The anatomy of the case

The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:01 am

The original paradigm of the crime by the Prosection (Lead Prosecuto, Giuliano Mignini, Perugi, 2007)

Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher in here home. The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated. The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong.

The thread should deal with the evidence finding and reasoning of the Prosecution and Judges to justify and prove their case starting from the above mentioned paradigm formulated before any reliable findings and/or evidence was available.

An analytical approach to the reasoning of the Judicial body.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:39 am

Personal specifications

In the interrogation of the 5th to the 6th November 2007 Amanda Knox pointed to Patrick Lumumba being the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore she put herself at the crime scene stating having heard Meredith Kercher crying (this will later be used as evidence against her).

It is clear for me that the statements of Amanda Knox had been obtainted under physical and psychological pressure by the Police and the Prosecution (Mignini in my opinion was entire part of the interrogation). It is for me a certain case of coercion.

Furthermore Amanda Knox human rights had been violated by refusing her to be assisted by a neutral translator and a lawyer.

Interrogation status: 'Witness' versus 'Suspect'

Three fix points can be scheduled to retain the status
1) Amanda Knox was a vulnerable person from on the beginning
2) From the day she told her mother that she felt treated like a criminal by the Police
3) Latest the evening of 5th November 2007 with the beginning of the interrogation, the simultanous interrogation of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in two separated rooms is sufficient proof that hte status of both had changed from witness to suspect. A further proof is that Monica Napoleoni, chief of the Perugia Homicide Squad made the link between the simultanous interrogations to coordinate and to check eventualtion contradictions to use them to put further pression on the two suspects.

The consequence of this all night interrogation was the arrest of Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, based only on the coerced statements of Amanda Knox.

Patrick Lumumba, falsely accused had to be released fourteen days later on base of an unchallengeable alibi and when all the evidence started to poit to Rudy Guede, a Perugia Citizen. He was later arrested in Germany and transferred to Italy.

This did not challenge the crime narrative(pardigm) of the Prosecution. Mignini simply changed Rudy Guede for Patrick. Lumumba.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:41 am

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

Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher in here home. The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated. The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong.


The details of this narrative existed before any evidence finding

1) Multiple perpetrators
2) Premeditated murder
3) 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

There is a fundamental contradiction in the narrative between points (2) and (4). The ritual is equal to the sex game and killing. The murder being premeditated there was nothing that could go wrong with the sex game, whatever the sex game would have been about it would have ended in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Such a plan needs at minimum a common denominator linking the perpetrators and the motive (sex and killing) to each other.
Every attempt of the Prosecution and the Judges to bring the parties together miserably and obviously failed.

Paolo Micheli solved this problem through judicial ex cathedra reasoning :
HE DOES NOT NEED EVIDENCE, COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC TELLS HIM THAT AMANDA AND RAFFAELE HAD ARRANGEMENTS WITH GUEDE TO ATTACK MEREDITH! (Judge Paolo Micheli, 1t trial, Rudy Guede)
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:50 am

The evidence found outside the cottage, the knife

During an investigation in the flat of Raffaele Sollecito a Police Officer collected randomly a large knife from a drawer in the kittchen which he thaught was cleant and might fit the stabbing wound suffered by Meredith Kercher.

Later the DNA analyses accomplished by Patrizia Steffanoni (Forensics of Police, Rome) would show up DNA from Meredith Kercher (no blood) and Amanda Knox (no blood). The expertise and results from Patrizia Steffanoni meanwhile have been largely contested (I will not enter these details here).

For the Prosecution it was of crucial importance that the object was a knife, so the weapon used to committ the murder (even if not fitting the wounds and not fitting the bloody profile of a knife found on Meredith's bed).
1) Meredith's DNA profile was found at a place she never had been before on an object it should not have been
2) The knife was at the crime scene
3) The knife was carried by Amanda Knox from the flat to the cottage and back
4) The knife was carried to committ the supposed premedited murder (point 2 of the basic narrative (paradigm) of the Prosecution)

The Prosecution and the Judges ignored all the quoted arguments and evidence agianst the knife ever having been at the crime scene (I will not enter these details here).


"For some time, however, it was found that on the blade of a kitchen knife seized in the house of Raffaele Sollecitot there was a trace of organic material from Meredith Kercher, while the handle of that knife, close to the blade and thus the point at which there would be performed more pressure, there was a separate track from which it was possible to extract DNA from the Amanda Kno]" Judge, Paolo Micheli, 1t Trial(= Preliminary-Fast track), Rudy Guede

Bizzare reasoning:

"Premeditation is not contested, nor are there elements to sustain that the trio already had intentions to commit crimes before entering the house; certainly the introduction into the property of a knife, later found in Sollecito’s house, and not being part of the cutlery set available to the flatmates, as stated by Mezzetti and Romanelli, seems somewhat disturbing, but nothing enables one to conclude that it was carried with the purpose of carrying out an illegal and perverse plan, that only minds accustomed to crime and without scruples could conceive; on the other hand, one only need think of Sollecito’s obsession, amply disseminated by the media, to always go out with a knife in his pocket.

If there was no premeditation and if, in line with the prosecution’s hypothesis, the homicide was the final act in an escalation of violence, then Guede participated fully, not only for being the author of the sexual assault, but also for having held down the left hand of the victim while she was given the fatal wounds." Judges, Borsini and Bellardi, Appeal Trial, Rudy Guede
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Slang_King » Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:48 am

Just imagine. You plan a sex game/murder against somebody you hate only to have one of your co-conspiritors hog all the sex and murdering to himself. Worse, he uses his own knife when you'd gone n brought one specially and, to cap it all, refuses to wear his anti-forensic, levitating body suit (like you and your boyfriend have) and leaves evidence all over the place. Just proves the old adage, if you want something done properly, do it yourself.

That, or Mignini and Co are as mad as a sack of kittens and Guede did it himself,,, but you'd have to be crazy to think that!


--- I ran this through a sarcasm remover that I bought from Perugia police on E-Bay ---
Slang_King
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:02 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:01 pm

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

Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher in here home. The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated. The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong.

The details of this narrative existing before any evidence finding
1) Multiple perpetrators : Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito
2) Premeditated murder
3) 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

The findings outside the cottage
1) The bread knife randomly selected in a drawer in the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito's flat

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 athe 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)

Witnesss
1) Cappezzali, cry and footsteps, 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
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.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby LarryK » Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:42 am

It's not even necessary to defend Amanda concerning the interrogation, don't fall into that trap. Without a recording nobody can prove how she was treated, so we have to take the most favorable-to-her view of her account there, which is that she was tortured. Just put off any guilter who tries to make points about what we don't really know about what happened. I hope the European Court of Human Rights completely excludes that the interrogation, or what Amanda said about it later, can be used in any court case whatsoever. (The one positive argument we can make from it is that she was already a suspect and didn't know it.)
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:08 am

LarryK wrote:It's not even necessary to defend Amanda concerning the interrogation, don't fall into that trap. Without a recording nobody can prove how she was treated, so we have to take the most favorable-to-her view of her account there, which is that she was tortured. Just put off any guilter who tries to make points about what we don't really know about what happened. I hope the European Court of Human Rights completely excludes that the interrogation, or what Amanda said about it later, can be used in any court case whatsoever. (The one positive argument we can make from it is that she was already a suspect and didn't know it.)

I agree with you but it is an important point to show that the interrogation of her had an impact on the evidence and this was confirmed by the SCI declaring her statements to be considered
by the Appeal Court to show that she was present at the crime sceme.
What is the reasoning of the Peosecution and the Courts including the SCI?
1) during her interrogation she stated that she heard Meredith cry
2) Nara Cappellezzi heard a person cry, this person was Meredith (ex-cathedra decision)
3) as (1) and (2) are congruent, (1) and (2) are true, Amanda must have been at the crime scene
(circular reasoning is one of the strategies of Italian lawenforcement to validate evidence)
4) this validates the changing of the time of death and destroys the alibi of Amanda and Raffaele
This reasoning is of cause only based on coerced statements emanating from an illegal interrogation but nevertheless the SCI ignores all this and even it's own ruling that the statements from the interrogation should be ignored.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:11 am

In a place with young people and a nightlife there is always crying in the night, mostly without any murder being committed. If 2 people state there was a cry, even it it was congruent in time of the event (not the case here), there can be no evidence in any serious evaluation of these statements. It can be alleged to a certain probability that there was a cry when someone was stabbed (multiple cries is more likely) - but regarding the behaviour of Guede (remaining at the place for a while) it can be assumed that is was not likely to be heard outside.

This is waste of time in my opinion. You can't refute evidence that doesn't even exist. The judge can still believe that elefants fly if he wants and the ECHR can't do anything about it.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:09 am

I agree but this is not what I want first to show in this thread.
My intention is first to show step by step the case as built up by the Prosecution, then by the Preliminary Court presided by Judge Paolo Micheli (very important because Rudy Guede had chosen the "fast track" procedure and so the Preliminary Trial being equal to the First Trial against him) and the main reasoning by the following Courts. The central points being finally the Suppreme Court rulings and the "dilemma" they created.
An other point is to show that from on the beginning Amanda Knox was the target of the Prosecution (Mignini) helped by submissive Police investigators and Judges accepting the most "ridiculous" theories (staged break-in, staged crime scene, impossible cleaning (forensic manipulation), absurd motives, ...).
Analyses and showing of the circular referencing of the Courts to validate imagined or other incredible evidence. The dictate of the Supremo Court influencing and imposing judgements to lower courts.
Next to show that on all levels the basic human rights of both defendants have been violated, the interrogation, accepting results of trial they have not been part, public guilt declaration by members of law enforcement members directly involved in the case ... .
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:15 pm

I agree it's clear we are talking about an extensive conspiracy here, including all the characteristical elements like criminal acts, concealing by abuse of authority and so on.

What I was wondering about is the reason, motivation, goal for such an open and obvious offence. I mean a conspiracy against justice, performed by the judiciary and law enforcement itself sounds absurd and will seriously discredit the whole system, authorities and the members themselves - even if they can hardly be prosecuted (by whom?) I suppose.

All this for hiding a mistake made in a court, like they probably are produced in thousands and more or less to be handled by a legal procedure in general?
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:26 am

kermit the frog,
I don't believe that this a conspiracy. It would only be a conspiracy if the entire case was organised to protect a third party known by members of the lawenforcement bug actually an unknown person with Guede at the same time involved in the crime. I don't see such a story Guede's traces and biological material are the only one's found at the crime scene.
The case is much more primitive, probably imbibed with low level corruption (no flow of cash), a Prosecutor out of control with a personal agenda, the Prosecutors and Judges belonging to one body (with all the possible and probable interactions), idem the much to close relation between the Prosecition and the Police (the Prosecution being the lead of the investigation), Police officers (includind forensics) who certainly acted the same way they acted in hundreds of other cases.
The Prosecution simply ignoring parts their role, finding evidence against and in favour of the defendants (Mignini seems not to know the second part or at least he was openly and intentionally ignoring it), than the much to big and uncontrolled power of the Prosecition to influence and manipulate cases.
And particular to this case, the Judiciary completely messing up the trial procedures because of
lacking laws and professional incapability to seriously seperate the different track trials and so violating all the defendants rights to an independent, neutral, fair and unbiased trial.
Many elements and evidence at all the stages and levels of its progression show these distortions. It should be of interest to list all this (but without emotions).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 5:42 am

INTRODUCTION TO THE CRIMINAL TRIAL IN ITALY

Summary

The process starts when the police or the Public Prosecutor comes to know about a fact that might be considered an offence or a crime.
Once the investigation has ended, the Public Prosecutor starts prosecution in order to set off the criminal process unless he thinks the case can be dismissed.
For those crimes which have to be dealt by the Collegiate Court, the Court of “Assise”, and in some cases by the Single Judge Court, the Public Prosecutor submits a request for trial to the Judge for the preliminary hearing.
Once the preliminary hearing is over the judge can either commit the defendant for trial or abandon prosecution.
For those crimes which fall under the competence of the Single Judge Court or the Justice of the Peace, the Public Prosecutor will serve a summons for trial or a direct summons for trial.
Then there are some special processes: the summary trial, the sanction requested by the parties (plea bargaining), the immediate or summary judgment, the procedure by criminal decree of conviction.
A criminal proceeding usually takes place in three stages: the first instance (Court of “Assise”, Collegiate Court, Single Judge Court, and Justice of the Peace), Appeal, and Court of Cassation (Highest Court).

