Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

It is worth noting that on PMF the Nencini motivations report is 10 xmas's in a day for them. Even the lawyer Jar who was critical is thrilled to pieces.
There is clearly a huge job to take the thing to bits, but to make it digestible. It is a work of fiction, and this must be made palpable.
It is heart breaking frankly.

I don't think it's a big deal. Virtually no one will read it.

 

[platonov]

I don't think it's a big deal. Virtually no one will read it.

You are correct – although the ISC/Cassation will I’d imagine,
But one thing is certain, not everyone who reads it (or claims to have) will understand it – much like Massei.
Not that, from a quick scan, it’s overly complex* – that’s just how the world is.

And there was one slightly interesting legal quirk.


*Kudos to the translators.

 

[AmyStrange]

Good post p...

-

You are correct – although the ISC/Cassation will I’d imagine,
But one thing is certain, not everyone who reads it (or claims to have) will understand it – much like Massei.
Not that, from a quick scan, it’s overly complex* – that’s just how the world is.

And there was one slightly interesting legal quirk.


*Kudos to the translators.

-

WOW! That's the most lucid post I've ever read from you p.

Thank you for that,

d

-

 

[Samson]

I don't think it's a big deal. Virtually no one will read it.

That may well be the problem though. It defaults to uncontested judicial fact.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are correct – although the ISC/Cassation will I’d imagine,
But one thing is certain, not everyone who reads it (or claims to have) will understand it – much like Massei.
Not that, from a quick scan, it’s overly complex* – that’s just how the world is.

And there was one slightly interesting legal quirk.


*Kudos to the translators.

Read in comparison to this:
http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/09-8245/098245.p-2011-04-20.pdf?ts=1410947590
Do you notice how much clarity there is in that court case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Duke lacrosse conspiracy

William Cohan wrote a book about the Duke lacrosse case that was published earlier this year. He was interviewed a number of times. He said, "District Attorney Mike Nifong believed her, and the rape nurse Tara Levicy believed her. I am convinced something happened.

"The question is, do you believe that all of that was made up and was all a fiction and that nothing even remotely like any of that ever happened? That it was all just made up and everyone was in on the conspiracy? Or that, as I like to say, something happened that none of us would be proud of?" (highlighting mine)

KC Johnson (coauthor of the definitive book on the case) responded, "...one of the most chilling aspects of the lacrosse case is how few people—four, plus an erratic Mangum—it took to sustain a case that could have resulted in innocent people being sent to jail for most of their adult lives. Nifong, of course, was the vital actor here, since without his unethical core, the case would never have proceeded. But the other three people who set ethics aside did so only in specific instances, and for their own individual reasons (Gottlieb, the anti-Duke police officer, in consenting to the rigged photo array and producing the “straight-from-memory” report; Meehan, the lab director on the make, eager for new business with Durham County, in conspiring with Nifong to produce a document that intentionally limited the rest results reported; and Levicy, the SANE nurse who believed accusers never lie, in, months after the fact, changing her version of Mangum’s story, seemingly to accommodate the negative DNA tests)."

That Nifong and Meehan conspired to withhold information is not in doubt, yet each of these five people had a distinct reason for his or her actions. Crystal Mangum, the alleged victim, may have merely wanted to avoid being held in custody due to her lack of sobriety. Besides being demonstrably hostile to Duke students, Officer Gottlieb may have decided that to get along, he should go along. Other than between Nifong and Meehan, no coordination among the five was needed, although some may have gone on. Certainly these individuals did not sit down in front of an oak table in a paneled room and conspire in that sense.

Other commenters here besides CoulsdonUK (Lionking comes to mind) have played the conspiracy-theory card. Such thinking sets up a false choice. Wrongful accusations/convictions are often not the result of a single bad actor but instead have multiple causes involving several individuals. Yet rarely, if ever, is there a conscious, explicit conspiracy among many people. Sometimes, a critical mass of dubious information is assembled, then others add to the mass. The witnesses who changed their recollections in the Todd Willingham case come to mind, as do the flawed forensics of the Lindy Chamberlain case. Finally, it is worth considering why there are laws to forbid conspiracies to commit crimes. If no such conspiracies were ever hatched, why did someone bother to make them illegal?

