Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

The facts stands still and entirely: Pratillo Hellmann had no experience of criminal trials of any significance, and never had a career as a criminal judge. This is in striking contrast with Matteini Chiari, who instead had a very high profile career as a criminal Magistrate. Matteini Chiari was the prosecutor who brought Giulio Andreotti to trial and managed to have him convicted, Coppi and Giulia Bongiorno were his adversaries. There is a historic antagonism between Bongiorno and Matteini Chiari.

That sounds like a good reason to have a judge recused.

I am not sure why you will accuse Judge Hellmann of accepting a bribe, claim to know the amount of the bribe, yet not disclose the amount. It sounds trivial that you'd accuse so, but be coy as to the amount.

Machiavelli. Do you know this stuff about the various judges by observation, or has someone else told you all this?

 

[Bill Williams]

The British documentary, of the 5 key questions of the Knox (sic) case. Even though I agree with what is in the documentary - in the main - I wish the focus was on the evidence, rather than on the one person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OHyzVN2tJY

 

[Numbers]

There's an interesting opinion piece (article) about Italy in the NY Times. It's mostly about Prime Minister Renzi, the Italian economy and culture, and the world. I would not call it negative, but it touches on a few of the differences between American and Italian culture.

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/o...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

The Consolations of Italy

DEC. 4, 2014

by Roger Cohen


Here is a brief excerpt {highlighted emphasis added}:

There is nothing that unusual for a Roman about going home for lunch (or even having “la Mamma” prepare it). Resistance to change can also be healthy. It is a buffer against dislocation and loneliness, preserving the ties of family and sociability. Cultural skepticism about change runs deep. Unlike Americans, Italians have no desire to reinvent themselves. Rome restrains the itch to believe all can be changed utterly. Style is its refuge.

 

[Numbers]

Another interesting news item: Research on interrogation methods designed to prevent or reduce the probability of false confession while increasing the likelihood of gaining truthful information:

http://www.labmanager.com/news/2014/11/preventing-false-confessions?fw1pk=2#.VIFOeclLCfS

An excerpt:

AMES, Iowa – An Iowa State University psychology professor is leading an international research team developing new interrogation methods designed to reduce false confessions and more effectively gather intelligence critical to national security.

The team’s mission is to leverage research and theory to improve interrogation practices, said professor Christian Meissner. Civil rights advocates and lawmakers, among others, have criticized investigators for using harsh interrogation tactics. Despite all the criticism, few have offered solutions or proposed changes to how investigators question suspects – until now.

The research not only focuses on techniques, but also tools investigators can use to determine if a suspect is telling the truth. For example, fidgeting and nervousness, once considered indicators that a suspect is lying, are unreliable, Meissner said. Instead, the research shows that recalling a truthful story from memory produces a narrative that is more coherent, has greater detail, and includes more corrections than false stories. Investigators can better detect lies by asking unanticipated questions that are related to the event or topic or asking subjects to recall their story in reverse chronological order, he added.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie

I have been following your efforts to pin Machiavelli down but not attending closely enough to be sure of the problem you have set him, or he has set himself. I have a highly imperfect acquaintance with the pattern of shoe/footprints too, having assigned that, along with many other things, to the file marked 'other guys know about this'. Would you please briefly explain the poser? I have no doubt at all that Machiavelli gets it completely but I, and perhaps others, could use a recap so that I/we can take my/our place in the chorus calling for an answer.

The problem, aside from the lab tests, is that the luminol traces form no trail or pattern. Nothing links them to the crime or even suggests a coherent activity that might link them to each other. In the past, Machiavelli has tried to establish a connection by claiming that Amanda and Raffaele used towels and the bathmat to slide around at the crime scene, thereby concealing their tracks except in a few random places. I have asked him to elaborate on this theory and explain how the evidence at the crime scene supports it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - who was it at Knox's Nov 5/6 interrogation who first made reference to the, "See you later," SMS message from Lumumba?

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli
the end justifies the means.
political realism.
political pragmatism
an author of a famous political treatise
not himself a politician but an advisor to 15th century Italian leaders

The above is a candid recollection typed by a gradute historian on this keyboard, thus violation of ISC rules.

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli
the end justifies the means.
political realism.
political pragmatism
an author of a famous political treatise
not himself a politician but an advisor to 15th century Italian leaders

The above is a candid recollection typed by a gradute historian on this keyboard, thus violation of ISC rules.

 

[anglolawyer]

The problem, aside from the lab tests, is that the luminol traces form no trail or pattern. Nothing links them to the crime or even suggests a coherent activity that might link them to each other. In the past, Machiavelli has tried to establish a connection by claiming that Amanda and Raffaele used towels and the bathmat to slide around at the crime scene, thereby concealing their tracks except in a few random places. I have asked him to elaborate on this theory and explain how the evidence at the crime scene supports it.

I see. Thanks. The answer will be interesting.

Machiavelli has them running straight out after the killing so as to allow Nara's evidence to mean something. Therefore, they must have been wearing shoes because she heard running footsteps. That must mean Guede's shoeprints were made when running out but that Amanda and Raffaele luckily acquired no blood on their feet during the assault. When they went back to do the clean up and fake the burglary they must have got seriously imbued with her blood for some reason. I suppose that happened when they moved the body and staged a sexual assault. This type of crime theory is familiar from other cases in which what really happened really did happen but the cops obsess with the idea that something more complicated happened and the perps just made it look like the obvious happened. Darlie Routier (awaiting the death penalty) is one and then there's the guy (he has been exonerated, name escapes me Edit: Morton?) who came home to find his wife beaten to death in front of her kids and the cops pinned it on him, explaining everything at the scene to fit their theory. David Camm is also of this genre. I am with you on Mach. He is obviously an intelligent person but to buy obvious crap like this suggests something amiss.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli
the end justifies the means.
political realism.
political pragmatism
an author of a famous political treatise
not himself a politician but an advisor to 15th century Italian leaders

The above is a candid recollection typed by a gradute historian on this keyboard, thus violation of ISC rules.

Niccolò Machiavelli was Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence (the equivalent of prime minister), he was definitely a politician and a leader himself. He was also a courageous moral leader.

 

[Machiavelli]

I see. Thanks. The answer will be interesting.

Machiavelli has them running straight out after the killing so as to allow Nara's evidence to mean something. Therefore, they must have been wearing shoes because she heard running footsteps. That must mean Guede's shoeprints were made when running out but that Amanda and Raffaele luckily acquired no blood on their feet during the assault. When they went back to do the clean up and fake the burglary they must have got seriously imbued with her blood for some reason. I suppose that happened when they moved the body and staged a sexual assault. This type of crime theory is familiar from other cases in which what really happened really did happen but the cops obsess with the idea that something more complicated happened and the perps just made it look like the obvious happened. Darlie Routier (awaiting the death penalty) is one and then there's the guy (he has been exonerated, name escapes me Edit: Morton?) who came home to find his wife beaten to death in front of her kids and the cops pinned it on him, explaining everything at the scene to fit their theory. David Camm is also of this genre. I am with you on Mach. He is obviously an intelligent person but to buy obvious crap like this suggests something amiss.

The presence of bare footprints in diluted blood is not something usual ir obvious. The Theories about a post-mortem sexual violence are not speculations about something obvious, neither are scenarios where Rudy walks back to the door a second time to lock it. These are just some of the details. In fact all elements in the lone perpetrator scenario are improbable, unsupported and not connected between each other under any reasonable thread whatsoever. They are completely incoherent and obviously contradictory.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh for Christ sake. After asking you for weeks to explain your theory, and being ignored for weeks, this is what I finally get back. I guess it's as close as I could hope to an admission that you are stumped by the problem you have created for yourself. But really... you are an intelligent, educated man. I have no idea how old you are, but I assume you are well into adulthood. Do you not feel the least bit embarrassed to be writing this kind of gibberish?

I don't see any problem. The analysis of luminol prints requires a careful comprehensive picture of the physical traces. Evidence analysis starts from general considerations about the whole set of this evidence. Considerations are mostly exclusionary. On the other hand it would be impossible to start a reasoning based on a specific sequence, since there may be no evidence of one particular sequence of movements. But there is also no evidence that any sequence is impossible or incoherent: if such logical evidence exist you should be able to make your point with no need of me putting forward a theory.

 

[MDDVS]

The presence of bare footprints in diluted blood is not something usual ir obvious. The Theories about a post-mortem sexual violence are not speculations about something obvious, neither are scenarios where Rudy walks back to the door a second time to lock it. These are just some of the details. In fact all elements in the lone perpetrator scenario are improbable, unsupported and not connected between each other under any reasonable thread whatsoever. They are completely incoherent and obviously contradictory.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery, etc.

 

[Dan O.]

The presence of bare footprints in diluted blood is not something usual ir obvious. The Theories about a post-mortem sexual violence are not speculations about something obvious, neither are scenarios where Rudy walks back to the door a second time to lock it. These are just some of the details. In fact all elements in the lone perpetrator scenario are improbable, unsupported and not connected between each other under any reasonable thread whatsoever. They are completely incoherent and obviously contradictory.

Hay Machiavelly, show us your supporting evidence. Have you got a map that shows the positions and orientation of the bloody shoe prints? Have you got an explanation for why there are no small Luminol tracts documented similar to what would be produced by Rudy returning to Meredith's room? The luminol even missed the whole bloody shoeprints at both ends of the hall. Why is that?

Your canned arguments are repetitious spam. when are you going to start acknowledging the counter arguments against the swill you dish out?

 

[anglolawyer]

The presence of bare footprints in diluted blood is not something usual ir obvious. The Theories about a post-mortem sexual violence are not speculations about something obvious, neither are scenarios where Rudy walks back to the door a second time to lock it. These are just some of the details. In fact all elements in the lone perpetrator scenario are improbable, unsupported and not connected between each other under any reasonable thread whatsoever. They are completely incoherent and obviously contradictory.

I don't see any problem. The analysis of luminol prints requires a careful comprehensive picture of the physical traces. Evidence analysis starts from general considerations about the whole set of this evidence. Considerations are mostly exclusionary. On the other hand it would be impossible to start a reasoning based on a specific sequence, since there may be no evidence of one particular sequence of movements. But there is also no evidence that any sequence is impossible or incoherent: if such logical evidence exist you should be able to make your point with no need of me putting forward a theory.

When I said the answer would be interesting I was wrong. You appear to have retreated inside an impenetrable wall of verbiage.

 

[Desert Fox]

The presence of bare footprints in diluted blood is not something usual ir obvious. The Theories about a post-mortem sexual violence are not speculations about something obvious, neither are scenarios where Rudy walks back to the door a second time to lock it. These are just some of the details. In fact all elements in the lone perpetrator scenario are improbable, unsupported and not connected between each other under any reasonable thread whatsoever. They are completely incoherent and obviously contradictory.

“Past and present religious atrocities have occured not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Who says that everything in a crime scene is going to be coherent. . . . Who ways that Rudy Guede was being rational at this point?

 

[Desert Fox]

Hay Machiavelly, show us your supporting evidence. Have you got a map that shows the positions and orientation of the bloody shoe prints? Have you got an explanation for why there are no small Luminol tracts documented similar to what would be produced by Rudy returning to Meredith's room? The luminol even missed the whole bloody shoeprints at both ends of the hall. Why is that?

Your canned arguments are repetitious spam. when are you going to start acknowledging the counter arguments against the swill you dish out?

Even if we were discussing the case as a just a coffee shop discussion not in a legal setting, we need to star with the position that we don't know what happened. Seems to me that Machiavellian has never operated that way but instead assume that they are guilty and fling everything at it in hopes of some excrement sticking.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

foot track in Amanda's room

We should also point out that the shape of two of those prints revealed a set of compatibilities with Amanda Knox ("probable identity") and one of the two prints pointing towards the Kitchen (actually, towards Romanelli's room) had a larger size, belonged to another individual and revealed a shape indicating a probable identity with Sollecito.
Don't forget that another double-DNA luminol stain was found in Romanelli's room.

Machiavelli,

Do you mean Rep. 180? That foot track has a mark that is too short to be Amanda's second toe, and there is no mark where Amanda's second toe should be.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Do you mean Rep. 180? That foot track has a mark that is too short to be Amanda's second toe, and there is no mark where Amanda's second toe should be.

Yes I know about this problem. This is an argument, however I do not consider it strong compared to the contrary ones. One thing to point out, is that such debate about a second toe was not part of the trial; the argument was never evidence discussed in cross questionings. A question about it was never asked to Rinaldi by the defence; this lack of trial discussion and defence objection is one of the aspects why the argument is lame from the start.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Who says that everything in a crime scene is going to be coherent. . . . Who ways that Rudy Guede was being rational at this point?

But basically nothing is coherent in the lone wolf scenario.