The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

So I messaged my friend who did walk the path but she says she only walked from the entrance to the park just next to Guede's place back toward the cottage but she can't remember how long it took. But, the Lana's place is past the path to the park entrance by Guede's so he'd have had to double back or walk down Corso Garibaldi.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So I messaged my friend who did walk the path but she says she only walked from the entrance to the park just next to Guede's place back toward the cottage but she can't remember how long it took. But, the Lana's place is past the path to the park entrance by Guede's so he'd have had to double back or walk down Corso Garibaldi.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...f37585f0f4.jpg

Stacyhs, very many thanks for providing this map. I hadn't understood that the phones were found at a location not between Guede's flat and the cottage where Kercher was murdered.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Stacyhs, very many thanks for providing this map. I hadn't understood that the phones were found at a location not between Guede's flat and the cottage where Kercher was murdered.

Ah but here's the thing:

Guede, by his own admission, had washed Kercher's blood from his trousers and arms and was using his sweatshirt to hide more blood stains.

Had he gone back to his apartment via the most obvious and direct route, he'd have had to walk up through Piazza Grimana, and up Corso Garibaldi. Both of those were very well-lit and with plenty of people around at that time of evening (10pm). There was also a likelihood that he'd even bump into people he knew in either or both of those locations.

But in any case, he'd risk being rather memorable as a guy walking around with wet trouser legs and using his sweatshirt as cover, plus there was obviously a reasonable likelihood that witnesses would subsequently come forward to place Guede on that route at that time (and we must remember that at this point in time, Guede would have been hoping to avoid being connected in any way to the murder he'd just committed, so it would have been pretty important to him to avoid being placed en route between the scene of the murder and his own apartment at the right time of the evening).

Instead, it would have made much more sense to Guede to take the longer and more circuitous - but much safer (from his perspective) - route along the mainly-unlit and extremely quiet (including no pedestrians at all) road around the outside of the old city wall. If he walked on the right-hand side of the road, he'd have been able to duck back down the hillside into the brush at the side of the road if he'd seen any distant car headlights approaching, so in effect he could get himself a very long way from the murder house without anyone even noticing him.

Furthermore, if he carried on past the ancient pedestrian gate through the city wall (which I believe was locked at that time of evening anyhow) and instead passed through the wall at the roadway entrance that was near Lana's house, he'd have an additional potential benefit: if anyone had seen him walking between that point and his apartment, he'd have been walking in the opposite direction to that which he'd have walked had he gone directly from the cottage to his apartment (ie up Corso Garibaldi). So he could claim he was coming back from having been somewhere in entirely the opposite direction than the cottage.

So I think this is exactly what Guede did, and exactly why he did it. It tallies perfectly with the technology evidence as well. And I think (as I've said before) that the unexpected alert on Kercher's UK phone (the one he was unable to turn off) when the GPRS media message came through startled and disconcerted him to such a degree that he concluded the phones were now just too risky to remain in his possession. So he threw them as far as he could, at the point where he turned up to go up the road passage through the wall, thinking that there was nothing on that other side of the outer road but scrub and hillside. But instead, he found Lana's garden.

(There's also a possibility in my mind that Guede had always intended to throw away the phones at that point in his journey home - after all, he'd have known that they were potentially an extremely strong tie to the victim, even with the SIMs removed and the phones unlocked. On the other hand, Guede may have (erroneously) believed that removing the SIMs and scrubbing/unlocking the phones would effectively erase any link to their previous owner, and thus may well have thought he could make some money selling them on the black market. And on balance, I do think that he had indeed intended to hold onto the phones and sell them on, but that the incoming GPRS MMS alert had frightened him into thinking that the risk to him of holding onto the phones any longer was just too high.)

[LondonJohn]

(For reference: the red line in Stacy's map is the line of the old city wall)

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ah but here's the thing:

Guede, by his own admission, had washed Kercher's blood from his trousers and arms and was using his sweatshirt to hide more blood stains.

Had he gone back to his apartment via the most obvious and direct route, he'd have had to walk up through Piazza Grimana, and up Corso Garibaldi. Both of those were very well-lit and with plenty of people around at that time of evening (10pm). There was also a likelihood that he'd even bump into people he knew in either or both of those locations.

But in any case, he'd risk being rather memorable as a guy walking around with wet trouser legs and using his sweatshirt as cover, plus there was obviously a reasonable likelihood that witnesses would subsequently come forward to place Guede on that route at that time (and we must remember that at this point in time, Guede would have been hoping to avoid being connected in any way to the murder he'd just committed, so it would have been pretty important to him to avoid being placed en route between the scene of the murder and his own apartment at the right time of the evening).

