Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Carlizzi and Circumstantial evidence

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

Hi Mach,

I read the Carlizzi references you provided, and I do have a further question:

According to Preston/Spezi (Monster of Flroenc"), Carlizzi immediately linked the Kercher murder to the Monster of Florence crimes, and posted it on her blog. Wiothout getting too deep into it, Preston/Spezi claim that Carlizzi travelled to Perugua "within days" to Perugia and met with Mignini, though no transcript was provided. If Mignini didn't rely on Carlizzi, or at least value her opinion, why did he meet with her within days of the Kercher killing?

Also, Preston/Spezi describe Spezi's defense of himself in April, 2006, arguing he should be set free after having been in jail for 3 weeks. Spezi is described to having provided precise parallels between the theories in Carlizzi's blog, and the claims in Mingini's charges and theories. When Mignini told the judge that Spezi should remain in jail because he was so dangerous that he had generated an international PR campaign in his favor - from his jail cell - the judge put down her pen and took no further notes.

Also, in the Calamandrei trial in Florence in 2007-2008, The papers were read in court, from an associate of Carlizzi, that Mignini had kept secret under protective orders but was the basis for the charges - where Carlizzi's associate then proceeded to tell a completely fictional tale of Mario Spezi's life story, where he was born, parents, everything.

So you say Mignini had Carlizzi arrested, given house arrest, and so on in 2005 - and I understand that appears to be true. But Mignini also seems to continue to rely on the "psyschic medium" Carlizzi in 2006, 2007-8, and originally claimed the Kercher killing was related to "rites of Halloween'.

The Italian judiciary in Florence also convicted Mignini of abuse of office, after his fiasco of arresting Mario Spezi. But then Mignini and Giutarri's convictions were set aside on appeal, due to a technicality of venue - not set aside on the merits. The case moved to Turin and was not re-filed, and my understanding is it is likely precluded from re-filing due to statute of limitations.

The point is, sometimes presses charges just seems like posturing, when the true intent may not necessarily be to convict or punish, but merely to provide a useful appearance when such is convenient.

 

[Numbers]

One item about ECtHR procedure:

ECtHR combines admissibility and merits decisions most frequently on the cases decided or judged by a committee of judges. These are among the simplest cases, in that they are highly similar to case-law (cases previously decided).

ECHR, Article 28 (excerpt)

1.
In respect of an application submitted under Article 34, a
committee may, by a unanimous vote,
(a)
declare it inadmissible or strike it out of its list of cases,
where such decision can be taken without further
examination; or
(b)
declare it admissible and render at the same time a
judgment on the merits, if the underlying question in the
case, concerning the interpretation or the application of
the Convention or the Protocols thereto, is already the
subject of wellestablished caselaw of the Court.
2.
Decisions and judgments under paragraph 1 shall be final.

Note: Article 29, on Chamber-judged cases, provides that admissibility and merits may be judged and announced separately.

 

[carbonjam72]

A Thought Experiment -

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;
all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
The autopsy report,
the lies and story changings of Sollecito,
the lies and the calunnia from Knox,
the double-DNA kitchen knife,
the bra clasp DNA,
the luminol prints,
the telephone records contrasting with their alibies,
the false computer record alibi,
physical evidence of staged burglary;
The autopsy report showed that a single perpetrator was perfectly possible.
Sollecito's only inconsistency was during the untaped and illegal interview on the night before his arrest. Before that and after that, he was perfectly clear.
Knox's situation is exactly the same.
There was no Meredith DNA on the kitchen knife.
The clasp was clearly contaminated as it had the DNA of several men on it.
The luminol prints tested negative for blood.
The telephone records? Please elaborate.
The false computer record? Tell us more.
The can't be physical evidence of a staged burglary because the burglary was real.

No, there is no case. Hard as the PGP struggle to invent one, it's not there.

Ok Mach, I'd like to suggest a "Thought Experiment".

This list of facts that you've presented, are I understand the basis for your belief in guilt for Amanda and Raffaele.

