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

[Samson]

I don't agree with her thesis at all, and I don't think it is supported by the evidence and certain key inferences from the evidence.

But I'd make two points: firstly, it would be interesting and instructive for her to come here to discuss the case and defend her thesis - and I think that there's an interesting (and well-conducted) debate to be had. And secondly, in response to someone else's comments about how she was being received elsewhere, I looked elsewhere to find out. I find it both ironic and hilarious to observe many of the more strident pro-guilt commentators making themselves look confirmation-biassed, defensive, patronising, rude, ignorant, "last-word"-obsessed and plain stupid in their interactions with her - when they (I am guessing) are trying to project exactly the opposite set of attributes

London John, I am sure she is the youngest most detailed student of the case. Accordingly I agree with you, she would be a valued contributor here. She is exactly a potential conduit between the youth and the senate.
She would be quickly disavowed of the CCTV underpinning her case, and conspiracy with Jovana is ridiculous, but other features are intriguing. For example she has no knowledge of the Naruto startup, but unwittingly she places RS home in time to create this alibi.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did want to make one minor comment. . .
If I was on a jury and the physical evidence of the crime was solid but the motive just did not wash, I could see finding guilt.

That's not a minor comment at all. There's lots of room in theory for thinking that the circumstantial evidence was solid in a case, but no one had a clue just why it happened. So in that kind of case, who really cares about motive if the gun is still smoking in the perp's hand?

That's not what's going on here. It is true that "motive does not have to be nailed down". Yet c'mon, the case against the students is weak if there at all, so motive becomes important. The Italian judges seem to think so!!! Proof of this for me is that people who write voluminously about guilt always need to go into motive, or at least into psychopathology, like this latest theorist introduced to JREF. She says that she has no idea what's going on with Knox, yet in the next sentence calls her a Narcissist. Sheesh.

Why go there if there's "all the other evidence"?

The major on-line guilters have these long, extended, complex psycho-familial, family-systems-theories about step-dads, dads and blended families - all to try to be able to talk a psychopathological-line while at the same time ignoring that there is no evidence at all, really, to even be interested in Knox or Sollecito.

When Judge Massei does his look into the families, he sees "nromal", which only heightens Massei incredulity that (as he found) they'd made an inexplicable "choice for evil" to help in what is Rudy's motive: lust. But that is Massei trying to square the circle.

If there is "all the other evidence", then talk of motive would diminish.

Instead, motive is the fantasy-battleground. As the Florida crime-blogger said, it gets so bad that even the convicting Judge in Florence gets to simply make up a motive out of thin air.....

...... well, not exactly thin.... that was was a single element of Rudy's "alibi", which lines up otherwise with exactly nothing. That one was an alibi where Meredith had let him in, and Knox was not even there, so that (acc. to Rudy) Meredith could search Amanda's room looking for rent money.

Aaaaaaaah...... missing money. Rudy knew he had to account to what he knew the cops would find: missing money. Too bad for Rudy that it was his DNA found on Meredith's purse, not Amanda's.

Yet this case has so little evidence against Knox, other than bleatings about psychopathology, that even Nencini has to invent motive drawn from the only source EVERYONE says is suspect.

 

[kwill]

She watched the video repeatedly and concluded there was no glass on top of clothes when the crime scene was unaltered.

Sigh.

The crime scene was never "unaltered" if by that you mean the whole cottage was sealed and undisturbed, just as the murderer left it. The postale police, AK, RS, Filomena + 3 of her friends were all in there, none of them knowing yet that they were at a murder scene, for some period of time. Presumably they all had the potential to inadvertently "alter" some detail, though it's impossible to know if any of them did.

And later Filomena was allowed to slip back into her room to get her laptop. You can't use "glass on top of clothes" for anything, imo, just as you can't use "glass under clothes."

What you can do is look at the shard of glass embedded in the wood and then come up with an explanation for how that happened. If you're certain that the video shows an "unaltered" room, you can look at the pattern of spray of glass, remembering that this is supposed to be either

a. a pristinely kept crime scene
b. a pristinely kept staged crime scene

And then you can demonstrate how exactly the pattern you see + the embedded shard got there.

