View Single Post
Old 19th June 2019, 07:45 AM   #226
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
If you read Monster of Perugia the Rudy was being protected theory was presented in this book. The theory was Rudy was allowed to get away with crimes as he was working as an informer which explains why no action was taken over the burglary in Milan. If Rudy had been arrested for the Milan incident he would not have been free to kill Meredith. When Meredith's body was discovered, Mignini may have known straight away Rudy had killed and were responsible for a killer being free. Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba were arrested to take the blame for Guede. It is ironic Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda covering for Guede when the evidence suggests it was Mignini covering for Guede. When the evidence came back showing Guede as the killer, Mignini had no choice but to arrest Guede.However, if Amanda and Raffaele were prosecuted Guede's role in Meredith's murder could be minimized. This theory explains a lot of things; why were Amanda and Raffaele not released when the evidence showed Guede as the killer, why were Amanda and Raffaele so viciously railroaded, why Mignini has minimized Guede's role in Meredith's murder and Guede has been treated so leniently. Mignini had no objection to the reduction in Guede's sentence. The TJMK and PMF sites go to great lengths to defend the police/prosecution which makes me suspect these sites are connected to the police/prosecution which explains why these sites defend Guede and minimize his role in Meredith's murder.
I was with you right up to the highlighted. I doubt these sites have any specific connection to anything. They merely represent a collection of people duped by early reports and who developed an obsessive hatred of Amanda. I've often said this has long since NOT been about Meredith or seeing justice for her. If it was, there would have been outrage over the leniency afforded Guede. After all, not even the prosecution ever claimed Guede didn't have a hand in Meredith's murder. You can hate more than one person for having committed a crime.

I'm also not convinced Guede was a protected 'informant'. Guede had no specific ties to anything of importance - at least none that have ever been disclosed. What possible information could Guede have been providing the police?

This is all just speculation and conjecture, but I still believe the most likely scenario is incompetence and the rush to solve the crime quickly. It was a botched investigation that led them to believe Amanda was involved. They jumped the gun, made a spectacle of themselves and then went about covering their own asses after they realized Guede committed the crime.

I've mentioned the case of Julie Rae Harper a few times when discussing this case. Julie was convicted of murdering her son but was later acquitted. It's a classic case of an inept investigation and of a prosecutor who got a theory in his head and refused to change his mind as evidence evolved. I found the following comments from one of the jurors who acquitted her especially interesting as it parallels this case to a t!

Quote:
A juror contacted after the trial, speaking on the condition that his name not be used, said that the state police “failed miserably.”

The problem could be traced back to the broken glass that lay sparkling on the concrete outside Harper’s back door the night Joel was killed. Anybody could see that the door had to have been wide open when the shards fell. What kind of “intruder” breaks a door that’s already open?

Ken Moses, a retired San Francisco cop who spent 28 years as a crime-scene investigator and has worked 17,000 crime scenes, was hired by the defense to tell the jury how that happened. “It’s a common occurrence in home-invasion crimes where intruder is discovered and makes a hasty exit,” he said. “Once the door violently opens and stops at the apex . . . the glass falls out.”

But the officers who reported to Harper’s Lawrenceville home just saw glass broken out where, they assumed, it should be broken in.

“[The first deputy] saw the glass broken out on the floor in the garage and outside the second door and thought, ‘This is phony,’” Urdangen says, “and that just informed all of their thinking. That’s why their work was so flawed.”

Parkinson disagrees, even though his explanation confirms Urdangen’s theory.

“I don’t think the police did an inadequate job,” the prosecutor says. “I think they went to the crime scene and saw that this didn’t look like an intruder had been in like Julie said and thereafter they tried to get her to explain it.”

The juror, though, said he never heard Parkinson offer any story to counter Harper’s. “I’m open-minded to the end,” the juror says. “To the closing statement, I was waiting for [Parkinson] to say how these events all took place.”

Defense attorney Daniel says she knows why Parkinson offered no story.

“There was no account that they could put together of how Julie could have killed her son, because any account that you could come up with was contradicted by some piece of physical evidence,” Daniel says. “Maybe that’s a good place to stop and reexamine.
TruthCalls 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