Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

I have been researching and it is ilk not elk, sorry. I just edited accordingly. Yes CoulsdonUK, I of course see it in those terms. Sollecito's assets will be transferred to the Kercher family when the conviction is finally confirmed, and they will immediately pay Maresca all he bills them without question, which is the common experience of those who are tendered a legal bill which they are able to pay.

Where have you seen the details of Raf's finances? He is alleged to have been left land by his mother. Do the the attorneys have a lien on those properties or does his father? Was he able to sell them while innocent?

 

[sunmaster14]

Why is it that the mention of math sends shivers through the spines of otherwise stoic men?

I am all for this approach in theory and have even toyed with the idea of creating a spreadsheet for both the Malaysian plane case and this one. The problem of course is "garbage-in, garbage-out." And using math can give one a false confidence in the result. I still think Bayesian models should be employed to aid in the decision making process for both prosecutors and juries. Humans of course have evolved to employ Bayesian models instinctively, but they are seriously flawed (in some humans more than others).

 

[Grinder]

Motive motive motive. Godamm the people who declare motive irrelevant.

And right back at you

Motive isn't necessary. It's great if there is an obvious one.

 

[GWCarver]

Botched executions in Oklahoma? The US legal system is botched to even allow executions!!!! What's that got to do with investigative myopia in Perugia in 2007?

Yeah, the guy did get a chance to dance with the devil what brung him there, so to speak, and there is a certain kind of justice in that...

But, there is clearly ample proof beyond any doubt that our system in the U.S. is not good enough under the current broad interpretation of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to deal out the death penalty. Let's just be glad Italy doesn't have it, because this case would have an extra dose of evil added to the already near-saturation level that permeates the Italian judiciary, IMO. (Sorry for the hyperbole, but I can almost picture the judges cackling while birds fly out of their mouths when writing these motivations.)

 

[Grinder]

No. The Luminol is reported to have give a strong reaction. This preclude your supposition of a very diluted blood. There must be a sufficient concentration of catalyst to give the strong luminol reaction but that catalyst must be in a form such that it is not picked up by the subsequent TMB test. A candidate for the substance is rust from the leaking radiators that has stained the tiles and the ions that are not bound to the tiles have been washed away over years of cleaning.

Are you suggesting someone walked under the radiators?

Whether it was an over application of Luminol or a mistake in photography or a combination it is certainly possible that some weak blood mixture from another time caused the footprints. It is just another reason those footprints aren't precise.

 

[anglolawyer]

And right back at you

Motive isn't necessary. It's great if there is an obvious one.

But it is important. Just as finding a body is useful but not necessary. Mostly, murder cases feature both, and the fact that every Italian judge who attempts to explain the motive makes a bigger clown of him or herself than the one before is a significant fact.

 

[sunmaster14]

And right back at you

Motive isn't necessary. It's great if there is an obvious one.

Declaring motive unnecessary is not the same thing as declaring it irrelevant (as you admit I think by writing the second sentence). Lack of motive affects the probabilities, and if and when I create a Bayesian-based "theory of everything" spreadsheet, I'll show you.

That said, I believe motive is necessary. Since we're talking about murder here, there has to be a motive, by definition. But I think we often confuse the lack of a motive with the lack of evidence about what that motive is. So it comes down to whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and I suspect we agree on what the answer to that question is.

ETA: Ninja'd a bit by Anglo. His analogy between finding a motive and finding a body is spot on.

 

[Bill Williams]

But it is important. Just as finding a body is useful but not necessary. Mostly, murder cases feature both, and the fact that every Italian judge who attempts to explain the motive makes a bigger clown of him or herself than the one before is a significant fact.

That is the issue isn't it. It is decidedly not the point in this case if motive is or isn't necessary. Mignini, Massei, the ISC in Mar h 2013, Crini and now Nencini all have said it is, enough anyway to offer every motive under the sun except for that Amanda was male and was jealous that Meredith was female.