Instead, it would have made much more sense to Guede to take the longer and more circuitous - but much safer (from his perspective) - route along the mainly-unlit and extremely quiet (including no pedestrians at all) road around the outside of the old city wall. If he walked on the right-hand side of the road, he'd have been able to duck back down the hillside into the brush at the side of the road if he'd seen any distant car headlights approaching, so in effect he could get himself a very long way from the murder house without anyone even noticing him.

Furthermore, if he carried on past the ancient pedestrian gate through the city wall (which I believe was locked at that time of evening anyhow) and instead passed through the wall at the roadway entrance that was near Lana's house, he'd have an additional potential benefit: if anyone had seen him walking between that point and his apartment, he'd have been walking in the opposite direction to that which he'd have walked had he gone directly from the cottage to his apartment (ie up Corso Garibaldi). So he could claim he was coming back from having been somewhere in entirely the opposite direction than the cottage.

So I think this is exactly what Guede did, and exactly why he did it. It tallies perfectly with the technology evidence as well. And I think (as I've said before) that the unexpected alert on Kercher's UK phone (the one he was unable to turn off) when the GPRS media message came through startled and disconcerted him to such a degree that he concluded the phones were now just too risky to remain in his possession. So he threw them as far as he could, at the point where he turned up to go up the road passage through the wall, thinking that there was nothing on that other side of the outer road but scrub and hillside. But instead, he found Lana's garden.

(There's also a possibility in my mind that Guede had always intended to throw away the phones at that point in his journey home - after all, he'd have known that they were potentially an extremely strong tie to the victim, even with the SIMs removed and the phones unlocked. On the other hand, Guede may have (erroneously) believed that removing the SIMs and scrubbing/unlocking the phones would effectively erase any link to their previous owner, and thus may well have thought he could make some money selling them on the black market. And on balance, I do think that he had indeed intended to hold onto the phones and sell them on, but that the incoming GPRS MMS alert had frightened him into thinking that the risk to him of holding onto the phones any longer was just too high.)

Thanks, LondonJohn. This analysis seems to me the most likely scenario for Guede's path.

But what would he have done with the murder weapon? Discard it somewhere along the path, perhaps in a an overgrown area adjacent to the path?

When the police became aware that Meredith Kercher had been murdered by some with a knife in the cottage, while her phones had been found some distance away in the Biscarini - Lena family's garden, did the police launch a search for the knife along the likely paths from the cottage?

If the police did not conduct a search for the knife, what would have been their reasoning? Would a failure to conduct a thorough search be considered a dereliction of responsible investigatory action, and thus an example of malpractice?

What would be the benefit, if any, to the police and prosecutor of their quick conclusion, without any scientific forensic evidence, that the break-in was staged by one or more known "insiders" as part of a sex game - murder rather than a real break-in followed by a sexual assault and murder by a possibly unknown person?

[schmidt61]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Thanks, LondonJohn. This analysis seems to me the most likely scenario for Guede's path.

But what would he have done with the murder weapon? Discard it somewhere along the path, perhaps in a an overgrown area adjacent to the path?

When the police became aware that Meredith Kercher had been murdered by some with a knife in the cottage, while her phones had been found some distance away in the Biscarini - Lena family's garden, did the police launch a search for the knife along the likely paths from the cottage?

If the police did not conduct a search for the knife, what would have been their reasoning? Would a failure to conduct a thorough search be considered a dereliction of responsible investigatory action, and thus an example of malpractice?

What would be the benefit, if any, to the police and prosecutor of their quick conclusion, without any scientific forensic evidence, that the break-in was staged by one or more known "insiders" as part of a sex game - murder rather than a real break-in followed by a sexual assault and murder by a possibly unknown person?

Frank Sfarzo who wrote Perugia Shock blog. Said that he had the change to ask a police officer guarding the cottage shortly after the murder. If they had a search the area below the cottage. He was told "no need" we found the murder weapon at the boyfriend apartment.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(For reference: the red line in Stacy's map is the line of the old city wall)

I'd also like to point out that the map has the wrong location for the cottage (IIRC this is why the Carabinieri had such a hard time finding it). It's true location is marked by a red X below.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

I'd also like to point out that the map has the wrong location for the cottage (IIRC this is why the Carabinieri had such a hard time finding it). It's true location is marked by a red X below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=12981

You are absolutely correct. I didn't draw this map so didn't catch that. Your red X does mark the correct location of the cottage. Thanks.