At first instance all evidence - witnesses and documents - is obtained, and it ends with either avconviction or an acquittal.
The defendant can appeal against the first instance sentence.
The Court of Appeals takes its decision by either confirming the first instance sentence, or by reversing it partially or totally, or it may quash it by sending it back to the first judge.
You challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals by petitioning the Court of Cassation (the Highest Court).

The Court of Cassation pronounces the judgment by which it states that either the petition is not admissible or rejects it, or even quashes the sentence without sending it back, or finally, it may quash the sentence and send it to the trial judge.

Once all the stages of judgment are over, the sentence is final. If there is a conviction with a sentence, the sentence becomes enforceable at this point.

THE PRELIMINARY HEARING (OR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION)

When the preliminary investigations are over, if the prosecutor deems that the evidence he gathered could not justify a conviction, he must drop the charges. If, on the contrary, he deems he can make his case, he summons the defendant to appear before the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing (Giudice per l'Udienza Preliminare, GUP).

Before him, the prosecutor presents all the evidence he has gathered so far; the defendant can make his case and try to prove that the conditions required for a trial and a guilty verdict are not satisfied.

If the judge of the preliminary hearing thinks that the evidence gathered so far is enough to justify a guilty verdict, he issues the order of indictment before the Court.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Fast-track trial
The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated or short proceeding) consists, basically, of proceedings where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement on him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction in sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third.
Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeal (rules on merit again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the Corte di Cassazione, the highest Italian court (which cannot rule on merits, but only on correct procedure and correct interpretation of the law).

THE TRIAL

During the dibattimento (the trial), both the Prosecutor and the defendant try to make their case.

Article 111 of the Italian Constitution states that

trials are based on equal confrontation of the parties before an independent and impartial judge. The law has to define reasonable time limits for the proceedings;

- in criminal trials, the law provides for timely and confidential information of the accused regarding the nature and reasons of charges brought against them; they are granted the time and means for their defense; they have the right to question those who testify against them or to have them questioned; those who may testify in favor of the accused must be summoned and examined under the same conditions granted to the prosecution; any evidence in favor of the accused must be acknowledged; the accused may rely on the help of an interpreter if they do not understand or speak the language of the proceedings;
-in criminal trials, evidence may only be established according to the principle of confrontation between parties. No defendant may be proven guilty on the basis of testimony given by witnesses who freely and purposely avoided cross-examination by the defense.
During the trial, all the witnesses must bear testimony once again, as must the experts. It is (basically) an adversarial proceeding and the defendant's attorney has the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. Further, all the experiments conducted during the preliminary investigations must be repeated where possible, so as to allow the defendant to actually participate in the process of proof formation.

The victim can become a party of the trial through a formal act: if so, the victim’s attorney can present (and cross-examine) witnesses, fighting beside the prosecutor, and claiming the damages. Victims have the right to information about the prosecution of the crime committed against them, to receive counselling and if formally asked, the right to participate in the trial and to compensation.

If the Judge of the Trial is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty, the Judge must convict him; if not, the Judge must acquit. The Judge must also publish written explanations of his decisions.

It is important to note that Italy does not try anybody by a jury of peers: the sentence is written and the verdict (and ) is decided by the judge himself (serious offenses have a 3-headed court of judges, or a 2-headed court of judges and 6 jurors).

The parties can appeal against the sentence before the Court of Appeal (which rules on the merits again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the High Court (Corte di Cassazione).

If sentenced guilty, first-time offenders or non-violent offenses are considered for probation: a person placed on probation is typically given a jail or prison sentence of up to two years which is suspended for five years. As long as the person does not commit another crime in this period the punishment can be annulled. If not, those who fail probation go back to prison and serve the remainder of his or her sentence in jail.

For the Italian Constitution, criminal punishment has the basic goal to rehabilitate the offender.

Note

It is important to understand the proceedings to underline the impact the preliminary hearing = the 1t trial of Rudy Guede had on the following trials and how the Judges of other Courts up to the Court of Cassation have been influenced by the trials against Rudy Guede.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:21 am

The crime narrative and the alleged perpetrators of the crime
One of the biggest lies in this case

Meredith Kercher, the victim
and
Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the perpetrators of this crime

There is reliable evidence that Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox superficially new Rudy Guede. They got in contact with him two times while he was visiting the boys living in the downstairs flat of the cottage. Rudy Guede was an acquittance of the boys with whom they sometimes played basketball.

There is not any evidence that Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox ever had any other contact with
Rudy Guede.

Concerning Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede confirmed this several times. Raffaele
had never ever met Rudy Guede, except in Court.

Until today the Prosecution and the Judges could not prove that Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox / Rudy Guede ever met. There is no evidence linking these three persons, not before, not during and not after the killing of Meredith Kercher.

Nevertheless the Prosecution and the Judges always maintained this was a "given" fact to prove their case. They simply state that these three persons, Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito only connected for the sole purpose to harm, sexually assault and kill Meredith Kercher.

To undermine their complete failing to prove this connection, Judge Paolo Micheli, in the Prelimeray Hearing, the fast track sentencing trial against Rudy Guede, judged:
"We need no evidence, common sense and logic tell us, that these three knew each other ... ."

This reasoning of Judge Paolo Micheli was confirmed and acknowledged throughout all the futur trials (except Hellmann-Zanetti) and confirmed by the Court of Cassation (two times).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:12 am

Just to remember

Concerning the proof that Amanda Knox was a suspect (latest) the 5th of November 2007

Not that this is a new discovery but the official witness that Amanda KnIx had already become a suspect the 5th of November, even before the all night interrogation started, is Edgardo Giobbi, Police Officer of the Italian Police (SCO), Servizio Centrale Operativo.

Edgardo Giobbi stated in interviews that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been part of a cognitive-comportemental investigation and observation before their arrest.
"There was a, let's say ... now, I call it a cognitive-comportemental examination, who is based on the observation of psychosomatic reactions these persons could have shown during the progressing investigation."

One of his considerations is based on his observations during a return do the cottage. "We have returned with Amanda Knox to the cottage to somehow inspect the crime scene. When she was putting on the protective show covers she looked at me and made this famous movement, she was circling with the hips, said "voilà" and laughed. This was very telling and troubling for me."

In an intervew with Paul Ciolino he stated. "We are cpable of recognizeng exactly through a cognitive-comportemental examination if the suspects have to be considered guilty. We do not need to get tangled up with whatever investigative methods, because our method permits us to identify the guily in less time."
The next moment he told about the "Pizza"-eating and stated: "From on that moment I knew that she was guilty."
See also the TV interview with Edgardo Giobbi.
(Source: Der Engel mit den Eisaugen, Knaur Verlag, Douglas Preston, Mario Spezi)

Declared guilty before the investigation was even closed

The day after the arrest all the Italian newspapers enthusiastically reproduced the statements of the President of Police.
"In the investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher, the English student killed during the night of 1t to 2nd November, there is a turn. This morning at dawn three persons have been brought to the police headquarters and had been arrested.
The persons are the roommate of the victim, twenty year old student Amanda Knox, Her friend from Bari, Raffaele Sollecito, and the "Congolese" citizen Patrick Lumuba. It is said that it was Knox who entered the house and gave the investigators hints about the circumstances of the crime, it is also said that it was Knox who altered the crime scene. Probably the motive was of sexual nature. At this moment we cannot say more than confirm that the three participated in the crime and have to respond for their deeds."
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:29 pm

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

Patrick Lumumba (Rudy Guede), Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher in here home. The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated. The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong.

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.
3) A broken window in the room occupied by Filomena Romanelli the third occupant of the flat.

These two points are main objective and undisputed facts of the case.

To fit the above mentioned narrative, three alleged perpetrators had to be introduced to the crime scene, the Prosecution was forced to produce new arbitrary assumptions:
1) the break-in had to become a staged break-in
2) Amanda Knox was the person who let the co-perpetrators enter the cottage
At the very first beginning this complement of the basic narrative was constructed to fit Payrick Lumumba to the crime scenario. Through the new forensic findings Patrick Lumumba had to be replaced by Rudy Guede. Replacing one person by another one was no problem for Prosecutor Mignini (he had already acted a similar way in the Narducci case). To make this new constellation fit the Prosecution was forced to absolutely avoid Rudy Guede becoming a burglar. This was a fundamental condition to assure the survival of the case against Amanda Knox (since the beginning she had become the privileged target of the Prosecution).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby lonepinealex » Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:44 pm

I posted this in the main thread, but it's got a little lost. Makes more sense in this one anyway:

What would happen to the concept of the infallibility of Guede's conviction if, hypothetically, he were to have a fit of conscience and confess all? Where does that leave the supreme court if he comes out and says he acted alone? Surely there must be some leeway in this concept of the final, incontestable judgement of the supreme court if new evidence is found / someone confesses?
lonepinealex
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: UK

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby James Marlowe » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:02 pm

If he confessed to having acted alone they'd probably charge him with calumnying himself. ;-)
James Marlowe
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:59 am

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:13 pm

lonepinealex wrote:I posted this in the main thread, but it's got a little lost. Makes more sense in this one anyway:

What would happen to the concept of the infallibility of Guede's conviction if, hypothetically, he were to have a fit of conscience and confess all? Where does that leave the supreme court if he comes out and says he acted alone? Surely there must be some leeway in this concept of the final, incontestable judgement of the supreme court if new evidence is found / someone confesses?


This would be considered a new witness statement (piece of new evidence favourable to the defendants). The Judges would have to rule if this new evidence would be admissible, if not, nothing would change, if yes the consequence would be a new trial for AK&RS where the Judges would have to decide if this was probative (sufficient) and exonerating evidence.
For Rudy Guede there would be no changing (perhaps on his capacity for release on parole). But for the rest his sentencing is final.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby lonepinealex » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:33 pm

So how come the evidence (or lack of it, rather) from the Hellman trial did not count in this way, according to the supreme court?
lonepinealex
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: UK

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:48 pm

lonepinealex wrote:So how come the evidence (or lack of it, rather) from the Hellman trial did not count in this way, according to the supreme court?



Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeal (rules on merit again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the Corte di Cassazione, the highest Italian court (which cannot rule on merits, but only on correct procedure and correct interpretation of the law).

IMO this one of the points the Court of Cassation did simply ignore.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby lonepinealex » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:50 pm

Sigh, it all seems so hopeless in the face of such a byzantine system. Especially when the prosecution has largely won the media war, at least in Europe. Everyone I know with a superficial knowledge of the case thinks A & K are guilty.
lonepinealex
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: UK

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:10 pm

lonepinealex wrote:Sigh, it all seems so hopeless in the face of such a byzantine system. Especially when the prosecution has largely won the media war, at least in Europe. Everyone I know with a superficial knowledge of the case thinks A & K are guilty.



Another point where the Court of Cassation failed

For a defendant to be convicted, the Judge must be internally convinced (Italian law requires the Judge's intimo convincimento); because of that, there are no rules that predetermine the weight to be attributed to any given piece of evidence, so even credible admissions of guilt can do no more than reduce the amount of extrinsic evidence necessary for a finding of guilt.

Other more detailed information

When new evidence is discovered, that by itself or together with that presented during the trial might justify an acquittal, the convict, his next of kin, his guardian, his heir — if the convict is dead — or the Procuratore Generale presso la Corte d'Appello (the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeals) may apply to the Court of Appeals for a review of trial.
The Court decides de plano with an ordinanza if the application is receivable; if it deems it is not, the losing party can appeal the ordinanza before the Corte di Cassazione.
If the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Cassation, deems that the application is receivable, the second part of the review begins before the Court of Appeals itself. During the new trial, the Court reexamines all evidence and can acquit the defendant or uphold his conviction; the verdict is, then appealable before the Court of Cassation.
Even if an application for review was turned down before, the convict can apply again, so long as he presents new evidence.
A "not guilty" verdict, which has become irrevocable — that has been upheld by the Court of Cassation, that is to say —, can never be reviewed.
Other cases of review are as follows:
- the conviction was based upon the facts ascertained by a civil or administrative Judge and his judgement has been revoked;
- the conviction was the consequence of perjury, bribery or of another crime and the conviction for this crime is irrevocable;
- there is discrepancy between the findings of fact contained in the conviction and in another irrevocable one.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Postby Niteangel » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:05 pm

pmop57 wrote:Personal specifications

In the interrogation of the 5th to the 6th November 2007 Amanda Knox pointed to Patrick Lumumba being the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore she put herself at the crime scene stating having heard Meredith Kercher crying (this will later be used as evidence against her).