But suppose ALL the objections to your list are actually valid and true. For example, the fact that there is no trace of Amanda found in the bedroom where meredith was violently killed, MEANS that there is no factual basis to suggest that Amanda was in the room when Meredith was attacked.

Again, just for sake of argument.

If all of the points you have put forward, were in fact found to have been disproven, again just for sake of argument - would you then agree that Amanda and Raf are entitled to be found "Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", because there is (under our assumptions in this thought experiment) insufficient evidence upon which to rest a conviction?

In other words, even if there were no evidence against them, would you still think they were guilty, and should be found guilty in court?

 

[Dan O.]

Thank you. You are wasting a line just to insult me.

You are insulted by the truth?

I am still after the thread of the Rudy Guede trousers-washing theory. I'd prefer to develop a one theory at a time, if it's possible.

And that is why you ran back to your wall of lies?

You say that (but you can't see from the pictures something if it actually under a cloth, it must be on the edge, stick ou a bit for you to see it. But the rock has bowled on a paper bag that has ripped under its weight, and the ripped part has fallen on top of the scattered clothes.

We have only what the photographs show us. An investigation could have pealed back the layers to expose the hidden details but there was no investigation. Aparently in Italy, only the theory of the prosecutor can be investigated and only then to find confirming facts and never to dispute the theory.

Filomena ROmanelli however testifies of this. But the staged break in does not depend on this. It may be an important element to some judge, but not for me.

When was Filomena's statement first recorded? How many private tutoring sessions did she have with Mignini before that? Was there ever any investigation to confirm her story?

It occurred at some time between approximately midnight and approximately 6am.

And what is your evidence for that? Is this just the time that you have to place it to support your theory of guilt? BTW, you forgot the internet connection recorded by FastWeb.

It was well documented that it was obviously staged. Your problem is you just don't see it.

It is a problem of seeing reality and not delusions that I shall have to endure.

You don't consider, for example, the illogical point of entry, or the position of outer shutters, or the untouched drawers, or the fact that cloths hanging in the wardrobe could have no interest to a burglar, just to say some, as evidence that the break in was staged.

An illogical entry point is even more illogical for someone on the inside that can't see the window grate below. What was the position of the shutters at the time the window was broken? How to you know this? Show your evidence.

We're the clothes pulled off the shelf in the wardrobe by a burglar looking for something stashed behind? Or was this caused by someone tripping over the TV antenna cable when they tried to enter the dark room through the broken window? A competent investigation may have uncovered clues as to what happened. Speculation after the fact that confirms to a prefered theory may help close cases but doesn't uncover the truth.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

For Machiavelli

A theory of the murder:

Rudy tries to sneak out of the house but Meredith hears him. A confrontation ensues. She is steadily getting louder and madder until Rudy starts grabbing her arms and covering her mouth. There is squirming and fighting going on. His left hand is squeezed around her wrists, he lets go of her mouth with his right hand to get the knife out of his right pocket. She screams a blood-curdling scream. There is no turning back now. He tries to use the knife to keep her quiet; he is holding her by her hair, almost facing her, with the knife poised at her throat. She squirms and, as she tries to get away, he cuts her with it (right side) and she briefly gets away from him, ripping out a chunk of hair as she does so. This sends adrenaline flowing through his body (maybe she has hurt him also) and, as a result, he is angry. He grabs her again but this time he deeply stabs her (left side). She falls to her knees while blood is spurting out of her neck. She briefly lifts her head to look at him and the blood spurts all over his trousers. (Or, as she is falling it is spurting on him.) He watches for a few moments before panic starts to sink in, then he goes off to the bathroom to get the big spot of noticeable blood off his pants. He goes back to the bedroom and sees she is barely alive at this point, maybe she is moaning, maybe not. He picks up the knife from the pool of blood on the floor and lays it on the bed while he reaches over and grabs the towel he brought from the bathroom, which is lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. He wipes off the knife and puts it back into his pocket as he looks over at her. He gets an urge (perhaps from the power of it all) so he grabs her, flips her over, positions her on the pillow and quickly molests her with his hand. He thinks maybe he could fully molest her so gets his equipment out. He can’t control himself though and he blows it quickly. He decides to get out of there so he heads for the front door. He finds it locked so he returns to get the keys from her purse. He also grabs her cell phones and leaves.