 

[acbytesla]

They largely seem to do drive-by posting. . . .Those that argue for guilt don't seem willing to stop and discuss. I know what the boiler-plate arguments are for guilt but I would actually like one willing to discuss them.

Of course not. It is all based on the circular argument of authority. That the police and prosecution's wisdom is rarely wrong and who are we to question that wisdom? Surely they know the difference between a "staged burglary" and a real one. Surely, they don't make mistakes in a laboratory. Surely they know someone who's behavior is a "guilty behavior".

It's all about that trust. There must be something behind all of that, they think. I bet you've seen the many comments posted from people where they can't explain it but "they just have a feeling that Amanda was involved". They don't trust their own minds so they give their proxy to authority.

 

[Planigale]

Following is a link to a very long article. It seems to be a very independent and well researched piece. Too long though.

http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a_prank_a_cigarette_and_a_gun_018.pdf

She concludes it was a prank involving AK and RS, that Guede murdered alone, and they returned to clean up. Something like Sherlock?
She relies on the CCTV, KOKO, Curatolo etc, so has wasted huge energy, but she discusses the evidence logically and carefully.
PMF hate it.

A lot of work went into this and she has tried hard to be logical in reaching conclusions. Agree she would be a welcome voice here. I do think she has incorporated some errors and ignored some contradictory facts, but it is hard to get on top of everything as an individual. It is certainly one of the more coherent arguments (excluding the simple Guede did it.).

 

[Desert Fox]

That's not a minor comment at all. There's lots of room in theory for thinking that the circumstantial evidence was solid in a case, but no one had a clue just why it happened. So in that kind of case, who really cares about motive if the gun is still smoking in the perp's hand?

That's not what's going on here. It is true that "motive does not have to be nailed down". Yet c'mon, the case against the students is weak if there at all, so motive becomes important. The Italian judges seem to think so!!! Proof of this for me is that people who write voluminously about guilt always need to go into motive, or at least into psychopathology, like this latest theorist introduced to JREF. She says that she has no idea what's going on with Knox, yet in the next sentence calls her a Narcissist. Sheesh.

Why go there if there's "all the other evidence"?

The major on-line guilters have these long, extended, complex psycho-familial, family-systems-theories about step-dads, dads and blended families - all to try to be able to talk a psychopathological-line while at the same time ignoring that there is no evidence at all, really, to even be interested in Knox or Sollecito.

When Judge Massei does his look into the families, he sees "nromal", which only heightens Massei incredulity that (as he found) they'd made an inexplicable "choice for evil" to help in what is Rudy's motive: lust. But that is Massei trying to square the circle.

If there is "all the other evidence", then talk of motive would diminish.

Instead, motive is the fantasy-battleground. As the Florida crime-blogger said, it gets so bad that even the convicting Judge in Florence gets to simply make up a motive out of thin air.....

...... well, not exactly thin.... that was was a single element of Rudy's "alibi", which lines up otherwise with exactly nothing. That one was an alibi where Meredith had let him in, and Knox was not even there, so that (acc. to Rudy) Meredith could search Amanda's room looking for rent money.

Aaaaaaaah...... missing money. Rudy knew he had to account to what he knew the cops would find: missing money. Too bad for Rudy that it was his DNA found on Meredith's purse, not Amanda's.

Yet this case has so little evidence against Knox, other than bleatings about psychopathology, that even Nencini has to invent motive drawn from the only source EVERYONE says is suspect.

Bill, to be clear, I agree strongly that AK/RS were not involved in the murder.
Simple principle of KISS. The simplest explanation for the evidence of the evidence is Rudy did it with a sprinkling of contamination (for what ever reason)

Otherwise, I was just discussing the theoretical. Let me be clear, let us say that Amanda and Meredeth argued like cats and dogs and there was a reasonable motive, I would likely be extremely hesitant to find guilt unless there was some solid other evidence which removes reasonable doubt.

 

[acbytesla]

Bill, to be clear, I agree strongly that AK/RS were not involved in the murder.
Simple principle of KISS. The simplest explanation for the evidence of the evidence is Rudy did it with a sprinkling of contamination (for what ever reason)

Otherwise, I was just discussing the theoretical. Let me be clear, let us say that Amanda and Meredeth argued like cats and dogs and there was a reasonable motive, I would likely be extremely hesitant to find guilt unless there was some solid other evidence which removes reasonable doubt.

