Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean they "retained lawyers"?

They were working in a law firm.

You mean the "hired" lawyers? Oh Really? Who?

BTW: Even Knox found their law firm helpful (from her email):

" First things first though, my roommates both
work for lawyers, and they are going to try to send a request through
on monday to retrieve important documents of ours that are still in
the house. Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used
to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks
that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection
within the contract. "

This is a very helpful post.

Given that senior detectives said they solved this case quickly, solely on behavioural clues even before the forensics came in.....

..... this post above is evidence that there really was no distinction, really, between Amanda Knox and her flatmates and/or acquaintances.

It makes me wonder what those behavioural issues were which caused the cops to focus in on Amanda and Raffaele. Perhaps the first "behaviour" was when Raffaele told Napoleoni about the pooh in the toilet, and Napoleoni wondered why Raffaele was so intent on her noticing it. It was the "now you see it, now you don't" pooh in Filomena's/Laura's toilet, which eventually was traced to Rudy Guede.

However, the "behaviour" was Napoleoni finding it somewhat suspicious that Raffaele insisted she see it.

What you've done, Vibio, is demonstrate above that in essence there really was no difference between any of the friends in their behaviour. For every Knox comment ("She ***** bled to death") which some saw as suspicious, there was another like Filomena's boyfriend's comment that, "She had been stabbed with the bread."

 

[Numbers]

What do you mean they "retained lawyers"? They were working in a law firm. You mean the "hired" lawyers? Oh Really? Who?
BTW: Even Knox found their law firm helpful (from her email):

" First things first though, my roommates both
work for lawyers, and they are going to try to send a request through
on monday to retrieve important documents of ours that are still in
the house. Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used
to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks
that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection
within the contract. "

Vibio,

Thanks for your questions.
I know they worked for a law firm. I had read that they used a lawyer from their firm, but I have no specific information on who they used. I do not know if technically they "hired" or "retained" this lawyer that I have read that they used. If you have that information, you are entitled to post it and inform the rest of us.

 

[Numbers]

What do you mean they "retained lawyers"?

They were working in a law firm.

You mean the "hired" lawyers? Oh Really? Who?

BTW: Even Knox found their law firm helpful (from her email):

" First things first though, my roommates both work for lawyers, and they are going to try to send a request through on monday to retrieve important documents of ours that are still in the house. Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection within the contract. "

Vibio,
I also wish to thank you for the part of your post that I highlighted. It shows that Amanda, Filomena, and Laura were all thinking of practical issues after Meredith's death, including retrieving documents (some of which Amanda may have needed for school or because of other practical reasons). And they were concerned about where they were going to live, since their rental house had become a closed crime scene.

What is interesting about this is that Amanda has been asserted to have displayed behavior that was too practical or callous. In fact, all three young women, the survivors of the flat, needed to attend to practical issues such as finding new housing. The focus on Amanda, rather than also noticing the identical practical behavior of Filomena and Laura, is a sign of bias.

 

[js202]

tu quoque!

Do you see how you misrepresent? I write about bribery and corruption in Italy which minimally four out of every ten Italians believe is rife in the judiciary. You respond with a post about Americans' lack of confidence in theirs! Then you say that you "don't see much difference"!

A lack of confidence in one is not the same as widespread allegations of bribery, corruption and abuse of power in the other. Do you see that now?

Ever since he came rather acerbically roaring out of the gates here, in his own mind at least, Vibio has made much hay whilst practicing the tu quoque fallacy. Presumably he practices it as a powerful tool of compartmentalization as he endeavors to maintain the conviction that his multi-year vilification of two innocent persons has been a great use of his leisure time.

 

[Bill Williams]

There was an intriguing post on IIP: can anyone confirm or deny that the outside doorhandle to Meredith's room was ever tested?

I also find it extremely odd that the 'hall side' door handle of Meredith's bedroom door was not sampled for DNA for several reasons;

o The killer had to pull the door closed and lock it, so an obvious forensic search for the culprit should have included the door handle.
o Raffaele had tried to open the bedroom door so it's certain he touched the handle. Given his DNA is later found on the clasp and the issue of contamination arises, would it not also be obvious to check the handle to see if his DNA is there and therefore a logical source for the contamination?
o Lastly, Raffaele was not the only one to touch the door handle although since the door was then kicked open it likely would have had mostly Raffaele's and Meredith's. Hence, it would be good to know what other DNA profiles were on the handle and if that mapped to what was found on the clasp.

All this is moot if the handle was actually tested, but I think I've done a fairly extensive review of all of the DNA samples done and I don't see it.​

Cassazione has set the standard that the defence must show the path of contamination before the court should consider contamination to even be possible.

This goes to the heart of justice in this case..... if that door handle was not even checked.... and how many officers touched that doorhandled, and did not change a glove before handling things like the bra-clasp, with obviously dirty gloves!!!