 

[carbonjam72]

SIDE-TRACKINGS: what are they?

It's not that I doubt they are accurate and truthful; it's that there is just the most glaring evidence they are completely false.
I have already given you an example, picked up one of the points you asked about: I gave you sources backing the explanation of how Gabriella Carlizzi had absolutely nothing to do with Mignini, he never relied on her theories nor ever sought her: on the contrary you can see how he arrested her, indicted her for making up testimonies and asked the judge for a psychiatric investigation on her.
Just an example for how it's better to look at the actual history records, rather than reading Preston & Spezi and relying on them.

Take another example: open Preston-Spezi's book "der Engel mit der Eisaugen", start from the first page; Preston introsuction, he writes "a few days after Nov.2" (sic) the State Prosecutor (sic) called a press conference (sic) were the Prosecution described the murder as a "sexual-satanic kind of ritual" (sic) in which Knox was involved "under the effect of drugs" (sic).

It's just line 16 of the first page of Preston's introduction. The whole book is a mass full of falsehood of this kind.
Actually, it's basically any declaration by Preston or Spezi on the case that is woven with obvious lies. It's something that stands out immediately, if you have just a little knowledge of the case and of Italy and access to Italian sources.



But they are simply too many. Prston and Spezi lied basically on everything. Their lies are so surreal and grotesque, so unrealistic and far fetched from reality that wouldn't make sense even in a fiction.



it would be interesting for me to read about it too, but the motivations report has not been issued yet. I only know the dispositivo.
Anyway, it's the verdict of an Appeals court of Milan, that was just confirming a previous conviction.



No no, Spezi was the mastermind. And the criminal is an agent he just sought for the job, who was tied to Spezi by some previous favours.


But just a moment: Spezi was caught committing a serious criminal offence and was involved in also a series of side-tracking activities, some of a criminal nature. The point is not about 'suggesting' that he was the Monster of Florence, because nobody 'suggested' it: Mignini declared him a formal suspect on the charge of being involved in the MoF murders as well, together with the other charges of false testimony, because this is just unavoidable when someone gets involved in a sidetracking of an investigation.
As for the Supreme Court jurisprudence, an attempt to divert the investigation or to obstacle the research of the truth, is to be considered circumstantial evidence of involvement in the crime that was being investigated.
In his request for caustionary measures, Mignini writes that a possible involvement of Spezi in the MoF murder is not verified, but since he is now being arrested, since the moment when he is arrested for side-tracking, he must be declared a suspect in the murders as well because of his involvement in side-trackings. It's absolutely a due passage under the procedure code, it's unavoidable. There is nothing sily or crazy in this. This is not a 'suggestion', it's a procedural necessity. It was in fact a necessary step to protect Spezi's rights as a person under investigation, that becomes compelling for the prosecution since the person is put under arrest. If you hinder an investigation and you are arrested for that, you become suspected for the crime that was being investigated.



But no! This is just sheer Preston & Spezi fiction. You are not cheching anything about what you write. You don't seek Italian sources. Mignini was dregged into the the Narducci investigation by a request of the Florentine Prosecution Office, they insisted that the investigation on Narducci should be linked to the Monster of Florence case, at a time when Mignini had no clue about conspiracies. And there were no fantasies in this: we are talking about real investigation fantasies. Mignini discovered that the body found in the lake could not be Narducci's body only relatively late, after requests of Narducci's wife to re-exhume the body.Simply, you seem to live within a narrative that is complete fiction.



I really suggest you do check what you are talking about. I mean check in actual sources, not in Preston and Spezi's books.

You refer to Spezi being involved in "side-trackings" with respect to the Monster of Florence crimes. By Spezi's "side-trackings", are you referring to Spezi's insistence that the 'satanic sect' theories leading to the convictions of Pacciani, Vanni and Lotti were false, and his pursuit of the "Sardinian Trail" lone killer theory, leading to Antonio Vinci as the true monster of Florence?