Grinder and I have had some long back and forth arguments about importance of motive. He believes is superfluous. I think that is absurd especially when the evidence against the defendants is marginal to non-existent.

I think motive or severe mental problems are extremely important when the evidence is slight. Obviously, if you have a video of someone committing a murder, it might mean something to understand the motive, but not when it comes to establishing guilt.

I've seen defendants get convicted essentially on motive alone. Where the defendants had extreme arguments with the victims, even assaulted them in the past. Where they had a significant financial motive

These combined with circumstantial..not physical evidence were more than enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Amanda and Raffaele both had a long history of emotional problems, mental instability and violence issues then I'd be more inclined to view circumstantial evidence pointing to them more from a guilt perspective.

But that is what makes this case so ***** absurd. Neither Amanda or Raffaele have so much of a blemish of any kind demonstrating those kind of problems and they knew each other for only a week. Amanda had met Rudy two weeks before an they never spoke to each other really.

With that as a starting point, you are going to have to provide some concrete physical evidence for me to vote guilty. But there really is none, it's extremely weak. So how does a juror vote that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Beats the hell out of me.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just convicting on motive is something I generally do not like.
Maybe motive with a whole bunch of other items even if not direct physical evidence, maybe. Something as well constructed as the Laci Peterson case but too many are ones where I think the jury was hoodwinked. It has to be "is there anything else plausible?"

 

[acbytesla]

Just convicting on motive is something I generally do not like.
Maybe motive with a whole bunch of other items even if not direct physical evidence, maybe. Something as well constructed as the Laci Peterson case but too many are ones where I think the jury was hoodwinked. It has to be "is there anything else plausible?"

I agree that there certainly needs to be more than motive. Just that without motive, without mental problems and a history, I think pretty much everyone might view a piece of circumstantial evidence differently than if they did exist.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder and I have had some long back and forth arguments about importance of motive. He believes is superfluous. I think that is absurd especially when the evidence against the defendants is marginal to non-existent.

I think motive or severe mental problems are extremely important when the evidence is slight. Obviously, if you have a video of someone committing a murder, it might mean something to understand the motive, but not when it comes to establishing guilt.

They have the murder weapon with DNA of the defendant and the victim found in the defendant's flat. They have footprints in blood of both defendants and the DNA of one on the bra of the victim. One defendant accused an innocent man and they changed their stories as to what they were doing that night. The accounts of discovering the crime scene were inconsistent and unbelievable.

In other words the courts that convicted them thought they had a wealth of evdience and therefore motive is an afterthought.

Of course, if there is no evidence or only bad evidence and the conviction is based on soft circumstantial evidence such as behavior then reason or motive become more necessary.

I've seen defendants get convicted essentially on motive alone. Where the defendants had extreme arguments with the victims, even assaulted them in the past. Where they had a significant financial motive

Just for laughs why not give us the cases you've "seen" where they were convicted on motive alone?

These combined with circumstantial..not physical evidence were more than enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is usually physical evidence. Please specify what non physical evidence was used in combination with motive to convict someone in the recent past, say since fingerprints or maybe even DNA.

This line is backward anyway because the issue is whether a motive needs to be known. It doesn't. As mentioned before I was on the jury panel of a guy that killed someone he didn't know coming out of a club where he had been having a bachelor party. Maybe the guy looked at him wrong.

If Amanda and Raffaele both had a long history of emotional problems, mental instability and violence issues then I'd be more inclined to view circumstantial evidence pointing to them more from a guilt perspective.

The evidence is tainted If the knife and bra were good then I'd convict, but it isn't. It shouldn't matter that the kids were whack-jobs or not, there was no evidence that stands up with enough weight to convict.

Lack of motive is just an add on.

But that is what makes this case so ***** absurd. Neither Amanda or Raffaele have so much of a blemish of any kind demonstrating those kind of problems and they knew each other for only a week. Amanda had met Rudy two weeks before an they never spoke to each other really.

Well there are blemishes but no evidence.

