Friday, June 26, 2009

Trial: The Defenses Continue To Pursue The “Rudy Did It Alone” Angle

Posted by Peter Quennell




Testimony From Perugia Lawyers About A Breakin

Only the Italian media are reporting today’s happenings so far.

Click above for the first AGI report in Italian. Here is a quick translation.

The proceedings in the court began today with the testimony of two lawyers from Perugia, who stood firm in their claim that Rudy Guede stole a laptop and a mobile phone from their offices which were later seized by the police.

The two professionals explained that the theft happened overnight between 13 and 14 October 2007 when an unknown person entered the law firm premises after having broken a glass window with a rock.

The lawyer Paul Brocchi described the entrance window, located about three to four meters above the ground, as “not easy to enter” and he said that the alarm usually switched on in the evenings was not activated.

On that occasion, among other things stolen were a laptop computer and a mobile phone seized by police on October 27 when Rudy Guede was caught sleeping in a nursery school in Milan.

Mr Brocchi also testified that on 29 October 2007, hew saw a “boy of color” later recognized as Guede from the newspapers presenting himself on the news as being a stranger to these facts, and stating that he had purchased the computer on a regular basis at the train station in Milan.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/26/09 at 06:00 PM in Defendants in court,  Amanda Knox,  Raff Sollecito,  Trials 2008 & 2009

Comments

If nothing else, maybe this strategy will wake Guede up and lead to some cooperation with the prosecution.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/26/09 at 06:44 PM | #

It may well be true, Rudy was not a Choir boy. And they want to show that he is Tarzan he can get in even if it is difficult. Nothing stops him!

They are just desperate to put the blame only on him, despite so many evidences that he was not alone there!

Plus ... if he had entered through the window - since he is Tarzan himself-, thinking the house was empty (he did not see the light in Meredith’s room from outside? He did not check that?) and Meredith surprised him - right away, as the laptop was still there, not moved! - ... he could get scared and kill her, but why would he, on top on that, try to rape her? It does not make any sense! A rapist is something else than a thief…

Posted by Patou on 06/26/09 at 06:46 PM | #

still, the broken glass on top of the clothes is suspect.  and the fact that he didn’t steal anything from the cottage.  good attempt to deflect all focus from amanda to rudy.  how stupid do they think people are?

Posted by gramjan on 06/26/09 at 06:54 PM | #

How is it that Rudy stole and broke into a nursery school and was never punished?  Did the police just let him loose, or did he post bail and get out of prison after he was caught Oct. 27th?  I am assuming that the police took the knife he had at the time away from him too…Does anyone know?

Skeptical Bystander, I hope you are correct that the defense strategy will motivate Guede to tell more of what he knows.  For some reason I think out of Guede, AK, and RS, Guede is most likely to give more details about what really happened.  I don’t see Amanda giving in at all.

Posted by chira385 on 06/26/09 at 11:37 PM | #

I continue to be perplexed by Guede’s complete silence.  If the prosecution theory is that he, along with Knox and/or Sollecito, committed the murder, and if he has already been convicted and is pursuing an appeal, how does it benefit him to withhold information he may have with respect to others having participated in the crime?  I suppose it must be based on his position that he was not involved in any way in the murder, but he should still know a lot more than he has said.  While the direct and circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is quite strong, Guede’s silence (and resulting susceptibility to being used as a scapegoat by Knox) concern me and may concern the jurors as well.

Posted by Sierra1049 on 06/27/09 at 01:17 AM | #

It is in fact very puzzling. Could he have been threatened, that if he would name the others something would happen to him, even in jail? It is so weird that he does not speak. Well, on another hand… he said something about AK and RS, but obviously a lie, so ... would he have said that if threatened?

What is he hiding? And why?

Posted by Patou on 06/27/09 at 01:44 AM | #

Could AK and RS have known about these burglaries, from either RG himself or one of his friends who lived on the 1st floor? Or perhaps the staged burglary was RG’s idea.

Posted by malcolm on 06/27/09 at 07:02 AM | #

From what I read, RG refused to testify at the trial, saying that if the judges and/or prosecutors didn’t believe his earlier statements and considered him a liar, why should he speak (to help their case) now? Even so, it’s hard to imagine how continued silence, even if fueled by anger or pride, serves him if the defense is going to use his past misconduct to try to clear their clients of the crime.

BTW, does this earlier break-in—not the nursery school break-in, but the other break-in where a man woke up in the middle of the night to find RG rummaging through his things—sound legit?

Posted by wayra on 06/28/09 at 05:02 AM | #

Hi Wara

No Judge Micheli was quite sure it was not legit and was quite ticked at the guy who he suggested may have given false testimony to get into the act.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/07/14 at 01:48 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Trial: One Of The Defendants Arrives For The Trial Today

Or to previous entry Trial: Defense Witness Testifies To Occurence In Nearby Piazza The Next Day