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

[CoulsdonUK]

Of course, one can come to JREF and take a dim view of the thinking process of regular posters here to his or her heart's content. The problem is that, unlike any PGP site of which I am aware, there are some very serious and credentialed people here, who have no special commitment in the Knox case except to the truth. For years now, such individuals have been coming here reality-testing evidence and theories, and, in doing so, have managed to come up with takes that stand up both to science and common sense.

So, to an objective reader, this has become a kind of barrier of entry to participation, here. Come in a skeptic, but come well armed, or risk one's theories being made pretty short work.

For example, your views that AK and RS are rather abstractly "somewhat guilty" have been aired here, and so shot full of holes they resemble Swiss cheese. If possible, the notion that this recent video is either 50% Knox, or 50% not Knox, is so random and speculative - and unscientific - it is barely worth considering. Do you not see that Sherlock Holmes, "himself," demands critical thinking that holds up to substantially more solid evidence, contemplation and rigor?

What are your thoughts as to why the defence teams have ignored this sage advice over the years, I still find it difficult to reconcile what is written here with what actually has unfolded in court, apart from the fact the defence lawyers are familiar with Italian law and court procedure.

 

[Dan O.]

This is not correct.
The friends' car ,a Citroen, was not parked at the entrance to the cottage.
Please read Carmela Occhipinti's testimony.
The breakdown occurred at 10.30 pm and it took 30 minutes for the tow truck driver to arrive. He left at 11.15 pm.

According to Guede in his deposition of 26 March 2008 there was a small white car with its headlights on parked by the cottage entrance, with 2 people in the front seats, which later moved off.
Guede also stated there was a Moroccan vagrant hanging around.

Kokomani had a dark blue '91 Golf.

The testimony of the driver says that the friend parked below the cottage near the entrance to the car park. But is this correct? He also states that he walked between the two cars several times which would have taken him past the gate to the cottage where he would have had to walk around the dark car parked there. Does he ever mention seeing the car in the driveway?

Memories can be deceptive, especially after the passage of time, so it is necessary to see how all the accounts interlock before taking them as gospel. The car park videos should have the record of these two cars exiting the car park. It should be apparent if there is another car in the driveway at that time.

Do we ever hear what color the Citron was?

 

[anglolawyer]

What are your thoughts as to why the defence teams have ignored this sage advice over the years, I still find it difficult to reconcile what is written here with what actually has unfolded in court, apart from the fact the defence lawyers are familiar with Italian law and court procedure.

Mind if I butt in Coulsdon? I think there is a fairer hearing to be had here than in Italy to be perfectly honest. If you have a claim here you have to back it up or face collective opprobrium. By and large, reason holds sway. Sherlock is unfair and wrong to characterise the thread as a pro-innocence circle-jerk (or whatever the stupid expression is). In Italy, the lawyers are dealing with a legal system that fails to act fairly or reasonably or to respect scientific principles. That places them in a very difficult position. Aside from that, I am not aware off the top of my head of any significant arguments the defence teams have not made that have been run here at JREF. Can you think of any?

 

[Vibio]

Pasqualino Coletta (the driver) testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage.

It's just so difficult to wade through the garbage. Who has the time?

Example: Pasqualino Coletta testified that he mostly stayed in the car (only getting out 2 or 3 times). He also testified that the car windows were closed and that his wife and kids were also in the car with him. Why are these important facts left out?

 

[Vibio]

I think there is a fairer hearing to be had here than in Italy to be perfectly honest.

Oh yes, on the internets. Indeed.

 

[js202]

What are your thoughts as to why the defence teams have ignored this sage advice over the years, I still find it difficult to reconcile what is written here with what actually has unfolded in court, apart from the fact the defence lawyers are familiar with Italian law and court procedure.

For one, my best sense is that the defense lawyers are well-conditioned to the more dubious aspects of the Italian judicial system, and conduct themselves accordingly. Especially with Knox's attorneys, I don't see much will to fight or risk angering the system. More often than not, a kind of craven deference has seemed to carry the day.

Of course, on the other hand, your post can be seen as baiting, and/or somewhat obtuse. Because, in fact, the Hellmann court, with its reliance on the reasonable and scientifically sound work of Conti and Vecchiotti, often acted as if it had been *cribbing* from the pertinent threads on this site. Of course, I believe that Hellmann represented the only proceedings looking anything like sanity I have yet witnessed in this whole, sordid mess.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but, for once, it would be nice to see you truly engage with this material, rather than settling to ask rather nettling questions which seem to reveal a bias that has thus far rather stubbornly resisted exposing itself to the light of day, and the possibility of being demolished.

 

[Vibio]

For one, my best sense is that the defense lawyers are well-conditioned to the more dubious aspects of the Italian judicial system, and conduct themselves accordingly. Especially with Knox's attorneys, I don't see much will to fight or risk angering the system.

Especially when you have losing arguments.

 

[NancyS]

What are your thoughts as to why the defence teams have ignored this sage advice over the years, I still find it difficult to reconcile what is written here with what actually has unfolded in court, apart from the fact the defence lawyers are familiar with Italian law and court procedure.

I thought the same arguments had been made, which is what led to them being found innocent and released. For some unknown and unscientific reason the innocent verdict was subsequently rejected and then replaced by the current nonsense

 

[NancyS]

It's just so difficult to wade through the garbage. Who has the time?

Example: Pasqualino Coletta testified that he mostly stayed in the car (only getting out 2 or 3 times). He also testified that the car windows were closed and that his wife and kids were also in the car with him. Why are these important facts left out?

Probably because the prosecution were arguing that Meredith's scream was so loud and terrible, it was heard by a hard-of-hearing lady, from a much further distance and through double glazed windows - you can't have it both ways. The people in the car would also have noticed lights on and people running out of the cottage, if that happened as claimed by the prosecution

 

[Vibio]

For some unknown and unscientific reason the innocent verdict was subsequently rejected

Uh...unknown reason? The reasoning was fully explained in great detail by the Supreme Court.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh yes, on the internets. Indeed.

You can mock all you want but I'm serious. Not that you'll answer so this isn't for you especially but the restoration of Stefanoni to respectability is mind-blowing. It shows a complete failure to deal properly with scientific principles. In fact, I really have no idea why this Nonsencini guy takes 337 pages to spit it out. If the knife is good their goose is cooked isn't it? What the heck is her 'presumed haematic substance' doing on that blade if they didn't kill her with it?

Funny that the PGPs never defend the knife. That would mean actually reading and learning about DNA which, of course, is tricky and unfortunately leads only one way in this case.

 

[Rolfe]

the timing is about correct for where she would be at that time, and it also is a bit of a coincidence the three woman, Meredith, Amanda and this stranger then should all appear around the same location around the same time.

Whoa, there's a name for that logical fallacy, and it's "petitio principii" or affirming the consequent.

You are assuming Amanda was there at that time in order to make a case for the person in the CCTV footage possibly being her.

The whole point of the discussion is that she was not there at that time.

People are declaring that the CCTV footage shows Amanda, therefore she was there. This is the thing that is being debated.

The statement above says, we know she was there (how?) and so that image might be her.

No, really not. Bad bad logic.

Rolfe.

 

[MDDVS]

Stellar reasoning by Nencini about the bra-clasp "evidence". The traces attributable to other people must be contamination because Meredith was a nice girl. The sole trace attributable to Raffaele must be his because he's a killer.

How can one argue with such elevated judicial logic as this?

Impossible. Similar to the argument that "professional" burglars don't enter through windows.

 

[Vibio]

Probably because the prosecution were arguing that Meredith's scream was so loud and terrible, it was heard by a hard-of-hearing lady, from a much further distance and through double glazed windows - you can't have it both ways. The people in the car would also have noticed lights on and people running out of the cottage, if that happened as claimed by the prosecution

Nope. Sorry, but if you are going to simply write that he "testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage."

Then one should at least point out that he also testified that: he stayed mostly in the car. The car windows were shut. He was in the car with his wife and kid. The car was broken down in the middle of the street. And that he was so concerned about the situation they were in that he took no notice of anything else that was happening around him.

Saying simply that he testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage and leaving it at that, is quite disingenuous.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think there is a fairer hearing to be had here than in Italy to be perfectly honest.

Oh yes, on the internets. Indeed.

It's time to put away your computer, A-L. You've been devastated with vastly superior logic.

Strangely this little interlude reminds me of Nencini's own reasonings- exp. when you get into them.

He believes Stefanoni. But even though Massei believes Stefanoni in the face of counter-evidence in the Massei Report that Massei readily admits is there to be wave-away.....

... Nencini just ignores that there had ever been expressions of concern about Stefanoni's work, which is the reason he waves away Conti-Vecchiotti.

So in a strange way, Vibio has captured the "logic method" if the Italian courts, and we should be grateful for the demonstration.

 

[MichaelB]

It's just so difficult to wade through the garbage. Who has the time?

Example: Pasqualino Coletta testified that he mostly stayed in the car (only getting out 2 or 3 times). He also testified that the car windows were closed and that his wife and kids were also in the car with him. Why are these important facts left out?

Why should they be included? Did they see or hear anything? Nope.

 

[kwill]

The reasoning was fully explained in great detail by the Supreme Court.

That made me smile.

Fully explained, great detail. The sentence itself is a pretty good example of the SC "reasoning." Fully explained implies great detail. Great detail implies full explanation. The "reasoning" was more of a giant word salad with lots and lots of dressing than an explanation of anything.

There is one thing, though. The SC asked that "The Knife" be tested again. They faulted the appeals court for not doing so before it acquitted the defendants.

How did that work out?

 

[Bill Williams]

Especially when you have losing arguments.

Ok now you have me confused.

At one point you were questioning why these arguments were not raised by the defence at court, and now you are saying that they raised them and lost.

Can you defend the reasons why they lost? That's the issue here. One of the reasons they lost is because now Judge Nencini says Raffaele's DNA is on the blade of the knife. No one ever claimed this before the Nencini report.

It's one thing to lose a court case. It's another thing to lose the court case when the referee is firmly on one side of things. So much so they say things that even YOU do not defend.

You only defend the decision they made.

 

[NancyS]

Uh...unknown reason? The reasoning was fully explained in great detail by the Supreme Court.

I guess I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, as surely that anti-science nonsense can't be the real reason the verdict was rejected?

 

[anglolawyer]

That made me smile.

Fully explained, great detail. The sentence itself is a pretty good example of the SC "reasoning." Fully explained implies great detail. Great detail implies full explanation. The "reasoning" was more of a giant word salad with lots and lots of dressing than an explanation of anything.

There is one thing, though. The SC asked that "The Knife" be tested again. They faulted the appeals court for not doing so before it acquitted the defendants.

How did that work out?

I think it worked out that the discovery of Amanda's profile in 36I proves the knife was used in the murder. It turns out that a tiny spec of DNA reveals much more than we ever knew. It tells you precisely what a person was doing with an item they touched and when they touched it. Nobody outside the Italian legal system knew this before but we here, being merely 'on the internets', cannot it.