least respect you enough not to give you a fake smiley face. Carry on.

From Frank' blog:

19th Nov: "He came back to Perugia few months ago and went to live in Corso Garibladi, near Raffaele Sollecito's place. The police has filed him as drug dealer."

21st Nov: 'Domenica scorsa Il Giornale dell'Umbria aveva contattato (o creduto di contattare) tramite uno o due intermediari Rudy Guede in fuga.
Secondo questo ipotetico colloquio Rudy dichiara: "Quella sera sono andato con Patrick a casa di Meredith. Ci ho trovato Amanda e Raffaele. Meredith era già stata colpita. Le avevano lasciato un cuscino in faccia che io ho spostato. Poi sono scappato perché avrebbero incolpato me dati i miei precedenti per droga".'

Oceania8 wrote:So which one is it going to be with AK and RS (and which one will the prosecution use) Did they stay for the marathon all night bleaching and cleaning ? or will it be Nara's account of people running between 10-11pm ? they won't be able to have it both ways.

I don't think it is either/or. They had keys; they had access. Maybe they went away and came back. Anyway, Rudy sold drugs on a small-time basis to all the good kids who come to Perugia to party and study. So what? Someone has to supply them with the drugs they buy with their parents' hard-earned money. Otherwise, they'd be dealing with the really bad people at the next level up.
I'm much more intrigued by how Amanda could have come home and seen feces in the far bathroom (perhaps put in a load of wash) but failed to notice the mess in Filomena's room, to her left as she returned to take her shower in her end of the cottage. Did she have blinders on? And where was the mop stored? In the kitchen or in the laundry area next to the big bathroom, where she saw the feces?

Minotaur wrote:From Frank' blog:

19th Nov: "He came back to Perugia few months ago and went to live in Corso Garibladi, near Raffaele Sollecito's place. The police has filed him as drug dealer."

21st Nov: 'Domenica scorsa Il Giornale dell'Umbria aveva contattato (o creduto di contattare) tramite uno o due intermediari Rudy Guede in fuga.
Secondo questo ipotetico colloquio Rudy dichiara: "Quella sera sono andato con Patrick a casa di Meredith. Ci ho trovato Amanda e Raffaele. Meredith era già stata colpita. Le avevano lasciato un cuscino in faccia che io ho spostato. Poi sono scappato perché avrebbero incolpato me dati i miei precedenti per droga".'

Can you confirm that in this 21 Nov quote Rudy says he went with Patrick to the cottage and Meredith had already been struck? My Italian is not great and a French translation suggests this.

Skep,

It says that it's a "hypothetical conversation." It's not a quote. It says that the Giornalee dell'Umbria had contacted, or was thought to have contacted Rudy through one or two intermediaries, while he was a fugitive. The hypothetical conversation says that Rudy stated "That night I went with Partick to Meredith's house. There I found Amanda and Rafaelle. Meredith was already stabbed. They had left a pillow on her face that I removed. Then I escaped because they would have blamed me given my history of drugs."

I don't think this is corroborated anywhere else, or that it is in the court record against Rudy or Patrick. It doesn't look like a credible report. But who knows?

Bluetit wrote: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

Bongiorno is one of the favourites to become the minister of justice. Maybe things have changed, we'll see. I could ask a hypothetical question about a possible conflict of interests, but that would just be silly. http://tinyurl.com/2m4vzo She became famous as part of the pool of lawyers who defended Andreotti and she recently founded an 'anti-stalking' organisation, which has been vocal about violence agaisnt women.

"For the rest of your post, build a bridge and get over it, just like I have done on many occasions to deal with the insults, twisting of my words and meanings of my posts and various other unpleasantries directed towards me for committing the unpseakable crime of having a different opinion."

[font=Century Gothic]I agree with you, Oceania. For the record, the accusation in the beginning of the final drama at Haloscan was that you ADMITTED to having made the numerous "troll" posts with regard to "little man" after I asked why you were being accused of making them. I see you were the bigger person again and let yet another false accusation.....no, another lie, about you go.
I have no intention of getting involved in any more OT squabbles, but I do want to point out that some of us went to the trouble to read back and verify whether this was true or not, and you never admitted to any such thing. You in fact, denied it stating that only the first one was yours (which was nothing bad and was signed by you, Oceania).