With that as a starting point, you are going to have to provide some concrete physical evidence for me to vote guilty. But there really is none, it's extremely weak. So how does a juror vote that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Beats the hell out of me.

They have the murder weapon with DNA of the defendant and the victim found in the defendant's flat. They have footprints in blood of both defendants and the DNA of one on the bra of the victim. One defendant accused an innocent man and they changed their stories as to what they were doing that night. The accounts of discovering the crime scene were inconsistent and unbelievable. Motive, schmotive.

Oh and why did someone link that horrible piece by the nutter girl? Anyone knows that people that use more than two type faces and cursive script are narcissistic whack-jobs.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's my conspiracy theory. I admit it, I have no proof.

But it's the only way I can explain the illogical March 2013 ISC quashing of acquittals, leading to the completely baffling and stupid Nencini conviction.

Italian lawmakers seek probe of prosecutors’ office in Perugia​

In May 2011, just as the DNA evidence was collapsing against Sollecito and Knox, some Italians of influence actually did try to take on what went wrong, and hold accountable those who fomented this miscarriage of justice.

Then: Hellmann acquitted the pair. Why? Because there is no evidence against AK and RS when independent people, apart from the party of the PMs, look at the evidence. Nothing can be done to probe the Perugian's prosecutor's office until Cassazione signs off on the acquittals.

Then: the party of the PMs forestall this investigation. How? By getting Cassazione to quash the acquittals. If they had not quashed, then the party of the PMs would be in full retreat.

Then: Nencini convicts. The day after the Jan 2014 convictions Nencini gets in trouble for telling a journalist, in effect, that the popular judges had to be convinced that this is what ISC wanted, because of certain "procedural facts".

Then: motivations report comes out. The "procedural facts" are admitted to. It does not matter what Nencini's court found, Nencini admits that certain facts have already been "legally" established in Rudy's court process.

But: Nencini blows a tire. He writes a motivations report which, among other things, say that women have Y-genetic traits. His "theory of the crime" has Amanda and Raffaele making out in Amanda's room for 2 hours , with Meredith in her room presumably alone for 2 hours, and Rudy having a 2-hour run of the place doing nothing (except toilet?)

Meredith at no time calls her sick mother. Then the alleged (by Rudy) argument about rent money between Meredith and Amanda breaks out, culminating in Knox delivering the fatal knife-blow - all the while not leaving ANY genetic/forensic trace she'd done that. All this from one story told by Guede which also claims that Amanda was not there, that Meredith had let him in, and that Meredith was being a bitch about the rent money: and NO ONE believes that about Meredith. (Strangely, only Rudy's genetic material is later found on Meredith's purse.)

Nencini briefly argues about a clean-up, implying that he'll get to it in his report, but then eventually speculates that the reason Merediths door was locked was becase NO cleanup had been done in here room, leaving unexplained no trace of AK or RS, other than to say that because they are obviously guilty, they must have managed it somehow.

..... ok, I admit, I'm wandering a bit from my conspiracy theory. Cassazione now has a choice - sweep the mess under the rug somehow by signing off on Nencini's report - yet finalizing this will unleash the May 2011 threat of an investigation.

So, will ISC simply quash the convictions, and once again grant a further 2 year reprieve in 2015 for an investigation, which waits in the wings and gets stronger every time Italy says something stupid about the horrible Kercher murder in 2007?

Me, I think it has been about forestalling an actual, internal investigation by Italians of Italians in Perugia. How else can one explain Nencini who now writes that women have Y-genetic traces?

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh and why did someone link that horrible piece by the nutter girl? Anyone knows that people that use more than two type faces and cursive script are narcissistic whack-jobs.

Every time I try to change font JREF defaults to what you see. The best I can do, narcissist that I am, is occasionally use bold or CAPS to achieve the same result.

Fie on JREF.

 

[Grinder]

I agree that there certainly needs to be more than motive. Just that without motive, without mental problems and a history, I think pretty much everyone might view a piece of circumstantial evidence differently than if they did exist.

You would view a fingerprint in blood differently. You'd view a murder weapon found with the defendant's and victim's DNA in the defendants flat differently? You'd view the defendants bloody footprint differently?