Nencini is not shy about abandoning things like this when necessary. He's said that it is immaterial how or why the knife got to the cottage and (apparently) sees it as unnecessary to speculate - unlike Massei who had to speculate because of no premeditation.

Does Nencini believe in no premeditation? Then he should be explaining "why that knife?"

The issue for motive is that ILE sees it as important. At first blush they are right. The other evidence is either spotty, non existing, or downright fabricated.

So the Italian legal system needs a motive. Does it not bother people that Nencini's offering for motive cones from the only person who everyone is agreed is a liar? Not to mention heavily invested in the courts falling for his fabrications?

 

[codyjuneau]

I have no faith in the ISC. You forgot to comment on the fact that issues from the Perugia appeal were part of the Florence appeal so Hellmann does still exist in some way. They tested the material C&V found so C&V were part of this latest trial.

Yes, I believe that C&V should be used if the Italian system allows it and if not, I would make it a major PR effort.

If I were working for the defense I would put equal money and energy into a short video showing the "impossible" climb, the collection video, a summary of what top Italian scientists independently found, show what they call footprints etc.
Have you ever followed a case that you found the court ruled incorrectly? Does it bother you if the claimed mistakes in this report turn out to be true mistakes?

.
I think the primary PR focus should be on explaining the case against Rudy in a concise, clear way that the average Joe can grasp in 5 minutes or less. Leave the detailed analysis to the documentaries, magazine, blogs, and books.

A good defense is a good offense, and the prosecution side has an enormous advantage in that battle. Making the case against Rudy is a thousand times easier than trying to defend against the ever moving target of BS and lies the Italian judiciary keeps presenting. Don't try to push through the BS, go around it.

Explain the obvious. Rudy is the lone killer. It is such an easy case to make and it really is dead nuts obvious, so focus on it. People will get it.
.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is the issue isn't it. It is decidedly not the point in this case if motive is or isn't necessary. Mignini, Massei, the ISC in Mar h 2013, Crini and now Nencini all have said it is, enough anyway to offer every motive under the sun except for that Amanda was male and was jealous that Meredith was female.

Nencini is not shy about abandoning things like this when necessary. He's said that it is immaterial how or why the knife got to the cottage and (apparently) sees it as unnecessary to speculate - unlike Massei who had to speculate because of no premeditation.

Does Nencini believe in no premeditation? Then he should be explaining "why that knife?"

The issue for motive is that ILE sees it as important. At first blush they are right. The other evidence is either spotty, non existing, or downright fabricated.

So the Italian legal system needs a motive. Does it not bother people that Nencini's offering for motive cones from the only person who everyone is agreed is a liar? Not to mention heavily invested in the courts falling for his fabrications?

I agree. And it should not be forgotten that this prosecution is a smokescreen designed to obscure the fact that Mignini and the cops screwed up. That makes motive even more important to them because their whole crime theory blew up in their stupid faces leaving them with an embarrassingly obvious and simple case and that needs to be resolved.

 

[codyjuneau]

I truly believe that Italians' brains operate differently. Mach, Popper and Clander are all intelligent but have brains that are wired differently. They don't question a Curatolo because why would he lie. They believe that 3 compatibles equal a match - they really believe that.
Curatolo is ruled out by the Naruto video so the time has to be fudged to 9:20. Why would Nonsense not move Curatolo to 9:35?

.
'compatible with' means pick whatever you want and add 1 to your osmosis score.

'cannot be ruled out' means pick whatever you want and add 1 to your osmosis score.

An osmosis score greater than or equal to some arbitrary number equals proof, of whatever you want.
.

 

[Grinder]

Declaring motive unnecessary is not the same thing as declaring it irrelevant (as you admit I think by writing the second sentence). Lack of motive affects the probabilities, and if and when I create a Bayesian-based "theory of everything" spreadsheet, I'll show you.

That said, I believe motive is necessary. Since we're talking about murder here, there has to be a motive, by definition. But I think we often confuse the lack of a motive with the lack of evidence about what that motive is. So it comes down to whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and I suspect we agree on what the answer to that question is.