I would just like to remind you of Amanda's answers during her testimony. She did not say that she heard Meredith scream, nor put herself in the kitchen.

Quote:

PACELLI: Why at 5:45am on November 6 did you state that before
she died you covered your ears?
AK: In my confusion, under the pressure of the police, I had to
follow a reasoning that they had suggested to me, saying that I
should have heard a scream of Meredith. The fact that I couldn't
remember this fact suggested that I must have covered my ears. So
I followed that reasoning.
PACELLI: Did they hit you to make you say this?
AK: They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make
me say a name that I couldn't give.
PACELLI: You declared that you remained in the house in via della
Pergola, in the kitchen. Were you in the kitchen when Meredith
died?
AK: No.
PACELLI: Who told you? Who suggested that to you?
AK: I kept following their suggestions. They asked me if I was in
her room when she was killed. I said no. They said but where were
you? I said I don't know. They said, maybe you were in the
kitchen. I said, fine.

Later on during the same testimony:

PACELLI: So your confirm that the police told you that Meredith
screamed and that you covered your ears.
AK: They asked me if I had heard a scream. I said no. They said
it couldn't be possible, because if I was there, I must have
heard her scream or something. How could I possibly not have–
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re:

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:10 pm

Niteangel wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Personal specifications

In the interrogation of the 5th to the 6th November 2007 Amanda Knox pointed to Patrick Lumumba being the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore she put herself at the crime scene stating having heard Meredith Kercher crying (this will later be used as evidence against her).


I would just like to remind you of Amanda's answers during her testimony. She did not say that she heard Meredith scream, nor put herself in the kitchen.

Quote:

PACELLI: Why at 5:45am on November 6 did you state that before
she died you covered your ears?
AK: In my confusion, under the pressure of the police, I had to
follow a reasoning that they had suggested to me, saying that I
should have heard a scream of Meredith. The fact that I couldn't
remember this fact suggested that I must have covered my ears. So
I followed that reasoning.
PACELLI: Did they hit you to make you say this?
AK: They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make
me say a name that I couldn't give.
PACELLI: You declared that you remained in the house in via della
Pergola, in the kitchen. Were you in the kitchen when Meredith
died?
AK: No.
PACELLI: Who told you? Who suggested that to you?
AK: I kept following their suggestions. They asked me if I was in
her room when she was killed. I said no. They said but where were
you? I said I don't know. They said, maybe you were in the
kitchen. I said, fine.

Later on during the same testimony:

PACELLI: So your confirm that the police told you that Meredith
screamed and that you covered your ears.
AK: They asked me if I had heard a scream. I said no. They said
it couldn't be possible, because if I was there, I must have
heard her scream or something. How could I possibly not have–


I know. Your reference is to the original trial. It reads different in the Guede trials and in the CSI motivation against Hellmann. It is important to show "the logic of guilt" started with the investigation in Perugia and ending at the SCI in Rome.

The general reasoning over the whole case is built up on circular referencing:
Tha alleged cry: Rudy Guede told that Meredith cried (letters Germany), Amanda Knox heard a cry (coerced statements), Cappelezzii heard a cry (witness). The cry is decisive for the time of death (11:30), the postponed time of death is important to destroy the alibi of both (laptop activity, film Amelie, ...). In circular referencing you can validate each element through the validation of the next.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Re:

Postby Niteangel » Sun Mar 09, 2014 5:01 pm

pmop57 wrote:
I know. Your reference is to the original trial. It reads different in the Guede trials and in the CSI motivation against Hellmann. It is important to show "the logic of guilt" started with the investigation in Perugia and ending at the SCI in Rome.

The general reasoning over the whole case is built up on circular referencing:
Tha alleged cry: Rudy Guede told that Meredith cried (letters Germany), Amanda Knox heard a cry (coerced statements), Cappelezzii heard a cry (witness). The cry is decisive for the time of death (11:30), the postponed time of death is important to destroy the alibi of both (laptop activity, film Amelie, ...). In circular referencing you can validate each element through the validation of the next.


My point is that eventho it was written that way in the document (the one she signed during the interrogation), she didn't actually say "I heard her scream", nor simply said "I was in the kitchen", this whole scenario was suggested to her and then written in the document as if the words were all coming from her.

And then of course it was used against her, but shouldn't have been. As mentioned in the section "The illegal interrogation" (on injusticeinperugia.org), and I quote: "The Italian supreme court ruled that the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial."

And yes of course Rudy Guede heard Meredith scream, he is the murderer. As to the other people who heard a scream, if the scream was so loud, what is amazing to me, apart from the time which is approximate, is that only 2 persons supposedly heard this scream, where the heck were all the other neighbors?

I see that you are trying to understand the "logic of guilt", but unfortunately this so-called "logic of guilt" is mostly built on twisted scenarios, half-truths, and flat out lies. Everything gets "twisted", even the calunnia conviction was based on misinterpretations, and even lies, like when Patrick Lumumba's lawyer (Carlo Pacelli) was questioning Amanda, when he says (while referring to her handwritten notes) "you said that Patrick was guilty", but she didn't actually say that, and also expected her to have said (still referring to her handwritten notes, and afterwards) that Patrick was innocent, but how in the world could she have known whether he was guilty or innocent, at this point no one knew, so how could she be expected to have said "he is innocent". All she knew is that she wasn't with Patrick that evening, not whatever he did during that evening. I wish her lawyer would have stepped in when Pacelli kept saying "you said Patrick was guilty", as it was a lie.

I'm sorry, I'm not mad at you, but the more I know about this case, the angrier I get, it is a total injustice. The Italian justice system have already stolen 4 years (and more, as even if they are not in prison right now they cannot relax and simply have a normal life) from Amanda and Raffaele, and they are the ones who deserve to be put on trial, big time.

P.S. I think you mean "screamed", not "cried".
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:21 am

WITNESS HEARD SCREAM, maybe between 10:30 and 11:30 pm.
Mrs. C. N. [ who? ], a resident in Via del Melo on the first floor of the apartment overlooking the parking lot just mentioned, and then a short distance from the house which had been the scene of the crime, reported to the Public Prosecutor to have the windows of his apartment in the direction of the building Via della Pergola 7, but he could only see the roof. The night between 1 and 2 November, he said, the woman had gone to bed early, more or less to 21:30 [ 9:30 pm ] (as usual, and also to be widowed by little), but after a lapse time that he could not specify, except to say that maybe "hour or two ,[maybe between 10:30 and 11:30 pm]" her sleep, she felt the need to go to the bathroom.
At that juncture, when he was already up and stood before the door-window access to a terrace, he heard a scream of a woman he called "excruciating", so that she felt the skin crawl: he had the distinct feeling that the cry came precisely from the house before, so she started looking in that direction through the bathroom window, without seeing anything, but while he was portraying had heard a clatter of stones and leaves, at the driveway to the house on Via Pergola. Shortly thereafter, she heard running, running away someone in particular, there was someone who she ran on a scale of iron therein, which leads to Via del Melo and forth to Via Pinturicchio, and someone who "escaped the side of the driveway, towards Via del Bulagaio or area of the University for Foreigners. Later, he had not heard anything, even taking to state not to have fallen asleep immediately in part because of agitation that his cry had caused the contrary, it had also raised it again to go drink some 'water but never - nor the first time or after - to notice what time it was. Reported to have telephoned the police finally only the day before the deposition because of their health and the fact that initially did not feel safe, but still remained firm in the knowledge that he has heard that cry very loud, so he reconnected by itself the call for another murder.
(Preliminary hearing, 1t trial, Rudy Guede, Judge, Paolo Micheli)

GUEDE HEARD A SCREAM
He went into the bathroom with the door near the refrigerator, on the advice of the girl, had loaded the i-pod with the usual 25 tracks from his most listened to and was sitting on the toilet after cleaning up the panel, as usual: he showed how accustomed to the conduct of its needs with the ear headphones, hearing music. The couple also recalled the sequence of the first three tracks listened to, being the usual place, and while she was midway through the third - although the volume turned way up - he had heard a scream: asciugatosi a hurry, without even shut the belt, it was directed toward M.'s[Meredith Kercher] room, finding the door (but just inside the room) a man who had his back. At that point, the G.[Rudy Guede] had placed his hand on the shoulder of that person, seeing the same moment the girl's body on earth: the other had suddenly turned, quivering strokes to his address with a knife he carried in his left hand, which he could not specify length or other characteristics.
(Preliminary hearing, 1t trial, Rudy Guede, Judge, Paolo Micheli)

In looking closer, where one replaces the figure of Patrick Diya Lumbumba, in Amanda’s slanderous reconstruction of events given to the police on 6th November, with the figure of Guede, that version however later shown to be false, would make sense (meeting at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, where it just so happens the defendant was a frequent visitor, where he also confirms to have been that evening, probably after having made sure that his friends from the Marche region were not at home which was followed by entrance into the apartment when only Kercher was home alone, by both of them
[Guede and Knox] and Sollecito, with an unclear recollection of the presence of the latter [Sollecito]).
It is not known, not having heard the interested person [Knox], why Amanda indicated Diya instead of Guede, but it is likely that she could have done it because the latter, unlike the former, could have disproved her declared non-participation in the sexual violence and the following homicide, indicating however, a person of colour, in case somebody might have seen her going in the direction of the house or leaving it.
(Appeal trial, Rudy Guede, Judges Borsini-Bellardi)

SCI reasoning will follow.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:39 am

I think the purpose here is two shoe the strategy used by the Prosecution and Judges to misguide this trial with the support of Cassation. It is not about any individual piece of evidence or statements in Court. It should be mainly focused on the motivation reports. I think we should leave the path of "love" to details here. That's for me the anatomy of the case.
Several elements need no analyse anymore, at least in my opinion:
1) the railroading of AK&RS by the Police and Prosecution on behavioural issues
2) the noise created around the showering and what Amanda should have seen, noise to discredit Amanda, ...
3) the discovery of Meredith, what she saw and what she did not see (idem for Raffaele, the behaviour issues, ... . The only point of importance here is the theory about the staged break-in versus break-in
4) the interrogation is coercion,,for me no doubt, it will hopefully be ruled by the ECHR
5) the witnesses of the British girl friends of Meredith, noise to discredit Amanda, ...
6) Filomena and Laura, noise, only important here is her witnessing about the staged break-in versus the break-in
7) Curatolo, it is a fact that he is not reliable, but the importance of his statements for the Prosecution and the unbelievable stupidity of the Judges
8) Quintavalle,, it is a fact that he is not reliable, but the importance of his statements for the Prosecution and the unbelievable stupidity of the Judges
The future decisions, if then there will be, will not be about every minor detail but about the general aspects of the case.
It is about how AK&RS have been pressed in a frame of guilt up to the Court of Cassation abusing it's competences in the ruling of the case.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:44 am

Another 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: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:53 am

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

Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the perpetrators of this crime. Together they killed Meredith Meredith Kercher in here home. The murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated. The motive for Murder was a ritual sex game that went wrong.

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.
3) A broken window in the room occupied by Filomena Romanelli the third occupant of the flat.

These two points are main objective and undisputed facts of the case.

To fit the above mentioned narrative, three alleged perpetrators had to be introduced to the crime scene, the Prosecution was forced to produce new arbitrary assumptions:
1) the break-in had to become a staged break-in
2) Amanda Knox was the person who let the co-perpetrators enter the cottage
At the very first beginning this complement of the basic narrative was constructed to fit Payrick Lumumba to the crime scenario. Through the new forensic findings Patrick Lumumba had to be replaced by Rudy Guede. Replacing one person by another one was no problem for Prosecutor Mignini (he had already acted a similar way in the Narducci case). To make this new constellation fit the Prosecution was forced to absolutely avoid Rudy Guede becoming a burglar. This was a fundamental condition to assure the survival of the case against Amanda Knox (since the beginning she had become the privileged target of the Prosecution).