If Amanda and Meredith actually didn't get along, the evidence in this case wouldn't nearly be enough for me to convict. I might have more doubts if there was motive and a history of violence but there still wouldn't be enough evidence to convict - but if the evidence was solid I'd convict if no motive, not even poop, could be thought up and they had won the Mother Teresa award at Seattle Prep.

 

[Grinder]

With this latest motivation report from Nonsecini I conclude these reports are written in the true crime genre. They just make it up.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well there are blemishes but no evidence.

If I had kids, I wish they only had the blemishes that AK/RS seem to have.
They are human, not some kind of super human that never does anything wrong, but they sure seem to e decent people.

 

[Bill Williams]

With this latest motivation report from Nonsecini I conclude these reports are written in the true crime genre. They just make it up.

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!

Someone has obviously hacked Grinder's account!

 

[acbytesla]

They have the murder weapon with DNA of the defendant and the victim found in the defendant's flat. They have footprints in blood of both defendants and the DNA of one on the bra of the victim. One defendant accused an innocent man and they changed their stories as to what they were doing that night. The accounts of discovering the crime scene were inconsistent and unbelievable.

But it isn't very likely to be the murder weapon Grinder, and we both know that the DNA of the defendant may or may not have been on that knife. There is solid evidence of contamination on the bra clasp and serious problem with chain of custody. And the interrogation wasn't recorded when it easily could have been and I'm not sure what you are saying about their discovering the crime scene. They may have not been 100 percent consistent but if they had matched entirely, then that would demonstrate that they practiced what to say. A certain amount of inconsistency is to be expected.

The evidence is extremely suspect and you yourself has said that.

In other words the courts that convicted them thought they had a wealth of evdience and therefore motive is an afterthought.

I agree that the police..not the courts..(the court should have known better) thought they had a wealth of evidence...or at least they thought they did, until the shoes turned out to be Rudy's. If those shoes had actually been a clear match to Raffaele's shoes, I'd be a guilter.

But they don't, and the DNA evidence is absurd. And the statements during the interrogation aren't even admissible, so the lack of motive is significant..at least in my opinion.

Of course, if there is no evidence or only bad evidence and the conviction is based on soft circumstantial evidence such as behavior then reason or motive become more necessary.



Just for laughs why not give us the cases you've "seen" where they were convicted on motive alone?

I said almost... And almost certainly applies to the Laci Peterson case. Some good circumstantial evidence, pretty much zero physical evidence..mostly a suspicious history and someone who people didn't believe.

Circumstantial evidence is usually physical evidence. Please specify what non physical evidence was used in combination with motive to convict someone in the recent past, say since fingerprints or maybe even DNA.

Scott Peterson, for sure. no body found for a long time, lack of physical evidence...no DNA, no fingerprints. Just a very fishy story

This line is backward anyway because the issue is whether a motive needs to be known. It doesn't. As mentioned before I was on the jury panel of a guy that killed someone he didn't know coming out of a club where he had been having a bachelor party. Maybe the guy looked at him wrong.



The evidence is tainted If the knife and bra were good then I'd convict, but it isn't. It shouldn't matter that the kids were whack-jobs or not, there was no evidence that stands up with enough weight to convict.

Lack of motive is just an add on.

What would make the bra and knife's DNA good to you? I do look at the bra clasp to be significant IF it didn't have the serious problems with it. But I still wouldn't vote to convict if only Raffaele's DNA was found on it and it was discovered on day one. It makes no sense to me, I would dismiss it in my mind as contamination or some kind of mistake. That KNIFE, would have had to be Meredith's blood on that knife, not just her DNA. Had they found Meredith's blood on that knife..ABSOLUTELY, I wouldn't care about motive either.

But that is precisely the point Grinder. There are whole bunches of pieces of the puzzle and they never seem to quite fit perfectly together. Motive can be key to making those puzzle pieces fit together. Take the Laci Peterson case for example. So, Scott Petersen went fishing in the bay? But it happened be where his wife's body was found and he had been having extramarital affairs and he told a bunch of lies.

hmmmmm.

 

[Desert Fox]

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!

Someone has obviously hacked Grinder's account!

I think a True Crime author would write something less illogical.
Didn't one author state that she based her story on the Amanda Knox case but had to change the story considerably to make it believable?

