Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

carbonjam72 since the wheel has clicked back onto the break in, I would encourage you to comment on my following observations.
There is a simple flow chart.
Mignini says if the break in was not staged, then they (2) are innocent.
Therefore we should prove the break in was not staged.

I will not refer to researchers here, because primary evidence comprises uncontested photographs.

1. There is powdered glass visible in the divot in the right frame member of the interior shutter.
2. There is a deeply and securely embedded glass shard in a remote location, below and far left of this divot, in this same shutter.
3. The angle of incidence of this shard is vertical to the shutter.
4. There is temporal simultaneity of these two events.

Massei's conjecture concludes the composite window shutter arrangement was half open eg 45 degrees to simulate the break in. This would be a plausible notion were it not for the following forensic truths. The only possible way to deliver the glass shard with sufficient velocity to embed at a 90 degree angle to the shutter, is for the glass to be immediately adjacent to the shutter, and for a trampoline effect to enable the glass shard to be propelled at a speed beyond the speed of the rock.

For example, the golf ball moves faster than the club head at impact, but more easily is understood the continual bouncing of a tennis ball from a racket. The velocity is compounded far beyond the wrist movement required to maintain the bounce.

In all cases the action is perpendicular to the force.

It is completely inviolable as a law of physics that the glass in the window was proximate to the interior shutter, and that the rock was delivered at a perpendicular degree to the glass and thence the shutter.

Therefore, there are two possibilities.
1. The rock was used as an instrument of vandalism from within the dwelling.
2. The rock was used as an instrument of vandalism from outside the dwelling

In the former case, the requirement as listed above is that there is a right angled delivery to the glass/shutter complex, with huge velocity. The glass/shutter complex must therefore be directly located with the enclosed shelving behind.
This is where it gets really interesting.
Raffaele or Amanda are wielding a 9 pound rock, to simulate a break in. The result is that a glass shard becomes deeply embedded in the interior shutter.
To effect this result the velocity at a perpendicular attack is HUGE.
Let us now consider the effect of this hurling of the rock, which is perpendicular, the interior shutter is against the wardrobe.
Yet the damage to this shutter is constrained to a divot in the frame of that shutter.
I posit that this is completely impossible.
If anyone throws a 9 pound rock at this window frame, with the following result

1. There is damage only to the frame of the shutter.
2. There is an embedded glass shard to a remote location.

It is physically impossible to throw this stone in a constrained environment to damage ONLY THE FRAME. Think all of you. If you are inside the house, and you cast this stone at right angles to cause this divot, the panels of the shutter WILL be damaged. On the other hand, if you throw this stone from the car park, the rock will do the following.

1. Randomly hit a target.
2. If that target happens to be the frame near the hinge, the trampoline effect will propel the glass shard fast enough to embed ( I believe this is the most crucial item for exoneration), the near hinge event accords impact delay.

My contention is that this is a logically sufficient proof to show that

1. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele could stage this.
2. They were not involved in Meredith's slaying.

I hope someone will find fault in my conclusions.

ETA this is important.
If a rock is thrown from the car park, there will be the following consequences
1. It will be a best endeavour. Result not bad, got the target near the hinge of the window.
2. The divot will be constrained to the frame and not the panel simply because the impact burst open the shutter, please all think and think.

I think it is worth remembering there is expert evidence. The defence expert (and there was no opposing expert opinion from the prosecution) carried out a series of simulations and showed the distribution of glass fragments could only result being thrown from a stone thrown from outside in. What I find astonishing is there is unopposed empirical evidence disproving the prosecution theory about the break in and the court ignores it and goes with the prosecution theory.

 

[anglolawyer]

Really ?

It appears to me to sum up the character of the pro innocence campaign in a few pixels. 'A picture is worth ..... ' and all that.

As a matter of interest where did you find the image, it appears to be from the case files & thus not originally in the public domain.

Did you get it directly from the family/friends of Amanda Knox ? or did they just publish it online to a world wide audience to use as they saw fit.

[No doubt images like this are also very popular (in certain quarters) outside the respectable confines of campaigns against miscarriages of justice but that's obviously an unintentional byproduct of the innocence campaign]

I posted on this issue previously – it appears my prescience is on a par with Bruce F's.

I have seen that image before at IIP quite some time ago. I don't know its provenance. Your reaction to it is inapt. Nobody is getting off on it. It is forensically interesting though. If you look you can see she was probably pulled over onto her back by her right arm and right leg, having been on her side or front losing blood by the wardrobe. This is (or should be) of interest to the 'moving the body' mythologisers who got the idea from Micheli.