Until Cohan's book came along, I thought that the innocence of the three young men was settled in almost everyone's mind. The lack of their DNA in the rape kit, plus the presence of other men's DNA is extremely persuasive absence of evidence. One of the three had a strong electronic alibi; another had an electronic alibi that was unimpeachable. Yet there will always be seemingly intelligent people who believe that something happened in that bathroom and that to assert otherwise is to believe in a conspiracy.

 

[Annella]

Well given the rather poor response to the petition massive may be a problem.
The best that can be hoped for is probably a small number of very ‘intense’ letters in ALL CAPS.

& Green ink is the de rigueur for these kind of missives apparently.

Pertinent to let you know platanov, that the idea of any petition was not supported by most who post pro innocence on this case. In fact, petitions were actively discouraged as not being timely. In the end it is entirely up to anyone to decide if a petition is warranted and some came to the conclusion that they were, but I can assure you that at all the forums/sites I participate in, they were NOT promoted.

 

[Desert Fox]

Pertinent to let you know platanov, that the idea of any petition was not supported by most who post pro innocence on this case. In fact, petitions were actively discouraged as not being timely. In the end it is entirely up to anyone to decide if a petition is warranted and some came to the conclusion that they were, but I can assure you that at all the forums/sites I participate in, they were NOT promoted.

After people stated that the urgency might be at the wrong time, I had to agree.
The time to promote it is when and if there is an actual extradition request.

 

[carbonjam72]

William Cohan wrote a book about the Duke lacrosse case that was published earlier this year. He was interviewed a number of times. He said, "District Attorney Mike Nifong believed her, and the rape nurse Tara Levicy believed her. I am convinced something happened.

"The question is, do you believe that all of that was made up and was all a fiction and that nothing even remotely like any of that ever happened? That it was all just made up and everyone was in on the conspiracy? Or that, as I like to say, something happened that none of us would be proud of?" (highlighting mine)

KC Johnson (coauthor of the definitive book on the case) responded, "...one of the most chilling aspects of the lacrosse case is how few people—four, plus an erratic Mangum—it took to sustain a case that could have resulted in innocent people being sent to jail for most of their adult lives. Nifong, of course, was the vital actor here, since without his unethical core, the case would never have proceeded. But the other three people who set ethics aside did so only in specific instances, and for their own individual reasons (Gottlieb, the anti-Duke police officer, in consenting to the rigged photo array and producing the “straight-from-memory” report; Meehan, the lab director on the make, eager for new business with Durham County, in conspiring with Nifong to produce a document that intentionally limited the rest results reported; and Levicy, the SANE nurse who believed accusers never lie, in, months after the fact, changing her version of Mangum’s story, seemingly to accommodate the negative DNA tests)."

That Nifong and Meehan conspired to withhold information is not in doubt, yet each of these five people had a distinct reason for his or her actions. Crystal Mangum, the alleged victim, may have merely wanted to avoid being held in custody due to her lack of sobriety. Besides being demonstrably hostile to Duke students, Officer Gottlieb may have decided that to get along, he should go along. Other than between Nifong and Meehan, no coordination among the five was needed, although some may have gone on. Certainly these individuals did not sit down in front of an oak table in a paneled room and conspire in that sense.

Other commenters here besides CoulsdonUK (Lionking comes to mind) have played the conspiracy-theory card. Such thinking sets up a false choice. Wrongful accusations/convictions are often not the result of a single bad actor but instead have multiple causes involving several individuals. Yet rarely, if ever, is there a conscious, explicit conspiracy among many people. Sometimes, a critical mass of dubious information is assembled, then others add to the mass. The witnesses who changed their recollections in the Todd Willingham case come to mind, as do the flawed forensics of the Lindy Chamberlain case. Finally, it is worth considering why there are laws to forbid conspiracies to commit crimes. If no such conspiracies were ever hatched, why did someone bother to make them illegal?