ETA: Ninja'd a bit by Anglo. His analogy between finding a motive and finding a body is spot on.

Showing a motive is a positive for prosecution but not a defense for the defendants. The difference between the value of the body and a motive is so great that you'd need two spreadsheets.

Trying to employ Bayesian statistics or logic may sound impressive but it is nothing more than a system of calculating an ultimate probability by using made up probabilities. GIGO.

I was in a jury panel for a murder where a person unknown to the defendant was stepping outside a club where he was having a bachelor party and the shooter got out of a car and killed the stranger. No motive was presented.

There is no way that the motive argument will convince the ISC or the general public. There seem to be random or near random murders often.

I really can't believe you bought Anglo's finding the body is on equal plane as finding a motive.

 

[codyjuneau]

But it is important. Just as finding a body is useful but not necessary. Mostly, murder cases feature both, and the fact that every Italian judge who attempts to explain the motive makes a bigger clown of him or herself than the one before is a significant fact.

.
I guess covering up previous stupidity requires ever increasing stupidity.

Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid does as stupid was?
.

 

[anglolawyer]

Showing a motive is a positive for prosecution but not a defense for the defendants. The difference between the value of the body and a motive is so great that you'd need two spreadsheets.

Trying to employ Bayesian statistics or logic may sound impressive but it is nothing more than a system of calculating an ultimate probability by using made up probabilities. GIGO.

I was in a jury panel for a murder where a person unknown to the defendant was stepping outside a club where he was having a bachelor party and the shooter got out of a car and killed the stranger. No motive was presented.

There is no way that the motive argument will convince the ISC or the general public. There seem to be random or near random murders often.

I really can't believe you bought Anglo's finding the body is on equal plane as finding a motive.

Every murder has a motive, without exception. Every murder has a body too. Neither is essential to prove a case but as they are always present it's not surprising to find they often loom large in the case. Especially the body. I did not say the two were on an equal plane btw. I was challenging your implication that because something was not necessary it was therefore not important.

I know nothing about PR and care about it even less. It may well be true the general public is not interested in motive although, since it's usually a simple and relevant part of the big picture, I don't see why. I thought PR was partly about explaining things in simple terms.

 

[Diocletus]

Showing a motive is a positive for prosecution but not a defense for the defendants. The difference between the value of the body and a motive is so great that you'd need two spreadsheets.

Trying to employ Bayesian statistics or logic may sound impressive but it is nothing more than a system of calculating an ultimate probability by using made up probabilities. GIGO.

I was in a jury panel for a murder where a person unknown to the defendant was stepping outside a club where he was having a bachelor party and the shooter got out of a car and killed the stranger. No motive was presented.

There is no way that the motive argument will convince the ISC or the general public. There seem to be random or near random murders often.

I really can't believe you bought Anglo's finding the body is on equal plane as finding a motive.

This particular case is ridiculous without a motive--no one would believe the guilt narrative. The Italians court understand this: if there is one thing that Italian courts respond to, it is the threat of looking ridiculous.

We have a half-dozen motives because these judges understand very well that they have to have one.

 

[Grinder]

This particular case is ridiculous without a motive--no one would believe the guilt narrative. The Italians court understand this: if there is one thing that Italian courts respond to, it is the threat of looking ridiculous.

We have a half-dozen motives because these judges understand very well that they have to have one.

Neither of us knows exactly how the Italian system works but their case would be stronger without their cornucopia of motives. Massei's choosing evil is enough. It is patently clear that if they killed her they weren't acting in any sort of rational way. Had they been rational they would have known they would be at the top of the list.

If you believed that the bathmat print was Raf's and Meredith's DNA was on the knife and the bra clasp had legitimately found DNA of Raf on it would you need a motive to convict them? The court does seem to believe all those things.

Their is no evidence that convinces me of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but the lack of rational motive isn't key or more than the smallest factor.