Is that the issue of side-trackings: Spezi believed the Sardinian Trail, and the authorities formally closed that line of inquiry, and pursued only the satanic sect theory?

I also responded in an earlier post about Carlizzi and Mognini, but you may have gotten to it by now -

 

[Numbers]

We will never really know every detail of what happened between Meredith and Guede that night that he murdered and raped her. Even if Guede spoke about it, his words would be suspect. He lived in lies (pretending to have been from S. Africa, lived in the US, went to school in Atlanta, employed by Armani, etc.) and certainly would manipulate the truth of how he committed his crime.

What seems important to me is to understand how the ECtHR will view Amanda's current application and any potential application from Amanda and/or Raffaele. The ECtHR operates based on rationality; it is thus different from, for example, the mind-set and fantasies of guilters.

 

[Desert Fox]

We will never really know every detail of what happened between Meredith and Guede that night that he murdered and raped her. Even if Guede spoke about it, his words would be suspect. He lived in lies (pretending to have been from S. Africa, lived in the US, went to school in Atlanta, employed by Armani, etc.) and certainly would manipulate the truth of how he committed his crime.

What seems important to me is to understand how the ECtHR will view Amanda's current application and any potential application from Amanda and/or Raffaele. The ECtHR operates based on rationality; it is thus different from, for example, the mind-set and fantasies of guilters.

To a certain extent, Guede may very well believe his own lies as well

 

[Numbers]

Another case from Albania:

Laska and Lika v. Albania 12315/04 Final 20/07/2010 (6 years after filing)

The two applicants were accused and convicted of armed robbery. The robbers wore blue and white balaclavas. The suspects were put into an ID parade wearing blue and white balaclavas supplied by the police, the "controls" wore black balaclavas. The applicants had no lawyer at the ID parade. The ID parade was not conducted in conformance with Albanian law (CCP). Note that the applicants had requested the balaclavas be produced in Albanian court for review; this was denied. The ECtHR finds this denial to be groundless and unfair.

Note the similarity of the denial of presenting evidence (balaclavas from the ID parade) in police custody, from the investigation stage, of the Albanian case, to the denials of presenting such DNA and electronic data files etc. in the Knox - Sollecito case.

The ECtHR judged a violation of Article 6.1.

63. In the instant case, the applicants complained that the way in which the identification parade had taken place was unfair. They further alleged that the domestic courts never acceded to their requests to have the material evidence (balaclavas) examined at the public hearings in their cases. The Court will consider in turn the two grounds of complaint before it.

64. The Court observes that the applicants were found guilty essentially on the strength of eyewitnesses' submissions obtained during the identification parade. It notes that the eyewitnesses' evidence resulting from the identification was the key evidence supporting the prosecution's case against the applicants.
65. The Albanian CCP clearly regulates the organisation of an identification parade. The Court will examine whether the manner in which the identification parade in the applicants' case was conducted was in accordance with Article 6 fairness requirements.

66. In the first place, the applicants and B. L were required to stand in the line-up wearing white and blue balaclavas, similar in colour to those worn by the authors of the crime. The other two persons in the line-up wore black balaclavas, in stark contrast to the white and blue balaclavas worn by the applicants and B.L who were accused of committing the offence. The change of position of the persons in the line-up did not result in any different outcome for the applicants, as they were consistently required to wear the same colour (white and blue) balaclavas (see paragraph 13 above). The Court finds that the identification parade was tantamount to an open invitation to witnesses to point the finger of guilt at both applicants and B.L. as the perpetrators of the crime.
67. Moreover, the identification parade was held in the absence of the applicants' lawyers. It does not transpire from the case file that the applicants waived of their own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to legal assistance at the time of the identification parade (see, by contrast, Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).

68. The Court notes in this connection that even though the District Court accepted that there had been irregularities at the investigation stage, in convicting the applicants it relied on the positive identification of the applicants made by eyewitnesses at the identification parade. However, neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during the criminal investigation (see Salduz, cited above, § 58).