Not sure AT ALL how this is going to appear. It may all be in the "quote" box. I'll soon find out though[/font]

"......you refuse to see what is staring you in the face about Rudy Guede. Skirting around and contemplating all the possibilites about how he could possibly be somehow innocently caught up in all this"

Again Oceania, I absolutely agree. Why anyone (except "Biscuits") would work so hard to prove Guede is innocent in this is beyond me. IMO, this is what would sicken the Kerchers most of all, that people would want to defend him, with the KNOWN facts so far regarding his involvement. I was where the Kerchers are 3 yrs ago this month, and believe me, this defense of Guede would be painful to read. I am sick to death of the race card being thrown around by some as if in order to believe RG's his own admissions, we must be a bigot! But then that's okay, because he is truly remorseful for his role in leaving her to die. If you don't believe this, just read his diary! Good grief! He is a KNOWN liar! Why would we believe his diary? Yes, his words can be touching, but I have heard words even more touching by a man I once loved many many years ago, who is a pathological liar (and a narcissist with a capital "N"). And yes, this man was very charismatic and adored by all who knew him for his sensitivity, charm, and wit, until he was exposed time and time again. The words in RG's diary have no meaning to me, except as someone who is trying to save his own ass.

Having said that, I tend to agree with Brian, that RS is the most likely to be the one holding the knife, though I am obviously not sure at this point. I cannot get past the mop issue, (been right there with you all along Minotaur), nor the lies told by AK and RS to the point that I can believe RG did this alone. I would truly like to be able to get there, but just cannot based upon what we know so far. I agree with others who say this was not premeditated, and was a situation that got out of control and escalated quickly. I do not see AK as a killer, but she knows more than she is telling at the very least.

Just my two cents.

Hi Robin,

I think it is better to ignore a person who thinks they have the only valid view of things, you are far too pleasant, generous and fair to bother wasting your time.

SKEP WROTE: So Rudy had time to go out in the dark and find a rock to use to break a window after the fact, and yet left his sh*t in the toilet and blood on the walls.

TLC: Yes, he had no motive at all to fake a break in, because if he got away, he would have had no connection to the place, the reasons for faking a break-in is when one actually is a resident in a house, like Amanda was

SKEP WROTE: How extensive was the clean-up? Extensive enough for the police to be suspicious and for Amanda Knox not to be. So I doubt it was as hasty as all that.

TLC: If for instance Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up, they may well have after cleaning strewn things about to hide the fact of the cleaning operation. The inadequate job points to exhausted people, twirling brain after a long sleepless night, perhaops after a murder.


SKEP WROTE: And yet, there is the witness who was almost knocked over by someone (Rudy, presumably) at 22:30.

TLC: This is relevant if said person is a willing witness, meaning, prepared to come forward, if this person reported to opolice then it is not a question of will but of obligation, meaning the witness will be called upon by law, if necessary to go to court to testify. Apparantly, nobody has been willing to come forward and say they saw Guede at the disco, therefore, that line was sheer hearsay, it may have been true but without a credible witness stepping up, it is NOTHING, and totally hearsay.

SKEP WROTE: And yet, there's the ear witness who may not be so easy to dismiss. Frank, our source for all things Perugian, doesn't think so. And she heard other people. What about the noise and activity at the cottage far into the night? (TLC: I do not know what I think anymore about Mr Frank, I doubt things he says as though he has all facts, I do not think he has all facts, who is Frank just a guy who lives there, so what, he isn't a police man or a lawyer, he introduces hearsay as he now did about him knowing someone who found Frank in his home what rubbish that is, I do not believe one word of it)

TLC: I had to get up again last night, I'd almost gone off intro dreamland, but be it sop that in the still of night you can hear a pin drop, the dripping tap kept me from dreamland and in order to get to sleep though I was tired, I had to get up and stop the noise.
In the day time I'd never have been able to hear that sound even if I tried but at night when most things are quiet, it is like having sound amplified, therefore what the woman heard is valid and what that guy tried to test was invalid because he did it not in the middle of the nigfht and not by lying down on a bed.


