Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Not serious

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

The above alleged evidence is an example of the type of "evidence" that would be considered "Not Serious" according to CCP Article 192. All this behavioral BS is irrelevant. Even Guede going dancing after the murder is irrelevant; it does perhaps indicate he is the kind of fun-loving person that the guilters adore. That is, it only takes on possible significance (he was seeking an alibi, he is callous) if one KNOWS or ASSUMES he is the murderer. It is not evidence that he was the murderer. There is plenty of other clear evidence that does show he was the sole murderer and rapist of Ms. Kercher, btw.

 

[carbonjam72]

These people barely knew Amanda.

I know her quite well at this point. She and I have become friends. I have also become friends with her mother and stepfather. I know her extended family members, and I know her closest friends.

She is a warm, genuine, immensely kind-hearted woman. She is never aggressive or confrontational, and she is conscientious in her dealings with other people. That is how she is regarded by those who have known her well for many years.

I guess this is really the crazy part. It's not just that Mignini literally kidnapped a young woman of average compassion, but that he chose the gentlest.

Vibio's slanders reveal the darkness of a damaged soul. Amanda will one day be exonerated. But Vibio, and all the guilters, will still be, well, themselves. And that's what they truly hate.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction with respect to the topic

We were talking about convicted criminal Amanda Marie Knox, but since you bring up Guede: he went dancing.
---

Vibio,

No, that is not correct. What we were talking about is how you misunderstood the PI arguments about the lack of evidence of Ms. Knox in the murder room. Rather than respond to those critiques, you changed the subject.

 

[Machiavelli]

The above alleged evidence is an example of the type of "evidence" that would be considered "Not Serious" according to CCP Article 192. All this behavioral BS is irrelevant. Even Guede going dancing after the murder is irrelevant; it does perhaps indicate he is the kind of fun-loving person that the guilters adore. That is, it only takes on possible significance (he was seeking an alibi, he is callous) if one KNOWS or ASSUMES he is the murderer. It is not evidence that he was the murderer. There is plenty of other clear evidence that does show he was the sole murderer and rapist of Ms. Kercher, btw.

I agree. It is certainly not "serious" evidence. This implies, you cannot convict someone if you only have this kind of evidence. However, it is not BS. It is admissible evidence and it is usable in a decision, when you also have a solid evidentiary frame made of other elements. Evidence of personality traits alone cannot be evidence of a fact, but once you have evidence of fact they can be used to conjecture and explain a scenario.

 

[Numbers]

At IIP forum, pmop57 pointed out this site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-...lian-detectives-impact-the-latest-knox-trial/

Amanda Knox Update: Could an abuse of power investigation into several Italian detectives impact the latest Knox trial?
CBS News October 22, 2013, 2:54 PM


(CBS) - An obscure child custody case in Perugia, Italy has revealed what prosecutors allege was a rogue group of four detectives in the town's elite homicide squad. Three of the detectives currently under investigation worked on the Meredith Kercher homicide in 2007 - and may shed light on how the murder squad bungled the interrogation of Amanda Knox in November 2007.

 

[Anode]

At IIP forum, pmop57 pointed out this site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-...lian-detectives-impact-the-latest-knox-trial/

Amanda Knox Update: Could an abuse of power investigation into several Italian detectives impact the latest Knox trial?
CBS News October 22, 2013, 2:54 PM


(CBS) - An obscure child custody case in Perugia, Italy has revealed what prosecutors allege was a rogue group of four detectives in the town's elite homicide squad. Three of the detectives currently under investigation worked on the Meredith Kercher homicide in 2007 - and may shed light on how the murder squad bungled the interrogation of Amanda Knox in November 2007.

When I read "elite" I spit coffee out of my nose.

 

[Numbers]

Irrelevant for establishing guilt

The above alleged evidence is an example of the type of "evidence" that would be considered "Not Serious" according to CCP Article 192. All this behavioral BS is irrelevant. Even Guede going dancing after the murder is irrelevant; it does perhaps indicate he is the kind of fun-loving person that the guilters adore. That is, it only takes on possible significance (he was seeking an alibi, he is callous) if one KNOWS or ASSUMES he is the murderer. It is not evidence that he was the murderer. There is plenty of other clear evidence that does show he was the sole murderer and rapist of Ms. Kercher, btw.