69. There was no independent oversight of the fairness of the procedure or opportunity to protest against the blatant irregularities. The Court finds that the manifest disregard of the rights of the defence at this stage irretrievably prejudiced the fairness of the subsequent criminal trial.
70. Finally, the Court notes that it has not been explained why the applicants' requests to have the balaclavas used during the identification parade produced before the court were refused. While it is true that the right to disclosure of relevant evidence is not absolute, the Court must scrutinise the decision-making procedure to ensure that, as far as possible, the procedure complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings, equality of arms and incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interest of the accused (see Jasper, cited above, §§ 52-53). 71. The Court considers that in the circumstances of the applicants' case, fairness demanded that they be enabled to argue that the balaclavas they were required to wear at the identification parade, which constituted the decisive evidence for the applicants' conviction, were entirely different from those worn by the robbers. However, they were denied an opportunity at the trial to redress the irregularities which occurred at the identification parade. In this connection, the Government did not invoke any public interest grounds for withholding such evidence, and no such grounds are apparent from the domestic proceedings.
72. In conclusion, having regard to the above findings, the Court concludes that the proceedings in question did not satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case.

 

[kwill]

Yet 8 of the nine experts who testified to Judge Massei in 2009 said that the single attacker theory was perfectly plausible.

They must not have been schooled by Machiavelli in what to say to ensure a guilty verdict.

Keep in mind, Bill, that Mach has graciously offered us his best advice on how to approach the case:

Once you deny things, it's easy to come to your desired conclusion.

He's not usually so forthright, you know?

 

[moije2]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

He carries three towels in the room and places them around and below the victim's body. The questions are: the purpose; what does he use them for, why, and why does he put them there.

DIOCLETUS: That's different than mopping up. Those towels probably have something to do with remorse or rape.​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

There is no answer on point 2: I am asking why his wet trousers don't drop on the floor. Why don't they drop on the floor when he leaves the bathroom, why not when he leaves the room.

DIOCLETUS:Who says that they were so wet that blood had to be trailing off of them?​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

Maybe you forgot that you can't escape the implication that he washed the bathmat and he cleaned the floor. When I say that he came back, I also refer to the fact that he came back at least a first time in order to clean the floor. But anyway he washed and cleaned some things.

DIOCLETUS:No, he didn't wash the bathmat: it has a giant bloody footprint on it. He didn't clean up anything except his own clothes.​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

But above all it's clear you missed the implication of my question: I was referring to the purpose why he locked the door. What was the purpose of locking the door? Was it to conceal evidence of himself or evidence that someone entered the house?
Would that be consistent with the rest of his actions?

DIOCLETUS:Obviously, he did it to delay discovery of the dead body. His turd isn't a crime and was probably the last thing on his mind.​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

Now, I see you contradict the autopsy report evidence. The sexual violence was committed before the stabbing. And instead you place it subsequently (at 21:11). You are egregiously contradicting the evidence.​

DIOCLETUS:Is this the same autopsy report that said she had consensual sex? She obviously could have been stabbed shortly before he raped her. I doubt that the autopsy report says that, and if it does, it's wrong. I've learned that Italian technicians are far from infallible.[/INDENT]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

Then you locate his stepping on the pillow case (several steps) subsequently to the alleged washing, right?
But the wasn't the pillowcase picked up with a bloody hand? Did he had bloody hands subsequently to his washing?

DIOCLETUS:It was his own blood.​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

Then you locate the stepping on the pillow prior to the sexual violence. But, wasn't his shoeprint overlapping a previous semen stain?
And how did it happen that he walked on the pillowcase, since what he intended to do was to pick it up?

DIOCLETUS:Oh yeah, I guess he did step in the semen. So that footprint was made while he was pulling up his pants.​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

I won't ask you about the rest of the mass of obvious contradictions in your scenario (why does blood under his shoe "fade" so suddenly? why is there no evidence of footrpints going back to Meredith's door show off, not even enhanced in luminol? Why the left part of one of his footprints was cleaned? the body was untouched with no blood smears etc.)