Until Cohan's book came along, I thought that the innocence of the three young men was settled in almost everyone's mind. The lack of their DNA in the rape kit, plus the presence of other men's DNA is extremely persuasive absence of evidence. One of the three had a strong electronic alibi; another had an electronic alibi that was unimpeachable. Yet there will always be seemingly intelligent people who believe that something happened in that bathroom and that to assert otherwise is to believe in a conspiracy.

So in this case, if this is the mechanism that's in play, it leaves the question of when and how it all gets started.

It can't be the 'case closed' press conference, because the interrogations of Nov 5-6 have to be pre-planned to be overnight.

I've argued no later than Nov 3rd-4th were the police actively targeting Amanda and Raf, because everyone else was beyond reach.

But the question I have, is the relationship of the police with Guede prior to the break-in and murder at the Kercher crime scene, and whether the police and specifically Mignini knew on arrival at the cottage, that they may have to cover up for Rudy Guede, in order to conceal their own responsibility for allowing Guede to remain free, and in Perugia.

Did the Police/Mignini know they needed another black man because they knew Rudy might be involved, or did they find hair or some other indication at the crime scene that made them think they needed to find a black man for the crime?

I say it all goes back to Mignini, his imploding career at the time, his penchant for satanic sex murder conspiracy theories, and this confluence of circumstances that he could twist to his advantage. All he needed to do, was fit the case to two young customers like a fine suit. Something he and his colleagues had done many times in the past.

 

[lonepinealex]

I don't follow this, why would they need to find a black man?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't follow this, why would they need to find a black man?

I agree that it may be one speculation too many . . . .
They did lock onto Patrick and did not want to actually accept his iron clad alibi and if it had not been virtually unbreakable, I bet he would have been another victim of the witch hunt.

 

[lonepinealex]

I agree that it may be one speculation too many . . . .
They did lock onto Patrick and did not want to actually accept his iron clad alibi and if it had not been virtually unbreakable, I bet he would have been another victim of the witch hunt.

but didn't they lock on to Patrick because of the text exchange with Amanda? Is there any evidence that they were thinking of him before they found that message?

ETA I think it's a coincidence that Patrick and Rudy are both black.

 

[Desert Fox]

but didn't they lock on to Patrick because of the text exchange with Amanda? Is there any evidence that they were thinking of him before they found that message?

ETA I think it's a coincidence that Patrick and Rudy are both black.

You may very well be right but I suspect that there is more racism in Italy than they want to admit.

Kind of a lot like the contamination issue with the lab "We never have contamination in our lab" . . ."We don't have any racism in Italy."
That inherent racism may have caused them to target him early one.
I don't see any evidence that they were trying to cover for Guede however.

 

[lonepinealex]

You may very well be right but I suspect that there is more racism in Italy than they want to admit.

Kind of a lot like the contamination issue with the lab "We never have contamination in our lab" . . ."We don't have any racism in Italy."
That inherent racism may have caused them to target him early one.
I don't see any evidence that they were trying to cover for Guede however.

Totally agree with all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a racist element in their interpretation of the text message, but I don't think they were looking for a black man specifically or covering for Guede.

 

[Desert Fox]

Totally agree with all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a racist element in their interpretation of the text message, but I don't think they were looking for a black man specifically or covering for Guede.

Depends what you mean by "Specifically"
They might have though, "Horrible rape and murder, a black has to be involved."

 

[lonepinealex]

Depends what you mean by "Specifically"
They might have though, "Horrible rape and murder, a black has to be involved."

What I mean is, there's nothing to suggest they were looking for a black man, since they were interviewing white people, but I wouldn't be surprised if an element of racism made them more suspicious of Patrick than they might otherwise have been if Amanda's boss had been white.

The clearly racist action was simply substituting Guede for Patrick in their murder scenario, as if the two were interchangeable.

 

[Samson]

What I mean is, there's nothing to suggest they were looking for a black man, since they were interviewing white people, but I wouldn't be surprised if an element of racism made them more suspicious of Patrick than they might otherwise have been if Amanda's boss had been white.

The clearly racist action was simply substituting Guede for Patrick in their murder scenario, as if the two were interchangeable.

