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

[anglolawyer]

If I was trying to clean up the crime scene, I would not try anything fancy. I would just try to clean up everything. Most likely, I would fail however. I don't have any confidence in my ability to clean up the crime scene. Still, I would much rather just leave a mystery and keep my mouth shut.

If I was Amanda and Raff, I would have then packed my bags that night and went on the trip that I she suggested she was going to do (in her book.) Attempt to let somebody else discover the crime scene.

I still think a simulated attack should have been staged (tests done outside Italy) in a simulated room of that size with the objects in the room. Maybe use police fake blood bags. Then ask the actors to try to clean the signs of two people while leaving the third. Finally, send a forensics class through simulated crime scene.

A better plan would have been to get back in the room, 'discover' the body and imbue themselves with blood, spread it around, leave prints everywhere, totally freak out, break down, become hysterical .... then call the cops.

 

[acbytesla]

I have been reading the excellent IIP wiki. Grinder will find the recent defence closing speech especially interesting. It seems to be all about motive.

This has been hard for me to get across to Grinder. I've been phrasing it in terms of motive...which I think is important...but the real problem I have with this is the scenario. It requires 3 human beings to be excessively violent and bad tempered together when they have very short almost non-existent relationships. That is the real problem I have with this case. For three people to do this together when they don't know each other is just dumb. It requires a sort of psychotic trust with one another.. Just not very likely.

 

[Samson]

If I was trying to clean up the crime scene, I would not try anything fancy. I would just try to clean up everything. Most likely, I would fail however. I don't have any confidence in my ability to clean up the crime scene. Still, I would much rather just leave a mystery and keep my mouth shut.

If I was Amanda and Raff, I would have then packed my bags that night and went on the trip that I she suggested she was going to do (in her book.) Attempt to let somebody else discover the crime scene.

I still think a simulated attack should have been staged (tests done outside Italy) in a simulated room of that size with the objects in the room. Maybe use police fake blood bags. Then ask the actors to try to clean the signs of two people while leaving the third. Finally, send a forensics class through simulated crime scene.

DF, the holy grail for the other side is to show packing the knife for a premeditated murder.

Site administrator Nell came up with this yesterday, and of course Michael is another administrator.

I agree with what Michael wrote earlier, that Amanda Knox tried to lure Meredith elsewhere. The original plan probably did not include the cottage. As Meredith did not respond as expected, the plan was changed and they surprised her at the cottage.
It is my belief that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito never thought they would become suspects. It never occurred to them that the police will try to validate their alibi. They wrongly assumed that by both saying they were together, this would be more than enough to exclude them from the list of suspects. When cracks started to show, they didn't have the right answers.

In my opinion, their arrogance was a real handicap.


The idea that a 20 year old female in a foreign country would embark on a plan for premeditated murder, knowing she would be grilled by a police force she could know nothing of, but who tame the Mafia, and believe she could get away with it is not remotely tenable. This proves to me these site administrators are seriously unbalanced, and reason has deserted them.

I believe importing their text to discuss here is relevant, as some of them read here, and may feel drawn to drop in and elaborate on their theories.

ETA Rudy has been airbrushed from above plan.

 

[Planigale]

A better plan would have been to get back in the room, 'discover' the body and imbue themselves with blood, spread it around, leave prints everywhere, totally freak out, break down, become hysterical .... then call the cops.

I love the circular nature of the argument, if you were guilty you would have left evidence; there is no evidence so it must have been cleaned up; the only person with a motivation to clean up the evidence is the guilty person; therefore the lack of evidence means you must be guilty. It would be a giggle if it weren't true. For a system that puts so much emphasis on logicality I cannot believe they are really presenting this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

This has been hard for me to get across to Grinder. I've been phrasing it in terms of motive...which I think is important...but the real problem I have with this is the scenario. It requires 3 human beings to be excessively violent and bad tempered together when they have very short almost non-existent relationships. That is the real problem I have with this case. For three people to do this together when they don't know each other is just dumb. It requires a sort of psychotic trust with one another.. Just not very likely.

Grinder might usefully devote some of his estimable PR skills to coming up with similarly improbable scenarios.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder might usefully devote some of his estimable PR skills to coming up with similarly improbable scenarios.

I don't see how Grinder doesn't think this is important. That strangers don't do this together....EVER...or I haven't ever read about this kind of thing happening anywhere. Of course if there was slam dunk evidence, then you would have to say it happened this time. But that is the point. The evidence is between non-existent and minuscule. That makes the absurdity and non historical nature of this extra compelling. Especially when the alternative of the mundane common place scenario of a burglary that escalated to a murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

The idea that a 20 year old female in a foreign country would embark on a plan for premeditated murder, knowing she would be grilled by a police force she could know nothing of, but who tame the Mafia, and believe she could get away with it is not remotely tenable. This proves to me these site administrators are seriously unbalanced, and reason has deserted them.