DIOCLETUS:Not impressed. Most of these tings are either things the police probably missed or that don't need to exist anyway.
​

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
How many times does he wash up? And how long does he remain inside the murder room? And inside the cottage actually. Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? It's a long time, if you are a murderer in a foreign house and you know anyone can enter at any moment.

DIOCLETUS:He washed briefly upstairs, and then afterwards he rinsed his clothes and got new pants downstairs.​

Sorry about the formatting! I should do this more often!

Anyway, I have been impressed with the amount of work going into the recreation from luminol blobs etc. I am amazed by the amount of creativity in story telling. I would have to say that if I was on a jury and such was spun before me, my eyes would gloss over and say "yea right. sure you can create all of that detail out of blood stains and glowing luminescence." Sure some things can be shown such as sprinklet drops on her bare breast related to aspirated blood.

I have been rolling it over in my mind the past few days and the best way I can describe all of this is like staring at the sky and deciding to be the first person to connect some dots/stars and create a picture of a bear or scorpion. In other words, draw what you want. It requires a mind fixed on connecting blood smears and non-blood smears in a way which satisfies you. Bring on context and tapestry of BS. The bottom line is a girl lived in a flat, which her boyfriend visited, and the "scientists" are trying to trace the movement and deposition of DNA as well as timing of possible foot steps within that appartment. Beyond a reasonable doubt, yea sure!

Some one has been drinking cool aid.

So, look at the attached picture. I know someone out there can prove BRD that if you connect the dots it is Scorpio. Well of course.



http://astronomyonline.org/Observation/Images/Zodiac/ScorpiusDecember1.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post

He carries three towels in the room and places them around and below the victim's body. The questions are: the purpose; what does he use them for, why, and why does he put them there.

DIOCLETUS: That's different than mopping up. Those towels probably have something to do with remorse or rape.​

I thought the idea, recently posted, of Sollecito's lawyer ridiculing the idea that Rudy felt remorse by bringing in the towels, and that they were more likely used to smother Meredith, then to 'dab at the mortal wounds' Rudy had just inflicted.

BUt then why 3 towels? Maybe some wiping up. I don't think there were luminol swirls indicative of wiping up anywhere in the cottage, where there?

I do think one has to break down what is knowable, one chunk at a time. For example, only one person in the room when Meredith was bleeding - Rudy Guede.

The break-in was obviously real.

Rudy had Meredith's keys when he left, because the door wouldn't open without them.

Rudy stepped in wet semen in the room where he killed Meredith.

Rudy dragged her, mortally wounded, to position her for a sexual assault of some kind.

Rudy stole Meredith's money, keys, credit cards, and cell phones (did the forensics really come back with NOTHING from the phones)?

There probably aren't multiple ways the physical evidence actually fits together. Wonder if a computer could be programmed to assemble the clues, like rearranging the dead sea scroll fragments into a coherent picture.

 

[Samson]

If you claim you were writing and surfing the internet on a computer until late at night and you were not, it's called a false alibi.
"There can't be physical evidence..." talking about circular reasoning.

This may be technically correct. However,
Let me imagine I have been accused of a murder I did not commit, a serious allegation that puts my life at risk. I will endeavour to escape this situation by any means. I am asked about my activities 4 nights ago. I always surf the internet when home, and I know I was home. I will expect to use the electronic records as an alibi. There was one night I did not use the internet, but I don't necessarily remember which one. Unfortunately that was the night of the murder. Of course you automatically will dismiss this argument with out further thought, but try to consider it, and that it might even be an accurate representation.

 

[Samson]

The only similarity is that a powerful Italian organization felt that it was more important to maintain its power and prestige and infallibility than it was to try to determine the truth
There are many similarities in the actions of the ISC in this case and the actions of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition in the case of Galileo, because both law enforcement organizations their power and prestige was being questioned and it was important to show that the STATE WAS ALL POWERFUL and the accused was to be subjected to the will of the state no matter what the facts of the situation were.
The way in which procedural decisions in this case have been intentionally made to make defenses impossible is in many ways similar to the Italian case against Galileo.