[Stacyhs]

I took video from the entrance/exit to Parc Sant'Angelo but I can't post a video here so I made some pics to show how close it is to Guede's apartment.
The path that runs along the outside of the wall to near the the cottage.



The entrance/exit:



If coming up from the park, turn right at top of stairs and you can see the little alley way to RG's apt. . At the end, turn left and his apt. is just a couple down on the left. Takes less than 30 seconds.



Guede's apt.

[Numbers]

Google Maps gives the distance from Via della Pergola (the cottage address, but offset from the actual cottage location) to Via Sperandio 5 (the Biscarini family address was Via Sperandio 5 - bis, meaning the second #5) as 950 meters and walking time on the outside the wall path as 15 minutes. The time on an interior path is given as 14 minutes.

Now the above distance and times in reality are somewhat greater, because the cottage is actually on Viale Saint Antonio, just beyond its intersection with Via della Pergola.

Source: https://www.google.it/maps/dir/Via+d...9!2d43.1212808

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Google Maps gives the distance from Via della Pergola (the cottage address, but offset from the actual cottage location) to Via Sperandio 5 (the Biscarini family address was Via Sperandio 5 - bis, meaning the second #5) as 950 meters and walking time on the outside the wall path as 15 minutes. The time on an interior path is given as 14 minutes.

Now the above distance and times in reality are somewhat greater, because the cottage is actually on Viale Saint Antonio, just beyond its intersection with Via della Pergola.

Source: https://www.google.it/maps/dir/Via+d...9!2d43.1212808

My friend who walked the path said she entered the park just around the corner from his house (in my pictures above) and walked to its end which is very close to the cottage. She said it was easy to then go up to the cottage under the trees so she never had to walk on a road.

It makes sense to me that is how Guede would have left without being seen. No one would be walking that path on a cold November night.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

My friend who walked the path said she entered the park just around the corner from his house (in my pictures above) and walked to its end which is very close to the cottage. She said it was easy to then go up to the cottage under the trees so she never had to walk on a road.

It makes sense to me that is how Guede would have left without being seen. No one would be walking that path on a cold November night.

Exactly. Plus that path was either unlit or poorly lit for most of its length. And in addition, Guede would have been able to see oncoming cars (of which there were very few on that road at that time of night in any case) when they were still a considerable distance from him, on account of the light from their headlights, and he'd have been able to move into the shadows or simply turn to face away from the traffic as it passed by.

And incidentally, if our collective viewpoint on Guede's movements after he left the cottage (and his reasons for choosing those particular movements) is reasonably accurate, it lends yet more weight to the notion of Guede's guilty mind (as opposed to Guede's claims of having had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder).

[Stacyhs]

This Italian article says that Guede had failed to renew his legal residency before the murder in 2007. According to Luca Maori, Raff's lawyer, this makes it mandatory for him to be deported.

Quote:

Rudy Guede, the first problem arrives. And it is that of the residence permit. In fact, Guede, born in the Ivory Coast, at the time of his arrest in 2007 seems to have had an expired residence permit. And for this reason, according to the lawyer Luca Maori, he would risk expulsion today. Indeed, according to Maori, "if he remained here one could even hypothesize an omission of official acts by the quaestor of the city in which he is resident".

Quote:

The problem of the residence permit has already been raised by Claudio Mariani of the CSC during the interview published yesterday by Tusciaweb. "What's in Guede's future?" he was asked by his colleague Raffaele Strocchia. "To make plans – replied Mariani, who has followed Guede since the beginning of his imprisonment – it is necessary that the conditions first mature, starting from the request for a residence permit. Until he has it, he will not be able to enter into contracts, make work agreements, have a residence. There are stakes to overcome."

According to Maori, defender of Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede must in fact be expelled from Italy, "because – Maori explained to the newspaper Umbria24 – already when he was arrested in 2007 on charges of having murdered Meredith Kercher in Perugia he had an expired residence permit. Now, after 14 years in prison and a sentence that has largely become final, it is the Criminal Code that imposes his expulsion from Italy".

