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

[Desert Fox]

In the Scott Watson case here he claimed innocence of killing Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Olivia's father has offered to meet him face to face but Scott won't. Why not? Olivia's father is behaving with dignity. John "I have heard all this rubbish before" Kercher is an ill mannered thug in contrast. He is not a fit person to be held in the slightest regard.

I wish that the Kercher family would look at the evidence but will not judge them as horrid people for not being able to objectively look at the arguments.

 

[Samson]

I wish that the Kercher family would look at the evidence but will not judge them as horrid people for not being able to objectively look at the arguments.

I checked that previous case, in fact the truth is this

Scott Watson is going to court to force the Department of Corrections to allow him to meet the father of the woman he was convicted of murdering.

Legal papers were filed with the High Court yesterday stating the the Department of Corrections had illegally delayed making a decision which would allow Gerald Hope to visit Watson, who was convicted of murdering his daughter Olivia.

Mr Hope had applied to visit Watson - fulfilling a desire to "look him in the eye" and ask if he had killed his daughter.

I accept I am in a minority deploring the Kercher family. I can not imagine ever changing my view because the digestive evidence the Naruto cartoon and the rock thrown from the car park combine to make prosecutors definitively wrong without getting to the crooked dna. They are prosecutors as defined by the appeal lodged.

 

[Desert Fox]

I accept I am in a minority deploring the Kercher family. I can not imagine ever changing my view because the digestive evidence the Naruto cartoon and the rock thrown from the car park combine to make prosecutors definitively wrong without getting to the crooked dna. They are prosecutors as defined by the appeal lodged.

The stomach contents combined with the movie is good evidence of not being there when Meredeth died. What kicks me though is that there is a crime scene with blood all over the room with no real signs of Amanda or Raffaele in room.

 

[Matthew Best]

I for one have never heard of this 'famous argument of "so"' before. Care to expound in adult Engish?

I would have thought it was pretty easy to figure out, but I may have overestimated your reasoning ability.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not sure about the general consensus, but I think that the Nencini court has done the defense one small favor. I did not see how the defense could win in Florence without attacking the logic of the CSC's 2013 report. However, now they can attack the logic of the Nencini court, which may be palatable to the CSC. With respect to DNA, I would do so mainly on the basis of cases from Australia and New Zealand. I would try to word my arguments in terms of logic and law, rather than fact (even though it has been clear for some time that the CSC does not take its own mandate seriously).

This is to be seen.

My view is that the Nencini court, and especially the motivations report, has put the Italian Supreme Court in a no win position - and the ISC also shows that they perhaps don't care that they are in this position.

They can confirm the Nencini verdicts and face the same ridicule as when the scientists were convicted of failing to predict the earthquake, or when the rape conviction was overturned because, "women in tight jeans cannot be raped". The real ridicule will (hopefully) come when the ECHR gets involved.

Or they can partially amend the Nencini verdicts, or send the whole batch back down to the appellate level one more time - the "ping-pong match" that Bongiorno warned about in March 2013. At that point both guilters and innocentisti will turn on the Italian legal system. (Not that this will concern anyone, really.)

If it comes to extradition, it then condemns the Italian courts to make it into the American media the way it has not made it before. Issues like Nencini convicting on the basis of women having Y-genetic material will be discussed, where it really is not part of American news at this time.

Still, the Nencini court has proven that there's no way to convict Sollecito and Knox without going all ga-ga. The salvation of the Italian system right now is the requirement for the court to write a motivations report. If this had been a Canadian jury trial, it would have been actually illegal to know why the jury voted the way they did.

 

[Grinder]

From my understanding Grinder. The police "issue or create police reports" In the US a victim of a property crime is given a copy of the report so they can provide one to their insurance company. In the US, the FOIA or Freedom of Information Act would probably allow anyone access to a police report. (Still, I'm not sure if there aren't privacy issues that might prevent a reporter from being able to obtain a report) I also have no idea how difficult or easy it is to obtain a police report in Italy. Do you?