I'm afraid she was physically assaulted, then undressed, then sexually assaulted and this picture is consistent with that. Testing the presumed semen stain would strengthen that theory, which is why it wasn't done, probably. Or it was done and, in a massive conspiracy involving all of Italy, the results were suppressed.

 

[Samson]

I think it is worth remembering there is expert evidence. The defence expert (and there was no opposing expert opinion from the prosecution) carried out a series of simulations and showed the distribution of glass fragments could only result being thrown from a stone thrown from outside in. What I find astonishing is there is unopposed empirical evidence disproving the prosecution theory about the break in and the court ignores it and goes with the prosecution theory.

I completely agree about the glass distribution proving the throw direction. But there is a logical possibility, but very high unlikelihood of this being manually performed after the throw. This is what the prosecution will always fall back on, remote possibilities to sustain the case. My endeavour is to show that the glass shard and divot are completely impossible to create from inside, so can be employed as proof of innocence, not probability.
The case will be concluded like Lindy Chamberlain, but that took thirty years, and even then an Australian friend laughed like a drain when I said the case had been finally resolved. He listed all the guilter points off pat, and ridiculed the exoneration. (He sadly expired soon after this RIP Phil.)

 

[Desert Fox]

Others have said that there was evidence that someone of African descent was involved but I'm not really sure what that was. Was it the couple that said a black man ran into them on the stairs? And when did that couple come forth? I've heard others say that they found hairs that clearly were from an African..but I don't ever remember reading that in any of the documents. But it wouldn't surprise me that racism was involved, at least an unconscious type of racism.

I am not so much arguing about racism in the prosecution or police but in the media. They effectively had blindness towards switching one black male to another black male.

From my understanding there were more than a few people who said they saw him at the bar, but the Swiss professor certainly made a difference for him. Even though they didn't want to believe him either/

Might make a valid argument against the pro guilt side.
The police / prosecution / judges accept witnesses that are addicts who only witness long after the crime and people who are not in a position to hear anything. Yet at the same time, they did want to accept alibi witness at the club at the time.

No, she's not but neither is Judy Garland, Meg Ryan, Donna Reed, Lea Thompson and countless other women. She is that girl next door which to me is much more attractive than a super model. She has a winning smile and beautiful blue eyes. But this is more than just her being pretty. It is her being pretty a American middle class college girl implicated in a murder in Italy. That is enough and then some.

I guess I agree just that she does not seem to match the temptress that she is portrayed as being.

 

[acbytesla]

I guess I agree just that she does not seem to match the temptress that she is portrayed as being.

I don't disagree with that. But I can't imagine any woman hot enough that I'd kill for her. She would be just far to crazy on the "crazy hot scale" for me to have anything to do with her.

Hey, I get that many men disengage the big head when the little head gets involved, but this is taking that way too far.

People don't really get Raffaele. He's a very smar, somewhat quiet young man. But he's no shrinking violet. In fact, he has come off quite arrogant to some. He has a mind of his own and is sure enough in himself that he's not going to let whatever sexual desires he might have eliminate his own good sense.

And the fact is that Amanda has never demonstrated the kind of sexual power that others are suggesting she has.

 

[platonov]

I have seen that image before at IIP quite some time ago. I don't know its provenance. Your reaction to it is inapt. Nobody is getting off on it. It is forensically interesting though. If you look you can see she was probably pulled over onto her back by her right arm and right leg, having been on her side or front losing blood by the wardrobe. This is (or should be) of interest to the 'moving the body' mythologisers who got the idea from Micheli.

I'm afraid she was physically assaulted, then undressed, then sexually assaulted and this picture is consistent with that. Testing the presumed semen stain would strengthen that theory, which is why it wasn't done, probably. Or it was done and, in a massive conspiracy involving all of Italy, the results were suppressed.

I very much doubt that.

A poster here who runs (or is associated with) IIP who claims to have access to the case file (given to him by the the family of Amanda Knox, who he claims to have met) has stated that he/they would never release images of the murder victims mutilated naked body.



As to your forensic conclusion drawn from this image ...

While I would gladly* & with some confidence debate you on issues legal – having the advantage of catching an episode of Bonanza, (with the volume low) in a late bar – I cant hope to equal your arguments on precisely what took place prior to the discovery of the body based on this photo alone.

There, Sir, you have the advantage


A particular form of photosynthesis perhaps, much seen online but rarely in the real world.