From an administrative point of view - added the lawyer - already in 2007 Guede was clandestine, they had to kick him out even if he had not committed the murder. There is a rule according to which if a foreigner commits crimes involving a sentence of more than five years he must be deported, and Guede has a very serious criminal record. Why are Moroccans who peddle after years in prison kicked out of Italy and Guede not? If he remained here, one could even hypothesize an omission of official acts by the quaestor of the city in which he is resident".

http://www.tusciaweb.eu/2021/11/rudy...so-dallitalia/

[schmidt61]

Question what route do the prosecution, police and Massei court think
Guede took after leaving the cottage?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by schmidt61

Question what route do the prosecution, police and Massei court think
Guede took after leaving the cottage?

He claimed in his Dec. 07, 2007 interrogation that he went through Piazza Grimana and down Corso di Garibaldi which lead directly to his apartment on Via del Canarino.

"I headed towards P.zza Grimana, my pants were full of blood and my hands too, there were so many people and I tried to remain calm.
I crossed C.so Garibaldi and arrived at my house in Vial del Canarino, I took off my pants and went to the laundry, washed my hands, went back to my room, took off my clothes, I was confused....."


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerche...de-summary.pdf

(pg 5)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

He claimed in his Dec. 07, 2007 interrogation that he went through Piazza Grimana and down Corso di Garibaldi which lead directly to his apartment on Via del Canarino.

"I headed towards P.zza Grimana, my pants were full of blood and my hands too, there were so many people and I tried to remain calm.
I crossed C.so Garibaldi and arrived at my house in Vial del Canarino, I took off my pants and went to the laundry, washed my hands, went back to my room, took off my clothes, I was confused....."


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerche...de-summary.pdf

(pg 5)

And it's perfectly obvious why he'd make that claim by that point in time: he knew by then where Kercher's two handsets had been found. And he may also have known by then about the GPRS MMS alert, and the approximate location where Kercher's UK handset must have been at the time.

So by claiming on 7th December that he'd gone home via Corso Garibaldi etc, he'd have known that this - if it was accepted by investigators - would necessarily have implied that a) it was not he (Guede) who'd taken Kercher's phones then thrown them away, b) whoever it was who'd taken the phones must have been more deeply implicated in the murder, and c) it fitted in with his overarching narrative of being an unfortunate bystander who'd only tried to save Kercher, while the "real killer(s)" made their getaway around the outside of the city wall.

Of course, it's dreadfully unfortunate for Guede that not one person in/around the well-lit Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi that night could be found who could testify to having seen him at the required time....

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Google Maps gives the distance from Via della Pergola (the cottage address, but offset from the actual cottage location) to Via Sperandio 5 (the Biscarini family address was Via Sperandio 5 - bis, meaning the second #5) as 950 meters and walking time on the outside the wall path as 15 minutes. The time on an interior path is given as 14 minutes.

Now the above distance and times in reality are somewhat greater, because the cottage is actually on Viale Saint Antonio, just beyond its intersection with Via della Pergola.

Source: https://www.google.it/maps/dir/Via+d...9!2d43.1212808

According to Micheli, the route taken by Guede is as follows. Bear in mind also that he and Sollecito lived within two minutes of each other.

Quote:

[101] Asked by the Judge how come he had never thought to call anyone for help, the accused replied that he didn’t have a phone with him (nor had he seen one in the house), his mobile phone having been seized from him in Milan a few days back; as well, due to the fright, he hadn’t been able to remain lucid, thinking that no-one would have believed him in the condition he was in, all covered in blood. He then repeated having touched more or less everywhere in the room, including with blood-stained hands, without in any case being able to explain how a print of his found its way onto the pillow beneath the body, when he recalled the pillow being as usual on the bed, where there also was the jacket and the purse that the girl had put there on returning home. The bed was, according to his description, covered with a red or beige bed-cover (but he was insisting much more on the first colour): the pillow was on top of the quilt.

Possibly hearing a noise from the apartment below, Mr GUEDE got frightened even more and had decided to run away, leaving open both the door to MEREDITH’s room as well as the front door (and all windows unbroken): he went through Piazza Grimana, where someone was playing on the basketball courts, and had headed towards Via del Canerino, trying to avoid Corso Garibaldi so as to not meet people who would have been able to notice his blood-stained clothes.

Micheli Report

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

He claimed in his Dec. 07, 2007 interrogation that he went through Piazza Grimana and down Corso di Garibaldi which lead directly to his apartment on Via del Canarino.

"I headed towards P.zza Grimana, my pants were full of blood and my hands too, there were so many people and I tried to remain calm.
I crossed C.so Garibaldi and arrived at my house in Vial del Canarino, I took off my pants and went to the laundry, washed my hands, went back to my room, took off my clothes, I was confused....."