I do not know how their system works in detail. I will bet you a yacht or more that police reports are retained by the system and that the defense would have been able to access them.

You claim that Nina told you Diaz was reading off her police report yet no copy is available.

If a story that was anti the kids say about Amanda's history of pranks was written by Follain with the same lack of documentation you'd discount it or completely disbelieve it.

Police do not always give a copy to the victim. I believe here they must request a copy to get one.

 

[Grinder]

Well here he is ...maybe someone in Perugia...like Frank...could track him down and ask. What amazes me about this case is the lack of curiosity by just about every reporter, news agency...even the biggies like 48 hours...

Frank tracked down Nara...big deal. Why not RG friends? This should have been quite easy and they know something I am certain. But none of this data has been mined at all.

Yes it is truly amazing at how little interest the media had in getting to the detail.

Even if it took the publishing of Nina's book, why wouldn't the press either confirm or debunk the Diaz story. How does it take years for stories from the Spanish friends of Rudi to be published or are we just not aware of them?

What about more interviews with Curatolo and gang of witnesses?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Eric Volz case

Interestingly, with the West Memphis Three, many family members swung over to the defense side. They seem to be the exception however.

The mother of the victim blamed Eric Volz, even though he was provably at least two hours away at the time of the murder. I think that the WM3 is indeed the exception.

 

[Planigale]

This is the deal about Nencini's treatment of the bra-clasp.

Nencini needs to defeat the notion that there is contamination on that clasp. Why? Well, because there are five somewhat partial profiles of DNA (one female and four male), and to convict Nencini needs to show that Raffaele's profile is:

1) on the clasp
2) there for a non-innocent reason.​

.... and that the rest are there for innocent reason.

The first sample is Meredith's, obvious there for an innocent and explainable reason.

The second sample is a Y-Haplotype. Because of its make-up, Rudy Guede can be ruled out. However, Raffaele belongs to a group of men which does fit that profile. So it cannot be said to positively I.D. him, but it cannot be ruled out.

So far, Nencini is echoing the Massei report published in 2010. Yet Nencini does something one would think he shouldn't do, not with Cassazione in Mar 2103 overturning the acquittals. Part of the reason why Cassazione did that was because they found fault with Hellmann relying upon Conti-Vecchiotti's DNA analysis which trashed Police lab's Stefanoni's report - a report which was accepted in total, completely uncritically by Massei in 2010.

Nencini, though, does something strange - he accepts the findings of Conti-Vecchiotti in relation to the clasp!!!! Nencini concedes that there are four identifiable extra male-samples: three plus a group of men where Raffaelecannot be ruled out. Nencini implicitly brings Conti-Vecchiotti back from the dead!

So - the third sample is also Y-genetic material. No one knows who it belongs to - no control/comparative-samples were taken at the scene. But remember, Nencini is trying to argue that all the rest of these clasp samples were there by innocent means.

So without testing it, Nencini invents out of whole cloth, pulls out of thin air that this sample MUST be Meredith's boyfriend's. Why? Well, if it isn't then there's a third unknown male in the room at the time of the murder, or....

..... there's contamination. So Nencini just makes it up, invents it: that it is Meredith's boyfriend's/ And why not..... she was sexually active and being a responsible adult even borrow contraception from Knox, her flatmate.

But wait a minute. Nencini has implicitly brought C&V back from Cassazione-death. There are two more male DNA samples on that clasp. And Nencini has to find some sort of explanation for them being there which:

1) is innocent
2) which does not suggest contamination​

So what does Nencini do with samples #4 and #5? He assigns them to "amica", two unknown of Meredith's women friends who could have come into contact with the bra for innocent reasons. Not one but TWO women with Y-genetic material.

Nencini has brilliantly proven that four of the five samples on the clasp are there for innocent reasons, not suggestive of contamination. And the fifth has to be Raffaele's, there for sinister reasons even though Raffaele only belongs to a large group of men owning that Y-Haplotype.

Why might this not be part of the defence's appeal? Because for the defence to suggest that any of the officers of any of the courts had either been incompetent or criminal.....