In New Zealand 40% of the prison population is ethnically 8% of the population at large. The police tend to go where their customer base is, I recall one observing, because it is more efficient. This is the type of skewed representation that is important, not a word such as racism.
However the term is ludicrous in the Kercher case. However it came to be, Amanda was encouraged to accuse a black man, and a black man in fact was solely responsible. The guilters should note this.
If it had been an obvious mafia killing all suspects would be Italian, but racism would never be mentioned.
Racism is almost always a misleading term.

 

[js202]

One thing that I've learned in this whole process is that Italians really suck at railroad jobs. A crooked American prosecutor and judge can get two innocent kids executed based on maybe 30 pages of legalese. It takes the Italians thousands of pages, and the more they write, the less impressive they get.

Excepting, of course, in the case of simultaneously supercilious and imbecilic English types. They would seem to eat this sort of dog's breakfast right up.

It would be interesting indeed to have such guttersnipes stay around long enough to systematically argue specific sections and paragraphs of Nencini, and see how their crap excuse for reasoning stood up to the light of day.

 

[Wattson]

Supercalifragilistic -
Let's discuss the ample evidence then. I'm actually Canadian so I don't get my news from the "dumb American media". Are you willing to examine the evidence in an open and honest manner?

 

[AmyStrange]

Lazy is as lazy does

-

Oh come on you two, you're having a charming (?), social, tête-à-tête and indulging in farcical mutual adoration/confirmation bias but, like most pro-Knox types, both of you are seriously lacking in the facts. Get up to speed, read the English translation of the Nencini motivation (available at http://goo.gl/QEr0Wt) and, I dunno, give up.

And PLEASE don't talk about lack of evidence - that's just lazy and dim-witted. The evidence has always been there but too many congenitally stupid die-hards need to get up off the couch and start questioning what they are being fed by the dumb American media, who really have never understood the whole concept of "abroad", and have lost the plot (as usual) on this case . Read the damn report, carefully and slowly, for crying out loud.

Supercalifragilistic -
Let's discuss the ample evidence then. I'm actually Canadian so I don't get my news from the "dumb American media". Are you willing to examine the evidence in an open and honest manner?

-

Yes, I agree. Let's talk about the evidence.

Saying we're lazy is such nonsense. Hell, half this (if not most of) this thread (over 100,000 post) has been about the evidence, and it seems to me that's not lazy. What I've seen is that the Gumpers very rarely (if ever) discuss the evidence. Now that's real laziness, in my opinion.

What I've found is that all the evidence pointing to their guilt has been discussed here and found to be either 1) contradictory (probably due to contamination, misinterpreted, destroyed etc. etc.) or 2) in favor of both innocence and guilt equally. Which to me means that there is no definitive evidence, or no evidence proving there guilt at all. I've also found that the totality of the evidence (all of it, not just the cherry picked parts) strongly suggest the improbability that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty, while the totality of the evidence more so points to Rudy being the sole attacker, but some of it (his personal character and history) even suggest that Rudy may not be guilty of murder (it might have been an accident with Meredith falling on the knife while Rudy was holding it against her throat to keep her quiet) and his story may be true that someone else did it, but that is less probable than it was accidental, in my opinion, but what makes it look bad for Rudy is that he never went to get help for her as she lay dying.

For example, on the second point, why did Guede say Amanda was not there at first, but then said (or wrote in a letter) that they were, at the Hellman trial? One is a lie and the other isn't. Which is it? And, why should the last one be a lie and the first ones not?

From what I've read of the Nencini Report it tends to "postulate" and prefer the guilty explanation over the innocent explanation, over and over again, with no explanation why, no real logical explanation anyway, in my opinion.

Yes, let's discuss the evidence, once again and again and again,

d

-
ETA: after reading more of the Report I've found that my objections about the hyoid bone were unfounded, and Nencini never concluded that Meredith was strangled, but rather that the hyoid bone was damaged by the knife instead. The sentence I was objecting to was the accusation and not the conclusion of the Nencini court. I misspoke in my earlier post, and further admit that I was wrong in my original objections about same.

-