SKEP WROTE: What about the clothes in the washing machine?

TLC: This is one of the things that are possible tie yourself in a knot pieces at a court of law under pressure, because though one may rehearse it is impossible to think through every angle then a person comes unstuck when not able to think up the right answer fast enough and if talking it is here that people implicate themselves and this is why people refuse to testify asnd have the lawyer speaking for them, even though they might want to testify the risks are too great but this is also even if you are innocent you may give the other side some point with which to argue you down with even witnesses obviously mess things up for the prosecution if they can be made to look one of many things for instance if they are made to look as if they are nt trustworthy, this is, when we think about it, why it is all so delicate, at court, where if for instance my friend was killed and the prosecutor calls another friend who then goes on to say things that are unconvincing leading to doubt. Here in this case the doubt will not be planted in the minds of the jurors but in the minds of the 8 judges, this is what defence will ttry to achieve. So what will they declare, Soll and Knox about this? They were there, Guede was not.
The inconsistencies Soll mentioned apply not only to Amanda but to himself. He said when we entered it was eerie, then he went on to piece everything together, as if to save the police the trouble. His story wove itself together with the other possible evidence, and he was the one to be pointing to it and thatpremature moment, right then straight away, as the police roamed around examining, he was pointing out how the window must have been this and that. This is way too convenient, he was actually speaking them all through it the way he may have actually planned it if it was he who thought of smashing the window in the first place.


SKEP WROTE: Oh, and the traveling mop and the broken pipe and the lie-in until ten that in fact involved activity in the early morning,

TLC: We may not have heard of anything much related to these things, because, the police is under no obligation to reveal all yet. But, the ace up their sleeves will be when they dump their evidence on the table when the suspects are charged and a trial date is set.

SKEP WROTE: and the fact that Sollecito cut Knox loose pretty quickly, saying he had told a crock of sh*t.
We've heard all of the attempts to explain these nagging things away. Some have been creative, some have been plausible, some have not been either. Everything may fall into place one day, but they have not just yet.

TLC: You can bet your life that those who are not in the business of speculation but rather deal in factual evidence, the police and the courts will be taking this into consideration in their construction of what really happened, in Italy the court must provide written word as to what they see as motive and all of the rest of it too as regards what and why they decide what they do.


SKEP WROTE: Personally, I can't wait for the face-to-face.

TLC: It may be the unravelling of the knots, as some tempers, flare up, yet again??????

SKEP WROTE: There are just too many loose ends for this thing to be tied up in a neat little knot and laid at Rudy's feet.

TLC: I agree, I don't see him as any lone killer. I do see it as a possibilty that he did start some kind of freiendship with Meredith, it is not unthinkable even Meredith's boyfriend said though he felt affection together with Meredith, he had not actually made any claim to her because he said, there was no jealousy.
(don't know if you picked up on this Skep, I know where I read aboyut yhat from him)

SKEP WROTE: Rudy had a knife, Raffaele had a whole collection, not to mention a fascination with a serial killer.

TLC: And someone had a temper and was not patient or kind, someone could not control their emotions (???)


SKEP WROTE: Rudy had tons of friends, Raffaele appears to have been a bit of a loner. Maybe not, but aside from Dad I don't see legions of people coming out to protest his arrest, as they did for Patrick Lumumba.

TLC: Raffaele seems to have held on to mama's skirt tails

Robin,

My post was in no way whatsoever directed at you, or anyone in particular. After reading TLC's comment, I re-read my post. Maybe it did sound kinda' personal, but it was not meant that way at all. I was just stating my feelings on the case. Admittedly, I'm a bit emotional this morning. Not enough years have passed for me not to dread the month of May. You have my utmost respect, as does Beep, whom I adore. My apologies if it seemed directed at you.