I agree. It is certainly not "serious" evidence. This implies, you cannot convict someone if you only have this kind of evidence. However, it is not BS. It is admissible evidence and it is usable in a decision, when you also have a solid evidentiary frame made of other elements. Evidence of personality traits alone cannot be evidence of a fact, but once you have evidence of fact they can be used to conjecture and explain a scenario.

The behavioral evidence is irrelevant for establishing guilt. We apparently agree on that. There is nothing illegal or suspicious in dancing (Guede) or giggling, etc. (for Knox and Sollecito).

I perceive that Guede going dancing after the murder and rape that he solely committed upon Ms. Kercher is of trivial significance compared to the physical and biological evidence he left at the crime scene and within or near Ms. Kercher, and the violence he committed. I conclude from that evidence that he is a depraved and vicious person.

Giggling, kissing, making faces, etc. are all normal, innocent activities among young couples in the US and are actually quite understandable for Knox and Sollecito considering the long periods they were at the police station. I detect considerable misogyny, envy, and confirmation-of-guilt bias in the comments about this behavior.

 

[Kauffer]

Fact and fantasy

I agree. It is certainly not "serious" evidence. This implies, you cannot convict someone if you only have this kind of evidence. However, it is not BS. It is admissible evidence and it is usable in a decision, when you also have a solid evidentiary frame made of other elements. Evidence of personality traits alone cannot be evidence of a fact, but once you have evidence of fact they can be used to conjecture and explain a scenario.

Well that's an end run around Article 192. You're going to have to reference this elsewhere in the articles. It seems to me that what 192 is saying is that circumstantial evidence can only be used to establish a fact and only if it is serious, precise and consistent. If it's not serious, then there is no indication it can be used at all. Of course, Vibio was asserting that this evidence (not serious evidence, as we agree), established it's own fact - that Ms Knox's conduct at the questura was "gleeful, sexually charged". You must, presumably, agree that it does not establish this fact because it does not meet the test of seriousness. So what other "evidence of fact" can it be used with for "conjecture and (to) explain a scenario"? And, indeed, which scenario? In which article do we find permission for the court to use it in this manner or, at all?

 

[carbonjam72]

At IIP forum, pmop57 pointed out this site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-...lian-detectives-impact-the-latest-knox-trial/

Amanda Knox Update: Could an abuse of power investigation into several Italian detectives impact the latest Knox trial?
CBS News October 22, 2013, 2:54 PM


(CBS) - An obscure child custody case in Perugia, Italy has revealed what prosecutors allege was a rogue group of four detectives in the town's elite homicide squad. Three of the detectives currently under investigation worked on the Meredith Kercher homicide in 2007 - and may shed light on how the murder squad bungled the interrogation of Amanda Knox in November 2007.

This is really all it takes. One conviction of the idiot gang, and the trend is broken. Once the ISC realizes the ECHR is going to rule against them, they will be looking for the exit and someone(s) to pin the blame for this fiasco.

Ficarra who pressured the false confession, Zugarini the muscle, Napoleone the vicious mastermind. Giobbi, tempting as that moron may be, may just skate even though his stupidity will echo through the ages.

I would say watch the case closely and remember the police involved. Because these will be the ones who are fitted to take the blame for the Knox/Sollecito convictions.

There are so many who merit censure and criminal prosecution, starting obviously with Mignini. BUt at some point, the ISC will make the calculation that's its better to lose a pinky toe, then a foot.

But each group of the criminal gang of hoodlums posing as police that take the fall, that's just one more firewall down, before the blame rests where the blame is due - And Giuliano Mignini takes up residence in capanne prison, where he, that malevolent buffoon, has been destined to end up from before he was born.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are a credit to clear thinking Bill. I see that is necessary to remind the Machiavelli character once again of one of the provisions of Article 192, quoted recently by Numbers:

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence


2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

So there we have it: Evidence must be:

1) SERIOUS
2) PRECISE
3) CONSISTENT

Every claim he makes here should be subjected to this entry level test.