 

[MichaelB]

Really ?

It appears to me to sum up the character of the pro innocence campaign in a few pixels. 'A picture is worth ..... ' and all that.

As a matter of interest where did you find the image, it appears to be from the case files & thus not originally in the public domain.

Did you get it directly from the family/friends of Amanda Knox ? or did they just publish it online to a world wide audience to use as they saw fit.

[No doubt images like this are also very popular (in certain quarters) outside the respectable confines of campaigns against miscarriages of justice but that's obviously an unintentional byproduct of the innocence campaign]

I posted on this issue previously – it appears my prescience is on a par with Bruce F's.

The image comes from Professor Vinci's report about the pillow stain.

English translation: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

Original Italian: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/Valutazione_orme_animazione.pdf

 

[MichaelB]

Professor Vinci’s bra clasp analysis:

Italian - http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Professor-Vinci-Bra-Analysis.pdf

Knife Analysis:

Italian - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Impronta_coltello_definitiva.doc

Footprint Analysis:

Italian - http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/Valutazione_orme_animazione.pdf

English - http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/translated-pages-professor-vincis-bathmat-analysis/

 

[MichaelB]

Well, if nothing else, you're advancing yet another theory of the crime. Sex-game-gone-wrong was one of the reasons why Cassazione annulled the acquittals... apparently neither Massei nor Hellmann even took that one seriously... so Cassazione had to step in to make sure that AK and RS were convicted of what they considered to be the right "osmotic" view of the case.

But no matter. Raising the question of whether or not anyone understands the situation AK and RS is in, is decidedly not the issue carbonjam72 was raising. They are, agreed, in a great deal of peril right now.

What separates us, though, is this issue of "osmosis" as used by Cassazione. I've come to the conclusion that guilters are operating with half-an-osmosis, which what Cassazione, in theory at least, did not want to happen.

Guilters never comment on the larger judicial world surrounding this case. It just flows off of them like water of a duck. Great trick, really.

The fact is that Mignini himself, on the day after the acquittals, told the press in summarizing why he'd lost so badly in Oct 2011, "My troubles started with the Narducci affair." Apparently, he, then, seemed to be throwing in the towel, until rescued by Cassazione in what other judges said was an act which proved, "the power of the PMs," within Italy's judiciary.

So the Spezi wrongful prosecution actually DOES have something to do with this, even for Mignini. Perhaps we'll learn more when George Clooney releases his Monster of Florence film. Clooney seems to have enough clout to even make the Daily Mail back down.

The fact is that even guilter-author Barbie Latza Nadeau wrote in her little slutty book, that co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini went into the Massei-trial with a Satanic-cult theory. John Kercher even writes about that in his book.

So your ad hominem aimed at carbonjam72 is a little misplaced.... and is as guilters always do: simply not look at the overall context of this case.

Which makes it purely a non sequitor to raise the issue of the trouble the two innocents are in, in response to carbonjam72.

But you did manage to squeeze in some other ad hominem against Knox and Sollecito with the "drug crazed pair". Or "Knoxious". I had not heard that one before, so thanks for using it.

For me it proves that the vast majority of guilters comment on this because they're itching to use these stupid terms.

Did you see this last week? Mario Spezi was acquitted.

Caso Narducci, il gup chiude il caso http://www.giornaledellumbria.it/article/article173693.html

15 years after reopening the investigation, everyone is acquitted and case closed

 

[moije2]

Well, if nothing else, you're advancing yet another theory of the crime. Sex-game-gone-wrong was one of the reasons why Cassazione annulled the acquittals... apparently neither Massei nor Hellmann even took that one seriously... so Cassazione had to step in to make sure that AK and RS were convicted of what they considered to be the right "osmotic" view of the case.

But no matter. Raising the question of whether or not anyone understands the situation AK and RS is in, is decidedly not the issue carbonjam72 was raising. They are, agreed, in a great deal of peril right now.

What separates us, though, is this issue of "osmosis" as used by Cassazione. I've come to the conclusion that guilters are operating with half-an-osmosis, which what Cassazione, in theory at least, did not want to happen.

Guilters never comment on the larger judicial world surrounding this case. It just flows off of them like water of a duck. Great trick, really.

The fact is that Mignini himself, on the day after the acquittals, told the press in summarizing why he'd lost so badly in Oct 2011, "My troubles started with the Narducci affair." Apparently, he, then, seemed to be throwing in the towel, until rescued by Cassazione in what other judges said was an act which proved, "the power of the PMs," within Italy's judiciary.