...... instead of the higher court investigating that claim.....

...... the defence themselves get charged with defamation or calunnia.

That's how it works in Italy.

One of the slightly bizarre things in this investigation is they do not seem to have taken a DNA profile of MK's boyfriend, nor indeed footprints of the other flatmates. This is because of the suspect directed investigation. If the footprints fitted better one of the flat mates than Sollecito and Knox then this would have meant accepting the Luminol positive footprints were unconnected with the crime. If they had taken a DNA profile of the boyfriend we would know whether it was his DNA, rather than assuming. One really has to ask why we make an assumption when we could know for certain. Even now his DNA could be checked. Of course his DNA if present would have an entirely innocent explanation, but if it wasn't his DNA then one would have to presume either innocent transmission or unknown parties to the crime.

 

[Kestrel]

An interesting article fron The New Yerker that goes over what science has learned about human memory in terms a layperson can understand.

Can neuroscience help us rewrite our most traumatic memories?

Concepts of memory tend to reflect the technology of the times. Plato and Aristotle saw memories as thoughts inscribed on wax tablets that could be erased easily and used again. These days, we tend to think of memory as a camera or a video recorder, filming, storing, and recycling the vast troves of data we accumulate throughout our lives. In practice, though, every memory we retain depends upon a chain of chemical interactions that connect millions of neurons to one another.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for bringing the humor. You also said this:



To my mind, that right there is the very essence of swivel-eyed and daft phrasing. You think it personally? Is there some form of thought that isn't personal?

Your posts are funny because you clearly think they display erudition. They don't. The report produced by Nencini is filled with mistakes, both serious (Raffale's DNA was on the knife) and stupid (names and addresses incorrect). And yet your position --offered without support-- is that he performed his role very well.

My question is, can you write a short sentence or two about what Nencini did well? We are skeptics here, which means sometimes we work at making convincing arguments, and other times we work at picking apart the arguments others make. Where is your argument? What do you find convincing in Nencini's reasoning?

There isn't one. There never is.

The brilliant thing about Italian criminal process is that motivations reports need to be written to justify a decision. Both the Massei and Nencini motivations report prove that the two people are innocent....

..... even as both courts found them guilty. The text of the two motivations reports is filled with mistakes, both serious and stupid, as well as conclusions which are not supported by evidence.

Massei's motivations report at least has the advantage of discussing alternatives, even as Massei eventually discounts them. The reasoning Massei uses is mainly a deference to authority... Stefanoni's authority. Strangely, the ISC later was to overrule Hellmann partly because Hellmann deferred to C&V!!!!

But the one thing guilters in the main cannot do is write a short sentence as to why the two are guilty. SuperCal a few posts ago suggested that Knox was guilty because she was "smelly". I fear that's about the limit of SuperCal's abilities here.

Machiavelli many months ago said that a narrative of the crime was not necessary to "prove" Knox's and Sollecito's culpability in this crime. Other guilters say that a motive is not required.

As true as that latter statement is, and as astoundingly stupid the former one is the fact remains.......

...... Italian judges are compelled to write a theory of the crime - meaning, why it was they convicted. Massei needs to invent out of whole cloth some weird scenario where Amanda carries that kitchen knife from Raffaele's. Nencini comments on that lunacy by saying it does not matter "why" she carried it, for him the fact was it made its way to the cottage. At least Nencini spares us some new lunacy about phantom transport of that knife....

...... it's not as if it is essential to this crime to account for how that knife presumably got to the cottage, not to mention WHY they had to take that knife when there were plenty of others.....

..... and this is before linking the transport of that knife to motive, or more precisely premeditation.

I'd like SuerCal to address that, rather than continually spew ad hominem. Could someone please address the transport of that knife in relation to motive and the issue of premeditation.

You see, even Nencini implies no premeditation. The so-called argument over rent money was something, acc. to Rudy Guede, that broke out at the cottage once everyone was there.