You are egregiously re-inventing the law. I can't do anything to help you but to note it.
Art. 192 does not set an "entry level", it is about the quality of evidence but does not prevent any piece of evidence from entering the probative material.
It is also a rule about the assessment of circumstantial evidence, meaning it implies that its nature is to be not probative.
The concepts of "serious" (gravi) and "precise" have their jurisprudential tradition. The concept of "consistent" does not really belong to art. 192, where the wording is slightly different and says " concordanti" that means " in agreement between each other".
Serious means that it is not easilly explainable by probable alternatives and that indicates a strong link between the suspect and the crime; precise means that points in a precise direction, that it is not vague information (for example a DNA profile can have a very high inherent precision since there is only one suspect with that profile); concordanti means the serious pieces point in the same direction.
There is anyway no rule or principle by which you csn throw out pieces of evidence insofar they don't meet a "standard": that would be glaringly against jurisprudence.

 

[Numbers]

Another ECtHR judgment of interest. The relevance of this one is not the issue of double jeopardy (here, civil judgment and criminal trials for the same facts), but that the Court ordered an immediate halt to the criminal trial, which was continuing after the civil judgment was final. See highlighted text below.

Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy - 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10 et al.

Judgment 4.3.2014 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Public hearing

Absence of public hearing before financial markets regulator empowered to impose heavy penalties: Article 6 § 1 applicable ; violation

Article 4 of Protocol No. 7

Right not to be tried or punished twice

Administrative penalties and criminal proceedings arising out of same set of facts: violation
......
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (a) and (c) (six votes to one) or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (five votes to two).

Article 41: EUR 10, 000 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

Article 46: The respondent State was to ensure that the new criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, which, according to the most recent information received, were still pending in respect of Mr Gabetti and Mr Grande Stevens, were closed as rapidly as possible.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Central area if dispute, yes or no?

I agree. It is certainly not "serious" evidence. This implies, you cannot convict someone if you only have this kind of evidence. However, it is not BS. It is admissible evidence and it is usable in a decision, when you also have a solid evidentiary frame made of other elements. Evidence of personality traits alone cannot be evidence of a fact, but once you have evidence of fact they can be used to conjecture and explain a scenario.

Hey Mach, didn't see a response from you so I'm reposting. But the question i'm asking here, is if you would agree that the central dispute we are having, is the relevance of Rudy Guede's footprints in meredith's blood, and his other biological evidence IN THE MURDER ROOM, while there is no similar evidence for either Amanda or Raf - evidence that is that can places them in the room WHEN the assault occurred.
I understand you disagree with the argument, but do you agree that this is the central point upon which our entire dialogue is based?

Here's the post again:

THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MURDER ROOM - The central issue in dispute.

Just want to say I think I'm noticing the major split between the guilters, and objective commenters on the site, and in general on the web.

The major split seems to be over the relevance of the fact that Rudy Guede left his footprints in blood, along with other biological evidence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher.

Recognizing that a clean-up in that murder room is impossible, yet unable to otherwise explain the absence of Amanda and Raf in that room, the prosecution (and guilters) reach for 'similar sounding' arguments -

For Example:

1. The crime scene was staged - i.e., the staged break-in. Because if the cottage is at it appears to be, a common crime scene, then there is no reason to implicate Amanda and Raf, so there has to be "staging" of some kind to create the appearance of innocence for Amanda and Raf.

2. There was a clean-up - i.e. outside the murder room, because a selective DNA/fingerprint clean-up is obviously impossible, and the single set of footsteps in Meredith's blood demonstrates there was obviously no clean-up in the murder room.

3. The foot prints revealed by luminol are in blood - because otherwise, the absence of Amanda and Raf's footprints in blood is inconsistent with their presence at the time of the murder.

4. The crime scene includes the whole cottage - because there is no evidence of Amanda and Raf's involvement in the murder room while at the same time there is plentiful evidence of Rudy Guede's presence, and Guede admits to being there.

By refusing to accept the logical conclusion that no evidence of Amanda and Raf in the room where Meredith was killed, necessitates the conclusion that they weren't there, the prosecution (and guilters) are then left to concoct fake evidence, and dispute authentic scientists and genuine expert opinion, and seek to replace reliable information with pseudo science and plainly dubious conjecture.

All of this combines with a simple unwavering refusal to accept the plain meaning of known facts.

Hence Mach thinks all of the above 4 reasons, and claims the contrary is so irrational that it cannot even be considered or discussed.

As long as the conversation is directed away from the murder room, the guilters and prosecution can talk all day. BUt once we focus on the condition of the murder room, there really is no case, and never has been.

 

[Kauffer]

Italian law

You are egregiously re-inventing the law. I can't do anything to help you but to note it.
Art. 192 does not set an "entry level", it is about the quality of evidence but does not prevent any piece of evidence from entering the probative material.
It is also a rule about the assessment of circumstantial evidence, meaning it implies that its nature is to be not probative.
The concepts of "serious" (gravi) and "precise" have their jurisprudential tradition. The concept of "consistent" does not really belong to art. 192, where the wording is slightly different and says " concordanti" that means " in agreement between each other".
Serious means that it is not easilly explainable by probable alternatives and that indicates a strong link between the suspect and the crime; precise means that points in a precise direction, that it is not vague information (for example a DNA profile can have a very high inherent precision since there is only one suspect with that profile); concordanti means the serious pieces point in the same direction.
There is anyway no rule or principle by which you csn throw out pieces of evidence insofar they don't meet a "standard": that would be glaringly against jurisprudence.

1) I have no problem with 'concordant' over 'consistent'
2) Article 192 is quite clear that circumstantial evidence which is neither serious, precise or concordant may not be used to establish a fact, yet we have seen examples in this case contrary to law.
3) Article 192 is silent on matters pertaining to admissibility, yet we know there is discretion on admissability since all the trial judges in this case have refused defence requests for evidence to be admitted into court - for example the testing of the presumed semen sample, re-examination of witnesses etc. Kindly refer me to the relevant article which deals with this.
4) Notwithstanding point 3), there is no indication that circumstantial evidence which is neither serious, precise or concordant (that is, does not meet the standard of all three), once adjudicated as such in trial, may be used for any reason, let alone fact finding. Kindly refer me to the relevant article authorising its use.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Don't smile; don't cry

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton — years after her divorce in 1991, she married an American, Rick Creighton, and added his name — says she felt trapped in a no-win situation. “If I smiled, I was belittling my daughter’s death,” she told Retro Report. “If I cried, I was acting.” NYT

 

[Kauffer]

Emotion

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton — years after her divorce in 1991, she married an American, Rick Creighton, and added his name — says she felt trapped in a no-win situation. “If I smiled, I was belittling my daughter’s death,” she told Retro Report. “If I cried, I was acting.” NYT

I suppose that funerals are the best places to observe the natural behaviour of human beings in this regard. Within a context of underlying sadness, one is witness to tears, silent crying, silence, impassiveness, blank expression, inscrutability, smiling and even laughter as a fond memory enters the consciousness if perhaps only fleetingly. I attended a funeral recently; this is what I observed. If you read John Kercher's book, he describes moments of levity and laughter within his family gatherings in the aftermath of Ms Kercher's death. Normal natural behaviour is just that; confirmation bias will make it seem like something else.

 

[AmyStrange]

Now that's scary...

-

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

-

I had problems with some of these also, but you can make a choice to either assume this proves she's a murderer or just that she's just odd. I'm odd too. I used to think (at first) that she was creepy, and I also thought she was guilty, until I critically looked at the evidence with probabilities in mind. I just don't put much stock in her bahavior anymore. It really doesn't prove anything. Go to a funeral and you'll see those kind of people all over the place.

But I still agree with you Vibio, it was really bad behavior.

As far as the Patrick Latko case is concerned (sorry I missed the big discussion), I never was a big fan of the no evidence of them in the room point, but with all the blood, it is still odd that here are not at least some footprints.

What I take away from the Patrick Latko case is that it does also prove the single attacker theory better than it proves Raffaele and Amanda are guilty because there's no proof they were there.

The BIGGEST problem with not having proof of someone in a murder room is that it means you can possibly prove anyone killed Meredith because you don't need proof they were in the room to prove they murdered her.

Now that's scary to me,

d

-
P.S. It also makes me wonder about the Patrick Latko case and that maybe I should take a look at the evidence myself in that case, if I can find anything on it...

-

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hey Machiavelli, I know you are a busy guy but I was wondering if you could help me out with a couple of things.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Stefanoni has a PhD, or are you asserting that Stefanoni had a PhD at the time of her work on the Kercher case?

Also can you explain how the underqualified laboratory technician Stefanoni managed to run a contamination-free lab without the proper equipment, while experienced professionals at the head of their field with state-of-the-art laboratories have never managed to do so? That seems weird to me.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are egregiously re-inventing the law. I can't do anything to help you but to note it.
Art. 192 does not set an "entry level", it is about the quality of evidence but does not prevent any piece of evidence from entering the probative material.
It is also a rule about the assessment of circumstantial evidence, meaning it implies that its nature is to be not probative.
The concepts of "serious" (gravi) and "precise" have their jurisprudential tradition. The concept of "consistent" does not really belong to art. 192, where the wording is slightly different and says " concordanti" that means " in agreement between each other".
Serious means that it is not easilly explainable by probable alternatives and that indicates a strong link between the suspect and the crime; precise means that points in a precise direction, that it is not vague information (for example a DNA profile can have a very high inherent precision since there is only one suspect with that profile); concordanti means the serious pieces point in the same direction.
There is anyway no rule or principle by which you csn throw out pieces of evidence insofar they don't meet a "standard": that would be glaringly against jurisprudence.

This is my understanding also, except the highlighted part. If an item of evidence is shown to be obviously false then there is no need to combine it with anything else. Properly considered, it's not evidence at all, except possibly of corruption. Most of the evidence in this case is of this kind.

 

[sept79]

-


-

I had problems with some of these also, but you can make a choice to either assume this proves she's a murderer or just that she's just odd. I'm odd too. I used to think (at first) that she was creepy, and I also thought she was guilty, until I critically looked at the evidence with probabilities in mind. I just don't put much stock in her bahavior anymore. It really doesn't prove anything. Go to a funeral and you'll see those kind of people all over the place.

But I still agree with you Vibio, it was really bad behavior.

As far as the Patrick Latko case is concerned (sorry I missed the big discussion), I never was a big fan of the no evidence of them in the room point, but with all the blood, it is still odd that here are not at least some footprints.

What I take away from the Patrick Latko case is that it does also prove the single attacker theory better than it proves Raffaele and Amanda are guilty because there's no proof they were there.

The BIGGEST problem with not having proof of someone in a murder room is that it means you can possibly prove anyone killed Meredith because you don't need proof they were in the room to prove they murdered her.

Now that's scary to me,

d

-
P.S. It also makes me wonder about the Patrick Latko case and that maybe I should take a look at the evidence myself in that case, if I can find anything on it...

-

I fail to see how a measure of one's normal, everyday behavior can be ascertained from observations made in abnormally stressful situations . . .

 

[Numbers]

-


-

I had problems with some of these also, but you can make a choice to either assume this proves she's a murderer or just that she's just odd. I'm odd too. I used to think (at first) that she was creepy, and I also thought she was guilty, until I critically looked at the evidence with probabilities in mind. I just don't put much stock in her bahavior anymore. It really doesn't prove anything. Go to a funeral and you'll see those kind of people all over the place.

But I still agree with you Vibio, it was really bad behavior.
.....

-

Vibio's statement was stronger, IIRC: "vile". And here's a definition of vile:

1
a : morally despicable or abhorrent <nothing is so vile as intellectual dishonesty>
b : physically repulsive : foul <a vile slum>
2
: of little worth or account : common; also : mean
3
: tending to degrade <vile employments>
4
: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious, contemptible

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vile

Perhaps a more tolerant view of the behavior would be that it was a product of relative immaturity and stress. But why be tolerant of anyone who appears to be a bit odd?

And what are to make of police who joke and laugh at crime scenes, even murders?