So the Spezi wrongful prosecution actually DOES have something to do with this, even for Mignini. Perhaps we'll learn more when George Clooney releases his Monster of Florence film. Clooney seems to have enough clout to even make the Daily Mail back down.

The fact is that even guilter-author Barbie Latza Nadeau wrote in her little slutty book, that co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini went into the Massei-trial with a Satanic-cult theory. John Kercher even writes about that in his book.

So your ad hominem aimed at carbonjam72 is a little misplaced.... and is as guilters always do: simply not look at the overall context of this case.

Which makes it purely a non sequitor to raise the issue of the trouble the two innocents are in, in response to carbonjam72.

But you did manage to squeeze in some other ad hominem against Knox and Sollecito with the "drug crazed pair". Or "Knoxious". I had not heard that one before, so thanks for using it.

For me it proves that the vast majority of guilters comment on this because they're itching to use these stupid terms.

Where's the "like" button?

That was a gem.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, if nothing else, you're advancing yet another theory of the crime. Sex-game-gone-wrong was one of the reasons why Cassazione annulled the acquittals... apparently neither Massei nor Hellmann even took that one seriously... so Cassazione had to step in to make sure that AK and RS were convicted of what they considered to be the right "osmotic" view of the case.

But no matter. Raising the question of whether or not anyone understands the situation AK and RS is in, is decidedly not the issue carbonjam72 was raising. They are, agreed, in a great deal of peril right now.

What separates us, though, is this issue of "osmosis" as used by Cassazione. I've come to the conclusion that guilters are operating with half-an-osmosis, which what Cassazione, in theory at least, did not want to happen.

Guilters never comment on the larger judicial world surrounding this case. It just flows off of them like water of a duck. Great trick, really.

The fact is that Mignini himself, on the day after the acquittals, told the press in summarizing why he'd lost so badly in Oct 2011, "My troubles started with the Narducci affair." Apparently, he, then, seemed to be throwing in the towel, until rescued by Cassazione in what other judges said was an act which proved, "the power of the PMs," within Italy's judiciary.

So the Spezi wrongful prosecution actually DOES have something to do with this, even for Mignini. Perhaps we'll learn more when George Clooney releases his Monster of Florence film. Clooney seems to have enough clout to even make the Daily Mail back down.

The fact is that even guilter-author Barbie Latza Nadeau wrote in her little slutty book, that co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini went into the Massei-trial with a Satanic-cult theory. John Kercher even writes about that in his book.

So your ad hominem aimed at carbonjam72 is a little misplaced.... and is as guilters always do: simply not look at the overall context of this case.

Which makes it purely a non sequitor to raise the issue of the trouble the two innocents are in, in response to carbonjam72.

But you did manage to squeeze in some other ad hominem against Knox and Sollecito with the "drug crazed pair". Or "Knoxious". I had not heard that one before, so thanks for using it.

For me it proves that the vast majority of guilters comment on this because they're itching to use these stupid terms.

I really don't understand much of the PGP's position. No matter how many holes and gaps are shown to be in their case, they continue to ignore them as if none of them are important. They are doing math backwards starting with what they think is the solution. It's like they are adding 3 + (a + c) +5 = 10 even thought they don't have a clue what (a) or (c) is.

None of them ever address the absurdity of three almost total strangers committing an act like this together. I don't get that. It's a scenario that is totally unheard of in the annals of crime. They will often cite couples that have been together for a long time or one nut going crazy, but three???
Why can't they see that?

They then point to drugs but of course there is no proof that they did anything but marijuana. Why don't they see that speculating without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and wrong and the benefit needs to be extended to the defendant and not the prosecution?

Why can't they see that the gastric emptying evidence means that they almost positively couldn't have done it? Whether it might still be possible is irrelevant because without something more contrary, that should be enough alone to provide reasonable doubt. It is more than reasonable to believe that Meredith was murdered before 10:00 which pretty much makes all the other evidence.

If there was some real evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele, I'd be looking for them to be put in prison, but there really isn't.

They may always be skeptical as to her innocence, that is their right. So if Amanda comes to them for a job, they have the freedom to turn her down. But being skeptical is not enough to imprison someone for 30 years. There must be enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and they aren't even in the same zip code. (postal code for you Bill)

I've been asking myself the same questions over and over again.

Are they nuts? Or am I? Am I missing something? How come the so called "mountain of evidence" is really smaller than pimple on Mignini's back?