In fact the analogy works at the scientific level also. When you attempt to place A and R at the crime scene you contort the thought process. Guede alone solves all evidential contradictions as a sun centred solar system eliminates the epicycles of Ptolemy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This may be technically correct. However,
Let me imagine I have been accused of a murder I did not commit, a serious allegation that puts my life at risk. I will endeavour to escape this situation by any means. I am asked about my activities 4 nights ago. I always surf the internet when home, and I know I was home. I will expect to use the electronic records as an alibi. There was one night I did not use the internet, but I don't necessarily remember which one. Unfortunately that was the night of the murder. Of course you automatically will dismiss this argument with out further thought, but try to consider it, and that it might even be an accurate representation.

I think, if I were a 20-something guy, alone with a pretty girl whom I had just met, my Internet alibi might not pan out either.

HOWEVER, from his spaceship orbiting Zeta Reticuli, "Machiavelli" assures us that Raffaele spent the evening sliding on a bathmat, as demonstrated by the loony-nol. I would like to hear more details. This startling forensic insight should be good for 3-4,000 words, don't you think?

 

[Samson]

It occurred at some time between approximately midnight and approximately 6am.

I don't believe this. Amanda may have believed that none of six surviving dwellers would arrive home, but Raffaele would not have trusted her on this. He is too logical as a computer programmer.
Also Amanda could not know, she had largely been absent, and would not have detailed knowledge of the plans of so many people.
Further, midnight on is a quiet time, and the noise to create substantial damage is illogical.

 

[Dan O.]

There probably aren't multiple ways the physical evidence actually fits together. Wonder if a computer could be programmed to assemble the clues, like rearranging the dead sea scroll fragments into a coherent picture.

If you don't count juditial truths, there is preciesly 1 true scenario. With incomplete evidence, there can be multiple scenarios that match the known evidence of which the true scenario is but one of the set. We have at least one scenario with Rudy alone breaking in and murdering Meredith that fits the known evidence. It's telling that the guilters are reluctant to put forward a scenario of their own.

 

[kwill]

. . . from his spaceship orbiting Zeta Reticuli, "Machiavelli" assures us that Raffaele spent the evening sliding on a bathmat, as demonstrated by the loony-nol. I would like to hear more details. This startling forensic insight should be good for 3-4,000 words, don't you think?

I'm counting on it.

 

[Planigale]

Questions such as why did Guede lock the bedroom and whether this is logical are foolish. People do not behave logically at the best of times let alone when under stress. the whole murder was illogical. To try and argue that because it was not logical for Guede to lock the bedroom door therefore he did not lock it is not proof of anything apart from the foolishness of the person who argues it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Right?

It's hard to believe we're still talking about it.

My first rodeo with Mach had to do with his contention that Amanda was a party girl and not an honor student with a history of earning her own way by having jobs.

It stands out in my mind as one of the silliest conversations I've ever had. The University of Washington became a low-quality school. A degree in foreign languages became a trivial program. Amanda probably met Rudy when she first arrived and then had a relationship of some kind with him.

Mach had met some American girls once, so he was qualified to assess the personality of Amanda through watching her in court.

That's what really underlies his convictions about the evidence . . . he's convinced himself that it's possible to lose your own cultural blinders without even trying.

I'm fairly sure that if you took a random 20-year-old Italian girl and dropped her into the U district for 6 weeks and then put her on trial for murder, her behavior might seem unusual to us locals.

Let’s summarize it differently: someone else had attempted to make the argument that Knox could not hang around with Rudy Guede or attend people alike, nor have drug dealers as dates or company, nor would be likely to take part to drug fuelled sex parties, since she was “very different” from those kind of folks. She would not attend or belong to those environments and was far from those people’s lifestyles. Why? Because she was a “honor student”, a character committed to completely different life values and social values, someone who was there for other purposes and a completely different lifestyle. In other words because she was a totally different human being , who was living on completely different values. Different likes, purposes and lifestyle: should be seen different, because of what she was.