How about Jens Söring?
Of course, I have seen some arguments that he is innocent including no DNA at the crime scene

 

[Samson]

How about Jens Söring?
Of course, I have seen some arguments that he is innocent including no DNA at the crime scene

I scanned the wiki, once again proves any sort of confession is a disaster to reverse. Check Teina Pora wiki, I have mentioned this one before.

 

[Desert Fox]

I scanned the wiki, once again proves any sort of confession is a disaster to reverse. Check Teina Pora wiki, I have mentioned this one before.

Going through this which seems to argue for reasonable doubt. . . .
http://wvtf.org/post/jens-soering-back-spotlight

Somebody think they can drop this on a pro-guilt (AK/RS) website and see how they react? Give you a good bet they will find doubt.

 

[Grinder]

Is this actually true? Did Napoleone and Ficarra lose their jobs?

I had heard they were under investigation, BUt I hadn't heard if anything came of it. I'd love to see any hard sourcing if you know of any. (or should I just poke around the MMK.com site?)

Mignini was actually convicted, and those charges have apparently been tabled in Turin. So he skates...for now.

At one point they were suspended at least some of the group. Mignini was found guilty at the court of the first instance and that was set aside by the appeals court for venue and referred to Turin where some charges were dropped and it seems the rest ran out of time.

 

[Samson]

From what I can gather, Jar is a retired lawyer, he has labelled the Nencini report drivel.

Several weeks ago he posted this.

The Pistorius defence called their first expert witness today, the pathologist Jan Botha.

Botha has experience of over 25,000 autopsies, which is saying something of the South African suspicious death rate I guess.

I hope Chris Halkides was paying attention as it is being reported that Botha told the court that gastric emptying is an inexact and unreliable science for the purpose of ascertaining time of death. Having read the Massei Motivations Report I think we all pretty much know this.

There is no doubt in my mind this is the soft underbelly of the case, as Jar has confused science with judicial truth, by invoking Massei's fallacious discussion.
Nencini says the alibi is till about 9 20, yet it is at least 9 31, and he absolutely knows this. He has all the action occurring after 10pm, because he will not commit to a fast narrative constrained by 9 31 and 10pm phone activity.
I do not believe he can mentally get the protagonists all lined up in this time frame, but has left himself exposed to intense scrutiny by expert pathologists, but where are they? The American specialists need not fear the Italian judiciary surely.

 

[Desert Fox]

Samson,
The problem is if any logic will work in this case or if it is a train just determined to derail itself.

 

[acbytesla]

Samson,
The problem is if any logic will work in this case or if it is a train just determined to derail itself.

It's like that movie. The Italians say,

"Logic"? We don't need no stinkin logic!!!

 

[Samson]

It's like that movie. The Italians say,

"Logic"? We don't need no stinkin logic!!!

I guess I should refrain from taking the whole subject seriously

 

[Dan O.]

I believe importing their text to discuss here is relevant, as some of them read here, and may feel drawn to drop in and elaborate on their theories.

Your belief is irrational. We've seen what happens when they come here. They don't argue with logic but simply throw crap around and then run back home claiming victory.

 

[Samson]

delete

 

[Samson]

This person Maundy, who posts on IIP and PMF is a rather competent translator, and says,

Nencini wrote this:

And so, there is no doubt that the two phones were thrown into the back garden of Elisabetta Lana by whoever committed the murder, because the two phones, as has already been pointed out, were definitely in the possession of Meredith Kercher on the evening of 1 November 2007.

So
Who stole the phones?

 

[Samson]

Your belief is irrational. We've seen what happens when they come here. They don't argue with logic but simply throw crap around and then run back home claiming victory.

Everything is irrational in this case, which is why so much time is being wasted.

 

[Strozzi]

I love the circular nature of the argument, if you were guilty you would have left evidence; there is no evidence so it must have been cleaned up; the only person with a motivation to clean up the evidence is the guilty person; therefore the lack of evidence means you must be guilty. It would be a giggle if it weren't true. For a system that puts so much emphasis on logicality I cannot believe they are really presenting this case.

Planigale, the police and prosecution committed themselves in public to having solved the case. The police chief, flanked by his detectives, held a triumphant press conference declaring the suspects to be the murderers and "Case closed!". Rest easy, good people of Perugia and foreign students among us.

They locked themselves in. Every interpretation they give to any bit of evidence, including blatently false evidence, is to make their story work. It is about protecting themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your post is ad hominem and probably in breach of the MA (not that I care but the mods might).

With all due respect, my post may be a lot of things but it is nowhere near the definition of diverting the subject by referencing something to do with the person, unrelated to the topic at hand.

It was descriptive. Grinders remarks are nowhere near contemptible or vindictive, but he is constantly trying to make allusions through innuendo, again but making off topic, non-insulting but ad hominem nonetheless remarks.

Remarks do not have to be vile to qualify.