It may be the case that the Italian story telling motivations require a motive as part of the formula.

 

[Planigale]

Thats another one they don't get. Motive is just another item of CE. I cheated when I omitted it from the list in the Pillay case. The PGPs always say - you don't have to prove motive - neener, neener. But this is a stupid, misconceived answer which misses the point. It is not our case that, as no credible motive can be shown, there is in law no case to answer. Rather it is that the circumstantial case is weakened by the absence of a motive.

Think of the word 'motive' - it is something that moves, that impels. To get up, walk about, eat, sleep etc we need a motive. There is always a motive (just about). For murder it needs to be something pretty big because of all the social conditioning, moral and legal taboos surrounding it. So it's a huge point that Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to kill Meredith and because it is, it's why we read so much on the point from Massei, Nencini, Mignini et al They don't think it doesn't matter, do they? And from the guilters themselves, when they forget their own arguments and indulge in another bout of spewing and vomiting hate tending to show what malign and corrupt individuals the two are.

The problem I have with this is the introduction of 'sub-motives'. People are not logical (excepting Mr Spock). We have Nencini arguing that the phones must have been dumped by Sollecito/Knox because Guede would have had no logical motive to take them (and dump them). But I think just how logical would a human be after just committing a murder? But what do I know I'm just a little marsupial and Nencini is an experienced judge.

In fact he utilises this fact as evidence against Guede as sole perpetrator, since the defence did not explain why Guede as sole perpetrator would take the phones. This made me realise that for Nencini it was not sufficient for the defence to prove that it was unlikely that Sollecito and Knox were guilty but they actually had to prove a perfect case against Guede.

 

[carbonjam72]

And the winner is...

This particular case is ridiculous without a motive--no one would believe the guilt narrative. The Italians court understand this: if there is one thing that Italian courts respond to, it is the threat of looking ridiculous.
We have a half-dozen motives because these judges understand very well that they have to have one.

yup

 

[acbytesla]

And right back at you

Motive isn't necessary. It's great if there is an obvious one.

While I agree with this statement in theory. Overall, people have a reason for anything and everything especially 3 different people of three different backgrounds. You really can't find a crime that is remotely close to this. Nencini sort of dances around this saying that the all three "could have" different motives. That's what you call a punt.

While I find it possible for one person to just go crazy and kill someone with an apparent motive and maybe even two who have long standing relationships, I think it is absurd to think that Raffaele would join in with Amanda in killing her roommate over 300 Euros, this in fact is pocket change to him. He'd give Amanda the money before he'd kill someone because of it. And of course it is unlikely that Amanda would kill for 300 Euros either. I actually don't think Rudy killed Meredith over 300 Euros, he killed her because he didn't want to get caught and because he had an urge to sexually assault Meredith.

No, while motive isn't necessary, you would think given the total absence of motive that some slam dunk evidence would prove the crime.

 

[Anode]

The problem I have with this is the introduction of 'sub-motives'. People are not logical (excepting Mr Spock). We have Nencini arguing that the phones must have been dumped by Sollecito/Knox because Guede would have had no logical motive to take them (and dump them). But I think just how logical would a human be after just committing a murder? But what do I know I'm just a little marsupial and Nencini is an experienced judge.

In fact he utilises this fact as evidence against Guede as sole perpetrator, since the defence did not explain why Guede as sole perpetrator would take the phones. This made me realise that for Nencini it was not sufficient for the defence to prove that it was unlikely that Sollecito and Knox were guilty but they actually had to prove a perfect case against Guede.

Seriously?? Nencini writes that Amanda must have stole the phones because Rudy had no logical reason?? WTF??

What was Amanda's logical reason? And why did she run half way across town in the direction of Rudy's place to dump them? Why do you steal a phone to dump it anyway? I thought Amanda was supposed to be back at the cottage cleaning up her DNA?? This is just absurd!!

It was a brilliantly staged burglary, she even brought a genuine bonafide burglar!

Sorry, vent...