The pro-Knoxes expressed this point of their narrative by the words “honor student”.

I pointed out that, in reality, Guede and Knox in Perugia they knew each other, they attended the same bars, the very same places and companies, the same people, they shared the same friends there who were also her downstairs neighbours and they shared some nights together, and they both attended the same downstairs apartment. Knox had also contacts with older drug dealers and even had causal sex with some of them.

I also noted that in fact the label of Knox as “honor student” in Seattle was not backed by evidence. Actually, a couple of episodes from the recent student’s life of Amanda Knox in Seattle would not be seen as consistent with a definition of “honor student”, at least as “honour” is understood by Europeans: her extra-curricular behaviour did not seem entirely honourable as she was recorded by the Seattle police organizing an alcohol-fuelled party which caused noise disturbance and dangerous rock throwing, and was described by the police officer as a “war scene” as well as “dangerous “ and “juvenile”. Amana Knox was also involved in another incident, a burglar-prank in which she staged a burglary and reportedly acted in disguise as a violent burglar/rapist causing an experience of shock and terror to her own flatmate.

The claims that Knox would never take part to strange pranks or violence-themed actions, nor to unsafe drug-fuelled parties, or that she would never attend drug users or shady individuals, all seem somehow unfounded.

The claim by the Knox supporters was that Amanda Knox was not in Perugia after fun or seeking exciting experience. No, she was there only after totally different values like sacrifice for career study and hard work. She had gone to Perugia only to study, prioritizing hard work, “honourable” value like study, self-commitment, programming, and not on a whim but as a necessity to perfection her study.

In fact, the truth is she wasn’t even in Perugia as a University student. She was enrolled at the University of Washington meanwhile, but it was not in Perugia after an idea or a program by the University of Washington, it’s not the University of Washington’s idea that she should go to Europe. She want to Europe on her own decision, in fact like a kind of sabbatical or a diversion from her ordinary university course: she left on her whim and on her initiative, on a self-made “program” that was anarchical and changing; at first she went in Germany, she asked her relatives to find her a job or an internship and her uncle – not the University of Washington - found her a prestigious internship at the Bundestag. Note: it was not the University who sent her there, it was not thanks to her honor student curriculum, it was thanks to her uncle’s program and connections.

But she left the job after only one day of work, with her uncle’s bafflement. In her myspace page she describes, with “LOLs”, how her “acted” with her uncle, hoe with her “crying” and “freaking out” she was able to manipulate her uncle’s feelings so that he would comply with her new plans. It was only then that she decided she would move to Perugia and enrol at the University for Foreigneers.

The University for Foreigneers was not part of her study plan as she had enrolled at the University of Washington. In fact, the University of Foreigneers of Perugia is normally considered a prestigious language school, not a university. There are also a few bachelor university courses there, but really few of them and their quality is not at the top; its activity is that of a language school. In fact Knox there enrolled at a language school course. That was what she became there: a freshman student at a language school.

She had literally drifted from the Bundestag to Perugia following her whim. The Bundestag was not fun and was not exciting. She chose Perugia herself, it was not a University nor an uncle’s idea. She chose Perugia not because of a necessity of the study and career program of the University of Washington, but because she saw opportunity for fun and exciting experiences. She drifted from the Bundestag to Perugia not because she was prioritizing the values of hard work, sacrifice, self-commitment, self-programming, but because she was prioritizing the values of fun, party, the excitement of the student life in Perugia renown for its drug-and-sex party style.

As I pointed out that Knox was in Perugia not because of her “honor-student”-like values but because he was pursuing other existential values, the pro-Knox supporters went mad. In fact it was Raffaele Sollecito who wrote about her “she is only interested in pleasure”, while “she lives in her own world” and “she has almost no contact with reality”.

All this has nothing to directly with Knox's being guilty or innocent. It has to do though with the thinking of the pro-Knox supporters, with the arguments they attempt to bring out and with the picture they try to portray of Knox's charachter.