Help me out Bill....Am I crazy? What is it am I not seeing?

 

[Desert Fox]

I am curious about something. . . .In Italy, I assume that there are cases of trials finding guilt, retrials fining not guilty, supreme court overturning retrials, second retrials finding guilty.
Assuming that the second retrial finds guilty, is the defendant usually allowed to remain free until it finds its way back to the supreme court?
Kind of wondering if that is not evidence on what the plan for the end here is? Basically, the plan is to try to end this with a whimper.

 

[acbytesla]

This strikes me as a bit childish - playground name calling. The words kettle and pot come to mind.

It is sad that you seem fixed on myths like 'drug crazy' - for which there is no evidence, there certainly seems to be no suggestions from the prosecution that either Sollecito or Knox were crazy with or without drugs.

I remember a number of people on various web sites making predictions that on release the psychopathy / drug addiction of Sollecito and / or Knox would become apparent. Some seemed to think the streets of Seattle would be running red with blood by now. I have seen none backing down and saying well in the years since release they have completed their degrees, not got in further trouble with the police and generally behaved normally despite the intense media scrutiny so perhaps we were wrong about our amateur psychological diagnoses and belief in drug addiction.

You use terms such as Knoxious and drug crazed to objectify Sollecito and Knox. This makes it easy for you to deny their humanity and not face the consequences of your actions, this is what playground bullies do. Can you sit down and be empathic for a moment. Just imagine that these are normal young people, then think what it must be like for them if they are caught up in an unjust prosecution that has wrecked their youth. If they are innocent and a band of internet bullies are going round calling them names and making untrue allegations about drug use etc. that goes beyond discussion of the facts of the case. (This does not mean you cannot be equally empathic with the Kerchers). These are real people not TV monsters. That is why many of us here want to be certain that any conviction is safe. Personally I am convinced that there is no evidence to justify a conviction beyond reasonable doubt; indeed I think Sollecito and Knox are innocent of any involvement.

I don't get Supercal saying that they were or are drug crazy. What makes Supercal or anyone say that without a thing to back it up? A story in The Daily Mail that suggests that Amanda had a drug dealer's phone number in her phone, but the dealer's name was never identified and the source for the story wasn't either.

It would be one thing for Supercal to argue that the DNA on the bra clasp is enough for him/her, but to rely on stories that could and probably were total fabrications to demonize Amanda and Raffaele is just flat out wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

I very much doubt that.

A poster here who runs (or is associated with) IIP who claims to have access to the case file (given to him by the the family of Amanda Knox, who he claims to have met) has stated that he/they would never release images of the murder victims mutilated naked body.

??? You're aware that the photograph does not show so much as a square mm of "the murder victims (sic) mutilated naked body"?

But while we're on this subject, I presume you have written to pretty much every single broadcaster in the western world, protesting at the airing of the Zapruder film footage of the head shot on JFK? That must be pretty harrowing for the Kennedy family, right? I presume you're equally as "disgusted" at that, right? Because not to be equally disgusted and vocal in your protests would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

And what about the famous footage of the Vietnamese man being shot in the head with a pistol by a Vietcong soldier? I presume you've also protested at that? That poor man's family must be horrified to think of those photos going round the World, right?

Etc........ Or is your disgust and faux-sanctimony only selective....?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't get Supercal saying that they were or are drug crazy. What makes Supercal or anyone say that without a thing to back it up? A story in The Daily Mail that suggests that Amanda had a drug dealer's phone number in her phone, but the dealer's name was never identified and the source for the story wasn't either.

It would be one thing for Supercal to argue that the DNA on the bra clasp is enough for him/her, but to rely on stories that could and probably were total fabrications to demonize Amanda and Raffaele is just flat out wrong.

Ah but the demonisation of Knox (in particular) and Sollecito has always been integral to the "argument" not only of most pro-guilt commentators but also of course the prosecutions and even the convicting courts. I see it as nothing more than another example of poor thinking and reverse-reasoning: they must be guilty so they must be of bad character.

But it probably also bears mentioning at this point that the opposite phenomenon is also on display here and elsewhere: that Knox and Sollecito are lovely kids who were never in trouble before, so that in itself is a strong pointer to them not being involved in this murder. I believe this is poor thinking too. Of course it's fair to say that this makes it less likely that they were involved in the murder, but that should be as far as it goes.