Great post on IIP.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ever since he came rather acerbically roaring out of the gates here, in his own mind at least, Vibio has made much hay whilst practicing the tu quoque fallacy. Presumably he practices it as a powerful tool of compartmentalization as he endeavors to maintain the conviction that his multi-year vilification of two innocent persons has been a great use of his leisure time.

I'd never heard of that one:

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"​

 

[js202]

I'd never heard of that one:

Yes, it is rhetoric's equivalent of a schoolyard taunt. A punk move, immature and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Welshman]

Vibio is right in saying that corruption and abuses happen under the American justice system. I agree with other posters who say it is illogical to say the Italian justice system can not be criticised because abuses occur in another country's justice system. The American system has one advantage over the Italian system. It does not have Calunnia laws which are used against people who speak out against abuses committed by corrupt prosecutors and police officers. If such a law existed under the American system, I am sure Vibio would be very vocal in attacking this law and how it is another example of how corrupt the US justice system.

 

[Vibio]

Still waiting to hear your explanation for how you stab someone to death in a space no bigger than 8'x6' within a room with four people in it and leave no evidence or take any way, despite the presence of least 2 litres of spilled and aspirated blood. Do we take it from your embarrassing silence on the matter that you have no explanation?

*sigh*

I've already posted about this issue a number of times. Please do keep up. And Mach has written plenty about it also. Take it or leave it. And I've already given my belief about the crime and where Knox was at the time.

 

[Wattson]

*sigh*

I've already posted about this issue a number of times. Please do keep up. And Mach has written plenty about it also. Take it or leave it. And I've already given my belief about the crime and where Knox was at the time.

Do you have a post number? I'm very interested in reading it.

 

[Kauffer]

*sigh*

I've already posted about this issue a number of times. Please do keep up. And Mach has written plenty about it also. Take it or leave it. And I've already given my belief about the crime and where Knox was at the time.

Oh yes that's right, you don't agree with your cult leader do you?

 

[Desert Fox]

*sigh*

I've already posted about this issue a number of times. Please do keep up. And Mach has written plenty about it also. Take it or leave it. And I've already given my belief about the crime and where Knox was at the time.

Should be able to link to it then?

 

[Kauffer]

Should be able to link to it then?

Vibio thinks that Ms Knox was in the kitchen...just like Mignini speculated could be true. Vibio doesn't think Ms Knox stabbed and murdered Ms Kercher. Do you Vibio?

 

[Bill Williams]

Still waiting to hear your explanation for how you stab someone to death in a space no bigger than 8'x6' within a room with four people in it and leave no evidence or take any way, despite the presence of least 2 litres of spilled and aspirated blood. Do we take it from your embarrassing silence on the matter that you have no explanation?

*sigh*

I've already posted about this issue a number of times. Please do keep up. And Mach has written plenty about it also. Take it or leave it. And I've already given my belief about the crime and where Knox was at the time.

I would also appreciate a link to the argument either you or Machiavelli have proposed. Your belief is that Knox was in the kitchen, so that's why she did not get "forensics" on either herself or her clothing. Mach thinks differently.

More importantly, neither of the convicting judges in their motivations reports deal with this either. If I am mistaken about this, I'd appreciate a cite, but I cannot find it on my own.

 

[Wattson]

Vibio thinks that Ms Knox was in the kitchen...just like Mignini speculated could be true. Vibio doesn't think Ms Knox stabbed and murdered Ms Kercher. Do you Vibio?

Well, how do you explain her DNA on the handle of the knife. There is no other explanation other than Knox stabbed her.

 

[Desert Fox]

Vibio thinks that Ms Knox was in the kitchen...just like Mignini speculated could be true. Vibio doesn't think Ms Knox stabbed and murdered Ms Kercher. Do you Vibio?

Sorry, I had forgotten that. . . .The problem is that she should not be convicted of murder. In Vibio's book, unless she actively helped the murder in some way, she should only have been convicted on hiding a crime.

I just realized something. . . .In Italy, you can get a larger jail sentence for slander than you can for pedophilia (Even if not then overturned by their supreme court.) That is really screwed up.

 

[Kauffer]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove breaches of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

According to you. Fine I have no problem with that. Believe what you want.

The issue has been discussed over and over and over and over again. There is the Nencini Report. Mach has written about the issue very well here. By now everyone can draw their own conclusions.



I don't know how many points of the room were tested. I do know that one of the places tested did find Raff's DNA.... and I (unlike you) believe the conclusions about those findings.

And yes, Guede left traces but certainly I can't (nor can any of you) conclude that this would automatically mean that there must be traces found for K&S as well. I don't know if there are similar cases.

Futhermore: I have not seen the prosecution's video reconstruction of the murder. I know nothing about forensics, and if the dynamics of the murder could allow one to not leave traces in the murder room. I also posted about a recent bloody murder where no biological traces or even footprints were found ...although, there too, they were probably left but not found.