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerche...de-summary.pdf

(pg 5)

Ah, ninja-ed.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And it's perfectly obvious why he'd make that claim by that point in time: he knew by then where Kercher's two handsets had been found. And he may also have known by then about the GPRS MMS alert, and the approximate location where Kercher's UK handset must have been at the time.

So by claiming on 7th December that he'd gone home via Corso Garibaldi etc, he'd have known that this - if it was accepted by investigators - would necessarily have implied that a) it was not he (Guede) who'd taken Kercher's phones then thrown them away, b) whoever it was who'd taken the phones must have been more deeply implicated in the murder, and c) it fitted in with his overarching narrative of being an unfortunate bystander who'd only tried to save Kercher, while the "real killer(s)" made their getaway around the outside of the city wall.

Of course, it's dreadfully unfortunate for Guede that not one person in/around the well-lit Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi that night could be found who could testify to having seen him at the required time....

That makes no sense. Had he stolen the phones for profit, all he had to do was remove the SIM cards and hide them for a bit. Micheli ruled that the theft of the phones was to stop Mez from calling for help and not for gain. So the culprit would be the person who locked the body in the room, having removed the phones. Also only one person at the scene knew Mez had two phones, one of which she carried on her person in case of an emergency with her mother's health.

[FergusMcDuck]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That makes no sense. Had he stolen the phones for profit, all he had to do was remove the SIM cards and hide them for a bit. Micheli ruled that the theft of the phones was to stop Mez from calling for help and not for gain. So the culprit would be the person who locked the body in the room, having removed the phones. Also only one person at the scene knew Mez had two phones, one of which she carried on her person in case of an emergency with her mother's health.

And had he made it home without incident, that's likely what he would have done (had he been thinking clearly). However, something made him toss the phones into the treeline - a police car arriving at the gates in front of him could have done that, especially since he hadn't managed to turn off one of the phones, and it was receiving a message at 22:13, the same time the police car was noted to have arrived at the house.

We also know Rudy looked through Meredith's bag (since his DNA was on it). You don't need to know in advance that a person has a second phone if you find the phone while going through her things.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck

And had he made it home without incident, that's likely what he would have done (had he been thinking clearly). However, something made him toss the phones into the treeline - a police car arriving at the gates in front of him could have done that, especially since he hadn't managed to turn off one of the phones, and it was receiving a message at 22:13, the same time the police car was noted to have arrived at the house.

We also know Rudy looked through Meredith's bag (since his DNA was on it). You don't need to know in advance that a person has a second phone if you find the phone while going through her things.

Then there is the person who rang up Meredith's phones for one second and four seconds respectively the next day, not expecting an answer.

[FergusMcDuck]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Then there is the person who rang up Meredith's phones for one second and four seconds respectively the next day, not expecting an answer.

Filomena Romanelli? The Kerchers?

Kerch1.jpg

Amanda's initial call is actually the longest (16 seconds). Did Filomena and the Kerchers not expect an answer from Meredith? If so, why?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck

Filomena Romanelli? The Kerchers?

Attachment 45856

Amanda's initial call is actually the longest (16 seconds). Did Filomena and the Kerchers not expect an answer from Meredith? If so, why?

None of these reported Meredith as being missing.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That makes no sense. Had he stolen the phones for profit, all he had to do was remove the SIM cards and hide them for a bit. Micheli ruled that the theft of the phones was to stop Mez from calling for help and not for gain. So the culprit would be the person who locked the body in the room, having removed the phones. Also only one person at the scene knew Mez had two phones, one of which she carried on her person in case of an emergency with her mother's health.

See, you're as ignorant as Guede might have been.

Because all mobile phone handsets have a unique IMEI code which is burned into the firmware, and which is entirely separate from any SIM card or phone number. That unique IMEI would immediately link each of the handsets to Kercher (via Romanelli for the Italian handset, and via Kercher herself for the UK handset). And there would have been nothing that Guede or anyone else could have done to disguise/remove/alter that IMEI code from either handset.

And what's this crap about "only one person (by whom you mean Knox, right?) knew that Mez Kercher had two phones"? Anyone who looked in Kercher's bag would have known she had two phones. Duhhhh. Are you really that incapable of the most simple logical understanding? And "...she carried on her person..."?? Are you fantasising about being in the police, by way of borrowing police vocabulary?

Oh and are you still unaware that Micheli's MR has been entirely overruled by the Marasca SC MR? You do a lot of living in the deep past wrt this case don't you, Vixen?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Then there is the person who rang up Meredith's phones for one second and four seconds respectively the next day, not expecting an answer.

You've been told many, many, many times now already: you do not know what you're talking about when it comes to these phone call records.


Do us all a favour and conduct a simple search back in this thread, in order to educate yourself on this issue. Please.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

None of these reported Meredith as being missing.

Oh dear. Is this the best "response" you can come up with?

[FergusMcDuck]

Originally Posted by Vixen

None of these reported Meredith as being missing.

Why is that relevant to the length of the calls and knowledge of whether or not Meredith would answer?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck

Why is that relevant to the length of the calls and knowledge of whether or not Meredith would answer?

It's not, of course.

Rather, that post was intended in its entirety to act as a "Look over there! Squirrel!" piece of intellectual dishonesty.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

See, you're as ignorant as Guede might have been.

Because all mobile phone handsets have a unique IMEI code which is burned into the firmware, and which is entirely separate from any SIM card or phone number. That unique IMEI would immediately link each of the handsets to Kercher (via Romanelli for the Italian handset, and via Kercher herself for the UK handset). And there would have been nothing that Guede or anyone else could have done to disguise/remove/alter that IMEI code from either handset.

And what's this crap about "only one person (by whom you mean Knox, right?) knew that Mez Kercher had two phones"? Anyone who looked in Kercher's bag would have known she had two phones. Duhhhh. Are you really that incapable of the most simple logical understanding? And "...she carried on her person..."?? Are you fantasising about being in the police, by way of borrowing police vocabulary?

Oh and are you still unaware that Micheli's MR has been entirely overruled by the Marasca SC MR? You do a lot of living in the deep past wrt this case don't you, Vixen?

Guede's DNA was on the bag clasp, indicating lifting it to move it. He already knew the rent money (bearing in mind he is meant to be the local prolific burglar) was kept in Mez' drawer. If you are going to give great weight to Mez' bag, you do know that a long fair hair was found across the top where it opens?

According to Guede, a furious Mez confronted Knox about her missing rent money when she returned home. This resulted in an altercation. Guede claimed Mez had gone into Knox' room to search for her missing cash - not insubstantial for someone living on student means - there. Police did find Mez' fingerprints on Knox' drawer.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Guede's DNA was on the bag clasp, indicating lifting it to move it. He already knew the rent money (bearing in mind he is meant to be the local prolific burglar) was kept in Mez' drawer. If you are going to give great weight to Mez' bag, you do know that a long fair hair was found across the top where it opens?

According to Guede, a furious Mez confronted Knox about her missing rent money when she returned home. This resulted in an altercation. Guede claimed Mez had gone into Knox' room to search for her missing cash - not insubstantial for someone living on student means - there. Police did find Mez' fingerprints on Knox' drawer.

LOLOLOL So you're "responding" to my (and others') point that anyone who looked in Mez' Mez's Kercher's bag would have known she had two mobile phones (contrary to your fatuous insinuation about Knox being the only one who could know this information) by....... pointing out the evidence that Guede had been into Kercher's bag. Way to go, Vixen!

And as you well know (or should well know) by now, that "long hair" has literally zero value as evidence in this case. Not only was it just as likely to come from the blonde-dyed front parts of Kercher's modern bob..... it was (as you certainly do well know) lost by the "crack" "world-class" forensics team under the stellar leadership of not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni.

(PS: please learn how to use possessive apostrophes correctly)

[LondonJohn]

Oh and "according to Guede" has no weight whatsoever in this debate. It's unsurprising, though, that you can't see that. Something about "intellectual honesty" comes to mind.....

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Oh and "according to Guede" has no weight whatsoever in this debate. It's unsurprising, though, that you can't see that. Something about "intellectual honesty" comes to mind.....

This is one guilter meme that doesn't originate with Mignini. Quoting Guede (this specifically) originates with Nencini. In provisionally convicting in 2014, Nencini tossed all the previous alleged motives to suddenly resurrect Guede's version.

No more sex-game gone wrong acc. to Nencini. And that in the face of the previous Supreme Court ordering that that be reinvestigated. Nencini had such faith in the Supreme Court that he ignored them, and dreamt up his own fantasies.

I mean, where else is Guede believed on anything? He certainly wasn't believed when he first said that Knox had had nothing to do with the crime.

Otherwise the remaining guilter memes have as their origin Mignini's post-exoneration excuses for losing. Peter Q and Vixen simply recite what Mignini has offered as a reason why he lost - a Supreme Court which, in his view, had ruled illegally in exonerating the pair.

Perhaps it would be better for Vixen to cite some other reputable source which agrees with Mignini, rather than just recycling Mignini's spurious, post-exoneration memes.

What do you mean that there aren't any?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Ah, ninja-ed.

You usually are.

[Stacyhs]

It looks like the police weren't the only ones who suffered from "investigative amnesia", Vix.

1."Then there is the person who rang up Meredith's phones for one second and four seconds respectively the next day, not expecting an answer."

You've already had how this works explained to you. Do read it again and see if you can remember it this time. Once again, your ability to read other people's minds is amazing! How else would you know that the caller was "not expecting an answer"?

2."None of these reported Meredith as being missing."

Because, at that point, she wasn't 'missing'; she just hadn't answered her phone. Do you report someone missing to the police when they don't answer their phone for a couple of hours? The first call to Kercher on Nov. 2 was by Knox at 12:07. Sollecito called 112 at 12:51 after the break-in was found. They reported she couldn't be found in under 2 hours.

3."Guede's DNA was on the bag clasp, indicating lifting it to move it."

Wrong again. His DNA was not found on the clasp. This is where it was found:



4. "...you do know that a long fair hair was found across the top where it opens?"

More convenient amnesia, I see. We've had this discussion before. Several times. None of the blonde hairs were found to be chemically processed as was Knox's.

5. "Police did find Mez' fingerprints on Knox' drawer."

Nope. They found her fingerprint on Knox's wardrobe door, not a drawer. Please learn the correct possessive form for words ending in 'x': x' ain't it.

[Bill Williams]

Nick Pisa is back, in The Sun. Giving murderer Rudy Guede a platform, now that Guede is free.

Guess what? Guede agrees with Giuliano Mignini, in Mignini's views on the Marasca-Bruno findings. So we've found one person in Italy who agrees with Mignini's views - loser views. Rudy Guede!!!

Except that Guede says something that not even Mignini did, that all Guede had tried to do was save the victim. Not kill her.

I hope he's deported.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Nick Pisa is back, in The Sun. Giving murderer Rudy Guede a platform, now that Guede is free.

Guess what? Guede agrees with Giuliano Mignini, in Mignini's views on the Marasca-Bruno findings. So we've found one person in Italy who agrees with Mignini's views - loser views. Rudy Guede!!!

Except that Guede says something that not even Mignini did, that all Guede had tried to do was save the victim. Not kill her.

I hope he's deported.

I must say, it's a tremendous surprise: Guede agreeing with a narrative in which someone other than Guede is the prime mover in the murder...

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I must say, it's a tremendous surprise: Guede agreeing with a narrative in which someone other than Guede is the prime mover in the murder...

What Nick Pisa has Guede apologizing about, is failing to save the victim. When one reads it, he is not quoted as outright denying killing the victim, just that a "court ruled that there was more than one attacker", and he failed to staunch the bleeding with towels. So he's supportive of Mignini on that. He talks around it, and all-but blames Knox and Sollecito for the victim's death. Not quite. (At least the way Pisa wrote it. Perhaps even the Sun's editors are sensitive to the liability landscape these days. Who knows.)

No comment on whether or not he'll be deported.

[Stacyhs]

Nick Pisa continues to prove he's scum and there's no story so low that he won't crawl in the mud to get it.

After reading that article, I wanted to see what the Giordano SC that confirmed Guede's conviction said about the towels that Guede claims he tried to staunch Kercher's throat wound with. The Court seems to have accepted this on his word alone. Why? Even they mention the multiple and changing stories he told.

One thing that stood out to me was this passage:

Quote:

The traces of DNA and Guede’s Y chromosome on
the cuff of the left sleeve of the victim’s sweatshirt supported a conclusion that considerable pressure had been applied to immobilise her left hand, in contrast with her right hand, on which multiple wounds were visible.

If Knox and Sollecito were allegedly holding Meredith down, why was her right arm/hand free? Why were two people, using both hands, not able to hold her right hand down, too? And, with all this alleged strength being used against her so that it left bruising, why did none of their DNA transfer from their skin or sweating palms?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

What Nick Pisa has Guede apologizing about, is failing to save the victim. When one reads it, he is not quoted as outright denying killing the victim, just that a "court ruled that there was more than one attacker", and he failed to staunch the bleeding with towels. So he's supportive of Mignini on that. He talks around it, and all-but blames Knox and Sollecito for the victim's death. Not quite. (At least the way Pisa wrote it. Perhaps even the Sun's editors are sensitive to the liability landscape these days. Who knows.)

No comment on whether or not he'll be deported.

Exactly. Guede has been warned he can't accuse Knox and Sollecito outright in case of legal action, so he sticks to what the final motivation reports do say, which being a legal fact cannot be 'libel'.


As for the towels, the 'other assailants' did not provide Mez with any help whatsoever. It is a legal fact Knox was certainly at the cottage during the murder (Marasca and Bruno). did hear her scream - as she confessed - and never called the emergency services once.

Quote:

[317] There remains the particular of the towels, on the other hand, of an uncertain reading if one does not have faith (and one cannot, as demonstrated) in the declarations made by the accused: if they serve in any case to improvise some sort of aid intervention as regards MEREDITH, as much shoddy as useless, it is possible that it was only him to pick up those towels, or else that all the attackers did it, once they had realised they had overstepped the limit.

[318] But it is not possible that this tardy reversal of tendency, when already the size of the wound given to the victim’s neck made the insufficiency of the attempt apparent, can go to overcoming the extreme gravity of the charge, with a girl of 20 years deprived of the worth of her life in such squalid circumstances (and these circumstances were due to whoever had decided to commit the crime with such shallowness and lightness), and to whom enormous suffering was caused solely for the disappointment of having seen base demands refused, as MEREDITH had the right to do.

Micheli sentencing report

What the courts ruled

Micheli re proof of multiple assailants

Quote:

[275] That someone returned to the house, taking care to sketch out the pantomime of the clandestine ingress of thieves or other chance malcontents, has been equally affirmed, and it is once again sufficient to recall the precautionary custody order; in that same context, the authors of the falsification also intervened in the victim’s room, and perhaps removed the bra from MEREDITH’s body, if they had not already done so straight after the girl had fallen to the floor.

[277] Starting from the alteration, and therefore preceding in reverse, it is clear that the bra was being worn when the blows were received, otherwise it would not show the same point-like marks of blood as found on the girl’s breast; it is as much evident that it was removed from the victim after some time had passed, it is not known how much in quantifiable terms, but in any case sufficient for the production, on MEREDITH’s back, of some marks shown in photographs 268 and 770, corresponding to the shoulder straps.<snip>

At the same time, it was staged that someone had introduced themselves in the house by means of the window in Ms ROMANELLI’s room (probably to rob, but they had possessed themselves neither of a laptop on the desk, nor of jewels easily accessible in a drawer) and effected a more or less rudimentary clean-up activity, sufficient to make totally vanish from the house, except for on a glass on the draining board, the fingerprints of a girl who was spending days and nights there.

<snip>

[318] But it is not possible that this tardy reversal of tendency, when already the size of the wound given to the victim’s neck made the insufficiency of the attempt apparent, can go to overcoming the extreme gravity of the charge, with a girl of 20 years deprived of the worth of her life in such squalid circumstances (and these circumstances were due to whoever had decided to commit the crime with such shallowness and lightness), and to whom enormous suffering was caused solely for the disappointment of having seen base demands refused, as MEREDITH had the right to do.

So Guede in saying it was found he did not strike the fatal blow and that it was an other there who did, there is nothing Knox or Sollecito can do to gag him.


So much for Knox begging Guede to take the entire rap.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Exactly. Guede has been warned he can't accuse Knox and Sollecito outright in case of legal action, so he sticks to what the final motivation reports do say, which being a legal fact cannot be 'libel'.


As for the towels, the 'other assailants' did not provide Mez with any help whatsoever. It is a legal fact Knox was certainly at the cottage during the murder (Marasca and Bruno). did hear her scream - as she confessed - and never called the emergency services once.


Micheli sentencing report

What the courts ruled

Micheli re proof of multiple assailants



So Guede in saying it was found he did not strike the fatal blow and that it was an other there who did, there is nothing Knox or Sollecito can do to gag him.


So much for Knox begging Guede to take the entire rap.

Maybe if that crack unit of forensic experts hadn't allowed those towels to rot and the bra hook to rust......but they did.

There is no evidence that Guede used those towels in an attempt to help Meredith. But his actions alone that night support he wasn't.

He was found not to have struck the final blow based on bad evidence of the time that was later shown to be completely unreliable. And you and he know that. So you tell me, Vix: why was there no blood on that knife? What could have removed all that blood and not destroyed any DNA along with it?

There is no 'proof of multiple assailants'. Again, that was based on discredited evidence. Once again, you have to fall back on 'judicial truths' because it's all you've got.