For people on both sides of the debate, any reasoning related to Knox's/Sollecito's involvement or non-involvement in this murder should be purely based upon the actual evidence (and non-evidence) that's directly related to the murder itself. People who are previously ostensibly pure as the driven snow sometimes (rarely but sometimes) do commit horrible crimes. And even for those who've managed to convince themselves (erroneously) that Knox and Sollecito were deviants and drugged-up on the hard stuff around the time of the murder, that of course is no sort of evidence that they were involved in the murder. But of course that would be employing logic, and it's apparent that logic and reason go out of the window when one is merely seeking to bolster an a priori belief in their guilt

 

[Desert Fox]

But it probably also bears mentioning at this point that the opposite phenomenon is also on display here and elsewhere: that Knox and Sollecito are lovely kids who were never in trouble before, so that in itself is a strong pointer to them not being involved in this murder. I believe this is poor thinking too. Of course it's fair to say that this makes it less likely that they were involved in the murder, but that should be as far as it goes.

A good example of somebody who might not have been a nice person who was almost certainly not guilty was Cameron Todd Willingham. Evidence was that while he fought and beat his wife, he was not guilty of killing his children in a fire.

For people on both sides of the debate, any reasoning related to Knox's/Sollecito's involvement or non-involvement in this murder should be purely based upon the actual evidence (and non-evidence) that's directly related to the murder itself. People who are previously ostensibly pure as the driven snow sometimes (rarely but sometimes) do commit horrible crimes. And even for those who've managed to convince themselves (erroneously) that Knox and Sollecito were deviants and drugged-up on the hard stuff around the time of the murder, that of course is no sort of evidence that they were involved in the murder. But of course that would be employing logic, and it's apparent that logic and reason go out of the window when one is merely seeking to bolster an a priori belief in their guilt

Even though they had been together longer, Diane Zamora and David Graham sure did not seem to be the murdering types.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't get Supercal saying that they were or are drug crazy. What makes Supercal or anyone say that without a thing to back it up? A story in The Daily Mail that suggests that Amanda had a drug dealer's phone number in her phone, but the dealer's name was never identified and the source for the story wasn't either.

It would be one thing for Supercal to argue that the DNA on the bra clasp is enough for him/her, but to rely on stories that could and probably were total fabrications to demonize Amanda and Raffaele is just flat out wrong.

Ah but the demonisation of Knox (in particular) and Sollecito has always been integral to the "argument" not only of most pro-guilt commentators but also of course the prosecutions and even the convicting courts. I see it as nothing more than another example of poor thinking and reverse-reasoning: they must be guilty so they must be of bad character.

But it probably also bears mentioning at this point that the opposite phenomenon is also on display here and elsewhere: that Knox and Sollecito are lovely kids who were never in trouble before, so that in itself is a strong pointer to them not being involved in this murder. I believe this is poor thinking too. Of course it's fair to say that this makes it less likely that they were involved in the murder, but that should be as far as it goes.

For people on both sides of the debate, any reasoning related to Knox's/Sollecito's involvement or non-involvement in this murder should be purely based upon the actual evidence (and non-evidence) that's directly related to the murder itself. People who are previously ostensibly pure as the driven snow sometimes (rarely but sometimes) do commit horrible crimes. And even for those who've managed to convince themselves (erroneously) that Knox and Sollecito were deviants and drugged-up on the hard stuff around the time of the murder, that of course is no sort of evidence that they were involved in the murder. But of course that would be employing logic, and it's apparent that logic and reason go out of the window when one is merely seeking to bolster an a priori belief in their guilt

What you two gentlepersons are missing is that Supercal proved his/her point with the coup de grace....

.... He/she used the term Knoxious! Did you miss it? It wasn't just the completely unsubstantiated "drug crazed", but it was "American jingoism which was operating......

.......that's a given in the world and would happen even if Knoxious had been caught with the knife in her hands. But wake up imbeciles - has anyone here ANY IDEA of how serious a situation this drug crazy pair are in?​

You see, AC and LJ, in the fine tradition of the PMF sites (both .NUT and .ORG) and TJMK, the issue here is who can hurl the most insults or ad hominem.

Even on a Skeptics website like JREF. Supercal is now in the running for the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge.

You see, the crowds bringing their picnic lunches and kids to a pillorying, or to a burning at the stakes are not there to argue evidence. See Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2, Page 24.

But getting back to what carbonjam72 was saying, to which Supercal offered the most wonderful of diversions.....