 

[Grinder]

But it isn't very likely to be the murder weapon Grinder, and we both know that the DNA of the defendant may or may not have been on that knife. There is solid evidence of contamination on the bra clasp and serious problem with chain of custody. And the interrogation wasn't recorded when it easily could have been and I'm not sure what you are saying about their discovering the crime scene. They may have not been 100 percent consistent but if they had matched entirely, then that would demonstrate that they practiced what to say. A certain amount of inconsistency is to be expected.

The evidence is extremely suspect and you yourself has said that.

Tesla you can't seem to isolate a point to analyze it. No the evidence isn't good but that has nothing to do with the lack of motive. The convicting courts DO believe the evidence and therefore the need for a motive falls by the wayside.

I agree that the police..not the courts..(the court should have known better) thought they had a wealth of evidence...or at least they thought they did, until the shoes turned out to be Rudy's. If those shoes had actually been a clear match to Raffaele's shoes, I'd be a guilter.

But they don't, and the DNA evidence is absurd. And the statements during the interrogation aren't even admissible, so the lack of motive is significant..at least in my opinion.

So if she had a motive that was clear you would accept the evidence? Of course you wouldn't.

I said almost... And almost certainly applies to the Laci Peterson case. Some good circumstantial evidence, pretty much zero physical evidence..mostly a suspicious history and someone who people didn't believe.

In the LP case they had non physical evidence that was pretty strong and some physical circumstantial evidence.

And what you said was " I've seen defendants get convicted essentially on motive alone. Where the defendants had extreme arguments with the victims, even assaulted them in the past. Where they had a significant financial motive"

Scott Peterson, for sure. no body found for a long time, lack of physical evidence...no DNA, no fingerprints. Just a very fishy story

Girlfriend that he told his wife was dead, trip fishing in winter, concrete in the boat, odd reporting of her being missing

They later said that they were angered not by the affair, but that Peterson had told Frey that he'd "lost" his wife and that he would be spending his first Christmas without his wife — 14 days before Laci disappeared. To the Rochas, this meant that Peterson had already planned to kill Laci long before her disappearance.[7]​

Oops. A little more than a motive.

For example, they revealed that in the days after Laci went missing, Peterson claimed to Frey that he had traveled to Paris to celebrate the holidays, in part with his new companions Pasqual and François. In reality, Peterson made one of these phone calls while attending the New Year's Eve candlelight vigil in Modesto for his missing wife​

On April 14, 2003, the remains of a fetus were found on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay in Richmond's Point Isabel Regional Shoreline,[11] north of the Berkeley Marina, where Peterson had been boating the day of Laci's disappearance. The next day, a partial female torso missing its hands, feet, and head was found in the same area.​

Will you now concede it was a lot more than motive?

What would make the bra and knife's DNA good to you? I do look at the bra clasp to be significant IF it didn't have the serious problems with it. But I still wouldn't vote to convict if only Raffaele's DNA was found on it and it was discovered on day one. It makes no sense to me, I would dismiss it in my mind as contamination or some kind of mistake. That KNIFE, would have had to be Meredith's blood on that knife, not just her DNA. Had they found Meredith's blood on that knife..ABSOLUTELY, I wouldn't care about motive either.

Well if his footprint in MK's blood was on the mat that would be all I would need. Try to see that the judges believed this stuff.

But that is precisely the point Grinder. There are whole bunches of pieces of the puzzle and they never seem to quite fit perfectly together. Motive can be key to making those puzzle pieces fit together. Take the Laci Peterson case for example. So, Scott Petersen went fishing in the bay? But it happened be where his wife's body was found and he had been having extramarital affairs and he told a bunch of lies.

hmmmmm.

I don't need no stinking motive if I'ves got the evydence. No motive is necessary. Not needed. Yes it can help understand the why but so what? In this case the evidence is bad, compromised or fabricated but the no motive isn't needed. It can be an add-on.

Give us those other cases since it is clear that Scott was convicted on a lot more than motive.

 

[acbytesla]

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!

Someone has obviously hacked Grinder's account!

When did Grinder develop a sense of humor? I think he must be convicted of burglary, because clearly he must of stole it.