Rudy Guede was perfectly matching the profile of a burglar:

Rudy Guede : Financial situation
1) Since he had lost his job he was unemployed and hat no more any income
2) He was already one month late with paying his flat rent (Paolo Micheli)
3) He was under pressure because the owner of the flat he had been renting was asking a certificate he had a job (Paolo Micheli)
Rudy Guede : Intrusion and burglaring houses
1) Intrusion into a nursery in Milan, no consequences for him, the Police let him run, no further investigation by the authorities after Rudy Guede's arrest for murder.
2) Break-in into a flat in Perugia and identified by the occupant Tramontano, no official complaint to the Police, no further investigation when Tramontano was heard as a witness.
3) Goods from a break-in into a lawyer office in Perugia in possession of Rudy Guede. Rudy Guede, without any ressources, stated that he ha bought the stolen objects in Milan. No further investigation by the authorities after Rudy Guede's arrest for murder.
Rudy Guede : Crime scene
1) He had admitted his presence in the cottage before, during and after the crime
2) He was the only person having left clear and undisputed shoeprints, palm prints and DNA in the room of the victim
3) He had left bloody shoe prints in the hall leading to the front door of the flat
4) His bare foot print was clearly identified in the little bathroom
5) His feces had been found and identified in the large bathroom
There was NO other evidence in the murder room but evidence pointing to Rudy Guede.

Nevertheless Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini maintained that Amanda Knox was the main instigator and perpetrator of the crime. Mignini had focussed on Amanda Knox. Amanda had become his previledged target.

To keep their case running the Prosecution was forced to absolutely avoid Rudy Guede becoming a burglar.They simply stated that Amanda Knox had staged the break-in to divert the attention from her. This theory was only based on an assumption, there was no material evidence, no witness to show that the break-in was staged. They simply (as if nothing more normal) continued to state the crime scene did not fit a burglary, that the alleged modus "operanti" did not fit Rudy Guede, it was admitted that the break-in would not have his signature.
Through all the trials (except Hellmann) this was accepted as a fact. All the evidence presented by the Prosecution was again based on assumptions easy to challenge because all material evidence clearly pointing towards a break-in.

The major hole in the narrative/theory of the Prosecution was solved by

Paolo Micheli ruled this through judicial ex cathedra reasoning :
HE DOES NOT NEED EVIDENCE, COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC TELLS HIM THAT AMANDA AND RAFFAELE HAD ARRANGEMENTS WITH GUEDE TO ATTACK MEREDITH! (Judge Paolo Micheli, 1t trial, Rudy Guede)
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:28 am

pmop57 wrote:Another 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.

I wouldn't see a possible way to accomplish this. Any time there is relevant evidence added or re-evaluated concerning the crime it must effect both trials about this crime. I think these trials should even correspond more or even not being separated at all in this way.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:40 am

kermit the frog wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Another 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.

I wouldn't see a possible way to accomplish this. Any time there is relevant evidence added or re-evaluated concerning the crime it must effect both trials about this crime. I think these trials should even correspond more or even not being separated at all in this way.


I agree with you. I was not able to find a similar case in Italy.

Handling this case this way was clearly a violation of the rights of the defendants to a fair and unbiased trial. Nobody should admit that after decisions made by several Judges would not impact the public opinion and even worse other members of the Judiciary.

For me it is obvious that the Supreme Court of Italy (ruling against Hellmann-Zanetti) even knowingly ignored these facts by explicitely stating that the "new" Appeal Court (Nencini) should consider the rulings of the former Courts and rulings against Rudy Guede.

The case has got reduced to "Prosecution (Mignini)" and "Pre-trial" (Micheli). All the rest was a judicial farce, a damning indictment of modern society.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:02 pm

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: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:45 am

The before mentioned ruling by the SCI in the Guede case shows clearly that:
1) they have become very well aware of the problem of the simultaneous fact validation by the former trials against Guede
2) instead of clearly dismissing these rulings as inadmissible they validated the rulings and fact findings of the lower courts
3) instead of clearly dismissing these rulings they try to imply the Defence of Guede

Their statements are simply hypocritical because in their later ruling in favour of Guede attributing him mitigating circumstances they state:
It must be taken into consideration that Guede was the sole person ready to point to the other perpetrators (having acted together). I don't know to whom else he pointed to but Ak&RS.

The next points are also clear, Guede's sentencing was based on rulings immediately prejudicial for AK&RS.
1) Guede did not act alone, he did act together with AK&RS. This is clearly determined by the lower Courts not contested but confirmed by the SCI (no return to the lower Courts for reconsideration).
2) Guede is not a burglar, he was not breaking into the cottage, but he gained access through AK in possession of the access keys.
3) Guede is not the sole killer of MK, the wound's pattern shows clearly the involvement of others, namely AK&RS
4) Validation and confirmation of the forensic findings.
5) Shifting the time of death to make it fit the testimony of the witnesses
6) Confirming that Guede and AK&RS knew each other (Micheli)
...
And again all and everything by a further ruling of the SCI against AK&RS stating that the Appeal Court must take into considerations and rulings of the trials against Guede.
...

Always basing on trials the defendants have not been part of.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:17 pm

Most of the evidence validation is based on the pre-trial rulings by Paolo Micheli. The pre-trial should be nothing but the stating that the Judge finds the findings of the Prosecution sufficient to start a trial against the suspected perpetrators. Only than should start the trial phase, Main Trial, Appeal Trial, Court of Cassation ruling.
This sequence was blatantly disrespected by the Judiciary.
Guede was choosing the Fast Track option, the particularity of this choice was the pre-trial becoming the Main Trial against Guede with limited rights of the defendant to react. Micheli and Borsini-Bellardi mainly based the proof of guilt of Guede on validation of evidence against AK&RS. Public prejudgement of AK&RS. IMO the trials against both are illegal and must me annulled.

It is also interesting to compare the wording of the Micheli and the Massai motivation report. But to see the details you need somebody who is Italian speaking.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:17 am

The logic of guilt:
1) pressure a person to make false statements
2) transpose normal behaviour in criminal behaviour
- the showering scene, ...
- the discovery of the crime scene, ...
3) character assassination
- the leaking of information to the Press
- the witnesses of the British girls (transform normal behaviour in criminal behaviour
4) create motives based on phantasy
5) justify your case based on assumptions not supported by any evidence
6) create evidence (witnesses, ...)
7) manipulate evidence (forensics, medical, ...)
8) base your judgement rulings on judicial semantics (truth versus judicial truth)
9) silence your critics
...
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:27 am

pmop57, do you know about Steve Moore's explanation of the case? Is it compatible with your analysis?

I didn't read his book where he probably goes in more detail. Shortly he assumes a conspiracy to cover Guede as police informant is the reason behind framing RS+AK. I can't see this well supported however.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:13 am

I did only read the books of Bruce Fisher, the Monster of Florence and "Der Engel mit den Eisaugen", both from Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Ron Hendry. I try to stick to the Court documents and the explanations of knowledgeable friends here on board and elsewhere concerning specific scientific subjects and legal aspects, and to also acquire a large spectrum of ideas, and overall information. This since now more than two years.

I am no fan of conspiracy theories and I don't believe that this was a conspiracy in the classical sense. There is no evidence that Rudy Guede was an informant of the Police even that Mignini himself did not exclude this in an interview and even that there is large evidence that Guede was somehow protected (in the sense of hidden from the public). There are much more signs of local "standard" corruption (with out flows of cash), covering each other, handshake politics, personal agendas, face saving, ... .

The case against both AK&RS is in my opinion a construct by one mastermind, Giuliano Mignini, Prosecutor of Perugia at the moment of the facts. The case is first and above all a narrative by Mignini. The evidence (inexistent) was made fit the narrative. A story about Rudy Guede was not big enough. The rest is Italian systemic judicial failure.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:57 am

For me the case is mainly based on the intentional and organised character assassination of Amanda Knox. I think there have been some "deeply confused masterminds" in Perugia to construct this case against an innocent young wome.
One personality trait of her's (overall she was a normal, harmless, more or less open, in the positive sense extroverted personality), the extroversion part was shamelessly exploited by the Police and the Prosecution. This personality trait mainly characterises a person who acquires her energy and motivations out of her social relations and social competence. These persons mainly trust and believe in the good of people they share their lives with and are basically non violent (in resume).
They sometimes are criticised of being to loud and reacting inappropriate in particular situations. But all this occurs merely never to cause harm or out of malicious intentions.
All and everzthing that was used against her was based on the exploitation of this personality trait, I repeat it. And I can undermine and document this by all the evil that was attributed to her from starting with the finding of killed Meredith until today in many and to many minds.
There is one of her own saying which made this very clear for me and quoted in her book, "I could not understand how anybody could believe that I could be capable of committing such a crime".
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:43 pm

But what is the profit of the character assassination for each of the participants or for the whole group and how do they communicate with each other.

I am also no fan of conspiracy theories but main complex is not explained. Everybody seems to know exactly when and what he/she has to do (e.g. when is a murder weapon needs to be fetched, what DNA has to be presented on it, what hard disks to destroy and what else the different judges have to conceal of exonerating evidence etc..). All this organized illegal manipulation is at least risky for each one's career if not freedom and not done without strong reason. Especially Mignini being already convicted should know he is one leg in jail by playing on such games. Why other investigators, prosecutors, even judges want to participate in something like that. Not so obvious to me.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:00 pm

kermit the frog wrote:But what is the profit of the character assassination for each of the participants or for the whole group and how do they communicate with each other.

I am also no fan of conspiracy theories but main complex is not explained. Everybody seems to know exactly when and what he/she has to do (e.g. when is a murder weapon needs to be fetched, what DNA has to be presented on it, what hard disks to destroy and what else the different judges have to conceal of exonerating evidence etc..). All this organized illegal manipulation is at least risky for each one's career if not freedom and not done without strong reason. Especially Mignini being already convicted should know he is one leg in jail by playing on such games. Why other investigators, prosecutors, even judges want to participate in something like that. Not so obvious to me.


Who are the key players for YOU? What are for YOU the central points of eventual miscarriage?
How do YOU think it worked?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:37 pm

Honestly I have no clue. It must be an Italian thing. I don't believe they are doing this for the first time.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:54 pm

kermit the frog wrote:Honestly I have no clue. It must be an Italian thing. I don't believe they are doing this for the first time.


IMO you only have three dominant groups who act in a criminal case :

The Police 1) Local Police (Napoleoni) 2) Forensic Police from Rome (Stafanoni)

The Prosecution (Mignini), a double sided function 1) Lead of the investigation (Mignini) 2) Lead of the Accusation (Mignini), part of the same body than the Judges

The judges : 1) Local Judges (Micheli) 2) Supreme Court Judges

The narrative of the case and the evidence is assembled by the Prosecutor and presented to the Judge of the preliminary trial. The preliminary judge decides if the elements presented by the Prosecution are sufficient to trie the accused. The trial phase starts ( but attention the preliminary trial is also the fast track trial). The Appeal Trial. The Cassation. And so on.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby LarryK » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:41 am

Mignini is a diabolical mastermind; he was and is pulling plenty of levers, including in Rome. This doesn't necessarily mean that he initiated the focus on Amanda (there is evidence that Napoleoni was the first to zero in on her, for reasons that aren't clear, but I hope there will be a break here given what we now know of Napoleoni's legal troubles.) It does seem like they wanted to reduce the role of Rudy; the only clear reason being that they had ordered him released in Milan after the nursery school arrest, which freed him to kill Meredith, but that begs the question why they ordered him released to begin with. This seems to be limited to speculation at this point, but again I hope some kind of break occurs concerning this.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:58 am

A burglar is not always send to prison right away before trial. In his case I don't know why he should.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:39 am

kermit the frog wrote:A burglar is not always send to prison right away before trial. In his case I don't know why he should.