This case really is part of a larger judicial drama. For Pete's sake even Machiavelli admits that. Except for Machiavelli, the guys in the black hats are those in the Italian judiciary who are convinced that the case against Knox and Sollecito is bogus. Machiavelli even knows the amount of Euros it took to get Judge Hellmann to pervert justice by acquitting the pair.....

..... although as a good Mason, it is unclear why in Machiavelli's conspiracy theory Judge Hellmann would even need to be bribed to carry out these orders from the Grand Lodge. (There's no loyalty any more!)

The one thing we're ALL agreed upon is that the Italian judiciary itself is aware of the great implications of the final disposition of this case. Yes Innocentisti and ad hominem-thrower alike.

And we're ALL agreed that Knox and Sollecito are in judicial harm's way and peril. Particularly Sollecito. And strangely there are some who would blame Knox for Sollecito's plight - which is perhaps natural given that if when in Italy one blames a public official for their plight they get SLAPP'ed with a defamation charge too. May as well blame the American.

Me, I think George Clooney is going to turn this around. He's already taken on the Daily Mail and throttled an apology out of them for what they'd said about his fiancé. He's poised to put out a Monster of Florence film, based on Preston's experience....

Mignini cannot like that. Now that Spezi is in the clear, it seems Clooney can have freer rein. A Knox/Sollecito conviction would be box-office gold for Clooney.... imagine the closing credits including, "Sollecito and Knox were convicted on a prosecution begun by Giuliano Mignini.... their case is now before the Eurpean Commission on Human Rights...."

So..... given that Italians think in terms of larger, more grand narratives than a simple crime-scene where it is obvious that Rudy did it, and did it alone.... that his DNA is in the crime-room and in the victim, and Amanda and Raffaele, really, are nowhere to be seen....

It really is a case of it having to be played out in an opera house somewhere.

Did Supercal miss that even Mignini thinks this whole thing is connected to the Narducci affair? That even Machiavelli thinks that American media interests perverted Italian justice by using the Masons as an intermediary to get at Hellmann to acquit the pair?

​

 

[acbytesla]

Ah but the demonisation of Knox (in particular) and Sollecito has always been integral to the "argument" not only of most pro-guilt commentators but also of course the prosecutions and even the convicting courts. I see it as nothing more than another example of poor thinking and reverse-reasoning: they must be guilty so they must be of bad character.

But it probably also bears mentioning at this point that the opposite phenomenon is also on display here and elsewhere: that Knox and Sollecito are lovely kids who were never in trouble before, so that in itself is a strong pointer to them not being involved in this murder. I believe this is poor thinking too. Of course it's fair to say that this makes it less likely that they were involved in the murder, but that should be as far as it goes.
For people on both sides of the debate, any reasoning related to Knox's/Sollecito's involvement or non-involvement in this murder should be purely based upon the actual evidence (and non-evidence) that's directly related to the murder itself. People who are previously ostensibly pure as the driven snow sometimes (rarely but sometimes) do commit horrible crimes. And even for those who've managed to convince themselves (erroneously) that Knox and Sollecito were deviants and drugged-up on the hard stuff around the time of the murder, that of course is no sort of evidence that they were involved in the murder. But of course that would be employing logic, and it's apparent that logic and reason go out of the window when one is merely seeking to bolster an a priori belief in their guilt

I agree with you LJ, sometimes seemingly good people do go over the edge and do horrible things. But they really are the exception. Usually there are signs that lead up to that kind of thing. But not always.

That said LJ, from my perspective it is the combination of two seemingly good people that are BARELY acquainted with each other that is really significant.

I could see for example that someone like Amanda went nuts and killed her roommate like that other college student who stabbed his roommate in Rome. Sometimes people DO go off the deep end but what makes this unique and makes it highly unlikely is this is a case where people are saying that TWO people did this with essentially a stranger.

If Amanda had gone off the deep end and done this Raffaele would have turned on her in a minute. As well as they were getting along, Raffaele is not going to give up his entire life for and American girl who he has known for 8 days. And the same is true for Amanda. They wouldn't have covered for each other regardless of how good the sex was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the arrogance of power

North Carolina is among those states with an open discovery law. Recently I reread this article from 2007 with respect to the Duke lacrosse case: "The latest effort by the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys to roll back Open File Discovery took place in this year’s legislative session in a move that Bannon labels 'an arrogance of power.'
Cheshire explained: 'You talk about a strange moment. Brad and I were at the press conference on April 11 watching three young men — who were, and always were palpably innocent — who were finally being recognized as innocent because a prosecutor cheated. On the next day, Thursday, Brad and I were at a meeting at the Bar Association with the executive committee of the DAs — seven or eight of them sitting across from us telling us how they were going to roll back open file discovery because they should be the one who determines what we should get and what we shouldn’t.' Cheshire shook his head in disbelief. 'And the next day, Friday, I was in Union County defending Jonathan Hoffman who was put on death row because the prosecutors cheated in every way they could possibly cheat. … It’s astonishing.'"