The real problem with this case is that no one CAN do what you ask, kwill. Guilter OR innocentisti. Massei tried and had to accept Stefanoni uncritically. Nencini tried and had to rule against all but one defence motion for testing and then had to rule such things as women having Y-genetic material.

The motivations reports are ultimately the salvation of Knox and Sollecito on this. What is truly stunning is arrogance that Nencini and Massei have to write what they write, probably hoping no one would read them.

 

[acbytesla]

I do not know how their system works in detail. I will bet you a yacht or more that police reports are retained by the system and that the defense would have been able to access them.

You claim that Nina told you Diaz was reading off her police report yet no copy is available.

I didn't say it was unavailable, merely that Nina is in the US and Diaz is in Italy and everyone has moved on...unlike the Italian judicial system. You seem to be the only one questioning Nina's veracity.

 

[Kestrel]

Calling Knox supporters "conspiracy theorists" seems to be the current talking point of the pro guilt faction. A rather poor fit for the pro innocence posters here on JREF, many of whom have a history of debunking CTs on JREF.

Several regular posters in this thread started out on the pro guilt side. What brought them over was the weight of the scientific and logical arguments for innocence.

It's also interesting to note how quickly the pro guilt side resorts to ad hominum arguments. Recognized experts are quickly dismissed with the claim they are being paid by the Knox family. No evidence is ever provided to back up this claim, it's just a tactic to avoid discussion of the points made by these outside experts.

 

[Grinder]

One of the slightly bizarre things in this investigation is they do not seem to have taken a DNA profile of MK's boyfriend, nor indeed footprints of the other flatmates. This is because of the suspect directed investigation. If the footprints fitted better one of the flat mates than Sollecito and Knox then this would have meant accepting the Luminol positive footprints were unconnected with the crime. If they had taken a DNA profile of the boyfriend we would know whether it was his DNA, rather than assuming. One really has to ask why we make an assumption when we could know for certain. Even now his DNA could be checked. Of course his DNA if present would have an entirely innocent explanation, but if it wasn't his DNA then one would have to presume either innocent transmission or unknown parties to the crime.

I've wondered about this as well. The footprints wouldn't even have to fit better just be compatible.

I would like the footprints compared with the others in the house at the time and previous tenants and other "lineup" prints from ones that resembled them and have independent experts see if there was a match.

The idea that the bathmat print had to be either Rudi or Raf is a fallacy. It has always irritated me that the PGP have been allowed to get away with it.

IIRC there are prints and DNA that were never linked to anyone.

Btw, how is known that none of the DNA or reference prints were taken?

 

[acbytesla]

I've wondered about this as well. The footprints wouldn't even have to fit better just be compatible.

I would like the footprints compared with the others in the house at the time and previous tenants and other "lineup" prints from ones that resembled them and have independent experts see if there was a match.

The idea that the bathmat print had to be either Rudi or Raf is a fallacy. It has always irritated me that the PGP have been allowed to get away with it.

IIRC there are prints and DNA that were never linked to anyone.

Btw, how is known that none of the DNA or reference prints were taken?

Wow!!! We agree on something else!!!! Maybe the temperature in hell is dropping? I agree with you, it is a false choice. We have been shown two and only two samples footprints that might be a match to the bathmat print and both are possible matches. If we were presented with a hundred other footprints would we find another 100 possible matches? Probably not but that is as much a possibility as that these are the only two people who might match that print in the world or Perugia or even who live in that cottage.

 

[Grinder]

I didn't say it was unavailable, merely that Nina is in the US and Diaz is in Italy and everyone has moved on...unlike the Italian judicial system. You seem to be the only one questioning Nina's veracity.

Why is it significant that I'm the only one speaking up about the obvious weakness of the story? Only the FOA/PIP Groupies talk about the crime wave and the "gold watch caper".

You made noise as if you were going to provide more proof about the story and what really is the difference between "unavailable" and "merely that Nina is in the US and Diaz is in Italy and everyone has moved on"

Is it available or not? If it is and worth the hundreds of mentions made on PIP sites, why hasn't someone at least produced the police report. There are lots of PIP supporters in Italy we are told. Why hasn't Frank produced it or at least done an interview with her. I don't communicate with him but several here do. If you think it is important prove it.

There is no way the same story reported by Vogt or Barbie if it went against the kids would be accepted by you and PIP.

here's what you wrote 4-2-2014

This case has been all over the news for years. There have been countless books and articles written about it. If an author is going to print an important fact that could be easily proved or disproved, you don't think it wouldn't have been questioned by others in the media?

According to Nina, she interviewed Ms Diaz and she said she told the police to look at Rudy. Now, I don't know if I believe that part of the story. However, I do believe that her home was burglarized and there was a fire. As for the police report, I'm not sure how to go about getting that. I just sent an email to Nina Burleigh through her website asking for anything to corroborate this point. Notes, audio, police report, local paper. We'll see if she responds.​

To date you and cadre have produced exactly one cite from Nina and an unpublished pdf by Graham.

Later in the day you wrote:

FYI RW. Nina just emailed me a minute ago said that they are looking for the police report. My impression is her publisher is looking for it. With a little luck we can provide this to the Doubting Thomas, aka Grinder.​

You leave it to luck

Then you wrote this and nothing more from Nina:

As I have said before, I was corresponding to Nina Burleigh asking for any information to corroborate her story about Rudy Guede's neighbor.

Here is the email. I of course, deleted her email and mine.

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:10:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Maria Mandu Diaz and the gold watch
From: xxxx
To: xxxxxx

Dear

I have the transcript of our interview w Mrs Madu Diaz in front of me.

It's long, and in it she reads from the police report and the fire report, in addition to talking at length about what happened to her house.

Now, please, who are you? and what exactly will you do with this document if I send it to you?

I find it outrageous that people think i would "embellish" and invent stories like this. I am a professional journalist, have been for 30 years, and - as much as the interested crazies insist - I have no dog in this hunt.

I could have cared less who committed the crime and when I got there, I assumed Amanda Knox was guilty. My research, diligent, thorough and professional as per my years of training, turned up a very different set of facts.

Thanks for your interest.

Nina Burleigh

I also asked her precisely where Ms. Diaz lived since she said Ms. Diaz was Rudy's neighbor. (I wondered what this meant, next door two blocks away)

Her reply was this.

Mrs. Madu Diaz lived exactly next door, but perpendicular to his building, as I recall. The street sort of ends at his building and hers faces the end of the street at a right angle from his.

So basically NOTHING was provided to substantiate the story.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

I really would like some meat to an argument for pro-guilt.
Wish it were possible to speak to the individual jurors to see why they decide for guilt (If they actually did.)

Whoa! So the conspiracy now extends to the jurors possibly not deciding on guilt. I don't suppose you by chance have any evidence of this gross illegality? It would be nice - even I might complain to the Supreme Court.

Don't rush - when you're ready.

 

[Bill Williams]

Whoa! So the conspiracy now extends to the jurors possibly not deciding on guilt. I don't suppose you by chance have any evidence of this gross illegality? It would be nice - even I might complain to the Supreme Court.

Don't rush - when you're ready.

Please summarize why you think Nencini performed his role well.

 

[kwill]

Please summarize how you believe Nencini performed his role well.

Not just well, Bill, but very well. And Supercal doesn't just believe it s/he personally thinks it.

Supercal, seriously, you're on a roll. Your position is that everyone here is a pathetic loser, and yet you are here just to demonstrate your superiority . . . so what does this mean about you? The sort of person who punches down and enjoys it?

The humor comes in knowing that you're oblivious to what's actually on display.

But, whatever. If you can think of one thing that Nencini did very well, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Skind]

Whoa! So the conspiracy now extends to the jurors possibly not deciding on guilt. I don't suppose you by chance have any evidence of this gross illegality? It would be nice - even I might complain to the Supreme Court.

Don't rush - when you're ready.

Don' be a fool, you know full well that a guilty verdict is possible even if one or more jurors went for 'not guilty'.

Asking someone who went for Not Guilty why they went for Guilty would be pointless, as you should have worked out.