I agree with you, but there was not even a complaint, not even a detailed report, he was set in the train in Milan and sent back to Perugia. Back in Perugia nothing happened either! This may be practice in Italy but it exposes the Police in a bad light and it begs the question if the murder of Metedith could have been avoided if he had been treated correctly.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:52 am

Sure, this could be a part of the motivation to declare the burglary as staged. Maybe it is even the *initial* motivation to conceal the mistake having set free a burglar who just continues what he has done before.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:01 am

I come back to several other unanswered questions, also asked by Kermit:
1) The destroyed hard drives : a) it is unknown who destroyed the hard drives, this could have been done by anybody with some technical knowledge (just to say that you don't need much people to disturb or destroy evidence), b) the motive for the destruction is unknown. The four hard drives have been destroyed intentionally (which is my opinion) to divert from the owner of the laptop that was targeted (they accepted to be looked like being fools which they are not).
There are several possible reasons why to destroy them:
1) possible time stamps showing activity or to avoid time stamps being discovered they missed
2) Amamda and especially Meredith might have had an electronic diary showing that the relationship between the two girls has been much different from the one the Prosecution tried to draw.
3) Idem to 2) photos showing a not disturbed relationship between the two girls and the photos eventually being timestamped.
4) A more improbable reason, there was a person, on one of the stored photos, the girls knew and that might have beeb disturbing or troubling the investigators (but this is more in favour of a conspiracy or high level corruption).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:37 am

The staged break-in was overtaken by Mignini to keep the case against AK&RS running.
If he had conceded that it was a burglary committed through breaking into the cottage, ergo Rudy Guede being the burglar he would have had to liberate AK&RS. Maintaining this assumption, without any material evidence (but again simply assumptions) was vital for the Prosecution's case. There cannot be any doubt.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:08 am

A major point where as well the Prosecition and the Judges cruelly failed is the refusing of the testing of the semen stain (with a complete absurd motivation not to do so, the semen deposition could not be time stamped, absurd).
All the signs of the crime scene pointed to a failed burglary, followed by killing and raping the victim Meredith Kercher. I never heard a about a case of sexual violence where biological material from the probable rapist was deposited but the investigators refused to test.
I cannot believe that the stain was not tested, the stupidest investigator would like to know it's origins. So why did they not want to publish the result? To whom did it point to? To Guede? To a known third person, being not RS or Metedith's friend? Was the result exculpatory evidence?
Would it have been to obvious that AK&AS did not participate in this crime when it belonged to RG? Would it have to much exposed RG as THE rapist if it had been known belonging to him? Would it have been more difficult for them to hide RG from the public interest and to make of him more a statist of the crime than the sole perpetrator?
What it certainly was is a refusal to collect exculpatory evidence in favour of AK&RS!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:34 am

Would the semen stain found in this position maybe just clash with the alleged later moving of the corpse - which supported 'multiple perpetrators'? Not sure which was the latest narrative however.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:25 am

kermit the frog wrote:Would the semen stain found in this position maybe just clash with the alleged later moving of the corpse - which supported 'multiple perpetrators'? Not sure which was the latest narrative however.


The multiple perpetrator theory was fixed before any forensic finding or result.
The body was not moved later. There are no traces to support such a theory. The moving of the body was invented to support the "mise en scène" narrative of the Prosecution accepted without any critics by Micheli (pre- trial and fast track trial Guede).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:03 am

My opinion about the first origin of the case against AK&RS :
1) The pressure exercised on the Police because a murder in a student environment in a town with a foreigner university where students are an economic factor is a catastrophic situation for the officials and it quickly went up to Rome.
2) The complete lack of experience to deal with a murder case of the main investigator Monica Napoleoni, it was her first murder case as chief of the Police Homicide Squad (I believe that the same is valid for Mignini and I believe also that Mignini had nothing learnt from his implication in the "Narducci" case). And for the Police and the Prosecution in general, complete absence of psychological training and complete lack of any empathy towards students. Edgardo Gubbio is probably the main example for this attitude, his stupidity is really difficult to top
3) A Forensic Police lacking any rigour in their work, progressing at crime scene like the elephant in the porcelain store.
4) The will to solve the crime the most quickly possible.
5) Prosecutor Mignini. First the character and personality of Mignini is best described by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. For me there is not much to add. Mignini was personally under enormous pressure, he was himself under investigation for abuse of office but not dismissed from his functions as a Prosecutor as he should have been. I am quite convinced that Mignini wanted to clear his name through a quick and important success in this case, the more important the case, the better. He wanted to reinstate his reputation in Petugia, he is the type of person who would never accept a personal failure or defeat, and the type of State servant (also very well known in my country) that simply consider themselves being situated "above" law. I am as convinced that Mignini mainly focused on Amanda Knox because she was American, he had still a revenge to take on Preston who had escaped, being an American, to the US. And Mignini was and is convinced that Preston and the publishing of his book together with Spezi, The Monster of Florence, was a conspiracy and a personal attack against him, Mignini, ... .
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:25 am

I think that a factor of some importance was the very, very early assumption that the break in was "staged." This led to the assumption that the crime had to be committed by someone with a key. The two Italian tenants both worked in law firms and were not very good targets for interrogation. I think that they were also viewed as unlikely perps. By process of elimination this left Amanda (it shouldn't have - logically, they should have investigated past tenants, the landlord, workmen who had keys, etc.). Anyhow, top this off with some quirky behavior in the period of time immediately after the crime and she quickly moved to the top of the suspect list. The big problem is that there seemed to be no awareness of the "confirmation bias" problem so that the entire process was warped by this initial set of assumptions.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:38 am

erasmus44 wrote:I think that a factor of some importance was the very, very early assumption that the break in was "staged." This led to the assumption that the crime had to be committed by someone with a key. The two Italian tenants both worked in law firms and were not very good targets for interrogation. I think that they were also viewed as unlikely perps. By process of elimination this left Amanda (it shouldn't have - logically, they should have investigated past tenants, the landlord, workmen who had keys, etc.). Anyhow, top this off with some quirky behavior in the period of time immediately after the crime and she quickly moved to the top of the suspect list. The big problem is that there seemed to be no awareness of the "confirmation bias" problem so that the entire process was warped by this initial set of assumptions.

It was a very early factor but I think it was not really of importance for the Police and Mignini, whom I consider being the architect of the crime narrative, during the initial interrogation phase.
I think it became of new and real importance when Rudy Guede was officially named as perpetrator and when PL had to be excluded. From on that moment Mignini had conditionally to prove that the initial crime was not a burglary, that there had been three perpetrators, ... , that Guede was not a known burglar, ... .
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:42 pm

I doubt that the break-in really was early assumed "staged". That is what the police and prosecution have to claim to justify their allegations at a later stage after suspecting roommates.

Experts tend to regard the scene as not uncommon as normal burglary scenario. This makes me assume that an average italian policeman will perceive it the same way. Consequently I believe that standard burglary forensics like fingerprint saving from window frame have been performed and so maybe Guede was already identified earlier than we think.

I think that the roommates in this situation are simply the expected first targets/traces in the investigation. As soon as one was found with a "weak" alibi the framing around her started. First steps is to destroy possible other alibis -> laptop files, construct motive....

There was no choice to pick a person by nationality or someone with relation to a black male that could be used to cover Guede like it was suggested. However many coincidences could be used to frame the suspects if you fit the narrative respectively.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:17 pm

kermit the frog wrote:I doubt that the break-in really was early assumed "staged". That is what the police and prosecution have to claim to justify their allegations at a later stage after suspecting roommates.

Experts tend to regard the scene as not uncommon as normal burglary scenario. This makes me assume that an average italian policeman will perceive it the same way. Consequently I believe that standard burglary forensics like fingerprint saving from window frame have been performed and so maybe Guede was already identified earlier than we think.

I think that the roommates in this situation are simply the expected first targets/traces in the investigation. As soon as one was found with a "weak" alibi the framing around her started. First steps is to destroy possible other alibis -> laptop files, construct motive....

There was no choice to pick a person by nationality or someone with relation to a black male that could be used to cover Guede like it was suggested. However many coincidences could be used to frame the suspects if you fit the narrative respectively.


There was the discussion from on the beginning that this was not a real break-in mainly based on "nothing was missing".

It is correct that in cases of domestic violence and/or rape the Police is mostly starting with investigating persons out of the closer environment of the victim.

The motive was from Mignini, "the ritual sex game gone wrong", there can be no doubt. I am also convinced that if PL had not had a strong alibi he would have remained in prison. Would the finding of Guede have freed PL? Not sure!

For me it is certain that the evidence, mainly based on assumptions, was collected to fit the narrative!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:28 pm

The main problem for the Judges of the Court of Cassation was to conceal the findings and facts validated by the Guede Courts and themselves with an innocence decision by the AK&RS Courts (Hellmann-Zanetti). The only possible way to conceal the two trials is a guilty verdict! They solve the dilemma created by their own rulings and the failing of their own procedures on the back of two innocent! Case closed! The Italian judicial procedural laws are not conceived to deal with such a constellation of a case.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:30 pm

The problem is, the case is not closed and nothing is really concealed by these questionable decisions of the supreme court. In the contrary, the case was opened again and even gained much more attention all around the world. Now everyone is discussing the sloppy italian police and corrupt judiciary. It was to expect in a case present in all media already with several books written about it.
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby LarryK » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:16 am

The Postal Police were looking at it in terms of a staged burglary (and Filomena agreed) even before the murder was discovered. The presumed motive to begin with was insurance fraud. Then when Meredith was found, the idea of the staged burglary carried over into the murder investigation.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby kermit the frog » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:13 am

When was this statement made by the Postal police?
je suis Charlie
User avatar
kermit the frog
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am
Location: Germany

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:29 am

kermit the frog wrote:When was this statement made by the Postal police?


Even if it looks unimportant to me I will try to find it.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:56 am

The blocs of evidence by the Prosecution:

Part 1) The process of discovery of the crime scene
a) AK first return to the cottage (alone)
b) AK second return to the cottage (with RS) joined by Filomena and three friends and the Postal Police (two officers)
c) Behavioural issues through Police observation

Part 2) The interrogation
a) Preliminary interrogations
b) AK third return to the cottage (with Edgardo Giobbi, Police Inspector)
c) AK and RS interrogation November 5th to November 6th (the all night interrogation)
d) Behavioural issues
e) Language problems and duplicity of translations
f) Intentional mistranslation and misinterpretation

Part 3) The forensic evidence
a) The kitchen knife and the DNA
b) The bra-clasp and the DNA, collected 47 days after the crime (not collect the first day but marked 140
c) The bloody bare foot print on the blue bath mat
d) Foot traces
e) Destroyed hard drives
f) Missing phone tapes

Part 4) The witnesses
a) The British friends of MK
b) Filomena Romanelli, Laura Mezzetti and the boys downstairs
c) Nara Capellezzi, the old lady with the dog's ears
d) Curatolo, the homeless watch dog
e) Quintavalle , the shopkeeper with the Photoshop memory
f) Tramontano, the burglary victim of Rudy Guede
g) The break-in and burglary in the lawyer office in Perugia by Rudy Guede
h) The responsible from the nursery, intrusion without permission of Rudy Guede, arrested and set free in Milan
I) The mysterious journalist from Giornale del Umbria
j) Rudy Guede, the witness refusing cross-examination

Part 5) The assumptions
a) The staged break-in versus the real break-in
b) The modified crime scene (mise en scène)
c) The cleaning of the crime scene
d) The multiple perpetrator theory (the fight against MK)
e) The relation between RG and AK&RS
f) The letters of Rudy Guede

Mignini : "there was no time to analyse all the evidence collected"
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:21 pm

The staged break-in versus real break-in

At the beginning of the investigation when the Police still wanted to believe that PL was one of the perpetrators together with AK&RS the narrative about a staged break-in might have made sense but as soon as RG was detected being the perpetrator it should have bean clear that the break-in was not at all staged.

Nevertheless the investigators have been completely wrong in their interpretation of the break-in that shows that they never correctly (if at all ) investigated the breaking of the window. All the arguing of the Prosecution and the Judges (including the SCI against Hellmann-Zanetti) that the window was broken from the inside is simply wrong. There is no possible doubt.

A detailed analyses of the window and the shutters clearly shows that the stone was thrown from the outside and the glass pane broken from the outside. There is clear physical evidence that shows that the stone could only have been thrown from the outside. A further support of this fact is the glass chart distribution pattern inside the room.

A second point at the outside wall of the cottage is the clearly visible scratching at the top of a stone framing the first floor window. That fresh mark shows clearing that somebody was climbing the wall stepping with his food on top of that stone.

The witnessing of Filomena Romanelli is not reliable

After studying the witnessing of Filomena Romanelli (Micheli motivation) it should be clear that she did not remember how she left the shutters when she was leaning in a hurry the cottage being already late. Her statements points clearly to her closing them without latching the shutters.
It seems to be the same about her explanations about the glass charts being on top of her clothes or not. She was certainly entering a first time her room when the broken window was discovered to see if some of her stuff had eventually been stolen. It is absolutely not clear what she rummaged at that moment. A second time she entered her room after Meredith's dead body was found to take some other stuff before having to leave the cottage and a third time to collect her laptop.
Of cause she did nothing of this to intentionally modify the crime scene, but it is as clear that she was not a freak of ranging her stuff, that she was as well under stress as all the other and it can be admitted with certainty that her observations of the crime scene have been much tainted by the experienced shock and pain discovering that MK had been killed.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:49 am

The kitchen knife

Amanda Knox never carried the concerned kitchen knife on the public domain. There is no evidence that she ever had this knife with her outside RS's flat. No traces of blood or abrasion in her purse. The sentencing for the transportation of the knife in the public area is null and void.

Complete absence of blood evidence on the kitchen knife.

The kitchen knife was never at the cottage and never used for the stabbing of MK.

The kitchen knife does not match the wounds suffered by MK.

The DNA analyses operated by Patricia Steffanoni has to be dismissed because they are not reliable, my interpretation of the results, 97,5% lab contamination, 2,5% natural transfer, 0,0% crime scene presence probababilities.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:18 pm

Filomena Romanelli, witnessing, inspecting her room (further information break-in)

Battistelli testified that when Filomena arrived, she spent 2-3 minutes inspecting her room and determined that nothing was missing.

It is absolutely not clear what she rummaged in her room, as mentioned above.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:28 pm

Judge Paolo Micheli and the broken window

Judge Micheli explains his reasoning on the method of Rudy’s entry into the cottage. He says that Rudy’s entry through the window is a very unlikely scenario and the evidence also indicates otherwise. He says the height and position of the window would expose any climber to the full glare of traffic headlights from cars on Via della Pergola. He asks, why wouldn’t a thief choose to break in through a ground floor window of the empty house? He says the broken glass and marks on the shutter both demonstrate the window was broken from the inside*, some of the glass even falling on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been thrown around the room to simulate a robbery.

There was no source but Filomena stating that she remembered glass being on top of the clothes. Nobody else confirmed this. No glass is visible on the photos and films by the Police on top of the clothes. (the Court of Cassation annulling the Hellmann-Zanetti ruling confirms this and gives an explanation of it's own not conform to it's legal attributions


But his major reasoning for believing Rudy’s entry was through the front door are the bloody bare footprints which show up with luminol and fit Knox’s and Sollecito’s feet.

Completely hilarious interpretation.*

This suggest that they entered Filomena’s room and created the scene in there after Meredith was killed.

Allessandra Formica witnessed Rudy run away shortly after Meredith was stabbed. Someone went back later, left those footprints and staged the scene.

* plain wrong
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:14 am

The Court of Cassation against Hellmann (technical notice)

First, it is stated that according to the court of second instance “only Guede had an interest in staging [...] this entirely assertive allegation was not allowed, also because undermined by contradictions and being the product of a failure to take account of the data permanently acquired in the record. The judgment that convicted Rudy, not contradicted on the point by new elements of evidence, found that the bloody shoeprints of the said [Rudy] marked the path he followed from the room of poor Meredith to the outer door of the house, without going through Romanelli’s room, since, as it was written, the traces of the victim’s blood marked the path followed by Guede, without any deviation”.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Italy is again referring to findings and rulings from the trial against Rudy Guede, trials AK&RS have not been part of. The SCI is simply ignoring the obligation of the State to assure the defendant a fair, independent and unbiased trial.
Plus the SCI denies the Appeal Court's (Hellmann) right to acquire and formulate a different opinion than the one acquired during the first trial(s) (Massai and Micheli).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:13 pm

The broken window, knowing that it is certain that the window was broken from the outside, physical elements don't allow an other explanation!
Considered as facts
- The broken window is linked to the murder crime -------------- why?
- MK would NEVER have allowed RG to enter the cottage -------- why?
- there is no evidence that RG and AK&RS ever met or ever had a date, RS did not even know RG
- there is no evidence that RG ever met MK or ever had a date
- A staged break-in would ONLY be of interest for AK ------------- why?
- a burglar staging a burglary
- Could RG have got access to the cottage under different circumstances?
Random events
- The bomb thread at the house (location) where the phones of MK have been found --- is there a link? why?
- The traffic around the cottage, the close parking lot
Random note
- The wind might have opened the exterior shutter if only slightly closed.
- The front door was left open the entire the night (AK found the front door open when she reached the cottage the following day).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:16 pm

The astonishing correlation of Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini's narrative of the crime?


The correlation of the reasoning and acting of Giuliano Mignini in the Narducci and the Kercher case?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Niteangel » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:00 pm

pmop57 wrote:- The bomb thread at the house (location) where the phones of MK have been found --- is there a link? why?


This is a strange a coincidence isn't it? I have been wondering about this too (and all the other things you mentioned).

Among other things, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the break-in was staged, why assume that Amanda is the one who would have had a reason to do this? Rudy Guede had a very good reason to stage a break-in, since he was an acquaintance, played basketball with her boyfriend (Meredith's), and she had met him a few times, she had no reason to suspect him of being violent, nor not to open the door if he knocked. So Rudy Guede's reason to stage a break-in: to lead the police to believe a total stranger broke-in.

P.S.: Interesting posts pmop :)
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:58 am

pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:14 am

The Guede initial statements (main points)

1) He had a date with Meredith and 1a) he met her at the cottage at 9:00 pm

The time of death was confirmed by the pathologist (time of death 6:00 pm (last dinner) + 3-4 hours = 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm), this is the normal timeline the food transiting the stomach to reach the duedonum. The expertise of the pathologist is quite clear about this timeline. PROBLEM, these findings are simply dismissed and ignored because they confirm the alibis of AK&RS (computer activity). Plus this would have lead RG to equally confirming the alibi of AK&RS (computer activity) because he clearly situated his arrival at the cottage at 9:00 pm. This expertise by the pathologist is also proof of the correlation between the medical estimation of time death and RG's statements about the time of the murder. All these findings are obviously coherent and correlated. BUT NOT SO FOR THE PROSECUTION, the acceptance of these arguments would destroy the PROSECUTION case against AK&RS and MIGNINI is NOT WILLING TO ADMIT these facts and against any logic simply change the time of death by replacing the above expertise with two completely incredible witness statements (Curstolo, Capellezzi, ...) in favour of the PROSECUTION NARRATIVE.

2) AK&RS and PL have not been there

If one reads carefully the letters of RG from Germany it is absolutely clear that at that moment of the writing he was totally incapable to understand (evaluate and situate) why the Perugia authorities have been focussing on PL and AK&RS. He knew that nobody of them was present at the cottage the night of the crime. He was making imaginary speculations about this topic, he was trying to understand but he did not. But he also knew that he had no chance to escape.

3) MK complained about money having been stolen by AK

This point is of cause linked to point 8). The motivation to point to a third person, AK having stolen the money was of cause of common interest for RG and the Prosecution. It is absolutely obvious why AK had to be charged with theft. RG being a thief would have been brought him to close to the "possibility" of a burglary. Better avoid to much discussion. This is again one of the points pointing to the perverse reasoning of the Prosecution and the absolute will of Mignini to frame AK.

4) He had been using the the toilets when 4a) Meredith cried

Using the toilets could not be denied by Guede, it was linking him directly to the crime scene. Point.

5) He had been attacked by an unknown intruder who had killed MK (the intruder was left handed)

RG protected himself with a chair (inversed action, see Tramontano).

6) During this attack he suffered cuts at his hand

7) He insisted that no window was broken when he left (he stated that he had checked this)

To give his story about the unknown intruder credibility RG had to absolutely avoid that his crime was considered a burglary (he points also to his arrest in Milan and called it a misunderstanding). A burglary would have completely inconsistent with his version about a date with RK. So he simply had to deny that any window had been damaged.

This is of cause not contested by the Prosecution because it is absolutely coherent with the independently developed crime narrative by Mignini. It is again astonishing who coherent RG and Mignini, independent from each other, are capable of simultaneously creating a very similar crime narrative.

8) He insisted that he did not rape MK (consensual sexual intercourse)

9) He insisted that MK was dressed when he left

a) Here RG is consistant with the Prosecution's theory of the staged crime scene (mise ne scène) and the clean-up.

10) He introduced the "race" aspect (black man found, guilty man found)

11) His key statement: "What happened this night was bigger than me!"

Without wanting to fall into the trap of tele-psychology just this. For me this statement of RG was a crucial part of his letters because here he was clearly pointing to the gravity of the crime he had been committing (what happened) and that he got aware of a trait of him he ignored up to that night (was bigger than me), description for the crime he committed, the total loss of control. For me it showed also that the killing and raping was not planned but a consequence of the escalation of violence up to total loss of control.

12) The Skype Conversation

13) The Perugia changing versions

14) The Capanne interrogation by Mignini and Napoleoni

15) Pointing to AK&RS, a deal?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Gibsie » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:21 am

What do the *s denote..?
Gibsie
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:28 am

Gibsie wrote:What do the *s denote..?

I will come back to these points (combined importance).
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:46 am

pmop57 wrote:Filomena Romanelli, witnessing, inspecting her room (further information break-in)

Battistelli testified that when Filomena arrived, she spent 2-3 minutes inspecting her room and determined that nothing was missing.

It is absolutely not clear what she rummaged in her room, as mentioned above.



She may have been removing marijuana and evidence of its use because her preoccupation at this point may have been the danger of being prosecuted for marijuana possession.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:49 am

erasmus44 wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Filomena Romanelli, witnessing, inspecting her room (further information break-in)

Battistelli testified that when Filomena arrived, she spent 2-3 minutes inspecting her room and determined that nothing was missing.

It is absolutely not clear what she rummaged in her room, as mentioned above.



She may have been removing marijuana and evidence of its use because her preoccupation at this point may have been the danger of being prosecuted for marijuana possession.


I agree with you, in three minutes you can modify a lot. But I think also that she was somehow a "messie" in her own room and she wanted to hide this somehow. Simply look at the putting her stuff around.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:16 am

To make their case work the Prosecution would have had to demonstrate:
- RG and AK&RS merely or not even knowing each other joined for the sole purpose to kill a friend of AK&RS.
- The murder was premeditated because the kitchen knife was transported in her purse, not for self defence but for killing MK.
- The motive of the killing was of ritual sexual gaming nature.
- The bresk-in was a mise en scene to divert the attention from AK to RG.
- The crime scene was cleaned to point to RG, the toilet was not flushed to point to RG.