Mr. Cheshire and Mr. Bannon were two of the attorneys in the DL case. Some aspects of the present case are uniquely Italian, but the arrogance of power is a universal problem.

In response to CoulsdonUK, I would say that if I were one of the three defendants in the DL case, I might rather have been tried by the internet than tried in Durham (where much negative publicity had been generated by DA Nifong and others). The best of the commenters on the internet were able to tease out the problems in both the case and its coverage in MSM (the NYT had over one hundred articles on the DL case).

 

[carbonjam72]

Ah but the demonisation of Knox (in particular) and Sollecito has always been integral to the "argument" not only of most pro-guilt commentators but also of course the prosecutions and even the convicting courts. I see it as nothing more than another example of poor thinking and reverse-reasoning: they must be guilty so they must be of bad character.

But it probably also bears mentioning at this point that the opposite phenomenon is also on display here and elsewhere: that Knox and Sollecito are lovely kids who were never in trouble before, so that in itself is a strong pointer to them not being involved in this murder. I believe this is poor thinking too. Of course it's fair to say that this makes it less likely that they were involved in the murder, but that should be as far as it goes.

For people on both sides of the debate, any reasoning related to Knox's/Sollecito's involvement or non-involvement in this murder should be purely based upon the actual evidence (and non-evidence) that's directly related to the murder itself. People who are previously ostensibly pure as the driven snow sometimes (rarely but sometimes) do commit horrible crimes. And even for those who've managed to convince themselves (erroneously) that Knox and Sollecito were deviants and drugged-up on the hard stuff around the time of the murder, that of course is no sort of evidence that they were involved in the murder. But of course that would be employing logic, and it's apparent that logic and reason go out of the window when one is merely seeking to bolster an a priori belief in their guilt

I do appreciate the call to objectivity in evaluating evidence. I disagree with the proposition that, "both sides do it".

Knox and Sollecito's good character are significantly more than merely good. Knox has been repeatedly described as 'the gentlest person they've ever known'. Sollecito's friends and family can tell similar stories.

The notion that a completely fictional misrepresentation designed to infer a capability of extreme violence, is equally prejudicial as a wholly accurate exculpatory profile, is throwing out objective experience in favor of false objectivity.

The two biases are not equal. Neither confers an edge or advantage in evaluation of 'evidence'. But the truth of character in this case exemplifies the unreliability of the 'evidence' offered, because the character of the prosecutor is compromised as a fair arbiter of the evidence presented.

To suggest 'both sides do it', is to agree the case that has been put forward, has been put forward in the context of 'good faith', that any mistakes are 'honest mistakes'. That the purpose of the prosecution is to hold accountable the guilty parties, not unfairly entangle the innocent.

That assumption of good will has been demonstrated false by the prosecution's refusal to allow exculpatory evidence into the case record, and the laundry list of related crimes; unrecorded interrogations, hidden DNA data, perjury from the witness stand, destruction of exculpatory evidence, etc).

The piling on in the media, has laid bare the most glaring deficiencies in the regulation of the free press. Where intentional lies and character assassination, ginning up false controversy solely to sell newspapers, while the prosecutors bask in the notoriety fueled by their false prosecutions and thereby profit from such prosecutions, is a special flaw in Italy by virtue in part, to its powerful, over reaching calumnia laws. But it is a special problem in the UK as well, the latest symptom of a tabloid society in systemic moral collapse.

The notion that good character plays no role in our evaluation of the case, I must reject it. It was Knox's gentle, trusting, naiveté, which made her the perfect victim of the serial maniac prosecutor Mignini, who placed his career needs over her and Raf's liberty. Mignini is a manifest madman chasing satan across the Italian countryside in false investigations for 5 years before the Kercher killing, calculated to win promotion by latching onto the horrific MOF crimes, and the similar unfounded theories that propelled those unseemly investigators to the highest levels of career achievement.

To suggest all we need is a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence, misses the gross criminal injustice that has taken place, and the need to confront Mignini and the Italian Justice system's criminal compliance in this affair. Was it Aristotle who said, "character is fate"?