I don't rule out Nencini, but my own personal theory has always been that while the prosecution got the right people, I've always felt Knox (as she confessed) was indeed in the kitchen as Kercher was stabbed. I do not believe it was a forced confession. And I do believe Guede was not alone in the murder room.

But after going through as much of this trial as I have, the evidence, the explanations on both sides .... from the moment Knox leaves the apartment to go fetch a mop....the one thing that remains truly unbelievable for me, is that Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage that evening.

I would also appreciate a link to the argument either you or Machiavelli have proposed. Your belief is that Knox was in the kitchen, so that's why she did not get "forensics" on either herself or her clothing. Mach thinks differently.

More importantly, neither of the convicting judges in their motivations reports deal with this either. If I am mistaken about this, I'd appreciate a cite, but I cannot find it on my own.

There you go - Vibio's post on this shown above.

 

[Annella]

I actually think you may be getting close, as a scenario it seems to fit with a young man who knows he is illicitly in the home of four women. The theory looks sound.
I wonder if others will weigh in here, because it fills gaps that have puzzled me, particularly the unlikelihood of quasi necrophilia.

From John Douglas on sexual homicide:

Common Forensic Findings. The disorganized offender is often socially inept and has strong feelings of inadequacy. These feelings of deficiency will compel him to assault the victim in an ambush, blitz style, that will immediately incapacitate her or him. Injury effected in a disorganized sexual homicide is usually done when the offender feels the least intimidated and the most comfortable with the victim. This will be when the victim is unconscious, dying, or postmortem. In addition, sexual assault will probably occur at this time for the same reasons.

There may be depersonalization, which entails mutilation to the face and overkill (excessive amount or severity of wounds or injury) to specific body parts. The face genitals, and breasts are most often targeted for overkill. Body parts may be missing from the scene.

The blitz style of attack common to this homicide is often manifested by focused blunt trauma to the head and face and lack of defensive wounds. There is a prevalence of attack from behind. Since death is immediate to establish control over the victim, there is minimal use of restraints.

Sexual acts are postmortem and often involve insertion of foreign objects into body orifices (insertional necrophilia). This is often combined with acts of mutilation – for example, slashing, stabbing, and biting of the buttocks and breasts. Since these acts often do not coincide with complete acts of sexual penetration, evidence of semen may be found in the victim’s clothing or (less frequently) wounds.

Most frequently death results from asphyxia, strangulation, blunt force, or the use of a pointed, sharp instrument.

Investigative Considerations

The disorganized offender usually lives alone or with a parental figure. He lives or works within close proximity to the crime scene. He has a history of inconsistent of poor work performance. He also has a past that demonstrates a lack of interpersonal skills, which may be manifested by involvement in relationships with a partner much younger or older than he.

Preoffense circumstances demonstrate minimal situational stress and change in lifestyle. He will be considered odd by those who know him. This offender usually is sloppy and disheveled, with nocturnal habits such as walking aimlessly around his neighborhood.

Post offense behavior exhibited may be a change in eating habits and drinking habits (more alcohol consumption) and nervousness. He may also have an inappropriate interest in the crime, for example, by frequently engaging in conversation about it.

Disorganized behavior may be evident in victim selection, crime scene, and forensics due to youthfulness, drug or alcohol impairment external stressors (for example, fear of discovery), or lack of criminal sophistication.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, I had forgotten that. . . .The problem is that she should not be convicted of murder. In Vibio's book, unless she actively helped the murder in some way, she should only have been convicted on hiding a crime.

I just realized something. . . .In Italy, you can get a larger jail sentence for slander than you can for pedophilia (Even if not then overturned by their supreme court.) That is really screwed up.

Calunnia is not "slander", calunnia is an aggravated type of obstruction of justice. Indeed you can get upt to 20 years for calunnia.

As for the first statement: it is basically wrong, for several legal and factual reasons. Among those reasons, the fact that Meredith Kercher did not die immediately when she was stabbed. The simple being there while failing to attempt to bring an immediate rescue (calling police and paramedics), even if it were the only action, would be accounted for as a full responsability in a muder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Vibio is right in saying that corruption and abuses happen under the American justice system. I agree with other posters who say it is illogical to say the Italian justice system can not be criticised because abuses occur in another country's justice system. The American system has one advantage over the Italian system. It does not have Calunnia laws which are used against people who speak out against abuses committed by corrupt prosecutors and police officers. If such a law existed under the American system, I am sure Vibio would be very vocal in attacking this law and how it is another example of how corrupt the US justice system.

Calunnia law says you may not place false evidence about a crime against a person whilst you know that person is innocent of that crime.
(The US has perjury laws which are often equivalent).

I don't see what's wrong with this principle.