I do not believe there is ANYONE here who would deliberately hurt the Kerchers, nor do I believe the Kerchers will ever read this forum. I was just stating how it would have effected me to read it in our case with Emily, 3 years ago.

Stacey

Oceania,
I'm a little confused by your post concerning Rudy and a clean up and perhaps I have misread you in the past. I thought you did not hold with a theory of there being any sort of clean up whatsoever. What has changed your mind?

Thanks.

Minotaur wrote:From Frank' blog:

21st Nov: 'Domenica scorsa Il Giornale dell'Umbria aveva contattato (o creduto di contattare) tramite uno o due intermediari Rudy Guede in fuga.
Secondo questo ipotetico colloquio Rudy dichiara: "Quella sera sono andato con Patrick a casa di Meredith. Ci ho trovato Amanda e Raffaele. Meredith era già stata colpita. Le avevano lasciato un cuscino in faccia che io ho spostato. Poi sono scappato perché avrebbero incolpato me dati i miei precedenti per droga".'

Thanks, Minotaur and Sparrow. I had missed that story. Quite interesting, really.
I too would like to know if the Giornale ever published anything else on those lines (a retractation ?). Perhaps the story was just quietly dropped. Which does not mean that the police / judicial authorities have not made inquiries into it ...

Stacey wrote:"......you refuse to see what is staring you in the face about Rudy Guede. Skirting around and contemplating all the possibilites about how he could possibly be somehow innocently caught up in all this"

Again Oceania, I absolutely agree. Why anyone (except "Biscuits") would work so hard to prove Guede is innocent in this is beyond me.

...

Having said that, I tend to agree with Brian, that RS is the most likely to be the one holding the knife, though I am obviously not sure at this point. I cannot get past the mop issue, (been right there with you all along Minotaur), nor the lies told by AK and RS to the point that I can believe RG did this alone. I would truly like to be able to get there, but just cannot based upon what we know so far. I agree with others who say this was not premeditated, and was a situation that got out of control and escalated quickly. I do not see AK as a killer, but she knows more than she is telling at the very least.

Just my two cents.

I think it's actually quite important to contemplate all the possibilities for how Rudy as well as the other two suspects might be innocently caught up in this, and I think for the most part this is what people have tried to do here: not working hard to prove Guede is innocent, but conducting thought experiments, as I believe SB called them, to try and logically work out if any of the three can be eliminated as suspects. This has certainly been my own approach, in thinking about all three. It's one thing I like about this board--that I can post a thought as I did yesterday, about why Meredith might not have told her friends she was meeting Rudy (because that had been a real stumbling block to me in believing that part of Rudy's story, until I thought of a way around it) and others point out reasons why that still doesn't work with Rudy's story. I think it is a logical approach to thinking about this crime, and that it has focused around Rudy quite a bit lately because we have been taking a closer look at his story since he spoke up again in late March. I have seen the same kind of thought experiments conducted with the other two suspects at other points in the case (as Stacey demonstrates here--she keep stumbling up against the mop and the lies, as I do--I really appreciate Minotaur's attention to the mop, actually).

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.

I'm reposting DLW's post from yesterday because it may have gotten lost in the shuffle.
It's a good place to start.
Rudy has a head start and nothing to lose. At the very least, if he did not kill Meredith he failed her at least once, miserably. By telling the truth he can at least partly atone for that wrong. Some will say that Rudy had no choice but to admit his presence at the cottage and his participation in the horrible crime of murder. That's when you hear phrases like "he left his DNA all over the place," which seems to me the kind of thing non-specialists always say about technical subjects. (When people died of cancer, my grandmother used to say "Then they cut him open and discovered he was riddled with it.") Others say that Rudy alone has been forthcoming with at least some information about what happened that night; let's at least give him credit for that.

The other two suspects are fully lawyered up, although Raffaele apparently thinks that he needs even more lawyers and apparently has the means to amass an army. The physical evidence (that we know of) placing them at the scene, combined with their alibi troubles and inability to remember what they were doing on the night their roommate (and girlfriend's roommate) died because they smoked too much dope, makes them suspect in the eyes of many. We've all smoked too much dope on occasion and, with the exception of someone who sounded suspiciously like Goofy in a female persona (Just Piping In), none of us passed out and were unable to remember whether we took a shower, ate dinner, watched tv, got a call from dad, etc. the night before.

As for the physical evidence (again, THAT WE KNOW OF) placing them at the scene of the crime, the attempts by Raffaele and his dad to discredit this evidence (bra swapping and cooking story) have been a) farfetched and b) indicative of an uncanny ability to lie on the spot. Also, this evidence has been discredited by way of the media, which is not quite the same thing as being presented in a courtroom.

As a2 so astutely noted about Rudy, once you spot the fabrications, it is hard to trust the rest or even begin to know what is true and what is not. To which I would only add, all three of these suspects suffer from this same credibility problem because all three have not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's why AK and RS are in the slammer right now. Many elements of their story don't add up. And the attempts to explain why fail to satisfy the normal test that we all intuitively apply when confronted with conflicting alibis and partial evidence. The bullsh*t meter says something ain't right.

As Sparrow said, speaking of Rudy, the truth sometimes looks bad, and that is why people lie when they really don't have to. So we might wonder what it is that looks bad for the other two , bad enough for them not to tell the truth?
The only way to accept, as Oceania maintains, that RG alone knows what happened that night, is to accept that he acted alone, which is a case of begging the question.
Accordingly, the question goes begging: Did he in fact act alone?
It may turn out that he did, but there are currently a million little reasons to think he may not have. And I think everyone who has been following this story knows what they are, so there's no point repeating them here.
One thing I would like to clarify, though, is the notion that defending Rudy (if that's what it means to believe part of his story) is the same thing as proclaiming his innocence. Stacey, I think that oversimplifies the case in the same way that stating if you believe AK was involved in some way, you are denying her the presumption of innocence. We are not in a court of law here.
As Kermit has said, a million times, innocence with regard to which crime? There were several.

So, all three suspects have demonstrated their ability to lie. And RS and AK did not lie only because and when they came under intense policy scrutiny; everybody knows that by now or ought to. RS and AK have huge memory holes that need to be filled in. If they were willing to do that, it would certainly help to give Meredith's family some closure.

And it won't do to pretend that AK and MK got on like a house on fire if that wasn't true. Admitting there were problems between them, if there were, is not proof of guilt. It is proof of honesty and respect.
Nor will it do to pretend that MK was injured in a cooking accident at RS's house that never took place. That lie was told under absolutely no duress. It too strikes a blow to the memory of Meredith.
And so on.

Some of the skirmishes that come up when we debate these subjects are inevitable, but not all. It is important, when you present a case for something, not to willfully misrepresent someone else's position to make your own argument stronger. As Scout said, people are messy. Things are not cut and dried. It is easier to debate a fabricated point that takes all the subtlety out of the other guy's position, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Scout also said, in the same post, that people sometimes do things for no reason. That is true and something to keep in mind. Reasons are often created ex post facto. Liars don't lie all the time.

There are problems for us in proving the invovlement of RS and/or AK, but the theory that RG acted alone also leaves many troubling questions dangling.

Can't we all just admit those two sides of the same coin?

Finally, and sorry for the long post--Charlie would say the Moderator has been busy, too busy, on the board today--I suggest that everyone go back and take a look at Kermit's ppt of the inside of the house (filed under media). I am wondering how AK could go into that house, go over to the far bathroom and see feces in the toilet, put in a load of wash* and then walk back to her end of the house and not see the disarray that was Filomena's room (according to RS).

*About that load of wash. It has been suggested that the two girls' clothes were mixed in. Somebody, I think Oceania, feels this is perfectly normal. I've been in many group living situations and, apart from familial ones, have never known roommates to mix their clothes together. Maybe times have changed, but I dunno. It's like sharing underwear.

I really appreciate Minotaur's attention to the mop.

Thanks. But don't forget the mushroom.

The mop was magic, the mushroom wasn't.

Skep....running out the door, but want you to know that I am in total agreement with your entire last post, (unless I missed something as I read it very quickly, but was nodding my head in agreement the entire time). You have a way of putting thoughts into written words much better than I ever could. Thank you. And Scout, thanks to you also. Your post makes a lot of sense as well.

Have to run and get my spoiled bratty mutt out of doggie jail now. I've been up all night searching the neighborhood, in tears, and just found out animal control has her.....her pink collar with all the "bling" still intact. Fortunately, they were very sweet and seem to like her very much.

Michael wrote:

Oceania wrote:to my mind the rock throwing came at the end of the crime. It was done spontaneously and quickly by RG along with a frantic attempt at a partial cleanup before he departed.

Oh my God, why woman?

Oceania, I thought you didn't believe there was any cleanup???

Oceania wrote:Why not ? Why is it so far out of the realm of possibilites? Even if the others were involved we have a one in three guess as to who threw it.

Rudy throwing it and performing a partial clean-up is the most illogical thing I have EVER heard.

As for him being a 'Drug Dealer'...there is no evidence. If, some policeman filed some report in Perugia that he was, it is more likely this was done because of Rudy's association with a known dealer rather then he was himself, just as you did. If someone is dealing the police don't merely file a report, they 'prosecute' you for that....we are talking court, maybe time inside....'criminal record/conviction'...all lacking in Rudy. That is something solid and we can't be going labeling him a 'drug dealer' without that. That's the point of court, one gets to defend oneself from such accusations and it appears Rudy was never given that chance, although he was very easily condemned for it by people like yourself. Could we postulate that he may, on occassion sold some drugs to someone? Sure, although whether it's right or not in another matter. We can just as easily suggest Raf was a drug dealer, after all, he bought it often and it's not unlikely he sold some on on occassion as a favour to people. What we can't do, is go branding him on the forehead to define what he 'is'. The same for Raf, just to show I'm being fair here.

Just to say I have given the mop its own mini-timeline on that thread.

damian wrote: Bongiorno is one of the favourites to become the minister of justice. Maybe things have changed, we'll see. I could ask a hypothetical question about a possible conflict of interests, but that would just be silly. http://tinyurl.com/2m4vzo She became famous as part of the pool of lawyers who defended Andreotti and she recently founded an 'anti-stalking' organisation, which has been vocal about violence agaisnt women.

For those who believe that the Italian judicial system does not meet the standards of some other countries, this is your very first indication in this particular case of how that might work. Not only Andreotti, but several famous footballers; and she is from Palermo. This is a lady who goes for high-profile cases. If Berlusconi does make her minister of justice, she will certainly have to withdraw. But the damage has been done. Any ideas of what the (hypothetical) tangente might be, in cash or in kind?

Minotaur's mop timeline is most instructive.

On another topic, the foot, recall that the poster called Chris Mellas described the experience of "hearing" Amanda over the speakerphone when the police discovered what was behind the door. He noted that there was some confusion over the words "hoof" and "foot," which Nicki discredited based on her knowledge of Italian. Raffaele's diary is always a great source of information. Here's what he wrote about that foot:

"While they were looking at what was inside they began to shout: «Oh God A foot! Blood!». And they ran terrified. At which point I moved away and took Amanda and brought her away. We"stopped outside from there and the mess."


So this business about the foot is not the result of insider knowledge of the discovery. It has been in the public domain from the start. I am not saying for sure that the poster is a fraud, but I am saying that in any case his inside knowledge is not so inside. So from day one, his goal, whoever he is, has been to waste our time.

Minotaur's mop timeline is most instructive.

It is interesting. I also find Minotaur's quoted reference of Damien's from the Italian press to the floors having been mopped with bleach of value here.

A slight correction though. I believe the Mirror reporter is Kate 'Mansey'...not 'Mansell'.

The mop affair I feel is as key as the 'lamps'.

Skeptical Bystander wrote: "The bullsh*t meter says something ain't right."

I keep going back to a posting I made a few Haloscans back. I'm still on board with this scenario as being viable:

The big trouble for the 3 suspects is that when you consider everything as a whole a fuzzy picture does emerge. We are bringing it into focus in a variety of ways, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to excuse any of these 3 from the circumstances surrounding the murder.

Perhaps each of these suspects went way too far, each in their own way, in what they planned as being only a simple prank (motive unclear). Each of them would have their deeper personal motives for participating in a prank, even if it was inspired on the surface by money, jealousy, payback, or a some kind of cruel thrill.
Raffael with his fascination with the knives, Amanda with her dominating jealousy and contemptuous rage, and Rudy with his infatuation of Meredith. In planning the prank, they would not discuss these deeper motives among themselves. After the murder, they would be shocked at themselves seeing how far these inner drives could actually evolve in a perfect storm of dysfunctional complicity.

After the fact, there would be no need to form a pact of silence in this scenario. Who would want to admit to these kinds of truths about themselves? So they shut their mouths, try to cover up what they can, and struggle to forget about it - and dare each other to reveal the whole truth.

Michael wrote:

Minotaur's mop timeline is most instructive.

It is interesting. I also find Minotaur's quoted reference of Damien's from the Italian press to the floors having been mopped with bleach of value here.

A slight correction though. I believe the Mirror reporter is Kate 'Mansey'...not 'Mansell'.

The mop affair I feel is as key as the 'lamps'.

Of course: llamas and lamas; forgive me.

, whoever he is,

At last: that was abundantly clear from the beginning!

skeptical bystander wrote:So from day one, his goal, whoever he is, has been to waste our time.

Have you really convinced yourselves that this endless discussion is a productive use of your time?

Charlie

"Time is" as you choose. I've been away a loooooong time & just back here today, but you're still here & were already. So your question rebounds unto you as well.

As a construct for the industrious (not me! at this time), its likely that all Haloscans should bn=e mined for direct links. I see TLC has reposted his legal links as Kermit has hispdfs. I would miss O88's oriignal thoughts, her Italay trip report & sons comments etc. Perhaps a thread for just Haloscan Links?

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:So from day one, his goal, whoever he is, has been to waste our time.

Have you really convinced yourselves that this endless discussion is a productive use of your time?

Charlie

Funnily enough Wilkes...yes. In part, the determined behaviour of yourself and others to prevent/detract us from examining this case evidences the fact that we are indeed being productive...far too much for some. Since our agenda is honest and true and the same cannot be said for yours, we can therefore safetly conclude that our efforts are for a very good cause. This alone some may see as enough reason, but the real reason Wilkes, which you still appear to fail to grasp, is that we very much care about what happened to Meredith and intend that she and her family receive justice and closure in the end. But, since you don't care about such things at all, you will 'never' fully understand why we are convinced of what we do. Your constant presence on our shoulder attempting to deceive and sow doubt well establishes you in the role of the 'Vice'.

Robert M. wrote:Perhaps a thread for just Haloscan Links?

This is a great idea. Does anyone have "time" to take care of that?

Your comment about "time rebounding" reminds me of the graffiti that was written on the side of my garage when I was a graduate student at the University of Washington. It said, simply but compellingly, "What About Yourself?"

Indeed!

Charlie Wilkes wrote:Have you really convinced yourselves that this endless discussion is a productive use of your time?Charlie

Maybe, like you, we are all just board.

I have watched this message board for some time now and still trying to figure things out. I like the old place better.

Beep!! You're here

You'll get used to this board soon enough. It's very very different to Halo, but I think it's better since we can escape the hostility that was building up, and get back to a civilised discussion.

What are you trying to get used to with this board? Is it the formatting, editing etc? You can PM me and I'll help you with anything if you like. I'm a member of one other forum so I kind of know how it works and this one isn't so different. Anyway, glad to see you're here. You're late

Michael,

"What we can't do, is go branding him on the forehead to define what he 'is'. The same for Raf, just to show I'm being fair here.

Thank you for sticking up for Rudy there.

I don't have the hang of this place, but in time, I will get it.

Beep,
So glad you made it. Don't worry; you'll get the hang of it. Take your time. Soozie can help (thanks, Soozie); Michael can help; I can help. You can send private messages (just click on pm) to anyone. You may not get an immediate answer. For example, I won't be on the board this evening (for me it is early evening).

HI Skep and others,

I have an idea. Can we make a new heading that replaces 'Start Discussion Here', to 'Ongoing Discussion', or something like this? That way, it's easy to find, and it rather like the old Haloscan. Otherwise, the 'Start Discussion..' is a 'has been' - we HAVE started.

Also, I see numerous folks are having some technical difficulties finding their way around this Message Board. I am thinking of posting a new topic for this. I have a few questions, and this might be a source of info, not to mention, keeping things on track within the other topics.

How does this sound?
May

p.s. I am experimenting to see how attaching an image works. I assume it does.

bpcl wrote:I have watched this message board for some time now and still trying to figure things out. I like the old place better.

You'll be OK--

I like the separate threads - I wish, however, that there was a unique one entitled "My Life As A Mop". Thanks, Minotaur! javascript:emoticon(':D')

Or for instance, a thread that certain posters can deliberately avoid. Right, Charlie?

Anyway, I thought I'd pop this up:

Showering and doing laundry at the same time? Not a good idea. Showering is best done first, but make sure you save enough hot water for the laundry if you're using high temps.

ddude,

Thanks for the advice there. I did not know that guys can do two things at once!

bpcl wrote:ddude,

[align=center]Thanks for the advice there. I did not know that guys can do two things at once![[/align]

[align=center] In this house, they can't even do one thing at once![/align]

Soozie UK,

Not going to go there! I have my own problems focusing on more than one task to be sure.

http://tinyurl.com/6jmfoq OT. An interesting article from the Guardian about the current state of Italy.

May, you read my mind.
We could do it weekly, every Friday for example.

And now it's done.
Please move to Continue discussion here...

Thanks for the link Damian and for your information on Giulia Bongiorno, who may or may not be joining the smiling team. I suspect she'd take Minister of Justice over a chance to be on the team, although both provide great media exposure.

A story that perfectly illustrates the continuum between Mussolini and the present emerged in Bari this month. For the 30th anniversary of the murder of Aldo Moro, the former prime minister who was killed by the Red Brigades, the rector of the university decided to rename it in his honour. But that would have meant cancelling the official name of the university which was still, on paper, Università Benito Mussolini. You might have thought that the academics would have preferred association with a devout Christian Democrat to the Fascist leader, but no, the Law Department voted against the change.

I'm not sure about discontinuing the main topic, by havin new threads each time, I think it will lead to watering down of people, simply because there are then too many threads. I don't know.
I think this one would have done fine for the main discussion place.

Sorry TLC, too late. The discussion has moved. Let's give it a try. I'll rename this one and it will remain forever part of the lore. You can refer to it and copy from it any time.
We're still figuring things out here!

More leaks.
RG seems to have explicitely told Mignini that more than two persons (meaning at least one other plus RS and AK, I think) ran off from the house :

ADNKRONOS
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Cronaca/?id=1.0.2139942824

PERUGIA: GUEDE, HO SENTITO PIU' PERSONE SCAPPARE DA CASA MEZ

Perugia, 7 mag. (Adnkronos) - ''Piu' persone che scappavano dal casolare di via della Pergola 7. Fuggivano in diverse direzioni. Amanda e Raffaele, ma forse non solo loro''. E' quanto scrive oggi 'Il Giornale dell'Umbria', annunciando nuove indiscrezioni sull'interrogatorio che ha reso Rudy Hermann Guede al pm di perugia Giuliano Mignini, titolare delle indagini sull'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher.

to the top

[font=Comic Sans MS]For the purpose of keeping the board simple and tidy I am now locking this thread. Should anyone feel they need to continue to discuss this topic, please do so in the 'Continue discussion here as of May 29, 2008' thread:

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/c ... 8-t33.html

If you feel it essential this topic be unlocked, please contact a Moderator via PM.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]