The anatomy of the case

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:42 am

pmop57 wrote:Alex_K,
The problem is that at 'the end' we are discussing a case that in reality never existed, a construct, the product of 'conjectures' and 'fabricated' absurdities against two obviously innocent youngsters whose only fault had been to at the wrong place the wrong moment.
The different actors of the law enforcement chain, those leading the 'operations' on multiple levels must have known about the Perugia Judicial Circus. It is the product of an intrinsically rotten and corrupt self-serving and self-preserving system as documented in many european and international studies.


What he/she said!

:clap:
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:03 pm

Mafiabuster wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Alex_K,
The problem is that at 'the end' we are discussing a case that in reality never existed, a construct, the product of 'conjectures' and 'fabricated' absurdities against two obviously innocent youngsters whose only fault had been to at the wrong place the wrong moment.
The different actors of the law enforcement chain, those leading the 'operations' on multiple levels must have known about the Perugia Judicial Circus. It is the product of an intrinsically rotten and corrupt self-serving and self-preserving system as documented in many european and international studies.


What he/she said!

:clap:


And not savvy enough to get a lawyer.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:08 pm

'As for the men in power, they are so anxious to establish the myth of infallibility that they do their utmost to ignore truth.’
Boris Pasternak


To err is human; to steadfastly decline to recognise and correct human error is inhumane. The prospects for wrongly convicted people are fundamentally burdened by seemingly intractable hurdles. At the heart of this is the appeal system’s denial of the fallibility of human institutions, ironically a denial of the very reason for the appeal system’s existence.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:44 am

The 'break-in' MUST BE STAGED (essential for the Prosecution)

The first stating that the break-in was staged had been Battistelli (Postal Police Perugia) and Giobbi (SCO Rome).
Their not verified assumptions have already been part of the detention motivation of Judge Mattaini.

"Realising what had happened, the three hurriedly left the house creating a mess with the intention of staging a theft, leaving blood everywhere, not least in the effort to clean themselves, so that spots of blood were found in the bathroom both on the floor and in the sink."

[Note: But this shows also that the entire staging scenario had not yet been completely developed by the Prosecution otherwise Judge Mattaini would certainly have attributed more attention to the staging scenario.]

The 'conjecture' of the break-in being 'staged' had to become EVIDENTIARY FACT when Prosecutor Mignini DECIDED to continue to charge AK and RS with the murder of MK. The break-in being 'staged' became a primar requirement to keep the case against both running.

[Note: Whatever the motivation of the Prosecution was to continue to charge AK and RS with murder there was no other way but to declare the break-in staged. This was also the starting point why the Prosecution started to 'beguile' Guede and progressively minimising his role in the stabbing of MK. The compliance/accommodation/permissivness of the Prosecution towards Guede was always obvious.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:28 pm

The 'break-in' MUST BE STAGED (essential for the Prosecution)

While in prison in Germany Guede already understood how important it was for him to as well deny that he had been 'burglaring' the cottage through 'escalating' and 'breaking-in' as to deny that it was him who had stolen the money of MK. He exactly knew that being a 'burglar' would have knocked out his story of having dated MK as well as his story about the unknown intruder he pretended having stabbed MK.
It had also been of interest for Guede to explain and justify the cuts at his hand he had suffered during his confessed stay at the cottage (before, during and after the mureder occurred). He attributed them to his short confrontation with the unknown intruder (a knife sharp like a stiletto).
Further of interest is that Guede when interrogated in 2008 by Mignini, Napoleoni, ..., in presence of his lawyers, suddenly stated that he could observe and hear AK and RS through the window of FR's room, that the window shutters had been open, ... .
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:33 pm

Short information (Judge Mattaini)

In the year 2007 month of November on the day 8 at 13.14, in Perugia at the local jailhouse, before the Preliminary Investigation Judge Claudia Matteini, assisted for the redaction of the present minutes by clerk level B3 Catia Uffedruzzi, in the presence of the defense attorney Mr. Tedeschi Tiziano of the bar of Bari.

Present also Mignini, Napoleoni and RS

The Judge, having heard the Prosecutor who points out that he himself ordered the prohibition of counsel, rejects the objection raised by the defense given that the same art. 104 c.p.p., at paragraph 4, provides that in the event of police arrest, as in the present case, the Prosecutor has the power of preventing the suspect from having counsel with [his or her] defense attorney, until the same [suspect] appears before the Judge; on this date, given that the validation hearing was scheduled today it is obvious that the prohibition of counsel ceases all effects, and the revocation of such prohibition is now ordered anyway.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:54 am

Back from an intensive professional mission!

A question: Is there a need to analyse further aspects of the case as the 25 of March 2015 is approaching? And if so, what would be topics of major interest?

I just have followed the impressing work that Numbers has realised concerning his research and analyses of the ECHR law and case rulings and as important his relating them to the case of AK. Very well researched and understandably presented. Great work Numbers, congratulations!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Numbers » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:27 am

pmop57 wrote:Back from an intensive professional mission!

A question: Is there a need to analyse further aspects of the case as the 25 of March 2015 is approaching? And if so, what would be topics of major interest?

I just have followed the impressing work that Numbers has realised concerning his research and analyses of the ECHR law and case rulings and as important his relating them to the case of AK. Very well researched and understandably presented. Great work Numbers, congratulations!


pmop,
I thank you. And I must add that your extensive analyses of the case have been invaluable and an example to follow!
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:54 pm

Numbers wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Back from an intensive professional mission!

A question: Is there a need to analyse further aspects of the case as the 25 of March 2015 is approaching? And if so, what would be topics of major interest?

I just have followed the impressing work that Numbers has realised concerning his research and analyses of the ECHR law and case rulings and as important his relating them to the case of AK. Very well researched and understandably presented. Great work Numbers, congratulations!


pmop,
I thank you. And I must add that your extensive analyses of the case have been invaluable and an example to follow!


So true. Pmop, I don't know where you find time to go through the case in such detail, but it's very much appreciated.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:36 pm

pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Numbers » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:47 pm



pmop,
Thanks for pointing out this short but very clear and informative article about the unreliability of the alleged DNA evidence on the knife blade and bra clasp.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:11 am

The 'arrest' ruling by Claudia Mattaini in itself is a demonstration how cases of injustice are constructed.
The Judge never contesting the alleged evidence presented by the Prosecution. No counter checks of simple conjectures against the defendants. The role of the Judge is obviously reduced to rubber-stamp the allegation of the Prosecution (here Mignini).
The incompetence/ignorance/arrogance of the Police (wrong counting of the rings of RS's shoes), no back-testing or checking of results.
A completely invented motive for all the alleged perpetrators. The narrative of the Prosecution/Judges it's clearly dominating over the facts.
No single element satisfying the criteria of even approximative certainty.

Mattaini's motivation of the detention is a demonstration of the arbitrarity of the Judge's decisions to assure a case and to satisfy the Prosecution's phantasies.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:23 am

Large parts of the motivation of the alleged 'guilt' of AK and RS had been built up on the unashamed ABUSE by the Judiciary (Prosecutors and Judges) of the fact that AK had been living at that place and that RS had been a regular visitor at the cottage.
This was the bases for the conjecture of the break-in being staged, this was the based for the conjecture of the traces of AK in blood of MK, her DNA being located close to 'alleged' blood spots (not even correctly tested if the 'alleged' blood spots had really been blood).
Alleged mixed blood in the bathroom shared by the victim an AK. Innocent traces expected to have had to be there simply interpreted as evidence of guilt of AK and RS.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:25 am

The knife never left the flat of RS.
AK never transported the knife for self protection, nobody would carry a kitchen knife of such a size, in her purse, on a daily bases for self protection. An absurd allegation by Prosecutors and Judges having lost all touch with reality. The simple allegation of this is like 'planting' evidence to support their case. Nencini was topping all prior allegations by asserting that the knife was transported for daily cooking purposes, ridiculous, both flats had been equipped with sufficient knives. As absurd Nencini's assertion that the knife was matching the imprint on the bed sheet of MK, simple conjecture without any factual evidence supporting him.

It is absolutely certain that the Prosecution was unable to demonstrate that committing the crime was premeditated by AK and RS, the Prosecution even started to contest that they ever stated that the crime was premeditated. The crime was not premeditated, the knife was never transported by AK or anybody else outside the cottage, the knife was never at the crime scene, the imprint of the knife was never compatible with the imprint found on the sheet of the bed, there never was an imprint of MK's DNA on that knife.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:48 pm

Whatever constructs the Judiciary is hiding behind these should never be a justification to cover miscarriage and innocent in prison!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:33 pm

Amanda and Raffaele have never been granted a legal, fair, neutral and independent trial, they have been judged in trials they have not been part of.
The actual rulings are the consequence of this denial supported and promoted by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ordered Nencini to validate an overall narrative based on a multiple perpetrator theory, with clearly stating that Amanda and Raffaele are these perpetrators acting together with Guede, validated in prior trials including the same Supreme Court in trials the defendants have not been part of. The Nencini Court was not an Appeal Court but a Revision Court installed by decree to validate an "pre-ordered" judgement. This is in my opinion a blatant violation of all human rights of the defendants. Guilty by decree without trial.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:25 am

The strange hehaviour of Napoleoni and a Police officer ... video ... . What is he taking from the ground and trying to hide when Napoleoni is following him ..., 16:28:33 (02/11/2007), ... .

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evi ... apartment/

Does anybody know the name of this particular officer?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:43 am

From Darkness Descending (Graham, Johnson, Garafano)
Complement of information
Fingerprint guru Giunta from Roman Policd had some explosive news. He phoned his boss Giobbi the 16th of Nov. 2007.
"We have a positive identification of one of the fourteen mystery fingerprints found at the crime scene!"
"Who is it?"
"It's from the person who made the bloodypalm print we found on the pillow under MK's body!"
"Rudy Hermann Guede!"
"The only reason we have him, his fingerprints are in the national database because he applied for a resident's permit!"
It was Giobbi himself who drove to Perugia to inform Mignini (Mignini and Chiacchiera had been present).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:36 am

The problem was actually caused by the ignorance of the Judges of the Fast Track Trial (RG v./ Italy, Judge Micheli) and the Appeal Trial (RG v./ Italy, Judges Borsini-Bellardi). They simply did not realise (ignorance, intention, disinterest) about the predictable problems resulting from the division of the case to try into two track trials under different procedural rulings. Both Courts acted exactly like if AK and RS had been entire part of the trial, the result having indisputably been an admission by the Judges of their participation in the killing of MK, acting together with RG.
The Judges of the Court of Cassation (RG v./ Italy) realised the emerging problem of this way of proceeding (to detail) and implemented somehow a makeshift solution or less-than-ideal-solution by stating "but RG did not act alone but together with others".
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:32 pm

pmop57 wrote:The strange hehaviour of Napoleoni and a Police officer ... video ... . What is he taking from the ground and trying to hide when Napoleoni is following him ..., 16:28:33 (02/11/2007), ... .

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evi ... apartment/

Does anybody know the name of this particular officer?


Has somebody put together a list of the evidence that was surpressed? It could be really useful for Amanda and her team to present if they have to fight an extradition request.

Also, has somebody gone through and catalogued the evidence relating to the downstairs flat? Blood found etc.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Numbers » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:54 pm

Mafiabuster wrote:
pmop57 wrote:The strange hehaviour of Napoleoni and a Police officer ... video ... . What is he taking from the ground and trying to hide when Napoleoni is following him ..., 16:28:33 (02/11/2007), ... .

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evi ... apartment/

Does anybody know the name of this particular officer?


Has somebody put together a list of the evidence that was surpressed? It could be really useful for Amanda and her team to present if they have to fight an extradition request.

Also, has somebody gone through and catalogued the evidence relating to the downstairs flat? Blood found etc.


Have you looked at the sections on suppressed evidence in the newly refurbished wiki, www.amandaknoxcase.com? That information could be at least the start of a list. Also, there has been evidence that has been "lost" or destroyed by the scientific police.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:33 am

Suppression must be set in relation to the 'arbitrary' orientation of the investigation that at the end is the responsability of the Prosecution after the 'disaster' of the public 'case closed' declaration.
The discovery of RG being 'one' of the perpetrators, the alibi of PL demonstrating clearly that he was not involved in committing the crime, the reduction to total absurdity of the assessments contained in the Mattaini 'arrest' and 'detaining' order motivation the Prosecution was under pressure to rethink their case. This pressure had been leading the investigators to reformulate the orientation of the investigation. The reformulation of the 'premises' of the Prosecution that RG (simply put in exchange for PL) together with AK and RS did murder MK (this was facilitated by continuing to confront AK with the result of the 'illegal' interrogation).
The reformulation of the orientation of the investigation was based on the arbitrary decisions:
- the crime was committed by RG, RS and AK
- the break-in (crime-scene (2) has been staged by AK with the help of RS)
- the downfloor flat (crime-scene (3) was not part of the scenario)
- the evidence to retain has to support the fixed premises (RG, RS and AK did committ the crime)
- the involvement of RG has to be minimised to assure the case against AK (as the main instigator) and RS (auxiliary to AK because any other decision would have made of him a credible alibi for AK).
The entire progression of the investigation has in my opinion to be considered in light of these decisions which became the 'paradigms' of the case.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:54 am

After the decision by the Prosecution to continue to prosecute AK and RS the order given to the investigators and especially to the forensic police was to concentrate on investigating/retaining/presenting evidence 'potentially' against RS and AK (RG had been the only one who had admitted having been present at the crime scene). The motto became; maximising evidence against RS and AK and minimising against RG. The forensic police presented through PS became a willfully submitting tool of the Prosecition (IMO this way of proceeding is not at all limited to this case). This assertion is perfectly documented by the evidence presented by the forensic investigation and even better by the presentation of the same.
Part of this 'selective' investigation was the revisiting of the crime scene the 18th Dec. 2007.
This visit was clearly revealing that they had no 'credible' or 'challengeable' evidence against AK and RS. Unwillingly the filming of the visit by the police members themselves became a further demonstration of their own total incompetence.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:42 pm

Numbers wrote:
Mafiabuster wrote:
pmop57 wrote:The strange hehaviour of Napoleoni and a Police officer ... video ... . What is he taking from the ground and trying to hide when Napoleoni is following him ..., 16:28:33 (02/11/2007), ... .

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evi ... apartment/

Does anybody know the name of this particular officer?


Has somebody put together a list of the evidence that was surpressed? It could be really useful for Amanda and her team to present if they have to fight an extradition request.

Also, has somebody gone through and catalogued the evidence relating to the downstairs flat? Blood found etc.


Have you looked at the sections on suppressed evidence in the newly refurbished wiki, http://www.amandaknoxcase.com? That information could be at least the start of a list. Also, there has been evidence that has been "lost" or destroyed by the scientific police.


Thanks, whoever compiled that has done a brilliant job.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:47 am

The first step of the manipulation of the crime investigation was to entirely include the traces layer at T0 and T1 as evidence to prove the presence of AK and RS at the crime scene when the murder was committed.
(1) T0: AK had been living at the cottage prior to the murder, to find traces (including biological material) from her in the flat was evident and could be expected (at every place of the flat). The investigators obviously simply ignored this.
(2) T0: The bathroom was even a place more at risk to find because of the probable presence of body fluids.
(3) T0: RS was a regular visitor of the flat.
(4) T1: The returning of AK to the cottage to take a shower and change clothes.
(5) T2: The re-visit of AK of the flat the 4th of Nov. 2007 in company of members of Police.

A further aspect is the not collected material from the murder room and particulary parts of the clothes MK must had been wearing when she was murdered (documented in the Police video from the 18th of Dec. 2007). The question always remaining the same, intention or incompetence.

The next point, when the investigators did not find the evidence they would have needed to proove the presence of AK and RS at the crime scene they declared the place having been cleaned by them.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:38 am

Another point is that in reality certain traces you cannot timestamp, the naked footprints on the floor tiles (not eeven proven to belong to AK, declared 'compatible with' being not an assertion of certainty. Physical evidence attributed to a 'specific' person, DNA, hand prints, foot prints, ... should have a 'highest possible' degree of certainty, a 100% match, Yes or No!
A person leaving the shower with wet feet can leave traces on the tiles with residuals of soap. Further liquids can drip off from the already present residuals. It will be impossible to timestamp the occurrence of the two events.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:02 am

The downstairs flat

I honestly don't know how to link the downstairs flat to the upstairs crime scene. There are several points I share with Giobbi's witness statements at Court.

Blood of RG or MK in the downstairs flat would have completely changed the 'approach' to the crime.
To much blood to have been a cat (ordering an immediate investigation of the scene).

What seems to be clear is that at a certain point (probably on the level of the Prosecution/Forensic Police) it was decided not to continue to bother about eventual evidence from the downstairs flat. The conclusion that the blood was from a cat's ear bleeding was taken arbitrarily and the downstairs case declared closed.

My major problem, It don't trust the conclusions of the Prosecution/Forensic Police anymore because they discredited themselves throughout the entire proceedings. They never presented complete, detailed
and verifiable results. What they showed was at most points not trustworthy and they avoided by all means to have their work challenged.

Concerning the blood traces downstairs I seriously doubt that this was solely the blood from a cat and more specifically from an ear bleeding. Most bleedings on cats are the results of fights among cats themselves. Two specificities, there is two much blood at to many places (plus the light switch), the concentration of blood is two high at some points.

If the ear bleeding was not the result of serious internal injuries as the consequence of an accident (for example a hurt by a car) there are two possibilities left. The ear was injured, scratches wounds on the outside surface, these would have stopped bleeding very quickly and not have been of such intensity as to leave large spots of blood. Scratches wounds on the inside surface, the blood would have entered the ear 'channel', if this had been the case the cat would have tried (and this is certain) to get rid of it through further scratching and/or shaking the head, rubbing the head/ear against objects. The pattern of blood would be completely different and again not of such intensity (except for one spot).
If the origin of the bleeding was different I wonder why the owners or care taker of the cat would not
have visited a 'medical'.

The quality of the investigation is of such mediocrity that all and everything opens the way to speculation, the contrary the result of a serious investigation would be about.

The question remains justified, what did the Prosecution/Investigators/Forensics try to hide?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:21 am

Appeal, Guede, Borsini-Bellardi
Taking into account such elements, the Court holds such mitigating circumstances can be accepted. It observes, indeed, that his life spent so far drifting, has not compromised in an irreparable way the defendant’s personality, considering also his young age and despite the difficulties endured, that have marked his infancy, with a severe and frequently absent father and a mother that abandoned him forever from the moment of his birth.

It must also be mentioned that, due in part to the positive influence of his friend Giacomo Benedetti, Guede expressed right from the first contacts his intention to return to Italy to hand himself over to the police and, once arrested in Germany, without hesitation he gave his consent to be handed over to the Italian authorities.

In addition, he was the only one of the defendants to apologize to Meredith’s family, even if referring only to his lack of help to her [in her dying moments], as was recognized by the lawyers of the girl’s relatives who participated as civil parties.

Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators.

Taking into account the elements and the circumstances of the crime and, above all else, of the unspeakable suffering inflicted on the victim, the panel holds that it must deliver a judgment in which the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered of equal value.

Court of Cassation, Guede
In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:08 am

The above quote is essential, the Court of Cassation v./Guede was clearly and obviously realising that the prior trials had a clear focus on implicating AK and RS in having acted together with RG to have committed the murder of MK. They called it an attempt of the Defence of RG to minimise/deny the involvement of their client in the committing of the crime, they deviate from the fact that it was clearly and fully the in-line with the adopted proceeding and judging by the lower Courts declaring AK and RS participants in the murder of MK. This was clearly a prejudicial pre-judgement of AK RS in trials they had not been part of.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:20 pm

INSUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE ACCORDED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE DEFINITIVE RULING ISSUED AGAINST RUDY GUEDE
Court of Cassation - Chieffi ruling

The point raised by the Public Prosecutor regarding the violation of article 238 c.p.p. is correct. After having acquired into evidence the definitive ruling pronounced by this Court against Rudie Guede, and having correctly noted in advance that the ruling was not binding, the Court then completely disregarded its content, diminishing its undisputed probative importance with the assertion that it stood out as a particularly weak element, because the ruling had been issued based on the state of the documents at that time [i.e. in a fast-track trial], without the additional information acquired following the reopening of the evidence phase ordered on appeal. In truth, the Court was absolutely not authorized to disregard the contents of the definitive ruling solely for this reason, a ruling which, albeit relating only to Guede’s position and pronounced at the outcome of a different type of proceedings, ended with the conviction of the defendants for “complicity in the murder” of the young student. The conclusion reached by the judges of second instance, according to which “even if we were to take for granted that a conspiracy of persons was required, the ruling does not thereby become decisive evidence in identifying the current defendants as Rudy Guede’s accomplices”, is the result of reasoning based on inadequate argument, since information about the presence of other people had to necessarily be correlated with information about those who had access to the house where the crime was committed. Furthermore, the ruling [concerning Guede] ruled out the possibility that Guede was the perpetrator of the staging which was recognized [by the ruling] to have occurred, and to be attributable to other individuals. On page 20 of the ruling (no. 7195/2011) admitted into evidence [by the Appeal Court], the Supreme Court stressed that “as the lower court judges correctly held, an activity occurred following the homicidal act which was aimed at staging an attempted theft, which the lower court judges and the defence of the appellant [Guede] agreed to have occurred at the hands of other people and not of the defendant…” The fact that Guede had wounds to his hands when he was arrested (two months after the crime) was not held to be significant by the judges in the abbreviated trial, in light of information from three of Rudie’s friends whom he had contacted the day after the murder, and who had ruled out the possibility that he had injuries to his hands. These passages of argument, properly supported with reasoning, were completely overlooked by the Court of Second Instance, which proposed that the staging could be attributed to Guede, as an individual experienced in thefts. In so doing it engaged in a clear interpretative flight, indicating a marked distance between [its interpretation] and what had been established and legally affirmed in another ruling, and did not adequately justify the incompatibility between [its own conclusions] and the reconstruction which had been developed in the ruling [from Guede’s trial], so revealing once again an incompleteness of information which translates inevitably into a flaw in reasoning. The ruling under discussion, even though issued at the outcome of a trial which was based on the state of the documents at that time [a fast-track trial], falls within that group of rulings covered by article 238 bis c.p.p., as with plea bargain rulings. The order in question [article 238] pursues the noble aim recalled by the petitioner [the prosecution] of preventing the dispersal of information acquired in legal proceedings which have become res judicata [i.e. where there has been a final judgment and the case is no longer subject to appeal].

Therefore the decision under appeal can be criticized for the flaw alleged [by the prosecution] of violating the law, and for the defect of inadequate reasoning, in the crucial passage of the reconstruction of the event which deals with the presence of multiple perpetrators in the crime, in the residence to which – aside from the victim – only Knox had access on that horrific evening. This is a factor which should certainly not be automatically understood as proof, but which constitutes a significant segment in the narrative reconstruction of the crime, to be assessed together with the other pieces of evidence. On this point too, the new judge must carry out a detailed examination which adheres more closely to the requirements of the law, as well as an assessment of the information seen in the context of the broader osmotic presentation of the [rest of the ] evidence.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:19 pm

The nucleus of the case constructed against AK and RS

The fact: MK was killed through stabbing with a knife.
The assumption: MK did know her killer.
The fact: The admission (confession) by RG that he was present at the crime before, during and after the killing of MK although always denying that he was the killer.
The assumption: The break-in was staged, staged by the only person, who knew RG (he had no interest to stage a break-in), who had access to the cottage, who had been present at Perugia and and who had an interest to stage a break-in to divert attention from her was AK (and auxiliary RS).
The interrogation: AK had placed herself at the crime scene together with another black PL (pointing to an innocent person).
The resulting paradigm: RG did not act alone but together with other, the other being AK and RS.

This initial canvas (the nucleus of the case) was the starting base for the Prosecution to create the narrative of the case, collecting the evidence accordingly to this canvas, retaining the evidence supporting the canvas and rejecting the evidence contradicting or opposing the canvas. The evidence was built up to satisfy the canvas and the related narrative of the crime. The evidence was not collected and interpreted to solve the crime but to fit the canvas and the resulting narrative. The modus operanti, creating a crime by design with the sole purpose to implicate AK and RS in the murder of MK.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:17 pm

Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official for private gain or any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. The abuse of public offices for private gain is paradigmatic of corruption.

A common belief is that corruption is a judge taking bribes. The definition exceeds this theory. Corruption describes any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose.


Corrupt judicial systems not only violate the basic right to equality before the law but deny procedural rights guaranteed by the Italian Constitution.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:57 pm

The final paradigm of the crime by the Prosection (Lead Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, Perugi, 2007)

Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher at here home.

The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated (only initially, later modified by the Prosecution and Judges).
The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong (initially, later several times modified by the Prosecution and the Judges).
The sexual part had already been described by Judge Claudia Mattaini in the ruling justifying the detention of PL, RS and RK.

The narrative of the crime was mainly based on 'conjecture' and 'arbitray' decisions, largely elaborated already before the availability of the 'forensic' evidence finding. The main responsabable of this 'arbitrary' evaluation of the crime, the lead Prosecutor of the investigation, Giuliano Mignini, Perugia.

1) Multiple perpetrators : Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito (no existing objective, verifiable evidence that the three acted together).

Most perplexing statement by Judge Paolo Micheli, pre-trial, "we do not need evidence, logic and common sense tell us that they acted together".

2) Premeditated murder (initially formulated by the Prosutor Giuliano Mignini (3). "The murder was planned to occur the night of Halloween but had to be postponed to All Sainsts DAy, the day before All Souls Day).

3) The murder was a ritual (Mignin's reasoning about Halloween, All Saints day and All souls day, last repeated in his final statements at the Appeal Trial in the Hellmann-Zanetti Court).

4) Sex game gone wrong (motive several time modified by the Prosecution and the Judges).

The findings outside the cottage

1) The bread knife randomly selected in a drawer in the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito's flat. "This one might do it!"

The findings at the crime scene

1) Meredith Kercher was killed through stabbing with a knife in her room, the first impression had obviously been that Meredith had been victim of a sexual assault (rape). Her body was laying on the floor, half naked in an obvious position at the crime scene
2) All the evidence (forensic and other) found at the crime scene (Meredith Kercher's room) pointed (belonged) to one and only one person, Rudy Gude
3) A broken window in the room occupied by Filomena Romanelli the third occupant of the flat
4) Shoe traces leading to the front door
5) A bloody barefoot trace on a blue mat in the bathroom shared by Meridith Kercher and Amanda Knox
6) Some blood spots in the bathroom shared by Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox
7) Feces from Rudy Guede in the toilet of the bathroom shared by Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezetti, the fourth occupant of the flat
8) A bra clasp collected 47 days after the initial investigation of the crime scene
9) Alleged mixed traces in blood on the floor
10) Time of death

Early arbitrary assumptions by the Prosecution

1) The break-in was staged by Amanda Knox (and auxiliary by Raffaele Sollecito)
2) The crime-scene was modified (mise en scène) by Amanda Knox (and auxiliary by Raffaele Sollecito)
3) Amanda Knox allowed Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito enter the cottage because she was the owner of the entrance keys (and auxiliary the only person to know that Meredith Kercher would be at home)
4) The crime scene was cleaned (selectively to only leave in place the traces of Rudy Guede
5) MK had to be stabbed by several perpetrators

Witnesses

1) Cappezzali, cry and footsteps, discovered by a journalist months after the crime occurred discovered by a journalist
2) Quintavalle the shopkeeper, discovered one year after the crime occurred, discovered by a journalist
3) Curatolo, timeline, discovered one year after the crime occurred, discovered by a journalist

Major forensic analyses risks not considered

1) Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox had been sharing the flat with Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. Meredith Kercher was sharing one bathroom with Amanda Knox. All the other facilities have been shared by the four girls living in the cottage. So it was absolutely normal and predictable to find biological material from the occupants in the flat.
2) Raffaele Solecitto was at several times guest in the cottage so it was equally normal and predictable to find biological material from him in the flat.
3) Concerning the transfer of biological material after the discovery of the crime the entire flat must be considered a crime scene.

Many forensic evidence with the potential to prove the innocence of AK and RS was simply ignored, not analysed, not considered and probably even manipulated.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:11 pm

In conclusion, the ruling under appeal must be annulled due to the multiple shortcomings, contradictions and clear failures of logic indicated above. The new judge will therefore have to remedy the argumentative aspects subject to criticism, in his or her broadest powers of assessment, carrying out a global and uniform examination of the circumstantial evidence, an examination by means of which

it will have to be determined whether the relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence

[Note: There is a fundamental contradiction in the wording "relative ambiguity" of each piece of evidence and the "concrete" indication how the evidence has to be treated described in the details of the motivation report (see entire Court of Cassation report. HERE THE JUDGE HAD BEEN CLEARLY ADMITTING EVEN IF 'RELATIVING' THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECT OF DIFFERING INTERPRETATION SO NOT NECSSARILY CREDIBLE!]

can be resolved,

since in the overall assessment each piece of evidence is to be added to and integrated with the others.

The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive, not only

to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but to possibly delineate the subjective positions of those who acted with Guede,

before the range of situations which might be hypothesized, from a genetic agreement on the death option, to the modification of a plan which originally envisioned only the involvement of the young Englishwoman in an unwanted sexual game,

to solely forcing her into an extreme, group-led erotic game which exploded, going out of control.
Court of Cassation ruling (Chieffi)



Amanda and Raffaele have never been granted a legal, fair, neutral and independent trial, they have been judged in trials they have not been part of.

The actual rulings are the consequence of this denial supported and promoted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ordered Nencini to validate an overall narrative based on a multiple perpetrator theory, with clearly stating that Amanda and Raffaele are these perpetrators acting together with Guede, validated in prior trials including the same Supreme Court in trials the defendants have not been part of.

The Nencini Court was not an Appeal Court but a Revision Court installed by decree to validate an "pre-ordered" judgement.

This is in my opinion a blatant violation of all human rights of the defendants.

Guilty by decree without trial.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:17 am

Brief recap of the interrogation of the 5th and 6th

There can't be any doubt that AK had been suspected having inside knowledge about details of the crime and might have been participant in the murder of MK. She had become a major suspect from the day one. The plan of the interrogation, first pressuring and forcing RS to to give up his support of AK (mainly retracting his alibi of her presence at his flat), than confronting AK with the situation, setting her under pressure to make her buckle (just like it was later formulated by the Police themselves).

Concerning Patrick Lumumba, Police and Prosecution knew certainly from on the the 3d of Nov. that he was the employer of AK. His phones had been taped from on the 3d of Nov., the timeline of the messages exchanged between him and AK prior to the crime had quickly been isolated, especially those of the evening of the 1t of Nov., hours prior to the crime occurred (eventually the content of the text messages remained unknown to the Police until they ceased the cellphone from AK during the interrogation).

The Court documents make it absolutely clear that Patrick Lumumba was not at all the person who suddenly and unexpectedly was introduced by AK out of the nothing just like if she had waited to blame him with the crime as the Police, Prosecution and Judges want us to believe.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:43 am

Other point that was discussed on other boards:

Of cause AK had been informed that RS had been retracting her common alibi for the night the murder occured. This information was given by Napoleoni prior to the arrival of Anna Doninno and prior to the signing of the first alleged 'confession at 1:45. Rita Ficarra was ordered to focus the questioning on this fact, on what AK had been doing during this time frame.

This is supported by several elements,
AK had been mentioning this already in her first written memory, first retraction, the 6th of Nov.. Only having introduced this during the second phase of the interrogation (1:45 to 5:45) would have made absolutly no sense, they did not need anymore to build up supplementary pressure, their only goal was to have AK sign a second document with a delayed timestamp on it (the so called spontaneous statements). Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarrini intentionally remain vague on this subject, ..., all this clearly based on the strategy, ... to stay as inconcrete as possible.

The witness documents are sufficiently clear on all these points not to misguide an honest Judge!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:11 am

AK also mentioned Patrick Lumumba when she was asked by Rita Ficarra to dress a list about people who MK might have known and frequented or have visited the cottage. She also mentioned that she had been working for him, his address and so on. At that moment she didn't show any concern about delivering these informations.

[Note: Why was this completely different two hours later? Why did AK react completely differently after two hours, what happened during these two hours? WHY DON'T ITALIAN JUDGES SEE THE OBVIOUS, WHY ARE THEY REMAINING IN DENIAL AND REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE REALITY?]

Next point, Patrick Lumumba was also known to Lorena Zugarini (and probably other) who stated that she had been at his pub with collegues for a drink after their shift.

FOR ME IT IS CLEAR THAT PATRICK LUMUMBA JUST LIKE AK, RS AND OTHER HAD BEEN IN THE MIRE OF THE INVESTIGATORS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE ALL NIGHT INTERROGATION!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:36 pm

I follow the discussion about the case on several sites and observe some people intentionally deviating all discussion from the facts of the case and the judicial failures. The ordered judgement by the Court of Casstion and executed by Nencini is rarely mentioned because most people seem to know intrinsically that the judgement is an accumulation of unbelievable crap amd newly made up scenarios never mentionned before in any prior court document. Nencini did everything to satisfy the Court of Cassation instructions inserting many fanciful narrative interludes, all and everything in the desperate need to close the gapping holes and inconsistencies of the case to finally decree the pre-conceived guilty verdict.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Numbers » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:08 pm

pmop57 wrote:I follow the discussion about the case on several sites and observe some people intentionally deviating all discussion from the facts of the case and the judicial failures. The ordered judgement by the Court of Casstion and executed by Nencini is rarely mentioned because most people seem to know intrinsically that the judgement is an accumulation of unbelievable crap amd newly made up scenarios never mentionned before in any prior court document. Nencini did everything to satisfy the Court of Cassation instructions inserting many fanciful narrative interludes, all and everything in the desperate need to close the gapping holes and inconsistencies of the case to finally decree the pre-conceived guilty verdict.


pmop,

What is your feeling about the deviation from Italian law and Constitution by the judges, such as Massei and Nencini, as well as the first section of CSC (Chieffi)? How can judges in a democratic country be so arbitrary and yet escape any censure?

Here is an Italian procedural law (CPP) for the judiciary that has been violated many times in this case:

CPP Article 526
Evidence for the purposes of deliberation

1. For the purposes of deliberation, the judge shall not use evidence other than that lawfully gathered during the trial.
1-bis. The accused person's guilt shall not be proven on the basis of statements made by the person who deliberately chose not to be examined by the accused or his lawyer.

Article 526 reflects some of the provisions of the Italian Constitution Article 111.

Constitution Article 111:

Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties
are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party
position. The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be
promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges
that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a
defence. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have
cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to
summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the
prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of
the defence. The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in
the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which
the court proceedings are conducted.
In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the
principle of adversary hearings. The guilt of the defendant cannot be
established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free
choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by
the defendant or the defence counsel.
The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not
occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or
owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit
conduct.
All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State
and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:29 am

The main problem seems to be that the entire Italian Judiciary is mainly dominated by the faction of the Prosucutors, and this largely impacts the decisions of the Judges at all levels of the judicial procedure (including those from the Court of Cassation).

"What is your feeling about the deviation from Italian law and Constitution by the judges, such as Massei and Nencini, as well as the first section of CSC (Chieffi)? How can judges in a democratic country be so arbitrary and yet escape any censure?"

Massai was part of the local Perugia Judicial Circus, the local component had a large impact in the way this case had been dealt with, his final decisions have been largely opposite to what he had been proclaiming in his motivation report but he had not the 'balls' and the professional 'integrity' to take the correct decisions in harmony with his ultimate reasoning, he would nevertheless declare both guilty.

The Court of Cassation presided by Chieffi is for me the most to blame, he did not only annulate the decision of the Appeal Court presided by Judge Hellmann but also set the action framework of the new second Appeal Court. The settled framework being mainly consistent with ordering the Court to reach to a guilty verdict. The way the ruling was written against Hellmann/Zanetti, after all peer members of the same body of the Judiciary, was sufficiently clear for me to have no doubts left that other aspects but the case plaid a big role in these decisions taken by the Court of Cassation (you may call it political). Another impact not to negclect was the influence of Prosecutor Galati assisted by Costagiola. If I remember well Galati was Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in Rome before he had been nominated Prosecutor of the region of Umbria (many things happen based on good connections :devil: ).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Grayhawker » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:21 pm

I hope Amanda has a different group of counsel preparing her appeals to the EcHR.

Ones that think along the lines of German and British legal systems - having a logically presented argument and build on rhetoric to a clear and concise conclusion - versus - circular reasoning that is emotional based and leans heavily on hyperbole. A counsel that isn't afraid of offending the sensibilities of the prosecution and exposing ALL the errors.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:56 pm

Grayhawker wrote:I hope Amanda has a different group of counsel preparing her appeals to the EcHR.

Ones that think along the lines of German and British legal systems - having a logically presented argument and build on rhetoric to a clear and concise conclusion - versus - circular reasoning that is emotional based and leans heavily on hyperbole. A counsel that isn't afraid of offending the sensibilities of the prosecution and exposing ALL the errors.


:clap:
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:08 pm

There had been other problems related to the Italian procedural code. One of them was the division of the trial in two track procedures. The fact that Rudy Guede had been opting for the "fast track" trial was largely playing in favour of the Prosecution and against AK and RS.

[Note: It cannot be contested that it had been Rudy Guede's indisputable legal right to opt for the "fast track" procedure.]

But it became as clear that the Judiciary would largely take advantage of Rudy Guede's choice. It is also not difficult to understand why the lawyers of Rudy Guede had probably been supporting the decision of their client, it was probably them who proposed him to make this choice. Without having had to make a specific deal this decision was congruent for Rudy Guede with in future being protected from harsher attacks or requests by the Prosecution. The Prosecution in contrary only had to assure keeping Rudy Guede in line with their main objective the case against AK and auxiliary RS.

The never outspoken deal was Rudy Guede maintaining his version and silence about critical points for the Prosecution and the Prosecution not opposing rulings favourable to him and keeping him outside the mire of outside scrutinity.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:22 am

A major problem of the Italian Judiciary in this case was certainly thei incapacity and incompetence to keep the two different trials, concerning one and the same crime, separated. This also probably due to a lack of procedural rules backedup by laws about the matter.

The pre-trial findings justifying the sufficiency of evidence to pursue the judicial procedure.

Option of the fast-track procedure : the main point is the skipping of the 1t (main) trial, the pre-trial = the -t (main) trial and limiting the possibilities of intervention of the defendant. The first trial against Guede was presided by Judge Paolo Micheli (the same Judge than the one presiding the pre-trial).
Judge Micheli used all the evidence of the findings of the pre-trial, with no possible contest of the Defence, AK&RS being not even part of the trial, to sentence Guede through/and declaring AK&RS responsible participants if not even main perpetrators of the stabbing and killing Meredith Kercher. The public documents cannot be read a different way.
The Appeal Court against Guede (Borsini-Bellardi) confirmed the rulings of the First Court (Micheli) without any restrictions. Followed the confirmation by the Court of Cassation.

It is interesting her to follow the arguing of the guilter mob, they generally confirm unanimously that AK&RS have already been declared guilty by the Courts and in trials ruling against Guede. This reasoning is often used to further validate and legitimate the Massai and Co. rulings. This confirms once more the bias of the Courts and clearly supports and conforts the positions that AK&RS have been declared guilty in trials they have not been part of. This was and is a continous blatant violation of their rights to a fair, neutral and unbiased trial. AK&RS have been railroaded successively by the different layers of the Italian lawenforcement. The trials against must be declared illegal and must be annulled.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:52 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

This is not adressed against Rudy Guede but against the Judiciary who abused of the Rudy Guede trials to simultanously pre-condemn and pre-judge two innocent

The trial against Rudy Guede was used to simultanously techno-judicially 'pre'-condamn and 'pre'-judge AK and RS in 'absentia', in 'absentia' because in abscene of the trial phase RG having opted for the "proceeding" of his case (Rudy Guede v./Italy) for the "fast track" trial procedure. In practice this meant that Rudy Guede was basically accepting the conclusions of the rulings/decisions of the pre-trial judge Paolo Micheli. During the fast track trial the trial phase is skipped and replaced by the pre-trial phase. The major advantage being the automatic reduction of 1/3 of whatever sentence eventually attributed to the accused.
In resume the three suspects RG, RS and AK had been part of the same pre-trial procedure presided and ruled by Judge Paolo Micheli who accepted the case against the three defendants as presented by the Prosecution without objection/contest on all points and ordered them to be tried in Court.
At this point of the procedure Rudy Guede had been desisting from the 'normal' track procedure and as it was his right under the law opted for the fast track trial.

The first ambiguous point in relation of this separation of the trials/proceedings was created by the Italian procedure code himself, the pre-trial judge ordering the case against RG, RS and AK being tried in Court became the sentencing judge in the case of Rudy Guede v./Italy. Judge Paolo Micheli was basing his sentencing motivation entirely on his pre-trial decisions/rulings without restriction based on the case as presented by the Prosecution.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:48 pm

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

Remember Rudy Guede's story which remains one of the core points of the entire case.

Rudy Guede's story can be split into three versions

The initial version was the one he had been writing while in custody in prison in Germany (his so called diaries from Germany).

[Note: Important! The intercepted Skype call from Rudy Guede and Giacomo Beneditti was before his arrest in Germany. Asked during this call he had clearly stated that AK and RS had not been involved in the murder of MK. This was fact however the investigators tried to interprete this fact differently because op it was against their "prefabricated" case. Rudy Guede had at that moment no interest to lie about this fact even that probably he was only at the beginning of his effort to establish the story around his undeniable presence at the cottage.]

His presence at the crime scene was always clear, not only because the Police investigators stated this based on their alleged findings but because Rudy Guede had admitted (while he was not yet under the control of the Italian investgators and Prosecution) that he had been at the crime scene before, during and after MK had been murdered.

[Note: Imagine Rudy Guede had been fleeing the crime scene and Italy! What must had been his surprise to hear and realise that three other persons had been arrested in Perugia, Italy.]

One part of his story is based on he questionning himself about how and why PL, RS and AK had been arrested in Perugia, he did not really understand it and started speculating in imaginating possibilities.

Resume of his story; he had a date with MK, he and MK had been discussing about all and nothing when he felt the need to use the toilets which he did. Listening to music on his IPod he heard MK cry, left the toilets and was confronted to a man he did not know, the unknown intruder had cut him with a knife and than escaped through the entrance door of the cottage. He entered the room of MK and saw her bleeding, bleeding to death. He wanted to stop the bleeding with some towels but was not successfull. Fearing that he would be held responsable for the stabbing of MK he saw no other solution but to leave the scene and dying MK without calling the emergency.

But all this is of secondary importance concerning the alleged involvement of AK and RS. Of primary importance was the timeline indicated by Rudy Guede.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:39 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

Fact was, after Rudy Guede had opted for the fast track trial and though in consequence for separate trials from RS and AK it should have been clear that no issues (findings, findings validation, evidence validaton, ... rulings, motivations) of these trials should ever have made their way into the trials of AK and RS or be used as evidence or judged facts (judicial truth) against both in their trials. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THESE TRIALS. The Judiciary should have been aware of the negative impacts the decisions of these trials would have on guaranteeing AK and RS a fair, unbiased and independant trials. THEY DECIDED TO IGNORE ALL SAFEGUARDS. THE TRIALS AGAINST RUDY GUEDE WILL TURN INTO A DEMONSTRATION OF GUILT OF AK AMD RS.

Further bias throughout the Court proceedings and decisions with the sole purpose to involve AK and RS in the killing of MK.

Whatever may be said against Rudy Guede (and I personally am not interested in the "causa" Guede as long as it does not concern or interfere with the case against RS and RS) RUDY Guede WAS FACTUALLY A CREDIBLE WITNESS IN FAVOUR OF AK AND RS AND CLEARLY and CREDIBLY STATING THAT BOTH HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT THE CRIME. This credibility had to be destroyed by the Prosecution and they acted successfully supported by the Judges. RUDY GUEDE UNDERSTOOD THE OPPORTUNITY HE WAS OFFERED AND SUBMITTED TO BECOME AN EASILY PLAYABLE TOOL OF THE PROSECUTION AGAINST AK AND RS.

Rudy Guede was the most if not the only trustworthy witness of the time of death of MK

It was a never disputed fact, it is CERTAIN that MK returned back at the cottage at about 9:05 pm.

Before knowing anything about the IMPORTANCE of this detail for whomever Rudy Guede noted in his letters from Germany that he had a date with MK, that HE ARRIVED AT THE COTTAGE AT ABOUT 8:30 pm, that he was around the cottage prior to the arrival of MK, that he had been checking the upper and downstairs flat to see whether somebody was home. He wrote that nobody had been there, that he had to WAIT FOR A CERTAIN TIME UNTIL MK FINALLY ARRIVED at about 9:05. It was also Rudy Guede who stated in his writings that he left the cottage at about 10:00 pm.

Why is Rudy Guede obviously credible about the timeline, - he was putting himself (confessing) that he had been at the crime scene (before, during and after the murder occurred), - he had knowledgably not been forced by anybody to admit having been at the crime scene, - it was perfectly 'logic' to do so for him because he knew that sooner or later he would be identified having been at the scene, - his statements about the timeline had been perfectly fitting with his basic crime story, - he did not know whether somebody had observed him or not on his walk towards the cottage (there might have been witnesses who had observed him), - he had absolutely no reason to lie about time of his whereabouts, - he could gather no single advantage of lying about the time of his whereabouts and the timeline was easy defendable for him because being true (factual) it could not become be denounced by any body as being a 'false' statement.

[Note: And what Rudy Guede could not have known is that with his statements he was procuring AK and RS with an alibi through his own timeline. THIS IS ALSO THE REASON WHY THE PROSECUTION ARBITRARILY REJECTED THESES STATEMENTS AND CALLED RUDY GUEDE A NOTORIOUS LIAR (OF CAUSE CALLING HIM A LIAR WAS USED VERY SELECTIVELY).]

Othe important witnesses for the determination of the time of death had been the British friends of MK, they stated clearly that their Pizza eating (preparing) had started the evening of the 1t of Nov. 2007 at around 6:00 pm, and retained in the motivation report of Judge Paolo Micheli, pre-trial (important for the calculation of the time of death based on the duration of digestion, mainly on an estimation of the duration of digested food (chyme) leaving the stomach for the duedunom).

The 'scribbling' around the time of death started aleady in front of Judge Claudia Mattaini when the time of death was fixed at 11:00 pm by pathologist Lalli admittingly based on a time error. Lalli obviously had been basing his calculation of the time of death on the estimation of the duration of stomach digestion but was confusing the time of Pizza eating with the time MK arrived the cottage at 9:00 pm (he certainly accepted a time lapse of 2 hours sufficiant for the food leaving the stomach (see Mattaini, arrest motivation report, 8t of Nov. 2007). Lalli was forced to advance the time of death of about 2 hours, from around 11:00 pm to around 9:00. Nevertheless he or under pressure maintained a time frame going from around 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm, later extended for obvious reasons from 11:00 pm to midnight (to make it fit other witness statements.

[Note: ALL THE ACTION OF THE PROSECUTION AND JUDGES WAS BASED ON OBVIOUS AND PURE SPECULATION AND ARBITRARINESS. ALL EVIDENCE WAS INTERPREDED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. ALL WAS BASED ON PRESUMPTION OF GUILT! A METHOD USED THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:08 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

Resume of his story; he had a date with MK, he and MK had been discussing about all and nothing when he felt the need to use the toilets which he did. Listening to music on his IPod he heard MK cry, left the toilets and was confronted to a man he did not know, the unknown intruder had cut him with a knife and than escaped through the entrance door of the cottage. He entered the room of MK and saw her bleeding, bleeding to death. He wanted to stop the bleeding with some towels but was not successfull. Fearing that he would be held responsable for the stabbing of MK he saw no other solution but to leave the scene and dying MK without calling the emergency.

As many times said his story about "the unkwnown intruder who did commit the crime" is a classical reacton of a person who had been committing a crime and was intending to avoid personal consequences, the most easy person to blame is a third unknown person, the unknown intruder, a fictive, inexistant person. This was the 'stategy" Rudy Guede had been opting for.

Now why did Rudy Guede not immediatly have pointed to his alleged co-perpetrator AK and RS? The first and most realistic answer, because they had not been there, because Rudy Guede knew they had not been there. And there had been obvious elements demonstrating that Rudy Guede himself never intendend to put them at the crime scene for the sole reason because the have not been there. The most revealing points had (again) been his intercepted Skype call to Giacomo Benedetti clearl stating that they "had not been there" and his questionning himself about why they had been arrested together with PL. For good reason, Rudy Guede's writing/questionning showed his discomfort with the situation, he did not unterstand why PL, RS and AK had been arrested.

The next point, if Rudy Guede had blamed both with the crime, would this really have changed massively his story, he only had to replace the "unknown intruder" with "AK and RS", would this really have made a significant difference for him? YES, it would, knowing that both had not been there he could not know and be sure that in the end it would not be proven that both could had not been there or show up with an alibi (just like what happened with PL).

Further, Rudy Guuede will always change his version when the evidence became such he could not anymore deny the facts, the DNA material on and in MK's body, Rudy Guede will admit consensual sexual attouchments he denied before, ... .

Significant was that Rudy Guede will only very late AND WHEN INTERROGATED IN CAPANNE PRISON BY MIGNINI ANS NAPOLEONI BUT IN PRESENCE OF HIS LAWYERS RELUCTANTLY STATE THAT HE COULD OBSERVE/WATCH AK AND RS FROM THE ROOM OF FR WHILE THEY HAD BEEN DISCUSSING ON THE HALWWAY LEADING TO THE COTTAGE!

To retain

There is no reason to doubt that Rudy Guede was at the cottage when MK returned home at 9:00 pm as stated by himself.
The time of death of MK is to be situated between 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm, with high probability close to 9:00 pm. This is also covered by the initial hypotheses of pathologist Lalli. It is also covered by the time of pizza eating as stated by MK's British friend, preparing atarting at 6:00 pm plus error interval, eating 6:30 pm to 7:00 pm. Approximately about 2:00 hours for digestion, the emptying of the stomach was eminent when MK was stabbed. ALL AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS TIMELINE IS COHERENT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE WITNESS STATEMENTS, MEDICAL RESEARCH ABOUT DIGESTION, ... . NOT SO FOR THE PROSECUTION AND THE SENTENCING JUDGES.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:31 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

The evolution/manipulation of the time of death by the Prosecution

The Courts documents from Mattaini to Nencini (sentencing judges) clears and unequivollacy show how based on the Prosecution's allegations/conjectures the time of death was arbitrarily moved to fit the progressively incoming alleged evidence of AK and RS being present a the crime scene and the permanent attempt to rule out as will that Rudy Guede was credible about the time of death, to deny the results of international research about digestion and ignore the statement of the State's pathologist.

The manipulation of the time of death, willingly or not, intent or incompetence, already started the first minutes of the investigation of the crime scene, Police officials or the Prosecutor ordering the pathologist not to measure the body temperature. INDEPENDANT FROM THE MOTOVE TO GIVE THIS INCOMPREHENSIBLE ORDER THIS WAS A GROSS ERROR AND IN THE AFTERMATH WILL BE LARGELY PREJUDICIABLE FOR THE DEFENDANTS. NEVERTHELESS THIS CONSTITUTED NO PROBLEM FOR THE PROSECUTION TO SHAMELESSLY USE THIS ERROR AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.

THE ULTIMATE REASONS FOR THE PROSECUTION TO MORE AND MORE DELAY THE TIME OF TIME OF DEATH TO THE LATEST
TIME POINT POSSIBLE WAS OBVIOUS!

DESTROY the mutual alibis of AK and RS, DESTROY the alibi procured through activities of the the computer of RS, VALIDATE the incredibly dubious witness statements of Curatolo, Capelezzi, Dramis and Co..

[Note: The premise was always, AK and RS are guilty. All interpretation/manipulation and arbitrarity of decisions are permitted to prove the initial ptemise correct.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:53 am

pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:57 am

This is a great read by Frank Sfarzo
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amand ... o-believe/
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:30 am

Parentheses
[Note: The ruling of Judge Claudia Mattaini is significative to understand the acting, reasoning and motivating of the Prosecution and Judges in this case. It proof of factually constructing an inexistent case only basing on not verified and back-checked alleged witness statement, incompetent and at no point checked evidence presented by the investigators, a completely invented motive and narrative of the crime (solely based on conjecture). Fact is that no single piece evidence was valid or resistant to scrutiny to support her ruling. She sucked the entire motive out of her fingers just like Mignini probably had been telling her. These are the facts, her motivation is worth a re-read.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:11 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

The first point of the witness statement concerning the timeline given by Rudy Guede was arbitrarily rejected by the Prosecution because it was in contradiction of their own agenda and was confirming the alibi of the whereabouts of AK and RS when the crime occurred.

The next point to look at is Rudy Guede, "when I left the toilets to reach to MK's room I was confronted to a man, a foreigner I had ne seen before, pointing with a knife towards me, I got cut at my hand, it was a sharp knife, like a stiletto, but I could defend myself, and the man left through the frontdoor of the flat".

When Rudy Guede got caught and arrested in Germany the Police photographed the cicatrices on the inside of his fingers. These wounds (injuries) because of their size and form show that the initially injuries caused by a knife had been more or less superficial.

Again the Prosecution supported by the Judges (and even more odd the Judges of the Court of Cassation, Judge Chieffi
arbitrarily decided that cuts on the fingers of Rudy Guede did not originate from the crime scene (did not occur during the attack of MK) because four witnesses, friends of Rudy Guede, who met with him in the disco after the crime occured stated that they could not observe the wounds on his fingers. They could not observe these wounds thus they did not exist at this moment, thus Rudy Guede did lie about the origin of the wounds. This is ultimate arbitrariness and perversion of justice!

Even worth, the next aspect of the denial/manipulation and arbitrarity of the Prosecution and Judge Chieffi!

The Prosecution and Judges FOR OBVIOUS PUROSE LINKED THE CUTS ON RUDY GUEDE's FINGERS TO THE BREAKING OF THE WINDOW AND NOT TO THE ACT OF STABBING MK. They stated, that if Rudy Guede suffered cuts while entering through the broken window of FR's room the Forensic Police would imperatively have discovered blood from Rudy Guede's fingers on elements (glass shards, window frame, window sims, ...) related to the window, as no such traces had been found he could not have been gained access to the flat by means of climbing/entering through the window. In consequence this is factual proof that he was not burglarising the cottage but that in contrary that this was proof for the break-in being staged.

THE INTENTION OF THE REASONING OF THE PROSECUTION IS OBVIOUS AND THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY DIFFICULT TO TOP. THEY PERVERT WHAT RUDY GUEDE FACTUALLY STATED TO MAKE IT FIT THEIR AGENDA; PROVING THAT AK AND RS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE STABBING OF MK. THIS IS CLEAR REFLECTED INTENTIONAL DISTORTION OF FACTS.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:37 am

The purpose here is not to show whether Rudy Gueder had been killing MK or not but to demonstrate how he was used/built up by the Prosecution to become a cherished/manipulated witness of the Prosecution to construct/prove by all means against AK and RS and to show how the initial statements of Rudy Guede as a witness in favour of the innocence and the non-involvement of AK and RS had been demolished.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:20 am

The to long ignored trials against Rudy Guede

Rudy Guede's basic line of defence was very simple, I was present at the crime scene when MK was murdered but it was not me who stabbed MK, it was a stranger I confronted but who I did not know and who escaped.

Based on facts he knew from his presence at the crime scene and from the media he was following on the net he had to further detail his presence (traces he left) and his acts (how and where he left his traces) at the crime scene, I would think that his approach was very pragmatic.

He felt the need to explain his presence at the crime scence (the date with MK), the timeline (prior posts), the cuts at his fingers (prior posts), the intact window (there was no broken window, read, I was not burglarising the cottage), AK suspected of theft by MK (the stolen money, read, I was not the thief, it was not me who stole the money), the letters 'AF' he had to write down in blood (highly probable to explain the fingers prints at the wall), ... . Later he had to add the consensual sexual attouchments with MK (to explain the forensic findings), ... .

Another point is Rudy Guede questionning himself about AK, "... how could she spend the night in this mess, with all this
blood ...". This is basically unimportant but it shows one more time that Rudy Guede did almost know nothing about AK just like he did know nothing about RS. He did not know where she and with whom she was spending her time.

Further he felt the need to mention his intrusion into the Milan nursery (which he described as a misunderstanding) to underline that he was not burglarising the cottage plus that the window was not broken when he left the cottage.

He always gave clear information that he had been in the little bathroom shared by AK and MK to take a towel and after to clean off the blood (mainly from hos trousers as he stated).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:43 am

Rudy Guede and the arbitrary decisions of the Judges based on the Prosecution conjecture

ADD: WHEN ANALYSING THE STATEMENTS OF RUDY GUEDE PRIOR TO HIS EXTRADITION FROM GERMANY TO ITALY IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHATEVER DIFFERENT POSSIBLE TIMELINE BUT HIS OWN. HE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ARGUMENTS OF COMPUTER ACTIVITY OR OTHER, WITNESSES LIKE CURATOLO, CAPEZZALI, DRAMIS OR OTHER HAD NOT YET APPEARED. GUEDE HAD NO REASON TO INVENT ANYTHING ABOUT THE TIMELINE OF HIS WHERABOUTS THE EVENING OF THE 1t of November 2007 AND THE TIME OF DEATH OF MK. HIS SOLE OBJECTIVABLE PURPOSE WAS TO AVOID RAPE AND MURDER CHARGES.

ONLY THE PROSECUTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF PERUGIA HAD AN INTEREST TO MODIFY THE TIMELINE (TIME OF DEATH) OF MK TO KEEP THEIR CASE AGAINST AK AND RS RUNNING.

The first arbitrary decision was to delay the time of death as late as possible. Although Rudy Giuede's witnessing about the timline was matching all the known facts and the calculation of the estimated duration until stomach emptying the Prosecution and the Judges declared these statements irrelevant or incredible.

The Prosecution had to absolutely refute that Rudy Guede had been burglarising the cottage because this would have immediatly destroyed their case against AK and RS. The arbitrary decision against and in abscence of all evidence the broken window was declared a break-in staged by AK.

The Prosecution had to delay the time of death first and above all to destroy the alibi of AK and RS, the computer activities on RS's laptops. The second reason was to validate the witness statements of Nara Capezzali and the alleged time she heard the cry attributed to MK proof of the time of death of MK. The witness statements of Nara Capezzali had to be declared credible for exactly this and only this purpose.

[Note: The case was constructed a way to make evidence arbitrarily credible to close the holes of the narrative of the as by the Prosecution.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:08 pm

Rudy Guede was basically a credible witness (if not the most credible) winess in favour of AK and RS. I want to reiterate elements already mentionned

Why is Rudy Guede obviously credible about the timeline, - he was putting himself (confessing) that he had been at the crime scene (before, during and after the murder occurred), - he had knowledgably not been forced by anybody to admit having been at the crime scene, - it was perfectly 'logic' to do so for him because he knew that sooner or later he would be identified having been at the scene, - his statements about the timeline had been perfectly fitting with his basic crime story, - he did not know whether somebody had observed him or not on his walk towards the cottage (there might have been witnesses who had observed him), - he had absolutely no reason to lie about time of his whereabouts, - he could gather no single advantage of lying about the time of his whereabouts and the timeline was easy defendable for him because being true (factual) it could not become be denounced by any body as being a 'false' statement.

My objectif her is not to judge about Rudy Guede but mainly show how he was progressively changing his initial "story' after his extradition from Germany and in the hands of the law enforcement members of Perugia. It is clear that his initial version mainly documented through his Skype calls and letters from Germany had been his most 'trustworthy' pieces of evidence, witness statements in favour of AK and RS, witness of that both never had been at cottage the night of the crime. For obvious reasons he added and changed his story when new evidence against him was known. It is of absolute importance to know that Rudy Guede only very late, when interrogated in Cappane prison when intorrated by Mignini and Napoleoni assisted by his Perugia lawyers.

Rudy Guede clearly stated as well during his Skyps call as in his letters from Hermamy THAT AK AND RS HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT OR PARTICIPATING IN MURDERING MK!

The most important statement of Rudy Guede had been his confession that he had been present at the crime scene before, during and after the murder.
He motivated his presence at the cottage with having had a date with MK the victim of the crime.
He contested that he was the murderer of MK, he stated that he had been at the toilets when MK had been stabbed. When he heard MK cry he left the toilets to look what had been happening, in the hallway he was attacked by an unknown male, he did know, the stramger cut his hand with a knife 'sharp like a stiletto'. The stranger than left the cottage through the front doors.

As important had been his statements during his Skype calls that AK and RS had not been participating in murder of MK, they had not been at the crime scene. Rudy Guede made this statements before he was arrested by German Police.

At the beginning Rudy Guede was of cause a potentially 'dangerous' witness against the absolute 'priority case' of the Prosecution against AK and RS. The 'priority' had clearly been given to the constructing/mounting a case against AK RS. AK had become the priveledged target of the Prosecutor and probably other. There can't be any doubt, this is fact!

Letters from Germany, Rudy Guede
Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn’t have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard.
Some time later, here's Meredith, she was smiling, and asked me how long I’d been waiting, and I told her for about one minute. She smiled, then took the keys out of her purse, opened the door, and we entered. There wasn't anyone in the house because it was dark everywhere, in the kitchen, in the living room, then she yelled "Anybody here," to let people know she was back, but there was no answer from the other rooms.

Judge Mattaini, 8.Nov. 2008, detention ruling / DR Lalli, pathologist about time of death
Rudy Guede stated having been at the cottags at about 8:30 pm, MK arriving home at about 9:00, MK murdered at bout 9:30 pm to 10 :00 pm, Rudy Guede leaving the scene at about 10:00 pm.
The first medical tests performed on the body by the Public Prosecutor’s Technical Consultant, Dr. Luca Lalli, showed the time of death to be 23:00 with an upper and lower limit of about one hour, meaning that the relevant time frame should be identified as between 22:00-24:00 on 1st November 2007. This conclusion was based on the assumption that a meal had been consumed at 21:00, while in fact the case documents show that the time [of the meal] can definitely be placed earlier, given that Sophie Purton stated on 2/11/2007 that the meal had already finished at 21:00, and that [at this time] she and Meredith were already in the street together on their way to their respective homes.
This fact is of no little importance since it means the time of death can be moved back to at least 22:00, therefore suggesting a time frame of between 21:00-23:00 inclusive.

Judge Micheli, Pre-trial Judge and Fast track trijal Rudy Guede
On 17 November, Sophie Purton made a new deposition to the prosecuting magistrate confirming her initial statements without time to clarify where the four friends had begun to eat in the house of Amy Frist and Robyn Butterworth, probably at 6:00 pm or maybe earlier.


This is of CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE!
The pathologist DR Lalli had initially fixed the time of death at 11:00 pm based on the wrogful information about the time of eating, the considered the eating ending at 9:00 pm (confused with time MK left her friend to reach the cottage). THIS SHOWED CLEARLY THAT THE PATHOLOGIST WAS BASING HIS ESTIMATION OF TIME OF DEATH ON 'STOMACH DIGESTION, THE DURATION THAT FOOD NEEDS TO LEAVE THE STOMACH TO THE DUODENUM, HIS CALCULATION ,9:00 pm [end of meal] + 2 hours [stomach digestion time before leaving the stomach] = 11:00 pm. The wrongful departure point of the calculation was already recognised by the Judge Mattaini. BUT INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THE TIME OF DEATH WITH PoRECISION THE JUDGE RETAINED AN INCREDIBLE TIMEFRAME FROM 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm!
Based on the witness statement of Sophie Purton that the preparing/eating of Pizza had started at around 6:00 pm (adding 1/2 hour), starting of eating = 6:30 pm. THIS SHOWED/DEMONSTRATED CLEARLY THAT BASED ON EXISTING SERIIOUS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ABOUT THE STOMACH DIGESTION DURATION (TIME OF DIGESTION OF FOOD BEFORE LEAVING THE STOMACH) THAT THE DEATH OF MK OCCURED WITH HIGH CERTAINTY SHORTLY AFTER SHE ARRIVED HOME AT 9:00 pm.

THE CONCLUSION ABOUT THIS POINT IS VERY SIMPLY, THE CORROLATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THE INITIAL/BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF THE PTHOLOGIST WITH THE TIMELINE GIVEN BY RUDY GUEDE IS A TOTAL MATCH. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT MK WAS WITH HIGH CERTAIINTY DEAD AT 9:00 pm (latest)!

THE PROSECUTION AND THE SENTENCING JUDGES DELAYING THE TIME OF DEATH TO 11:00 pm AND EVEN LATER IS SCANDALOUS ARBITRARY CONJECTURE ON A SCALE DIFFICULT TO TOP.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Grayhawker » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:45 pm

It should be noted that a short bladed stiletto is consistent with the two stabbing wounds in Meredith's neck and could produce the fatal slicing wound.

Interesting that he would make that very specific distinction about the knife his "attacker" wielded. Well, some "attacker" was using a stiletto that night in the cottage.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:19 am

Rudy Guede was basically a credible witness (if not the most credible) winess in favour of AK and RS. I want to reiterate elements already mentionned

The obvious objectif of Rudy Guede was to show that he was not raping and killing MK. To trie to achieve this he had to explain obvious evidence pointing to him.

One of these elements had been the cuts he had suffered at his hand. There was ONE SIMPLE REASON WHY HE HAD TO LINK THESE CUTS TO THE CRIME SCENE, HE COULD NOT KNOW WHETHER HE HAD LEFT BLOOD OF HIMSELF AT SOME PLACE OF THE CRIME SCENE. HE KNEW THAT IF SO THIS COULD IMMEDIATLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CUTS OF HIS HANDS. It was only a logical consequence to attribute the cuts to the CONFRONTATION WITH THE UNKNOWN INTRUDER/MURDERE who still had been carrying the knife ... . It is necessary to note that that he was limiting the description of the knife two aspects, it was SHARP, it was SHARP LIKE A STILETTO, this important because he made no allusions to the SIZE OF THE KNIFE, not a large knife, not a big knife, not a kitchen knife, ... . It is also important to note that HE WAS LINKING THE CUTS HE HAD SUFFERED TO A KNIFE AND NOT TO BROKEN GLASS or what ever else.

Another aspect of the confrontation with the unknown intruder, Rudy Guede's use of a chair to defend himself, his description of this defence, was a 1:1 match with the description of the confrontation Tramontano had with a person burglarising his home, Tramontano who had stated he had recognised Rudy Guede. In this case Rudy Guede had been mentionned being the intruder and Tramontano the defending person.

The knife cuts suffered by Rudy Guede
The 'gravity' of the suffered cuts can only by analysed based on the photos taken by the German Police when Rudy Guede had been arrested. When photographed the cuts had healed and only the cicatrices remained.

One can state that these injuries had been rather superficial (eventually 2 millimetres in depth). It can certainly be admitted that there had been an initial bleeding. It can also been stated because of the aspect and the location of the cicatrices that the bleeding was of very short duration (loss of 'wound liquid' a little later. The location also showed that these injuries could not have been easily detected as soon as the bleeding stopped.

[Note: This is very important to show the incredibly bias of the Prosecution and the senencing Judges and here partculary the Court of Cassation, Judge Chieffi.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:32 am

Rudy Guede, the cuts at his hands and the arbitrary decisions of the Prosecution and the Judges

RUDY GUEDE'S STATEMENT HAD BEEN INEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR, "I SUFFERED THE CUTS FROM THE IMPACT OF A KNIFE WHILE I WAS PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE."

Nevertheless the Prosecution and the sentencing Judges ruled differently. Based on the witnessing of four of Rudy Guede's friends stating that they had not observed cuts at his hands when they encountered him late night after the crime occurred in the disco.
There is of cause no reason not to believe that the witnesses did not observe the injuries, as described above, they had been of minor importance, they had certainly not been bleeding anymore, they had been located at the inside surface of the hand and Rudy Guede had certainly washed his hands before going to disco.

The reason of the Prosecution and the Judges to refute Rudy Guede's own admissions was a completely different one.

The point of interest is that the Prosecition and Judges in their argumentation against the cuts suffered by Rudy Guede at the crime scene WAS THEM LINKED THE CUTS TO THE BREAK-IN (BROKEN WINDOW) AND NOT TO INJURIES SUFFERED FROM A KNIFE (A KNIFE EVENTUALLY USED TO STAB MK). They mention the cuts only in relation to the broken window.

The motive of the Prosecution and the sentencing Judges to ARBITRARY RULE OUT THAT RUDY GUEDE SUFFERED CUTS AT THE CRIME SCENE IS OBVIOUS, ASSURING THE CASE AGAINST AK AND RS, AVOIDING TO CAST DOUBT DOUBT ABOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION IN COMMITTING OR HAVING PARTICIPATED IN COMMITTING THE CRIME.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby schmidt53 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:43 am

pmop57 wrote:Rudy Guede was basically a credible witness (if not the most credible) winess in favour of AK and RS. I want to reiterate elements already mentionned

The obvious objectif of Rudy Guede was to show that he was not raping and killing MK. To trie to achieve this he had to explain obvious evidence pointing to him.

One of these elements had been the cuts he had suffered at his hand. There was ONE SIMPLE REASON WHY HE HAD TO LINK THESE CUTS TO THE CRIME SCENE, HE COULD NOT KNOW WHETHER HE HAD LEFT BLOOD OF HIMSELF AT SOME PLACE OF THE CRIME SCENE. HE KNEW THAT IF SO THIS COULD IMMEDIATLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CUTS OF HIS HANDS. It was only a logical consequence to attribute the cuts to the CONFRONTATION WITH THE UNKNOWN INTRUDER/MURDERE who still had been carrying the knife ... . It is necessary to note that that he was limiting the description of the knife two aspects, it was SHARP, it was SHARP LIKE A STILETTO, this important because he made no allusions to the SIZE OF THE KNIFE, not a large knife, not a big knife, not a kitchen knife, ... . It is also important to note that HE WAS LINKING THE CUTS HE HAD SUFFERED TO A KNIFE AND NOT TO BROKEN GLASS or what ever else.

Another aspect of the confrontation with the unknown intruder, Rudy Guede's use of a chair to defend himself, his description of this defence, was a 1:1 match with the description of the confrontation Tramontano had with a person burglarising his home, Tramontano who had stated he had recognised Rudy Guede. In this case Rudy Guede had been mentionned being the intruder and Tramontano the defending person.

The knife cuts suffered by Rudy Guede
The 'gravity' of the suffered cuts can only by analysed based on the photos taken by the German Police when Rudy Guede had been arrested. When photographed the cuts had healed and only the cicatrices remained.

One can state that these injuries had been rather superficial (eventually 2 millimetres in depth). It can certainly be admitted that there had been an initial bleeding. It can also been stated because of the aspect and the location of the cicatrices that the bleeding was of very short duration (loss of 'wound liquid' a little later. The location also showed that these injuries could not have been easily detected as soon as the bleeding stopped.

[Note: This is very important to show the incredibly bias of the Prosecution and the senencing Judges and here partculary the Court of Cassation, Judge Chieffi.]



Attorney I wanted to formalize a few requests Mr. Prosecutor together with my colleague, primarily because from what we formally conclude also from our consultant who is working with us, Attorney Biscotti for Rudy’s defense in conjunction with Attorney Gentile, we wish to formalize these requests. Given that we also don’t have specific information from our consultant who is working at the Scientific Police in Rome, we ask formally that that towel is analyzed, the one Rudy refers to that we identify in the photographs of the scene of the crime covered in blood. Given that Rudy informs us that that towel that he used, we ask that it is, if not already, because alongside this object we don’t see either markers nor letters nor anything else so we also imagine that they have not been analyzed, I produce, or better, I exhibit a photo of this towel, now I wouldn’t be able to identify it with the exact number but it’s the towel that you see below the duvet.

MIgnini Can I see it?

Attorney Which is certainly one of the two towels, one of the two towels that Rudy says to have…

Profazio What checks would you like us to carry out?

Attorney We want to know if on there, there is Meredith’s blood

Profazio If there are Rudy’s fingerprints…

AttorneySeeing as he hurt himself many times, if there is also Rudy’s blood… I exhibit…

Mignini Produce

Attorney I exhibit because it’s already in the case files of the Prosecutor… today is 26 March 2008. Obviously we refer to this but we ask that all the towels are examined… all the towels… only because we don’t see… seeing as some objects are indicated with letters and collected we fear that it hasn’t been collected. In order to avoid requesting a “Incidente Probatorio” [Special evidence pretrial hearing], for this formal request by the defense I urge that the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor’s office, takes an active part in requesting the analysis of this thing. It could be that it has already been examined… similarly we ask that the Prosecutor’s office, just because we’ve had a lot of difficulty… difficulty in obtaining, seeing as Rudy told us that in Germany there were photos taken of his hands because he told us “I have some cuts”… eh these photos have been taken, there was a fax sent to us from Germany which confirms to us that there are these photos, so we ask that the Prosecutor acquires them to avoid that we have to do it which becomes more complicated, we have tried to do it of course, we have also said that it has to be done through Judge Matteini’s office… it doesn’t matter how, as long as it is done. We formally give some ideas, there is for us, it becomes complicated…when this witness goes down, goes down the steps he says he saw a person who was complaining about his car, so he was certainly there. Seeing as we have nothing to fear, nothing to fear, surely that person can have seen something of use. Seeing as the black man may have seen him pass by, not only is it possible that Rudy doesn’t remember to have passed this person on the steps, but he may have seen other things. He was at the scene of the crime… he was near the scene of the crime… so seeing as, I repeat we have nothing to fear, we request the Prosecutor’s office that it takes an active part in order to trace this person, and the tow truck that he called.

This is from Guede March 26, 2008 deposition on the injustice anywhere WIKI page. This information is located at the bottom.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:31 pm

Personal remarks concerning Rudy Guede

The time of arrival at the cottage, the time leaving the cottage mentionned/stated/quoted by Rudy Guede as well as the suffered cuts are in my opinion trustworthy/credible.

I am certain that Rudy Guede suffered these cuts at the crime scene (of cause they had not been caused by an unknown intruder). NOBODY BUT RUDY GUEDE LEFT TRACES, FOOTPRINTS AND BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL IN AND ON THE BODY OF MK AS WELL AS IN THE IMMEDIATE AERA WHERE THE BODY OF MK WAS FOUND (of cause these assertions are based on the findings of the Forensic Police).

Rudy Guede had no reason to lie about the location and time, where and when he suffered these cuts.

I am as certain that the cuts had been caused by the same knife that had been used to kill the victim MK and most probably by Rudy Guede having acted alone. To resume, he caused himself the injuries while stabbing MK.

Although I am convinced that these cuts did not provoke an intensive bleeding It is reasonable but had been limited to the loss of some droplets of blood. I am convinced that there had been blood of him on the blue sweatshirt or shirt MK had been wearing as probably on one of the towels he took from the small bathroom.

If I remember well the sweatshirt was never collected and the evidence on the towels had been deteriorated a way it could not be analysed anymore.

Why had these objects not been collected and analysed or collected and then destroyed through inappropriate storing. The work of the Forensic Police was amateurish, inefficient and ragged. Had this been simple incompetence or organised intention (planned to direct the investigation into a certain direction) and if so why?

[Note: ALL THE ACTION OF THE PROSECUTION AND JUDGES WAS BASED ON OBVIOUS AND PURE SPECULATION AND ARBITRARINESS. ALL EVIDENCE WAS INTERPREDED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. ALL WAS BASED ON PRESUMPTION OF GUILT! A METHOD USED THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Rudy Guede - I was there but it was not me who raped and killed
Letters from Germany


This story, put together with what has happened in my childhood and adolescence until today is an explosive mixture for me. I’m just not able to sleep anymore. I’m not able to close my eyes without seeing all red. I’ve never seen so much blood, it seemed like a river."

"Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn’t have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard."

"Some time later, here's Meredith, she was smiling, and asked me how long I’d been waiting, and I told her for about one minute. She smiled, then took the keys out of her purse, opened the door, and we entered. There wasn't anyone in the house because it was dark everywhere, in the kitchen, in the living room, then she yelled "Anybody here," to let people know she was back, but there was no answer from the other rooms. Even though I’d bought some drinks with the kebab, I needed to drink some more because it was very spicy, and I asked her if I could drink something. She told me to help myself as if I was at my place. I opened the fridge and drank some apricot juice and water too. Since she wasn't paying attention, I drank out of the bottle because I didn't know where the glasses were, and then I sat down."

"He hit me on the hand. It was sharp. It seemed like scalpel. Only grazing me, it created a deep injury, but I fell to the ground.

"I went out, but in the living room and kitchen there wasn't anyone, so I went toward Meredith's room. There was the back of this person inside the room and I said "Hey what’s happening?" Then I immediately saw Meredith's body on the floor and I also saw blood, and I said "What the f**k have you done?" I yelled, and the person turned around. He was a male, he was Italian because he insulted me and had no foreign accent. He had the knife in his hand and he tried to get me. I tried to shield myself with my hand but it was a sharp knife. Only brushing against me, it made small but deep cuts. Like a scalpel, it only needs to brush against you and it cuts. I hadn't zipped up my pants and while backing off I fell. He tried to attack me but I took a chair to protect myself, being stronger than him. Although I had a chair and he had a weapon, he exited through the front door telling me "black man found, guilty man found," he yelled.""

"And who was in the house below when I left?"


Rudy Guede - Interrogation

"At 19:30 yes. I first went to Meredith’s house and there was no one there and I also went to the house of the guys below to see if the Italian guys were at home and also there I noticed that nobody was there and there I said to myself “she must be at the university"."

"Basically when I tried to back off this person, as I said, tried to strike me several times, they weren’t deep cuts however I’d say it seemed to be a scalpel because it was… with the slightest touch he cut me, he cut me and anyway I tried to escape and protect myself and I fell between the fridge and the table, I tried to get to the bathroom and from where I fell there was a chair, I took hold of this chair and I threw it … at which point this person hesitated in coming at me and he left through… anyway I presume he ran off"

"From the scream that I heard and when I left the bathroom? Very little time, I did things as quick as possible, so much so that I had to back off. Why did I fall? I fell because I hadn’t done up properly my trousers that all of a sudden dropped and I fell for that reason… I mean it was… hearing this scream I said “I’ll go to see what has happened” and so when I fell I heard these steps, seeing as I was on the floor and in front of me there was a room, a bedroom, I saw there was the window, it was open, anyway there was this window and it was visible also from the yard so my thought was to go and see if I could see anyone however I couldn’t see clearly."
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:12 pm

In conclusion, the ruling under appeal must be annulled due to the multiple shortcomings, contradictions and clear failures of logic indicated above. The new judge will therefore have to remedy the argumentative aspects subject to criticism, in his or her broadest powers of assessment, carrying out a global and uniform examination of the circumstantial evidence, an examination by means of which it will have to be determined whether the relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence can be resolved, since in the overall assessment each piece of evidence is to be added to and integrated with the others. The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but to possibly delineate the subjective positions of those who acted with Guede, before the range of situations which might be hypothesized, from a genetic agreement on the death option, to the modification of a plan which originally envisioned only the involvement of the young Englishwoman in an unwanted sexual game, to solely forcing her into an extreme, group-led erotic game which exploded, going out of control.
Court of Cassation, Motivation report, Judge Chieffi
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:31 am

Rudy Guede, his story and (an) alternative scenario(s)

Introduction
Rudy Guede's initial story was clear, he had a date with MK, SHE LET HIM ENTER THE COTTAGE.
Nobody can prove in detail how and where the violence against MK started and how it escalated until she was stabbed in her own room.
Fact is that the window was broken from the outside (evidence on the window and physics prove the Judiciary was ignoring the facts). Fact is that entering through escalating the outside wall was very possible to be achieved by a young man (again the Judiciary created their own reality).

[Note: Rudy Guede was the one who gained the entire advantage of the Prosecution's theory about the break-in being staged and the stone being thrown from the inside. If Rudy Guede has been staging the brew-in to deviate the attention from him wouldn't these have been a guite genius act from him? The Prosution at least proved that it would have been!]

The version of RG that he had a date with MK (or that she let him enter the cottage for any other reason) was declared improbable but certainly not impossible.

[Note: A date or MK having allowed somebody entering the cottage was declared impossible by the Prosecution solely basing on the statements of MK's British friends based on simple assumptions. The value of these statements had not been more probative than the conjecture of the Prosecution/Judges that Rudy Guede, RS and AK had been acquainted prior to the crime and decided to meet in/at the cottage. AS FOR MANY STATEMENTS MOST HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECLARED FACTS ALTHOUGH THEY HAD BEEN LACKING ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.]

[Note: And if the interpretations of the British girls had been wrong, and MK had a date. It was said that the relationship with her friend had been very superficial, that in public he mainly ignored her. It was also said that she felt tired and bad, nevertheless she borrowed a book to render the next day. Plus if the timeline of the Prosecution had been correct, what was she doing in the cottage during more than one hour and still fully dressed. THE INVESTIGATION WAS CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERING ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS!]

Rudy Guede further stated, AFTER GENERAL SMALL TALK THERE HAD BEEN CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ATTOUCHMENTS (PETTING) BUT NO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. This happened In the KITCHEN/LIVING AREA and not in MK's room.

Guede interrogation - Total invention or the basis for a motive to escalate to a "sexually" motivated crime/rape
"We touched each other, we caressed each other until I fingered her and at that point she asked if I had a condom and in that moment I realized that perhaps, I think we both realized, that we had gone a bit too far ... I mean we didn’t really know each other... I mean we went a bit too far and at that point we ... I mean"

"There’s a table, there were two chairs so when I arrived there I was wearing a yellow hooded sweater with red and blue writing on it and so there were these chairs, I placed it there and then also underneath I was wearing a thin Adidas sweater with gold stripes on it, with a gold logo. So we were there I placed everything there... however we were never nude, I had a beige T-shirt on with the logo of Eco United and the dollar logo and she had this white vest on and we just pulled down a little our trousers and at that point we realized that maybe it was a bit exaggerated"
"Did you also touch her breasts... kisses, what..."
"Yes, we were...
The next, everything...
Yes, we were there, there were these chairs moved out of position and the table..."
"I went to the bathroom because I had an urgent need. It was Meredith herself that told me to go in that bathroom. And in the meantime anyway she headed for... I don’t know if she was going to her bedroom or if she also went to the bathroom, however I presume that she went to the bathroom, anyway we had fondled each other and in the moment that I go to the bathroom..."

[Note: Interesting here is, that Rudy Guede made MK ask "if he had a condom", that he used the plural, "we went a bit to far", "we realised that maybe it was a bit exaggerated".]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby schmidt53 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:15 am

pmop57 wrote:Rudy Guede, his story and (an) alternative scenario(s)

Introduction
Rudy Guede's initial story was clear, he had a date with MK, SHE LET HIM ENTER THE COTTAGE.
Nobody can prove in detail how and where the violence against MK started and how it escalated until she was stabbed in her own room.
Fact is that the window was broken from the outside (evidence on the window and physics prove the Judiciary was ignoring the facts). Fact is that entering through escalating the outside wall was very possible to be achieved by a young man (again the Judiciary created their own reality).

[Note: Rudy Guede was the one who gained the entire advantage of the Prosecution's theory about the break-in being staged and the stone being thrown from the outside. If Rudy Guede has been staging the brew-in to deviate the attention from him wouldn't these have been a guite genius act from him? The Prosution at least proved that it would have been!]

The version of RG that he had a date with MK (or that she let him enter the cottage for any other reason) was declared improbable but certainly not impossible.

[Note: A date or MK having allowed somebody entering the cottage was declared impossible by the Prosecution solely basing on the statements of MK's British friends based on simple assumptions. The value of these statements had not been more probative than the conjecture of the Prosecution/Judges that Rudy Guede, RS and AK had been acquainted prior to the crime and decided to meet in/at the cottage. AS FOR MANY STATEMENTS MOST HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECLARED FACTS ALTHOUGH THEY HAD BEEN LACKING ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.]

[Note: And if the interpretations of the British girls had been wrong, and MK had a date. It was said that the relationship with her friend had been very superficial, that in public he mainly ignored her. It was also said that she felt tired and bad, nevertheless she borrowed a book to render the next day. Plus if the timeline of the Prosecution had been correct, what was she doing in the cottage during more than one hour and still fully dressed. THE INVESTIGATION WAS CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERING ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS!]

Rudy Guede further stated, AFTER GENERAL SMALL TALK THERE HAD BEEN CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ATTOUCHMENTS (PETTING) BUT NO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. This happened In the KITCHEN/LIVING AREA and not in MK's room.

Guede interrogation - Total invention or the basis for a motive to escalate to a "sexually" motivated crime/rape
"We touched each other, we caressed each other until I fingered her and at that point she asked if I had a condom and in that moment I realized that perhaps, I think we both realized, that we had gone a bit too far ... I mean we didn’t really know each other... I mean we went a bit too far and at that point we ... I mean"

"There’s a table, there were two chairs so when I arrived there I was wearing a yellow hooded sweater with red and blue writing on it and so there were these chairs, I placed it there and then also underneath I was wearing a thin Adidas sweater with gold stripes on it, with a gold logo. So we were there I placed everything there... however we were never nude, I had a beige T-shirt on with the logo of Eco United and the dollar logo and she had this white vest on and we just pulled down a little our trousers and at that point we realized that maybe it was a bit exaggerated"
"Did you also touch her breasts... kisses, what..."
"Yes, we were...
The next, everything...
Yes, we were there, there were these chairs moved out of position and the table..."
"I went to the bathroom because I had an urgent need. It was Meredith herself that told me to go in that bathroom. And in the meantime anyway she headed for... I don’t know if she was going to her bedroom or if she also went to the bathroom, however I presume that she went to the bathroom, anyway we had fondled each other and in the moment that I go to the bathroom..."

[Note: Interesting here is, that Rudy Guede made MK ask "if he had a condom", that he used the plural, "we went a bit to far", "we realised that maybe it was a bit exaggerated".]


Don't you mean the inside?

Guede benefits from the prosecution/police theory that the break-in and crime scene were staged. Which he states in his deposition that he and Meredith check for signs of a break-in and when left Meredith after the attack she was fully clothed. The third thing that the prosecution believe happen that he benefited from is multiply killers Amanda/Raffaele and Rudy. His story is different Rudy is in the bathroom when the murder happens, Amanda is outside seeing though the non broken window, leaving the stranger doing the killing.

As for Meredith directing him to the other bathroom and the condom remember Amanda clear plastic bathroom bag which had condoms in. So Meredith did know where she could put hands on condom if she really wanted too have sex with him.

In Guede deposition he also says that the shutters of Filomena's window were open he noticed this when he approached the house that night.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:39 am

schmidt53
'Outside' is definitely an error of mine, it should be 'inside'. I corrected it in the text.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Grayhawker » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:51 am

I recall that Guede recognized Amanda as she was RUNNING AWAY from the cottage, i.e., from the back. In pitch dark. No lights. For an instant. Someone he saw infrequently prior to this night.

On top of that, if I was going to stage a breakin to point to Meredith's room, I would have broke in through the door to the balconey. Not some distance away from Meredith's room. You would not have to even throw a rock throw it, just break the lock, or shove a knife through the latch, or break one pane of window with any object.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:39 am

The first and main point why the case should have been dismissed is that the Prosecution and the Judges have been incapable to credibly (BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT) prove whatever relationship between Rudy Guede and AK and RS, not prior and not during the crime occurred. The Prosecution and the Judges could never prove that they acted together to kill MK. They did not present any credible evidence to prove the simultaneous presence of three persons at the crime scene.
The pre-trial Judge Paolo Micheli clearly and unequivocally stated that they had no factual evidence that the three acted together to commit the crime.

Judge Paolo Micheli, "we do not need evidence, logic and common sense tell us that Rudy Guede, RS and AK associated to commit the crime".

This formulation by a Judge is the buyout of any credibility of the the Judiciary. This statement is the validation of arbitrary decisions as factual evidence, the validation of the use of conjecture to convict. Logic and common sense are abused to validate the arbitrary.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:58 am

The Appeal Court against Rudy Guede continued the brain jogging stating that although Rudy Guede had been telling the Court a fanciful story (about the presence of RS and AK at the crime scene) he was the only one pointing to his co-perpetrators and therefore the Court has to accept this as mitigating circumstances (among other). It cannot be more clear that the Appeal Court against Rudy Guede accepted as a fact the participation of AK and RS in committing the murder together with him (although both hat not been part of the trial against Rudy Guede). This again confirmed later by the Court of Cassation validating the prior Courts decisions stating that Rudy Guede did not act alone but together with other, this being declared irreversible 'judicial truth' to be taken into consideration by the Judges of the trials against AK and RS.

ALL THIS CLEARLY MOCKING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY !FAIRNESS AND THE RIGHT TO (AN) INDEPENDENT TRIAL(S).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby schmidt53 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:38 pm

Grayhawker wrote:I recall that Guede recognized Amanda as she was RUNNING AWAY from the cottage, i.e., from the back. In pitch dark. No lights. For an instant. Someone he saw infrequently prior to this night.

On top of that, if I was going to stage a breakin to point to Meredith's room, I would have broke in through the door to the balconey. Not some distance away from Meredith's room. You would not have to even throw a rock throw it, just break the lock, or shove a knife through the latch, or break one pane of window with any object.


Grayhawker In a real break-in it would happen before Meredith return to the cottage at 9 pm. Guede put himself at the cottage at 8:30 pm. in time for a real break-in.

Problems in staging the break-in after the murder as the prosecution claim Amanda/Raffaele have done in this case are: They are suppose to have arrived at the basketball court sometime between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm not knowing if Meredith had arrived home yet. They as the prosecution believes then arrived at the cottage around 11:30 pm after the car is towed away 2 1/2 hours after Meredith arrival. So one of the issues I see with staging the break-in coming off the balcony door is that Meredith would have seen this on the way to her bedroom meaning she might have phone or text one of her roommates or her friends or the police. Which there is no signs of this happening.

As for the issues in a real break-in as you point out wouldn't have to throw a rock though the window or door on the balcony. The problem is you have to climb on to the balcony before you can break either the window or the door what happens if during the process of doing this you find out someone is home? You would have to climb of the balcony to make your escape no easy feat. Which are the two reason why I believe Guede broke though Filomena's window: Break the window with a rock to find out if anyone is home if any signs coming from the house or the street that this was seen by anyone make good your escape down the ravine if not make the climb. Once you make the climb you close the exterior shutters to prevent anyone walking up the driveway from seeing your break-in point. The fact that closing Filomena's bedroom door would protect the break-in from being seen on the inside was a bonus.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:47 am

Concerning the break-in being real or not

[Note: NOT TO FORGET THAT THE PROSECUTION DETERMINATED THE PRESENCE OF AK AND RS AT THE CRIME SCENE THROUGH FACTUAL MANIPULATION OF THE TIME OF DEATH.]

The basic question about the break-in was, did the Prosecution 'materially, 'factually' prove who had thrown the stone, the Prosecution obviously did not, they had to admit that no 'physical' evidence had been found to attribute the throwing stone to whomever.

[Note: The Prosecution did not prove who had been throwing the stone, whether it had been Rudy Guede, AK, RS or anybody else who could have acted with Rudy Guede (multiple perpetrator theory) or even whether the broken window was linked to the murder of MK at all (an isolated event of vandalism).]

[Note: There are no objective elements, there is no factual evidence that Rudy Guede, RS and AK knew each other, had any contact to meet the evening the murder occurred, had been simultaneously at tue crime scene, acted together to murder MK. THERE IS NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE.]
[Note: There are no objective elements, there is no factual evidence to materially determinate who had thrown the
stone.]

ALL the allegations of the Prosecution had essentially been based on CONJECTURE. ALLEGED EVIDENCE WAS NOT VALIDATED BY VERIFIABLE DEMONSTRATIONS BUT THROUGH 'INTELLECTUAL' REASONING (GUILT BY DESIGN) BASED ON CONJECTURE, FANTASY AND CIRCULAR REASONING. This same reasoning was used throughout the entire motivation to demonstrate predefined guit of AK any RS.

[Note: All the major decisions against AK and RS had been finalised during the trials of/against Rudy Guede v./ Italy. One of the main reasons/purposes of the Court of Cassation (Chieffi ruling), squashing the Heplmann/Zanetti rulings was to order a new Appeal Courg to harmonise the rulings against AK and RS with the rulings against Rudy Guede. The point of connection was the prior Court of Cassation ruling against Rudy Guede stating that he did not act alone but together with other, declared a ireversibld fact as statuated by law (judicial truth). The Court of Cassation squashing the Hellmann/Zanetti ruling explicitly stated that the 'other' who acted together with Rudy Guede could not be 'other' but AK and RS.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:59 am

The ruling and the sentencing of Rudy Guede was merely exclusively based on the 'alleged' evidence of the participation and initiation of AK and RS in committing the murder of MK presented by the Prosecution. As the 'ordinary' trial phase was skipped' (replaced by the pre-trial findings) the alleged evidence was never seriously questioned or challenged during the Rudy Guede trials. It was clear that AK and RS had been declared guilty in trials they legally had not been on the 'banc des accusés' and that this had been highly prejudicial for both of them. The Court of Cassation confirmed this prejudgement as 'judicial fact' while squashing the Hellmann-Zanetti ruling.

In my opinion the Italian Judiciary was incapable of legally managing the separation of the trials into a 'fast track' and 'ordinary track' procedure.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Holmes » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:07 pm

pmop57 wrote:Rudy Guede, his story and (an) alternative scenario(s)

The version of RG that he had a date with MK (or that she let him enter the cottage for any other reason) was declared improbable but certainly not impossible.

[Note: A date or MK having allowed somebody entering the cottage was declared impossible by the Prosecution solely basing on the statements of MK's British friends based on simple assumptions. The value of these statements had not been more probative than the conjecture of the Prosecution/Judges that Rudy Guede, RS and AK had been acquainted prior to the crime and decided to meet in/at the cottage. AS FOR MANY STATEMENTS MOST HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECLARED FACTS ALTHOUGH THEY HAD BEEN LACKING ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.]

[Note: And if the interpretations of the British girls had been wrong, and MK had a date. It was said that the relationship with her friend had been very superficial, that in public he mainly ignored her. It was also said that she felt tired and bad, nevertheless she borrowed a book to render the next day. Plus if the timeline of the Prosecution had been correct, what was she doing in the cottage during more than one hour and still fully dressed. THE INVESTIGATION WAS CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERING ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS!]


Rudy Guede “borrowed” his date-story from the police.

Telegraph, 4 Nov 2007:
Commissioner Marco Chiacchiera, who is leading the investigation, said: "The most plausible hypothesis we have is that she met someone at the Hallowe'en party. She expressed a desire to meet him again. She had been to a friend's house on the night she was murdered but decided to make her own way home to meet him.

There are two options here. Either commissioner Gossip is clairvoyant or Rudy adopted this hypothesis as an innocent explanation for his presence at the house. While in Germany, Rudy read everything about the case. His Skype convo and Diary are filled with references: they say… you saw the pictures… He even read a newspaper article out loud.

The date story isn’t just contradicted by the English girls. Rudy isn’t in any of their Halloween pictures. His Spanish pals don’t remember seeing him with anyone but a blond-haired woman. Most importantly, Rudy initially says they met at the house of these Spanish guys. That’s a lie. Two dozen people, both British and Spanish, swear that she was never there. She didn’t even know those guys.
Rudy made it all up. And because he did we know that he didn’t gain access to the house in some innocuous way. Because if he did (e.g. running into Meredith when he was looking for his downstairs friends) he would have used that perfectly reasonable explanation instead of inventing one. :twocents:
Holmes
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:31 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby LondonSupporter » Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:24 pm

Holmes wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Rudy Guede, his story and (an) alternative scenario(s)

The version of RG that he had a date with MK (or that she let him enter the cottage for any other reason) was declared improbable but certainly not impossible.

[Note: A date or MK having allowed somebody entering the cottage was declared impossible by the Prosecution solely basing on the statements of MK's British friends based on simple assumptions. The value of these statements had not been more probative than the conjecture of the Prosecution/Judges that Rudy Guede, RS and AK had been acquainted prior to the crime and decided to meet in/at the cottage. AS FOR MANY STATEMENTS MOST HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECLARED FACTS ALTHOUGH THEY HAD BEEN LACKING ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.]

[Note: And if the interpretations of the British girls had been wrong, and MK had a date. It was said that the relationship with her friend had been very superficial, that in public he mainly ignored her. It was also said that she felt tired and bad, nevertheless she borrowed a book to render the next day. Plus if the timeline of the Prosecution had been correct, what was she doing in the cottage during more than one hour and still fully dressed. THE INVESTIGATION WAS CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERING ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS!]


Rudy Guede “borrowed” his date-story from the police.

Telegraph, 4 Nov 2007:
Commissioner Marco Chiacchiera, who is leading the investigation, said: "The most plausible hypothesis we have is that she met someone at the Hallowe'en party. She expressed a desire to meet him again. She had been to a friend's house on the night she was murdered but decided to make her own way home to meet him.

There are two options here. Either commissioner Gossip is clairvoyant or Rudy adopted this hypothesis as an innocent explanation for his presence at the house. While in Germany, Rudy read everything about the case. His Skype convo and Diary are filled with references: they say… you saw the pictures… He even read a newspaper article out loud.

The date story isn’t just contradicted by the English girls. Rudy isn’t in any of their Halloween pictures. His Spanish pals don’t remember seeing him with anyone but a blond-haired woman. Most importantly, Rudy initially says they met at the house of these Spanish guys. That’s a lie. Two dozen people, both British and Spanish, swear that she was never there. She didn’t even know those guys.
Rudy made it all up. And because he did we know that he didn’t gain access to the house in some innocuous way. Because if he did (e.g. running into Meredith when he was looking for his downstairs friends) he would have used that perfectly reasonable explanation instead of inventing one. :twocents:


It is these early press reports, based on police briefings before anyone was arrested (and there were similar reports in other newspapers) that persuade me that the police knew that Guede was the murderer from the start and were attempting to construct his story for him and minimise his role before he was arrested. This is why they needed a patsy or two to take the heat off him. Once they had done this and arrested the wrong people (though they had to let Lumumba go) they had the problem of manufacturing evidence that would implicate those wrong people. They thought that they would have a head start with Amanda and Raffaele because their DNA would be in the apartment, but they had a problem with Meredith's room because all the evidence there was of Rudy Guede.

This is where Raffaele's shoe print came in (disproved), Amanda's partial footprint (disproved) and the argy bargy over Guede's partial footprint in blood in the bathroom, which the cops claim is Raffaele's. Then of course the knife and the bra clasp, the latter having to be 'created' after sitting for 46 days in a contaminated crime scene. This was desperate stuff and it almost worked. The first thing that Mignini did was to prevent the body temperature from being taken so as to allow maximium flexibility over TOD. This was to prove very important.
"Life lived somehow for love is life never wasted." - Amanda Knox
User avatar
LondonSupporter
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:31 am
Location: London, UK

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:13 am

I am certain that the case against AK and RS was fabricated. I am as certain that they knew from on the beginning who Patrick Lumumba was and that he was the employer of AK (this had been confirmed in Court by Lorena Zugarini).
It is as obvious that Rudy Guede was taken out of the mire of the public, he was isolated and the leaking of information about him had been limited to the strict minimum (absolutely contrary to AK and auxiliary RS).
But, if they knew from on the beginning that Rudy Guede was involved in committing the crime, when did they first get knowlegde about his implication, why did they do everything to protect him, what made him so untouchable as to charge knowingly/intentionally two innocent youngsters. Was it Rudy Guede who had to be protected? There is no constellation that makes him of real importance for the Policde and/of Prosecution.

[Note: I am not convinced that in any way he was an important informant of the Police. And the event in the Milan nursery where he had not been arrested, ... .]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby MichaelB » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:58 am

pmop57 wrote:I am certain that the case against AK and RS was fabricated. I am as certain that they knew from on the beginning who Patrick Lumumba was and that he was the employer of AK (this had been confirmed in Court by Lorena Zugarini).
It is as obvious that Rudy Guede was taken out of the mire of the public, he was isolated and the leaking of information about him had been limited to the strict minimum (absolutely contrary to AK and auxiliary RS).
But, if they knew from on the beginning that Rudy Guede was involved in committing the crime, when did they first get knowlegde about his implication, why did they do everything to protect him, what made him so untouchable as to charge knowingly/intentionally two innocent youngsters. Was it Rudy Guede who had to be protected? There is no constellation that makes him of real importance for the Policde and/of Prosecution.

[Note: I am not convinced that in any way he was an important informant of the Police. And the event in the Milan nursery where he had not been arrested, ... .]


I don't believe Guede was an informant either. It's INCREDIBLE at least one of them didn't connect the cottage break-in to the one at the lawyers office two weeks earlier but maybe they really were that hopeless. All Monica Napoleoni had to do was assign a junior cop to check if there'd been any 2nd story window break-ins using rocks in the last year and they would have been onto Guede in the first 48 and discovered he'd just skipped town.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:37 am

I did forget or miss two points 'Holmes' mentioned in an other post about the witness statements of Rudy Guede (interrogation Capanne prison).

He mentioned that when he encountered MK the evening the murder occurred she was carrying a large bag and had books with her. It is not obvious that this had been part of the general information in public and even if here he is unintentionally re-confirming his timeline, he met her at about 9:00 pm, she was carrying a large bag and (a) book(s). These are elements clearly confirming his admission that he was at/in the cottage when MK returned home.

ALL THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF AK AND RS, THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT COTTAGE TO ASSIST/MAKE/HELP HIM ENTER THE FLAT. THAT RUDY GUEDE WAS ALONE OR TOGETHER WITH OTHER WHO HAD NOT BEEN AK AND/OR RS.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:33 am

pmop57 wrote:I did forger or miss two points 'Holmes' mentioned in an other post about the witness statements of Rudy Guede (interrogation Capanne prison).

He mentioned that when he encountered MK the evening the murder occurred she was carrying a large bag and had books with her. It is not obvious that this had been part of the general information in public and even if here he is unintentionally re-confirming his timeline, he met her at about 9:00 pm, she was carrying a large bag and (a) book(s). These are elements clearly confirming his admission that he was at/in the cottage when MK returned home.

ALL THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF AK AND RS, THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT COTTAGE TO ASSIST/MAKE/HELP HIM ENTER THE FLAT. THAT RUDY GUEDE WAS ALONE OR TOGETHER WITH OTHER WHO HAD NOT BEEN AK AND/OR RS.


There is absolutely no evidence of AK and RS being at the cottage that night. Actually, the evidence points to them NOT being at the cottage at the time that Rudy was at the cottage. There's Sollecito's computer records, the phone evidence and AK and RS stories match (if they were at the cottage they would have to make up their alibis and their stories would be full of holes and contradictions). Furthermore, the prosecutions supposed evidence that they were involved also points to the opposite! E.G. Curatolo's testimony if true (which it isn't) gives them an alibi at the time of the murder.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:53 am

For me the manipulation of the time of death, the conjecture that the break in was staged by AK and the flaws of the forensic analyses are for me the main factors of the construct of the case against AK and RS . It cannot be repeated often enough.

The first massive intervention in the results of the investigation already occured soon after the dead body of the crime victims was discovered. The order of Napoleoni (Police) and/or Mignini (Prosecutor) not to immediatly measure the body temperatie of the victim, difficult to establish whether based on incompetence or intention of the investigators.

The second 'error' occurred when the pathologist fixed the time of death at about 11:00 pm. This 'error' was already recognised during the Mattaini Court session deciding the incarceration of AK and RS. The pathologist Lalli had based his calculation on confusing the time of the end of the eating with the time of MK returning home at 9:00 pm. Nevertheless important to note that he had obviously based his calculation on the duration of the digestion in the stomach (from eating to the digested food leaving the stomach) and estimated the duration at 2 hours (9:00 pm + 2 hours = 11:00 pm).
Instead of unequivocally correcting the time of death towards 9:00 pm the Prosecution/Judges simply stated that the time of death occured between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm, later even at 11:30 pm. The Prosecution supported by the sentencing Judges will arbitrarily fix the time at 11:00 pm to 11:30 pm.
The arbitrarity and manipulation of these decision (just like others in this case) had been obvious. Every credible analyst of this case has to admit admit this. The British friends of MK had clearly stated during their witnesse statements that the Pizza preparing/eating had started at about 6:00 pm. This made it obvious that when MK reached the cottage at about 9:00 pm the stomach digestion had to be in the final stage, just before stomach leaving for the the duodenum.
THIS CLEARLY PROVED THAT MK WAS MURDERED VERY SHORT AFTER SHE RETURNED HOME AND CERTAINLY BEFORE 10:00 pm. THIS MADE IT OBVIOUS THAT AK AND/OR RS COULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE MURDER OF MK.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:58 am

Mafiabuster wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I did forger or miss two points 'Holmes' mentioned in an other post about the witness statements of Rudy Guede (interrogation Capanne prison).

He mentioned that when he encountered MK the evening the murder occurred she was carrying a large bag and had books with her. It is not obvious that this had been part of the general information in public and even if here he is unintentionally re-confirming his timeline, he met her at about 9:00 pm, she was carrying a large bag and (a) book(s). These are elements clearly confirming his admission that he was at/in the cottage when MK returned home.

ALL THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF AK AND RS, THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT COTTAGE TO ASSIST/MAKE/HELP HIM ENTER THE FLAT. THAT RUDY GUEDE WAS ALONE OR TOGETHER WITH OTHER WHO HAD NOT BEEN AK AND/OR RS.


There is absolutely no evidence of AK and RS being at the cottage that night. Actually, the evidence points to them NOT being at the cottage at the time that Rudy was at the cottage. There's Sollecito's computer records, the phone evidence and AK and RS stories match (if they were at the cottage they would have to make up their alibis and their stories would be full of holes and contradictions). Furthermore, the prosecutions supposed evidence that they were involved also points to the opposite! E.G. Curatolo's testimony if true (which it isn't) gives them an alibi at the time of the murder.


I completely agree with you! I add that my opinion is that Curatola did never see them. If yes he would be an alibi in their favour just like Rudy Guede.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:25 pm

Time of death, Paolo Micheli

INVESTIGATING MEREDITH'S ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO HER DEATH, TOD time of death, esstimated to be +/-11 pm

BEGINNING NOV 1, 2007, INVESTIGATING OF MEREDITH ACTIVITIES

Starting with the investigations, the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police proceeded to the reconstruction of the movements of MK during the last hours of life. It had also been assumed by pathologist that the point of the time of death had to be placed at a distance of not more than 2 to 3 hours after last meal and would probably to be placed at around 11:00 pm.

LATER SOPHIE DURING STATED THAT SHE NOW REMEMBERSED SHE BEEN ARRIVING HOME AT ABOUT 8:55 pm.

On 17 Nov. 2007, Sophie Purton made a new deposition to the Prosecution confirming her initial statements clarifying that the four friends had begun to eat in the house of Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth at about 6:00 pm, or maybe even earlier.

[Note: As mentionned before, the pathologist confused the time of Sophie Purton returning at her home at 9:00 with the time of the ending of the meal. This would have put the time of death at about 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm. This timeline was always ignored by the Prosecution/Sentencing Judges. Together with other elements the evidence clearly was pointing to a time of death very close to 9:00 pm to 9:30 pm.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:36 pm

The witnesses of the British friends of Metedith Kercher

Learning how to fabricate case

It is always interesting to go back to the roots of case:
During the interrogations, the British friends of Meredith, when they were still present in Perugia, have mainly been questioned about elements to reconstruct the movements of Meredith, establish her relationships and timing the events she was involved in before the murder occurred. This was normal questioning to establish the timeline of movements of Meredith. There was not much questioning about the quality of her relationships, especially with Amanda an a Raffaele. After this there British friend hurried to leave Italy. All this is also documented in the pre-trial hearings (Micheli) and the fast-track trial (Micheli).

This changed when they returned to Italy to be examined (give witness statements) at the trial against Amanda and Raffaele (Massai). Now suddenly the timeline was no more of importance but their knowledge about the relationship between Amanda and Meredith. To note that these witness statements happened months after the killing of Meredth, month after the heavy attacks against the personality of Amanda, especially by the British Trash Press. How manipulated have these witnesses been, who reliable have there statements been, how reliable are statements, only based on hearsay, after all none of these witnesses have been? How important at all, is such babbling among youngsters at all?

And now again, seven years later, a Judge of an Appeal Court, Nencini, concludes that these statements are sufficient to prove that the relation between Amanda and Meredith had sufficiently deteriorated to constitute a motive for Amanda to kill her roommate. This is hilarious and absurd as is the entire case against both. Nencini is mocking and lacking any skill of logical and honest reasoning. All this is ruling designed to provide guilt through decree.

If this would really be true the University towns around the world would know bloody massacres every day.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:40 pm

Rudy Guede and the Prosecution

Rudy Guede had conceded that he was present in cottage, before, during and at the end of the stabbing of Metedith Kercher. Nevertheless Rudy Guede will never become Mignini's favourite target. When he had to release Patrick Lumumba he was to happy to exchange him with Rudy Guede. Two different men but the the same motive to commit the crime. Mignini is absolutely scrupulous when he starts acting to make things fit his agenda and to satisfy his obsessions with conspiracies oriented against him, and not to forget his revenge seeking natural.
Mignini's target was Amanda Knox he associated with his religious phantasms and his believes in the evil (materialised through Halloween), rituals, sex games, female's depravity and orgies. All this he associated with Amanda Knox.

Mignini immediately realised that the only possibility for him to keep the case against his priority target Amanda Knox running was to virtually associate with Rudy Guede for all the purposes he need him. The most probable deal was to minimise the level of implication of Rudy Guede in the crime. The analyse of the entire process of dealing with the "causa" Guede is confirming this.

The first point Mignini had to consolidate, to support his multiple perpetrator theory mainly based on his obsessions about the "ritual", the ritual sex game gone wrong linked to Halloween, the day the murder was planned and than reported on All Saints Day and All Souls Day, that Rudy Guede was not a burglar, that Rudy Guede had not broken the window to get access to the cottage. And so the myth of the staged break-in became fact, Amanda Knox had staged the break-in to lead the attention away from her, because it was Amanda Knox who had authorised Rudy Guede and Raffaele a Sollecito to access the cottage.
The advantage for Mignini was always the basically sloppy and incompetent work by the Police under the direction of Monica Napoleoni (first high profile crime, no experience). The investigators could also have been stopped at any moment by Prosecutor Mignini.
Concerning the broken window it is absolutely sure that break-in was never seriously investigated by the Police. The Police officers at best proceeded through a sight seeing around the cottage without any other closed research. The window itself and the pattern of the broken glass was not examined. Just like so many things in this investigation this lacking of professional seriousness will reinforce the speculating, hypothesising and asserting of the Prosecution the way they wanted.

Resume : We actually have two persons who took great benefit from the theory of the staged break-in 1) Rudy Guede, he was not a burglar, he was not the sole perpetrator, and 2) Mignini, he could continue to pursue his hunting of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Numbers » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:23 pm

pmop57 wrote:Rudy Guede and the Prosecution

Rudy Guede had conceded that he was present in cottage, before, during and at the end of the stabbing of Metedith Kercher. Nevertheless Rudy Guede will never become Mignini's favourite target. When he had to release Patrick Lumumba he was to happy to exchange him with Rudy Guede. Two different men but the the same motive to commit the crime. Mignini is absolutely scrupulous when he starts acting to make things fit his agenda and to satisfy his obsessions with conspiracies oriented against him, and not to forget his revenge seeking natural.
Mignini's target was Amanda Knox he associated with his religious phantasms and his believes in the evil (materialised through Halloween), rituals, sex games, female's depravity and orgies. All this he associated with Amanda Knox.

Mignini immediately realised that the only possibility for him to keep the case against his priority target Amanda Knox running was to virtually associate with Rudy Guede for all the purposes he need him. The most probable deal was to minimise the level of implication of Rudy Guede in the crime. The analyse of the entire process of dealing with the "causa" Guede is confirming this.

The first point Mignini had to consolidate, to support his multiple perpetrator theory mainly based on his obsessions about the "ritual", the ritual sex game gone wrong linked to Halloween, the day the murder was planned and than reported on All Saints Day and All Souls Day, that Rudy Guede was not a burglar, that Rudy Guede had not broken the window to get access to the cottage. And so the myth of the staged break-in became fact, Amanda Knox had staged the break-in to lead the attention away from her, because it was Amanda Knox who had authorised Rudy Guede and Raffaele a Sollecito to access the cottage.
The advantage for Mignini was always the basically sloppy and incompetent work by the Police under the direction of Monica Napoleoni (first high profile crime, no experience). The investigators could also have been stopped at any moment by Prosecutor Mignini.
Concerning the broken window it is absolutely sure that break-in was never seriously investigated by the Police. The Police officers at best proceeded through a sight seeing around the cottage without any other closed research. The window itself and the pattern of the broken glass was not examined. Just like so many things in this investigation this lacking of professional seriousness will reinforce the speculating, hypothesising and asserting of the Prosecution the way they wanted.

Resume : We actually have two persons who took great benefit from the theory of the staged break-in 1) Rudy Guede, he was not a burglar, he was not the sole perpetrator, and 2) Mignini, he could continue to pursue his hunting of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


As always, pmop, your summaries, and I point out all dated March 17, 2015 in particular, are excellent explanations.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:33 am

What are the characteristics of the construct of this case

1) A Police investigation mainly based on assumptions, conjectures, prejudices, cultural bias, premature evaluation.
2) Acquiring information by all means (even if laws had to be broken), the result fustifying the means, the total lack of critical thinking (self questionning excluded)
3) The narrative is given more credibility than the evidence, the evidence is fabricated and validation with the sole purpose to validate the narrative. The most incredible statements are arbirarily accepted if they support the narrative
4) Critical evidence (interpretable in many ways) is validated arbitrarily to make it fit the pre-defined case
5) Selective retention of evidence favouring the Prosecution's case, rejection of all evidence with the potential to exonerate the defendants
6) An obvious siding of the Judges with the Prosecutors
7) Admission of not credible witnesses
8) Arbitrary validation of obviously incredible witnesses statements
9) Systematic vilification of the defendants in Court tolerated by the Presiding Judges
10) The refusal by the Forensic Police to present complete data sets and data analyses covered by the Prosecution and the Judges
11) Omission to seriously investigate critical but essential evidence
12) Refusals to investigate evidence on favor of the defendants
13) Inventing knew motives, changing motives from trial to trial
14) Circular validation of discredited evidence, priority is given to the narrative
15) Legally questionable rulings by the Court of Cassation, minimum during two rulings, the Court of Cassation ruling about the merits of a case
16) Imposing future verdicts to lower Courts (violating the laws fixing the independancy of the Court Judges)
17) Judges introducing scenarios backuped by no material facts only based on pure invention, fantasy and conjecture
18) Prosecutors and Judges oppressing a serious defence of the defendants through exercising pressure on the defence lawyers
...
All this can be sustained by trial documents, witness statements, ... .
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:35 am

No Court will be able to change the fact that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent!

The Court of Cassation has now the chance to correct this blatant miscarriage of justice!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:02 am

The incarceration motivation report edited by Judge Claudia Mattaini is a really worth reading document detailing the proceeding and arguing of the Italian Judiciary:

You shall not question evidence investigated by the Police and accepted by the Prosecution
You shall not question evidence presented by the State's pathologist
You shall not question a totally invented and constructed narrative explaining the motivation of the defendants to comitt the crime
You shall not question a Prosecutor reasoning about youngsters not knowing how to spent their times but searching for extreme experiences
You shall not oppose the narrative of a Prosecutor, the narrative being the case, not the evidence and not the fats
You shall consider a Prosecutor word as incontestably true
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:02 pm

Order: At the end you have to issue a guilty verdict
Court of Cassation, Chieffi

The point raised by the Public Prosecutor regarding the violation of article 238 c.p.p. is correct. After having acquired into evidence the definitive ruling pronounced by this Court against Rudie Guede, and having correctly noted in advance that the ruling was not binding, the Court then completely disregarded its content, diminishing its undisputed probative importance with the assertion that it stood out as a particularly weak element, because the ruling had been issued based on the state of the documents at that time [i.e. in a fast-track trial], without the additional information acquired following the reopening of the evidence phase ordered on appeal.

In truth, the Court was absolutely not authorized to disregard the contents of the definitive ruling solely for this reason, a ruling which, albeit relating only to Guede’s position and pronounced at the outcome of a different type of proceedings, ended with the conviction of the defendants for “complicity in the murder” of the young student. The conclusion reached by the judges of second instance, according to which “even if we were to take for granted that a conspiracy of persons was required, the ruling does not thereby become decisive evidence in identifying the current defendants as Rudy Guede’s accomplices”, is the result of reasoning based on inadequate argument, since information about the presence of other people had to necessarily be correlated with information about those who had access to the house where the crime was committed. Furthermore, the ruling [concerning Guede] ruled out the possibility that Guede was the perpetrator of the staging which was recognized [by the ruling] to have occurred, and to be attributable to other individuals.

The fact that Guede had wounds to his hands when he was arrested (two months after the crime) was not held to be significant by the judges in the abbreviated trial, in light of information from three of Rudie’s friends whom he had contacted the day after the murder, and who had ruled out the possibility that he had injuries to his hands.

These passages of argument, properly supported with reasoning, were completely overlooked by the Court of Second Instance, which proposed that the staging could be attributed to Guede, as an individual experienced in thefts. In so doing it engaged in a clear interpretative flight, indicating a marked distance between [its interpretation] and what had been established and legally affirmed in another ruling, and did not adequately justify the incompatibility between [its own conclusions] and the reconstruction which had been developed in the ruling [from Guede's trial], so revealing once again an incompleteness of information which translates inevitably into a flaw in reasoning.

Therefore the decision under appeal can be criticized for the flaw alleged [by the prosecution] of violating the law, and for the defect of inadequate reasoning, in the crucial passage of the reconstruction of the event which deals with the presence of multiple perpetrators in the crime, in the residence to which – aside from the victim – only Knox had access on that horrific evening. This is a factor which should certainly not be automatically understood as proof, but which constitutes a significant segment in the narrative reconstruction of the crime, to be assessed together with the other pieces of evidence. On this point too, the new judge must carry out a detailed examination which adheres more closely to the requirements of the law, as well as an assessment of the information seen in the context of the broader osmotic presentation of the [rest of the ] evidence.

These passages of the SCI, Chieffi ruling are sufficient proof (an other interpretation is impossible) that the SCI is insisting that it is necessary that the future ruling by the "Revision" Court of Appeal must be in HARMONY with the rulings against RG. This shows clearly that the Nencini verdict was commanded by the SCI, that the sole purpose of the second Appeal Court, presided by Nencini, was to obtain a GUILTY VERDICT.

In conclusion, the ruling under appeal must be annulled due to (1) the multiple shortcomings, contradictions and (2) clear failures of logic indicated above. The new judge will therefore (3) have to remedy the argumentative aspects subject to criticism, (4) in his or her broadest powers of assessment, (5) carrying out a global and uniform examination of the circumstantial evidence, (6) an examination by means of which it will have to be determined whether the relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence can be resolved, since in (7) the overall assessment each piece of evidence is to be added to and integrated with the others. (8) The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive, not only (9) to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but (10) to possibly delineate the subjective positions of those who acted with Guede, before the range of situations which might be hypothesized, (10a) from a genetic agreement on the death option, to (10b) the modification of a plan which originally envisioned only the involvement of the young Englishwoman in an unwanted sexual game, (11) to solely forcing her into an extreme, group-led erotic game which exploded, going out of control.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:45 am

The Italian Judiciary completely perverted the notion of circumstantial evidence.
It is a shame that the Judges of the Court of Cassation under Chieffi validated and promoted the abusing of the notion of circumstantial evidence by reducing it to a not trustworthy concept of imaginating a best fitting narrative to find/invent by the Judges. The Nencini Court was a shameful farce.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:21 am

The problem the Italian Judiciray actually has is that at end the sole purpose of the Court of Cassation ((Chieffi) was to enforce a guilty a verdict through installing a second Appeal Court. The analysing of the argumentation adopted by the Court of Cassation to consider, criticise and reject the prior decisions concerning items evidence could not been more clear. In the person of Nencini they found the perfect office sitter to give effect to the instructions, a wilfully tool to execute the orders. Nencini was all but an independant Judge, he is mainly on of those public servants you will find in all administrations, the Germans have perfect word for such characters, he is a typical "Sesselfurzer". Such character will execute the orders given to serve their career and the superior authority.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:33 am

The witness Antonio Curatolo is a typical example how the case was constructed to make it fit the phantasy narrative of the Prosecution (among all the other).

The personal status of Antonio Curatolo was quickly established, a homeless man, heroin addict, local drug dealer and criminal under investigation of law-enforcement.

The fact of being homeless is certainly not necessarily a criteria of reliability and/or credibility of a person. It has certainly be to put into the context of the general as aspects of the person and his personality and the facts how he had advanced to become an important witness in favour of the case of the Prosecution.

The first point of importance is that Antonio Curatolo was pretending he had spend the entire evening of the 1t of Nov. 2007 at Piazza Grimana. His presence at Piazza Grimana could not be confirmed by anybody else.

[Note: It was told that Antonio Curatolo often spent his nights in a Perugia asylum for homeless people. Normally these institution have rather strict timeline rules and controls concerning the stay of their visitors inside their houses. The visitors are generally recorded and have to properly check in and out. It was never controlled whether Antonio Curatolo did not spent that specific night in such an establishment. This was certainly a lack in the investigation as there had been so many.]

Further Antonio Curatolo stated that he could observe AK and RS at Piazza Grimana the evening/early night when the crime occurred. He stated that he started to observe them standing around from on about 9:30 pm for a rather long time. Again he was the sole person who could be found to state that AK and RS had been there, no other witness could be found by the investigators.

But Antonio Curatolo was not an 'ordinary' witness, it had not been him who has approached/contacted the investigators, he had been discovered/uncovered by a journalist from "Giornale di Umbria (certainly on search for a scoop) NEARLY ONE YEAR AFTER THE CRIME HAD OCCURRED. The same journalist who discovered/uncovered witness shopkeeper

The journalist could convince and move Antonio Curatolo to give an interview to 'Giornale di Umbria' and he now turned to become the 'super witness' for the Prosecution in their case against AK and RS.

[Note: The journalist was never questioned about how he had convinced Antonio Curatolo to witness about the presence of AK and RS at Piazza Grimana the night of the 1t of Nov. 2007. Rumours said that he had been offered a pair of shoes to agree to be interviewed. Really? Was Antonio Curatolo really such a selfless witness? Really?]

It is also certain that a life in the streets in combination with hard drug abuse will very quicly lead to a negative impact on the physical and mental health of a person. The degrading effects on Antonio Curatolo's health state and mental condition had been obviously visible during his appearance at Court. His statements had been those of a confused and disoriented person suffering from the consequences of his unsteady and unhealthy life, he was certainly a person easy to manipulate and influence even under low pressure by those who might have had an interest. Further Antonio Curatolo had been facing criminal charges and he could have easily admitted that acting in favour of the body of law enforcement (especially from Police) could be of advantage for his own faith.

[Note: In short he was all but not usable as a credible witness. No serious Prosecutor would have presented Antonio Curatolo as a central (key) witness against the defendants in a murder case, no serious Judge of whatever Court in the world would have accepted a witness with the biography and credentials of Antonio Curatolo as a credible witness in whatever against whomever trial. THIS IS NOT EVEN A BLAME AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR OR ANY HOMELESS MAN OR AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR OR ANY DRUG ADDICT, THIS IS NOT A BLAME OF ANTONIO CURATOLA BUT MAINLY A BLAME AGAINST THOSE WHO SHAMELESSLY ABUSED OF THIS MAN TO PUBLICALLY EXPOSE HIM AS AN INCREDIBIBLE WITNESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE TO SERVE THEIR CONSTRUCTED CASE AGAINST TWO INNOCENT STUDENTS.]
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby schmidt53 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:21 am

pmop57 wrote:The witness Antonio Curatolo is a typical example how the case was constructed to make it fit the phantasy narrative of the Prosecution (among all the other).

The personal status of Antonio Curatolo was quickly established, a homeless man, heroin addict, local drug dealer and criminal under investigation of law-enforcement.

The fact of being homeless is certainly not necessarily a criteria of reliability and/or credibility of a person. It has certainly be to put into the context of the general as aspects of the person and his personality and the facts how he had advanced to become an important witness in favour of the case of the Prosecution.

The first point of importance is that Antonio Curatolo was pretending he had spend the entire evening of the 1t of Nov. 2007 at Piazza Grimana. His presence at Piazza Grimana could not be confirmed by anybody else.
[Note: It was told that Antonio Curatolo often spent his nights in a Perugia asylum for homeless people. Normally these institution have rather strict timeline rules and controls concerning the stay of their visitors inside their houses. The visitors are generally recorded and have to properly check in and out. It was never controlled whether Antonio Curatolo did not spent that specific night in such an establishment. This was certainly a lack in the investigation as there had been so many.]

Further Antonio Curatolo stated that he could observe AK and RS at Piazza Grimana the evening/early night when the crime occurred. He stated that he started to observe them standing around from on about 9:30 pm for a rather long time. Again he was the sole person who could be found to state that AK and RS had been there, no other witness could be found by the investigators.

But Antonio Curatolo was not an 'ordinary' witness, it had not been him who has approached/contacted the investigators, he had been discovered/uncovered by a journalist from "Giornale di Umbria (certainly on search for a scoop) NEARLY ONE YEAR AFTER THE CRIME HAD OCCURRED. The same journalist who discovered/uncovered witness shopkeeper

The journalist could convince and move Antonio Curatolo to give an interview to 'Giornale di Umbria' and he now turned to become the 'super witness' for the Prosecution in their case against AK and RS.

[Note: The journalist was never questioned about how he had convinced Antonio Curatolo to witness about the presence of AK and RS at Piazza Grimana the night of the 1t of Nov. 2007. Rumours said that he had been offered a pair of shoes to agree to be interviewed. Really? Was Antonio Curatolo really such a selfless witness? Really?]


pmop Curatolo said in his testimony in the first trial (transcript that was on WIKI now its not) that he was on Corso Garibaldi before returning to the piazza at 9:30 pm. Going to his usual piazza bench close to the basketball court where he sat reading a magazine and smoking. He says he spotted AK and RS about twenty minutes in this process based on how many cigerettes he smoked. This went on until the disco buses left (wrong night of course) either around 23:30 or close to 24:00 (rough est.) He then went a different park to sleep we never know what park he means.

The another question on when does Curatolo come forward to tell the police his story? I not sure what the earliest newspaper reports of Curatolo are. But Mignini asks Guede about rather or not he saw the tramp that hangs out in the Piazza Grimana near the Kiosk at his March 26, 2008 deposition which is on WIKI. Which has to be Curatolo.

The question I would have Curatolo is about the tow truck which pick up that had broken down at the gate at 22:30. The tow truck arrives at according to the CCTV clock at 23:04 and leaves at 23:14. We know it the clock is 10 to 12 minutes slow so it really closer to 23:14 arrival and 23:24 departure times. Tow trucks are noisy and usual flashing light when they load a car as described by Dan O on the questions for this case thread. I would ask Curatolo since he was sitting in the piazza how could he miss hearing or seeing the tow truck? Which of course it assumed AK and RS are waiting for the tow truck to leave before going to the cottage with the murder to follow soon after. If he said he saw AK and RS up to the time tow truck left to pin point the time he left the piazza that night. Since the tow truck presence is captured on the CCTV with the date stamped Nov 1, 2007 there should be little doubt that Curatolo had the right night. Instead he uses the disco buses which always picked up the students on Thursday nights which of course continued to pick them up on every Thursday night though months until he came forward to tell his story to the police this is stamped in his memory.

Also how does Capezzali hear the scream close to 23:30 est(since she never looked at the time) and not hear the tow truck making that noise a short time before she claims to hear the scream and the footsteps on driveway and the metal stairs. If she mention the loud noise before the scream she too would be more believable when it comes to what night this all happen.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:58 am

schmidt53
Curatolo was apparently, vaguely remembering that there had been buses, that it was around Halloween and their had been those white dressed people (the forensic police). And he is recognising AK and RS, the time they had arrived, what they had been doing, where they had been looking (observing the cottage), ..., everything else he is confused about. And he was declared credible by the Judges because he immediately recognised both in the Court room (the same arguing was used towards Quintavalle).
The question is: "If Curatola was the sole evidence to declare AK and RS guilty, would you accept his statements as credible to proceed to their condemnation?"

For me Curatolo never observed AK and RS, not the evening/night MK was murdred not any other night before or after.
His alleged memory was solely based on what the journalist showed and told him he thought he might/should remember. How else would this scoop hunter have approached him and told him what he wanted/expected from him?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:55 pm

INO: There are other aspects to take into consideration when analysing this case.
Declaring Curatolo as being THE SUPER WITNESS of the Prosecution only showed how desperate the Prosaction must have been to secure their case. The script of the case based mainly on conjuctures was written, the problem had always been the lacking evidence to support the script. They knew that the collected evidence was questionable and of low probative value.
Why was Curatolo so important for the Prosecution and why was he needed at all?
The first point was that they had absolutely no credible evidence to put AK and RS at the crime scene just like they never had (and still don't have) any probative evidence that the alleged trio RG, RS and AK acted together.
The second point was that they had no secured evidence to justify their arbitrary fixing the time of death.
Curatole was supposed to close these gapping holes. That was the only reason why the Prosecution presented him as a credible witness (against any logic and common sense, an otherwise so much supported judicial concept), he was a second or third choice and they must have known it.

Of cause they knew that Curatolo's witness statement was limited to put them closer to but not at the crime scene. But all witness statement also has a psychological moment, to cast doubt, to influence the public opinion and even the decisions of Judges, especially in a system that considers the words of it's Prosecutors as being 'sacro sanct' and criticising them as being a major crime.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:31 am

Resume: Curatolo was important for the Prosecution:
1) To destroy the mutual alibi of AK and RS (the word of both against the one of Curatolo)
2) To destroy the alibi based on the computer activities
3) To put AK and RS to the crime scene
4) To validate the obviously manipulated* time of death (this point is directly linked to as incredible witness statements of Capelezzi and Dramis)

*An objective analyses of the time of death is clear proof that the witness statements are or simply wrong (mainly Curatolo) or/and not related to the murder of MK (mainly Capelezzi). [Note: Concerning Quintavalli, I don't believe one single word!]

The credibility of the individual pieces of evidence including circumstacial evidence is even doubted by the Court of Cassation squashing Hellmann/Zanetti stating that ... considering the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence the new Judge has to ... . The Court of Cassation continues instructing the new Judge of the Appeal Court how to assess the evidence ..., ... the broadest way possible ... . In clear, the new Judge has to validate (give credibility) and can make fully use of his imagination and narrative skill to arrive to the expected guilty verdict.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:38 am

I am certain that this case is a complete fake and makeup by the involved Judiciary and law-enforcement. I am certain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been stolen eight precious years of their lives. The Italian Judiciary has now the chance to correct this blatant injustice even if they will never be able to repair the damage they caused to two young people for self serving purposes.
As I have lost any confidence in this intrinsically disturbed system I abstain from any prediction of the issue the case will take the 25.03.2015. I will be back here after the ruling will have been issued.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:23 am

I am certain that this case is a complete fake and makeup by the involved Judiciary and law-enforcement. I am certain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been stolen eight precious years of their lives. The Italian Judiciary has now the chance to correct this blatant injustice even if they will never be able to repair the damage they caused to two young people for self serving purposes.
As I have lost any confidence in this intrinsically disturbed system I abstain from any prediction of the issue the case will take the 27.03.2015. I will be back here after the ruling will have been issued.

The first day did not bring any really knew valuable information. To note only that the Prosecutor considered the ruling of Nencing a valid motivation because liking all the evidene into a consistant narrative. Absurd! Accepting Nencini would be for me one more if not the most obvious sign of total bias, judicial and intellectual failure I ever observed. To add the major problem was created by the Court od Cassation themselves through the arbitrary rulings of Chieffi and his accolyths siding the Perugia Umbria Prosecution.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Mafiabuster » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:21 pm

pmop57 wrote:I am certain that this case is a complete fake and makeup by the involved Judiciary and law-enforcement. I am certain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been stolen eight precious years of their lives. The Italian Judiciary has now the chance to correct this blatant injustice even if they will never be able to repair the damage they caused to two young people for self serving purposes.
As I have lost any confidence in this intrinsically disturbed system I abstain from any prediction of the issue the case will take the 27.03.2015. I will be back here after the ruling will have been issued.

The first day did not bring any really knew valuable information. To note only that the Prosecutor considered the ruling of Nencing a valid motivation because liking all the evidene into a consistant narrative. Absurd! Accepting Nencini would be for me one more if not the most obvious sign of total bias, judicial and intellectual failure I ever observed. To add the major problem was created by the Court od Cassation themselves through the arbitrary rulings of Chieffi and his accolyths siding the Perugia Umbria Prosecution.


This has to be post of the year on IIP. It's great to see that you have accurately described the case and court proceedings as completely fake and made up.

:worthy:

The guilters are totally :batshit crazy::

The Italian judiciary are just a bunch of fuckwit fanny :juggle: and I will be totally shocked if Cassazione doesn't confirm the verdicts.

However, Amanda is so brill she can overcome this, not by any corrupt European body, but by appealing to the USA government. As if they would ever extradite somebody when there is zero evidence of them being at the crime scene! :jaw-dropping:

Go Amanda, you are creative, intelligent and witty, the forces of evil will never prevail against you! You will have your day, your star will shine and the haters will slide away to their slimeholes.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:16 am

The next step and request will be that the Italian Judiciary should immediatly stop all pending trials, all accusations against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as well as those against members of their families, against members of the Press having criticised the Prosecution including the charges pending against Frank Sfarzo.

For the rest happiness for Amanda and Raffaele prevails.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

PreviousNext

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests