View Single Post
Old 18th June 2019, 11:32 AM   #209
TomG
Muse
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What we have here is a very exciting discussion which, due to lack of sufficient evidence about what the police, including the scientific police, and the prosecution did, and when did they do or not do it, cannot be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why I am, as I stated earlier, agnostic about the proposition (which is not itself completely unreasonable, IMO) that the police knew from day 1 that Rudy Guede was Meredith's murder.

What I had meant in my earlier statement (the first quote above) was, I believe, in agreement with what TruthCalls is claiming. My view is that the police and prosecutor decided early on - by about day 2 or 3 - that they had "convenient suspects" in Amanda and Raffaele. I think that TomG means essentially the same when he calls them "soft targets" for the police and prosecutor.

When the police phone intercerpts revealed to them that Amanda's mom was coming to Italy November 6 in order to support her, they decided they had to move to force Raffaele to abandon Amanda's alibi, and if, possible, to incriminate both of them in the murder. While according to an arrest hearing magistrate this was because the police and prosecutor thought that they had to move quickly because Amanda's mom would be taking her back to the US, it is perhaps more likely they feared her mother's experience and influence would lead Amanda to get a lawyer, and this would ruin the plan for coercing her confession.

Did the police and/or prosecutor know as of Nov. 5/6 that Rudy Guede was the murderer? Were they trying to protect him at that time? That doesn't necessarily matter for their scheme. They needed results fast, and Amanda and Raffaele were available, naive, and had no lawyers. The police and prosecutor chose either: 1) not to spend time searching for some unknown male who had broken into the flat and who may have left a DNA profile, or 2) not to apprehend Guede, who they would have suspected because of the break-in MO, because he was under their protection and/or that of the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia.

Once it became absolutely clear that Lumumba could not be pulled into the fabrication, and that there was forensic and witness evidence (Guede's buddy who told the police about his Skype conversation with Guede) against Guede, the police and prosecutor did everything possible to minimize Guede's involvement and punishment and maximize their fabrication against Amanda and Raffaele.

We also should note that we have no documented evidence (as far as I know) that the police were aware of the semen stain on the pillow before the defense called it to attention. Whether they were aware of it or not, the prosecution was dead set against DNA profile testing it once it was known. And the courts supported this travesty of not testing a semen stain found on a pillow under a raped murder victim's body.
The way I see it is that Mignini and the cops made a decision on the discovery of break-in that the act had been staged, they therefore didn't treat Filomena's room as a bona-fide crime scene. We've all seen Ron Hendry's analysis and evaluated it for ourselves, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the break-in was staged, it's so freaking obviously authentic. Why would Mignini come to such a bizarre conclusion if it wasn't to protect Rudy?

On that day the theory of the staged break-in gave birth to the factoid that someone was being protected, otherwise there is no use for the theory; however, in reality, there is only evidence of an actual break-in and no reason at all to conclude that anyone was being protected. For me this is a case of simple Freudian projection. Rudy had been useful to the cops, now he was a liability, he had to be foisted on to others with K&S being the most vulnerable candidates. If Mignini hadn't been so compromised he'd have went with an actual break-in and then waited for all the lab results to come in. There would have been no reason to railroad K&S.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Last edited by TomG; 18th June 2019 at 11:40 AM.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top