The alleged perpetrators:
Patrick Limumba, bar tender, employer of Amanda Knox, married, two young children
Rudy Guede, jobless, kown to be a local little criminal without financial outcome
Meredith Kercher, language student
Amanda Knox, language student, waitress, employee of Patrick Lumumba
Raffaele Sollecito, IT student

The relationship between the alleged perpetrators:
Patrick Lumumba / Amanda Knox ---> employer / employee
Patrick Lumumba / Meredith Kercher ---> futile
Patrick Lumumba / Rudy Guede ---> futile to not at all
Patrick Lumumba / Raffaele Sollecito ---> futile through Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede / Meredith Kercher ---> futile, 2 times meeting through her friend and the other boys living downstairs
Rudy Guede / Amanda Knox ---> futile, 2 times meeting through the boys living downstairs (both times together with Meredith Kercher)
Rudy Guede / Raffaele Sollecito ---> no known contact
Raffaele Sollecito / Amanda Knox ---> pair and known to each other since little more than one week
Raffaele Sollecito / Meredith Kercher ---> several times meeting through Amanda Knox

Remarks: Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito have been known pot smokers as well as all the other
occupants of the Cottage. There is no knowledge about any of them consuming other prohibited drugs.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:04 pm

2010: April 23, 2010, Monster of Florence: Amanda Knox Prosecutor's Satanic Theories Rejected by Judge"
" Tuesday, in a preliminary hearing, Perugia Judge Paolo Micheli threw out the case against the 20. The judge found there was no solid evidence to back up Mignini's claim that Narducci was murdered, let alone the victim of a satanic sect". "Late Tuesday evening, when the 20 defendants were freed of all charges, they celebrated in front of the courthouse, opening bottles of champagne".
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:14 pm

Time of death, Paolo Micheli
8. INVESTIGATING MEREDITH'S ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO HER DEATH, TOD time of death, guestimated to be ~11pm maybe ;
BEGINING NOV 1, 2007, INVESTIGATING MEREDITH ACTIVITIES;
Starting with the investigations, the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police proceeded to reconstruct the movements of the girl [ Meredith ] in the last hours of life, it is also the assumptions made by CT coroner point of time of death, to be placed at a distance of no more than 2 or 3 hours after last meal, and would probably be understood took place at around 23:00 [ 11 pm ]


LATER SOPHIE SAYS NOW SHE REMEMBERS GETTING HOME AROUND 8:55 pm
On 17 November, P. [Sophie Purton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition, confirming the initial statements without time to clarify where the four friends had begun to eat in the house of A. [ Amy Frost] and R.[Robyn Butterworth] (perhaps 18:00 [ 6 pm ] , or maybe first): instead correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55 [ 8:55 pm ] . Clothing M. [Meredith Kercher] , claimed that her friend was wearing jeans a bit 'torn, a blue jacket and a blue sweatshirt, both "Adidas".
She added that part of the afternoon watching him busy on the Internet photographs of the evening before (that one of her friends had put on his blog), states that M.[Meredith Kercher], returning home, he agreed with the P.[Sophie Purton] that were both tired and would go straight to bed without saying anything about where he was or what facesse A.[ who? ] evening. Finally he had never known it excluded some of the usual frequenters of the basketball court before the University for Foreigners.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:44 pm

Rudy Guede (an approach) and the efficiency of his defence

The basic crime narrative of RG : He had a date with MK at 9:00 pm at the cottage. He and MK had some nice conversation when he felt the need to use to the toilets which he did. While listening at his IPod he heard MK cry,. He speeded out of the toilets and was confronted to an unknown perpetrator who attracted him and injured and while defending himself with a chair received cuts on his hand with a knife. The perpetrator succeeded in escaping through the front door. Then RG discovered MK, the throat slit by the unknown perpetrator, bleeding to death. Fearing to be held responsible for the crime RG, without calling for emergency, also leaves the crime scene.

He will later add that they had consensual sexual intercourse, that there was no window broken when he left, that MK was still dressed when he left, that MK had complaint about money having been stolen by AK, ... .

Back at Perugia and in the hands of Police and Prosecution he will more and more link AK&RS to the crime. His final version being that he could observe both through the window of Filomena Romanelli's room.

But important to notice, he never puts them directly to the crime scene, he always maintains his narrative about the unknown intruder and killer. RG will always state that he did not participate in the killing. He leaves the construct of the murder scenario to the phantasy of the Prosecution.

My question, is the way of reasoning of Guede and Mignini not very similar? Both want to imply different persons in the killing, both, when new evidence appears, progressively adapt their narrative?

They become associates in the construct of the case against AK&RS. A devilish strategy! This would also explain the strange feelings Mignini developed for RG.

Next point is that RG accept to be submitted to the fast track trial procedure which means that he is agreeing to abandon a certain number of rights (for example cross interrogation, further witness request, evidence testing). He formally accepts the findings of the pre-trial judge, the pre-trial becoming his first trial. The pre-trial judge will sentence him on base of the pre-trial findings.

RG and his lawyers knew that he will definitely be sentenced for the murdering of MK.
The strategy nevertheless remains clear:

1) RG will get the maximum sentence 30 years reduced of 1/3 because of his fast track choice ---> 20 years
2) RG had avoided for himself to become subject of cross interrogation by AK&RS, he and his lawyers knew that he would not have standed such kind of interrogation
3) RG and his lawyers could assume that AK&RS would always be part of the trial, that they always would be presented as the main perpetrators of the crime, that the evidence against them would always be part of the case arguing (they only had to listen to Paolo Micheli's argumentation).
4) RG and his lawyer's strategy was always to deny and reduce the participation of their client to a minimum, and their strategy worked because favouring the Prosecution case and Paolo Micheli organising a trial against the three accused (even without AK&RS being part of the trial. All the arguing of the pre-trial was simultaneously used by Paolo Micheli against RG and AK&RG.
5) RG and his lawyers even got a further reduction of the sentence of RG of 4 years for mitigating circumstances, one of the arguments even having been that RG was the sole to point to the co-perpetrators AK&RS.
6) RG and his lawyers with the help of the Perugia law enforcement have been able to merely hide him from the public interest up to completely minimising his role in the case.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:11 am

Double standards

In Italian law the Prosecution has an obligation to obligatory proceed to an investigation as soon as he acquires knowledge about an infraction to an existing law.
When Amanda Knox told the Court that she was pressured and slapped during the investigation, Mignini immediately charged her with slander, he proceeded the same way towards her parents, ... . But he simply ignored to simultaneously investigate the Police officers participating in the interrogation even he actually acquired knowledge about a possible infraction to the law. Why did he fail to his duty to investigate the allegations? Because he was himself part of the interrogation team? Is there still any credibility in proceeding this way?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:16 am

MK eating time and arriving home

On 17 November, Sophie Purton made a new deposition, confirming her initial statements without any time-line to clarify. She stayed that the four friends had begun eating in the house of Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth, perhaps 6 pm, or maybe earlier. But correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 8:55 pm. The clothing Meredith Kercher had been wearing were jeans a bit 'torn, a blue jacket and a blue sweatshirt, both "Adidas".

Witnesses (night incident parking lot)

Having left the car in the parking lot of St. Anthony, they had been directly walking to Piazza Grimana, then had been taking the stairs to reach the shed, the witness recalled that her boyfriend - Lucio Minciotti had been violently struck by a colored boy intending to run very fast towards Via Pinturicchio. According to the indications of times , Alessandra Formica placed the incident at around 10:30 pm / 10:40 pm.

WItness Nara Cappelezzi (maybe between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm

Nara Cappelezzi, a resident in Via del Melo on the first floor of an apartment overlooking the parking lot just at a short distance from the house which had been the scene of the crime reported to the Public Prosecutor to have the windows of her apartment in the direction of the building Via della Pergola 7, but she could only see the roof. The night between 1 and 2 November the woman had gone to bed early, more or less to bed at 9:30 pm (like usually), that after a lapse time that she could not specify, except to say that it maybe "one hour or two , maybe between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm, after her sleep, she felt the need to go to the bathroom.

Paolo Micheli, pre-trial and Guede sentencing motivation
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:27 am

Analyse of corruption in institutionalised organisations

To analyse eventual corruption in institutional organisations it is important to know their organigrams (directorial, operational and functional organisation) and as well as their detailed hierarchical structures. Than is as important to know the level of interaction among the different functions to analyse the points of interaction (intersection) to determine eventual levels of correlation between different actors of the organisation.
Concerning the hierarchical organisations it is also important to identify the same level structures and organisation of work flows. The next point is to identy permanent or temporary group interaction inside the organisation as well as in relation to exterior organisations.
The next point would be to profile the different actors of the organisation in relation to the global structure and in relation to the different common touch points of the different actors.


Sometimes it is interesting to try to get a profile of the acting of members of law enforcement.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:36 pm

It is therefore more reasonable to conclude that the defendant’s entrance into the girls’ apartment on Via della Pergola was with the help of Amanda Knox.

The arguments in favor of this hypothesis are: 1) the fact that the two knew each other (other than the various witness statements, Amanda also admits it during a conversation with her father, which was overheard when under surveillance on 20th November 2007 at the Capanne prison in Perugia); 2) the fact that there were no signs of a break-in through the front door; 3) the fact that, as we will see later, the breaking of the glass in Romanelli’s bedroom was a mise-en-scène [staged]; 4) the fact that both Knox and Sollecito were present at the scene of the crime, not only because, after his intial reticence Guede himself admits it, though providing vague references to the latter [Sollecito], who he probably must have seen with Amanda given the intense love story between the two, but on which it seems he had not focused his attention; but also due to the objective evidence obtained during the course of the investigation.

In looking closer, where one replaces the figure of Patrick Diya Lumbumba, in Amanda’s slanderous reconstruction of events given to the police on 6th November, with the figure of Guede, that version however later shown to be false, would make sense (meeting at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, where it just so happens the defendant was a frequent visitor, where he also confirms to have been that evening, probably after having made sure that his friends from the Marche region were not at home which was followed by entrance into the apartment when only Kercher was home alone, by both of them [Guede and Knox] and Sollecito, with an unclear recollection of the presence of the latter [Sollecito]).

It is not known, not having heard the interested person [Knox], why Amanda indicated Diya instead of Guede, but it is likely that she could have done it because the latter, unlike the former, could have disproved her declared non-participation in the sexual violence and the following homicide, indicating however, a person of colour, in case somebody might have seen her going in the direction of the house or leaving it.

With regards to the staging of the burglary in Romanelli’s room and the complete undressing of the victim, the GUP agrees in essence with the version put forward by the defendant that it happened after he and the other two had left the apartment.

Borsini Bellardi, appeal ruling, Guede
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:43 pm

The only possible explanation of the apparent staging can be an attempt to divert suspicion away from Amanda, who had the keys to the apartment and who, in the absence of the other two flatmates, was the only one who could have freely entered into that house, providing access also to Sollecito and Guede and it is likely, based on the statements made by the latter, that the staging was carried out at a later time, during a later entry into the house, after the murder; a staging carried out by whoever had a real interest in distancing all suspicion away from themselves (Knox and Sollecito), certainly not by Guede, who could not have entered into that house just as he pleased and who had never entered there before that night (see Skype conversation with Benedetti of 19th November 2007, page 88: “when I was with Meredith it was the first time that I had stepped into that house”).

Borsini-Bellardi, appeal ruling, Guede
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:47 pm

Premeditation is not contested, nor are there elements to sustain that the trio already had intentions to commit crimes before entering the house; certainly the introduction into the property of a knife, later found in Sollecito’s house, and not being part of the cutlery set available to the flatmates, as stated by Mezzetti and Romanelli, seems somewhat disturbing, but nothing enables one to conclude that it was carried with the purpose of carrying out an illegal and perverse plan, that only minds accustomed to crime and without scruples could conceive; on the other hand, one only need think of Sollecito’s obsession, amply disseminated by the media, to always go out with a knife in his pocket.

Borsini-Bellardi, appeal ruling, Guede
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:35 pm

RULING CONCERNING RUDY GUEDE

[Sentenza relativa a Rudy Guede, pp. 26-29; translated by komponisto]

Before undertaking the reexamination of what emerged at the first-level trial, as well as the examination of the further investigations at the present level which resulted from our partial reopening of trial proceedings [parziale rinnovazione della istruttoria dibattimentale], it is necessary to observe that the power of this Corte di Assise di Appello to evaluate these results is not in any way hindered by the ruling issued by this same Court (in another composition) in the case of co-defendant Rudy Guede, on 12-22-2009, made irrevocable following the rejection of the appeal to the Cassazione.

The General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties have argued that, in denying Rudy Guede’s appeal, the Corte di Cassazione put down “unmovable poles” [paletti insuperabili] for this Corte di Assise with regard to the reconstruction of the crime and the evaluation of the evidence; and, although they modified the scope of [ridimensionato] this argument at the end of the discussion by claiming this ruling as only one element to be assessed, they nevertheless emphasized the particular relevance of this element.

It is only too obvious that the ruling in question is not absolutely binding [on us]; that would be contrary not only to the norms of positive law governing the force [efficacia] of criminal verdicts in other cases (C.P.P. Article 654), but also to all the basic constitutionally-guaranteed institutional principles (Constitution, Article 111), since the current defendants would be made to suffer the effects of a ruling issued in a case in which they were not involved.

But, in truth, the ruling in question, introduced under C.P.P. Article 238b and thus usable as evidence only as one among other elements evaluable under C.P.P. Article 192 paragraph 3 (see Cass. Section 2, Ruling no. 16626 of 2-28-2007 (submitted 5-2-2007) Rv. 236650; Section 3, Ruling no. 8823 of 1-13-2009 (submitted 2-27-2009) Rv. 242767) itself seems particularly weak as evidence, as the proceedings concerning Rudy Guede were held under the fast-track system [celebrato con rito abbreviato], so that the judges who considered the position of Rudy Guede were not able to conduct the investigations of a [proper] trial [delle acquisizioni della istruttoria dibattimentale] — in particular the independent expert review that we performed– either at the first level or at the present level, despite the complexity of the case, at least with regard to the current defendants.

Furthermore, it is the Corte di Cassazione itself, in the ruling cited by the General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties, which warns: “Thus right from the outset we must resist the attempt — reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision — to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute…”

And indeed, reexamination of what emerged at the first trial and further investigations resulting from our partial reopening of trial proceedings at the present level do not confirm the hypothesis that more than one person was necessarily involved in the crime.

From a reading of the ruling of 12-22-2009, this hypothesis was arrived at [configurata] by accepting essentially all the arguments put forth by the Public Minister, and in particular by regarding the following elements as certain:

- that the DNA found by the Scientific Police on the bra clasp in the murder room is to be attributed to Raffaele Sollecito, and that this DNA was left at the time of the crime itself;

- that the DNA found by the Scientific Police on the blade of the knife taken from Raffaele Sollecito’s house is to be attributed to Meredith Kercher, and was left at the time of the crime;

- that the wounds present on the body of Meredith Kercher, because of their position [direzione] and number, as well as various characteristics (length of medium [tramite], width, etc.) cannot have been caused by a single lone aggressor but [only] by more than one aggressor;

- that the absence of defense wounds on the arms and hands of Meredith Kercher confirms the necessary participation of more than one individual in the aggression;

- that entrance into the inside of the apartment on Via Della Pergola was permitted by the only person — besides Meredith Kercher — who had access [ne aveva la disponibilità], that is Amanda Knox; the Corte di Assise di Appello having held that the [supposed] entrance by means of the window, following the breaking of the glass, was merely a mise-en-scène to divert the investigation toward the unknown perpetrators of an attempted burglary.

However, analysis of each of the individual elements on which the conspiracy hypothesis [ipotesi del concorso] rests leads one to doubt the necessary participation of more than one person in the commission of the crimes alleged, and thus to reject the notion that the ruling concerning Rudy Guede could represent decisive evidence [un elemento di valutazione determinante] in ascertaining the responsibility of the current defendants, even in only this respect (conspiracy [concorso] of more than one person); and at any rate, even if we were to take it for granted that a conspiracy of persons was required, the ruling does not thereby acquire decisive evidentiary value for recognizing the current defendants as the accomplices of Rudy Guede.

It follows that the ruling in question, which we can accept with regard to the responsibility of Rudy Guede (which is certainly not undermined [non viene certo meno] by regarding the single-actor hypothesis as the most reliable) insofar as the items of evidence against him are numerous and unambiguous (from his DNA being found not on one item but on several, even in the vaginal swab, to the print on the pillow and the blood on the sweatshirt worn by the victim, to the shoeprints; and even his previous behavior, as one experienced in entering apartments to rob, equipped with a knife, even [simply] to bother [other] youths), does not assume any relevance in ascertaining the responsibility of the current defendants.

Hellmann-Zanetti, why the ruling against Guede is not binding
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:32 am

pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:30 pm

MK eating time and arriving home

On 17 November, Sophie Purton made a new deposition, confirming her initial statements without any time-line to clarify. She stayed that the four friends had begun eating in the house of Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth, perhaps 6 pm, or maybe earlier.
But correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 8:55 pm.
Guede indicated the same time 9:00 pm, 6:00 pm (6:15 pm) - 9:00 pm = 2h45m.
Guede indicated the cry around 9:20 pm, 6:00 pm (6:15 pm) - 9:20 pm = 3h05m.
The meal had not yet been leaving the stomach. Immediate attack after the arrival at home a 9:00 pm, very short fight, death around 9:15 pm / 9:20 hours.

The time of digestion around 3:00 corresponding to the medical results of many studies, the gross pattern being from 2:00 to 3:30 hours.

Th absolute maximum of possible digestion time for leaving the stomach would be 10::00 pm, the most problem time would be around 9:30 pm (and even closer to 9:00 pm).

It is obvious that the Prosecution made every effort to manipulate the time of death in favour of their dubious witnesses and against the alibi of AK&RS, the computer activity until agate 9:30 pm.

The clothing Meredith Kercher had been wearing were jeans a bit 'torn, a blue jacket and a blue sweatshirt, both "Adidas".

Witnesses (night incident parking lot)

Having left the car in the parking lot of St. Anthony, they had been directly walking to Piazza Grimana, then had been taking the stairs to reach the shed, the witness recalled that her boyfriend - Lucio Minciotti had been violently struck by a colored boy intending to run very fast towards Via Pinturicchio. According to the indications of times , Alessandra Formica placed the incident at around 10:30 pm / 10:40 pm.

Witness Nara Cappelezzi (maybe between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm

Nara Cappelezzi, a resident in Via del Melo on the first floor of an apartment overlooking the parking lot just at a short distance from the house which had been the scene of the crime reported to the Public Prosecutor to have the windows of her apartment in the direction of the building Via della Pergola 7, but she could only see the roof. The night between 1 and 2 November the woman had gone to bed early, more or less to bed at 9:30 pm (like usually), that after a lapse time that she could not specify, except to say that it maybe "one hour or two , maybe between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm, after her sleep, she felt the need to go to the bathroom.

[Nara Cappelezzi is not a witness at all (just like the other ladies). She pretended having heard a cry and people run away. Did she really hear a cry? Was it MK whom she heard cry or somebody else? Whom did she hear or see running away? Nobody?
When did she hear the cry? Did she really go to bed at 9:30 pm or was it 8:30 pm, did she hear the cry at 10:30 or 9:30, was it the same night? All this is not at all certain.
She was known to be a disturbed person, a relative of her living in the same house confirmed that she often was very confused. During her witnessing in Court she was largely helped by Mignini to get her statement right.]

Paolo Micheli, pre-trial and Guede sentencing motivation
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:31 pm

The "lust" principle, not a product of Massai
Faced with so many injuries, even if largely defensive and containment, and at least several gunshot wounds and cutting tip, even those who come to join the action with his hand to keep the girl some movements, is involved the other to satisfy their lust, could not be a mere spectator, unable to realize what was about to take place: the same time, not negligible, it was necessary to achieve that task letifera must be understood if a relevant factor to ex - unlikely that a competitor sheltered (and the G.[Rudy Guede] was not) themselves witnessing something beyond his control.
Paolo Micheli, Judge, Fast track trial Guede

Sorry but the translation I have is very difficult to read.

But should be clear, Paolo Micheli, pre-trial judge = fast-track trial Paolo Micheli is accepting every single detail presented by the Prosecution (why should he not), it reads like a list up, to implicate AK&RS in the murder of MK and acting together with RG. The Court of Appeal Borsini-Bellardi will later accept all the findings of Micheli just as will do the CSI.

The decision of RG not acting alone is validated by Paolo Micheli and will be the all and everything dominating decision. And
the other perpetrators are AK&RS.

To note again that AK&RS have not been part of that trial and that the Defence of RG had of cause no interest to contest the implication of both, in contrary.

Massai is nothing but a more convoluted copy of Micheli + his explanations why to reject the arguments of the Defence of AK&RS.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:28 pm

The refusing to test the semen is simply incredibly stupid but it shows the general state of mind of the so called judges.
And the prosecution, again a violation of their legal duties to investigate as well evidence against as well as in favour of the defendants.
Similar with the slander charges against Amanda, no investigation of the involved Police officers, the calumny charges, no investigation against the Police officers, or is it simply because the (Notary) is entire part of the Police investigation?
But do we really know if the test was not done?

Who is the semen from? MK's friend, RG or an unknown person they want to hide, would RG cover somebody else, whom and why (conspiracy, corruption)?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:02 pm

Signs that Amanda Knox had become a suspect

- the multiple interrogations before the 5th of November
- the taping of the telephones (you don't tape phone calls of people who are not suspects)
- the interrogations of the 5th/6th of November (called in to be interrogated after they had acquired the belief from Raffaele's interrogation that he would not any more cover Amanda)
- the observations and conclusions made by Edgardo Giobbi (Police Office
r)
- the Police office and Policd translator becoming a mediator
- the Prosecutor becoming a notary
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:18 pm

AK is the person who had been pointing to PL (interrogation resulting in calumny charges)
The central point of the case is the multiple perpetrator theory of the Prosecution, RG and AK&RS being the perpetrators.
There is no evidence (no meeting, no phone call, no witness, ...) that RG and AK&RS ever met together or associated for whatever purpose.
Then:
AK is the person who knows that MK is at home (but not the sole person)!and she is the person providing access to the cottage.
AK is the person with an interest to stage the break-in (because she was the only person with no alibi and owner of the entrance key to the cottage. No evidence that the break-in was staged, it is clear (contest by the Courts) that the window was broken from the outside, there can be no doubt.
AK&RS are the persons who have been cleaning and staging the crime scene (mise en scène).

RG trials : the crime, the killing of Meredith was planned, transportation of the kitchen knife by AK.
RG trials : uncontested validation of all DNA results.
RG trials : reduction of the sentence (mitigating circumstances) because pointing to AK&RS.

AK&RS CSI : the findings of the RG courts must be considered by the judges AK&RS trials.
AK&RS CSI : witnesses statements must be respected by the judges of the AK&RS trials.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:46 pm

Is there somewhere a comparative analyses about the different trials, RG and AK&RS?
I equally am searching for an original Italian "Word" or otherwise readable text from the Paolo Micheli (pre-trial and fast track) ruling motivation.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:11 pm

The judicial logic and it's perversity (French article)

La logique juridique et sa perversité

http://www.alterinfo.net/La-logique-jur ... 86273.html
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Niteangel » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:52 pm

pmop57 wrote:I equally am searching for an original Italian "Word" or otherwise readable text from the Paolo Micheli (pre-trial and fast track) ruling motivation.


These links don't work for you?
Micheli - Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox are formally indicted
http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/up ... dagini.pdf

Micheli - Reasons behind the judgment
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2008-10-28_Itl.pdf

Rudy Guede’s Appeal: Judge Borsini’s Motivation Document
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2009- ... alian_.pdf

Pre-Trial/Guede’s first trial: Jugde Micheli’s Motivation Document (same as Micheli - Reasons behind the judgment)
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2008-10-28_Itl.pdf

or not the documents you are looking for?
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:17 am

Niteangel wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I equally am searching for an original Italian "Word" or otherwise readable text from the Paolo Micheli (pre-trial and fast track) ruling motivation.


These links don't work for you?
Micheli - Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox are formally indicted
http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/up ... dagini.pdf

Micheli - Reasons behind the judgment
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2008-10-28_Itl.pdf

Rudy Guede’s Appeal: Judge Borsini’s Motivation Document
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2009- ... alian_.pdf

Pre-Trial/Guede’s first trial: Jugde Micheli’s Motivation Document (same as Micheli - Reasons behind the judgment)
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2008-10-28_Itl.pdf

or not the documents you are looking for?


That's it, thank you very much.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby pmop57 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:46 am

Glass breaking
http://vimeo.com/m/62166003
This video is very telling to show the dynamics of breaking glass (just one remark, the basket-ball is a merely symmetric object compared to the stone and one has to look at the move of the inner shutter hit by the stone and modifying the glass spread inside the room).

It can't be contested that the window of FR's room was broken from the ouside. The physical facts can't be denied. All the argumentation in favour of the stone thrown from the inside is plain wrong. All intervenants, from the Police, the Prosecution to the Judges of Court of Cassation are wrong (or lying) on these facts. I am convinced that the Proseciton knows that the window was broken from the outside and the scene was not at all investigated (or if it was investigated the results have been hidden). To be clear, in my opinion they lied about this fact to keep alive their invented staged break-in fitting best their narrative of AK being the person having given access to the cottage through the entrancy keys in her possession and to further distract the attention from RG being the burglar and as such the sole possible intruder.
The staged break-in was one of the crucial pieces of the Prosecution's puzzle to frame AK.

This as all the other evidence was or interpreted or constructed to frame her and RS was collateral damage, they needed him to "be destroyed" an inconvenient witness in favour of AK.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: The anatomy of the case

Postby Niteangel » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:31 pm

You are more than welcome pmop :)
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Next

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests