Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

BUMPING AGAIN:

Why couldn't Rudy just have done it alone?



Mach, can you explain what you mean with this?

What evidence do you believe is inconsistent with Rudy Guede having killed Meredith Kercher all by himself?

(..).

But I explained a lot by now. All of it. Just every piece of evidence becomes disconnected from any logical thread or probable explanation. A number of findings become unexplained or contrary to the evidence. And moreover you would nerd to inject a ludicrous number of unsupported postulates, of a kind that would require a burden of proof.

This is not an answer to carbonjam77's question. It is simply a restatement of your premise. Why bother if that's all you're going to do? Why waste the keystrokes?

Also to bump.... who was it who first made reference at Knox's Nov 5/6 interrogation of the "See you later" SMS message? Was it Ficarra or was it Knox?

 

[Bill Williams]

But I explained a lot by now. All of it. Just every piece of evidence becomes disconnected from any logical thread or probable explanation. A number of findings become unexplained or contrary to the evidence. And moreover you would nerd to inject a ludicrous number of unsupported postulates, of a kind that would require a burden of proof.

As far as I have seen, you have presented nothing which contradicts a single assailant. If you think you can demonstrate that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are involved, starting from the neutral "I don't know position." As I wrote previously, this is actually moving the goalpost in your direction. Should start with innocent and guilt has to be proven from there.

In any event, there are going to be items which cannot be explained. Just listening to a talk about the murder of President Kennedy. While the main evidence is that Oswald did it alone, there are always unexplained items. There are always going to be "I don't know" items about the murder of Meredeth as well. The solid case is that Guede did it alone however.

The one thing I will disagree with you, Desert Fox, is that it is not moving the goal post in Machiavelli's direction. The "I don't know" position about multiple assailants is supposed to be evaluated that way.

It's the issue of Knox's and Sollecito's participation which is a BARD sort of thing.

Of the 9 experts who gave evidence to the Massei court, 8 said that a single-attacker could not be ruled out (based on the evidence in front of them). IIRC only one of those said that a single attacker was the most likely scenario.

Hellmann's reasoning was the correct reasoning, though. His court was not there to rule on the multiple attacker scenario per se - it was to rule on whether or not AK and/or RS were those extra people. Once he had decided they were not, then it is not up to his court to further rule about the multiple attacker scenario per se. That's up to some other court when other people (other than Rudy Guede) are charged with the crime.

This is where I think the Italian Supreme Court particularly erred in it's reevaluation of Hellmann's decision. On page 6 of the March 2013 Cassation motivations report, Chieffi discusses the issue of multiple attackers per se....

Even considering the type of activity
undertaken by the attacker, it is very difficult to imagine an isolated and
individual action, because it includes actions to strip the victim (who was
fully dressed when the aggressor came), to violate her in her private parts
and to strike her with the knife, and the victim was definitely grabbed by
the wrists to avoid a reaction, since the DNA of Guede was found on the
cuff of the sweatshirt of young English woman; but the varied nature of the
lesions, their number and their wide ditribution led to the belief that there
was more than one attacker​

In the three places where Chieffi discusses this, even Cassazione does not link this issue to Knox and/or Sollecito directly. So why is it even in a decision regarding them?

 

[Welshman]

TOTAL UNADULTERATED NONSENSE. I don't understand why it is necessary to lie in this forum

Machiavelli constantly accuses Amanda of lying but lies himself in his posts. What a hypocrite. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele is such a slam dunk why does Machiavelli and other PGP have to resort to lying?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not that we denigrate him. It's that we don't believe him; since it's not credible. It makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to (and that ge cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down). It also makes little sense to put together an attempt to break the door and the fact that Knox downplayed the importance of the locked door: it's inconsistent; or to put it together with the fact that they had waited at less another 15 minutes before calling the police after Filomena told them to do so immediately: if they felt that opening the door was so urgent to the point of attempting to break it down, this is also inconsistent.

Utter, utter nonsense. And symptomatic of poor, biassed thinking.

An objective, rational thinker would make the following observation: what if Sollecito did not want to do material damage to the door or the frame? What if he didn't want to risk damaging the door/frame and the consequent financial penalties from the landlord, especially if it all turned out to be a false alarm?

If that were the case (and it seems entirely logical that it WAS the case), then the series of events and the observed outcome all become entirely plausible. Here's how it goes:

1) Sollecito and Knox are worried about Kercher's whereabouts - they don't know where she is, she's not answering her phones, and they worry about whether she might be inside her locked room.

2) Sollecito therefore tries to gain entry to her room. He tries to force the door, but in doing so, the frame starts to crack.

3) Sollecito thinks along the lines of: "Woops. If I carry on like this, let alone use even more force, then I'm going to totally break the frame. If I do that, then Amanda will almost certainly incur the cost of repair, whereas if I stop now it will be a very cheap and easy repair. What's more, we don't know whether or not Meredith is actually in her room, let alone whether she's in any actual trouble, so it's simply not worth risking doing serious damage to the door frame purely on the chance that Meredith might be in the room and in need of our help. Therefore I'll stop before I do any more damage."


That's how a reasonable, rational, objective person might evaluate the situation as an entirely feasible possibility. In my view, only a partisan, biased poor thinker would reach the conclusion that "it makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to and that he cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down".

Furthermore, poor thinking also leads to the bogus "reasoning" that Knox and Sollecito must have been frantically worried at that point, while they waited some time to call Romanelli. In fact, it's far, far more likely (you know, thinking in an objective, rational way) that Knox and Sollecito only had moderate concern at that point. And if that were the case, then it makes eminent sense that Sollecito would have abandoned his attempt to get the door open when he realised that he would have to totally break the frame in order to do so, and it also of course makes eminent sense that Knox and Sollecito took some time to call Romanelli. I think it's very highly likely that Knox's recollection of panic at this point is an (understandable) ex post facto rationalisation on her part. I think that the actual evidence points to the clear likelihood that Knox and Sollecito were certainly concerned, but nowhere near to the point of panic at that point.

And of course once the Postal Police turned up with the two phones, this was a material new factor that naturally turned prior concern into genuine panic and worry. That's why, in the light of this new information, it now became imperative to break open the door, whatever the cost in damage might be.

 

[Machiavelli]

Don't forget the "brown" panties.

I interpreted this as "brown"

 

[Bill Williams]

Utter, utter nonsense. And symptomatic of poor, biassed thinking.

An objective, rational thinker would make the following observation: what if Sollecito did not want to do material damage to the door or the frame? What if he didn't want to risk damaging the door/frame and the consequent financial penalties from the landlord, especially if it all turned out to be a false alarm?

If that were the case (and it seems entirely logical that it WAS the case), then the series of events and the observed outcome all become entirely plausible. Here's how it goes:

1) Sollecito and Knox are worried about Kercher's whereabouts - they don't know where she is, she's not answering her phones, and they worry about whether she might be inside her locked room.

2) Sollecito therefore tries to gain entry to her room. He tries to force the door, but in doing so, the frame starts to crack.

3) Sollecito thinks along the lines of: "Woops. If I carry on like this, let alone use even more force, then I'm going to totally break the frame. If I do that, then Amanda will almost certainly incur the cost of repair, whereas if I stop now it will be a very cheap and easy repair. What's more, we don't know whether or not Meredith is actually in her room, let alone whether she's in any actual trouble, so it's simply not worth risking doing serious damage to the door frame purely on the chance that Meredith might be in the room and in need of our help. Therefore I'll stop before I do any more damage."


That's how a reasonable, rational, objective person might evaluate the situation as an entirely feasible possibility. In my view, only a partisan, biased poor thinker would reach the conclusion that "it makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to and that he cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down".

Furthermore, poor thinking also leads to the bogus "reasoning" that Knox and Sollecito must have been frantically worried at that point, while they waited some time to call Romanelli. In fact, it's far, far more likely (you know, thinking in an objective, rational way) that Knox and Sollecito only had moderate concern at that point. And if that were the case, then it makes eminent sense that Sollecito would have abandoned his attempt to get the door open when he realised that he would have to totally break the frame in order to do so, and it also of course makes eminent sense that Knox and Sollecito took some time to call Romanelli. I think it's very highly likely that Knox's recollection of panic at this point is an (understandable) ex post facto rationalisation on her part. I think that the actual evidence points to the clear likelihood that Knox and Sollecito were certainly concerned, but nowhere near to the point of panic at that point.

And of course once the Postal Police turned up with the two phones, this was a material new factor that naturally turned prior concern into genuine panic and worry. That's why, in the light of this new information, it now became imperative to break open the door, whatever the cost in damage might be.

Rats. You beat me to it.

And please note, the "panic and worry" was lost on everyone, everyone except Filomena. Not even the postal police thought Meredith absent her phones was cause for worry.... which speaks to the scene outside of Meredith's room.

The scene in the cottage, outside of Meredith's room and pre-grisly discovery, did not suggest anything remotely akin to what had happened inside the room.

I've just read pomp57's posting on IIP of Judge Chieffi's marching orders to Judge Nencini, the one where Nencini is supposed to take all circumstantial evidence no matter how shaky and weave them into an "osmotic" understanding of the murder.

Whether intended or not, Nencini has simply taken all the circumstantial evidence which he believes relates to AK and RS's responsibility, and excludes everything else which points away from them.

This is case in point. If there are two options for interpreting Raffaele's actions at Meredith's door - there is a high agenda (both among the pro-guilt lobby and the Italian courts) to choose the option which tends towards guilt.

I know it is the State of California's definition, and not necessarily Italy's, but one case in California had a judge giving this charge to a jury:

"If you have two equally probable explanations for something, presumption of innocence means that you must choose the option which tends to acquit." In Italy, according to Chieffi's beliefs about osmosis, the item can still be amassed omsotically against other similar unlikely things to come to a determination of guilty.

However, the bigger issue about Raffaele's actions is this - and it is not Raffaele's actions.....

..... it is the Scientific Police's non-action of taking forensics from the outdoor handle of Meredith's door.

Does Machiavelli agree with the reason why the Scientific Police consciously omitted taking forensics from the outdoor handle? ("Why would we do that? The crime was committed inside the room.")

This is part and parcel of what turns out to be double-speak of the pro-guilt lobby - that the whole cottage is the crime scene. Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - and this is the way the investigators collected evidence!

 

[Bill Williams]

I interpreted this as "brown"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454831cf802805.jpg[/qimg]

Machiavelli - given that here you actually do present evidence to back up your claims....

.... is it then fair game that when you simply restate your premise (when asked for evidence) to assume that you actually have no evidence - just a premise that you cling to?

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli constantly accuses Amanda of lying but lies himself in his posts. What a hypocrite. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele is such a slam dunk why does Machiavelli and other PGP have to resort to lying?

If the case is such a slam dunk, why do they have to post things which correct or "improve upon" Judges Massei and Nencini?

 

[Machiavelli]

Utter, utter nonsense. And symptomatic of poor, biassed thinking.

An objective, rational thinker would make the following observation: what if Sollecito did not want to do material damage to the door or the frame? What if he didn't want to risk damaging the door/frame and the consequent financial penalties from the landlord, especially if it all turned out to be a false alarm?

In that event he wouldn't have even attempted to break it down and wouldnt have cracked it. As in fact, instead, he did. Since testimonies report that the door had been already cracked and Sollecito admitted he did that.

If that were the case (and it seems entirely logical that it WAS the case), then the series of events and the observed outcome all become entirely plausible. Here's how it goes:

1) Sollecito and Knox are worried about Kercher's whereabouts - they don't know where she is, she's not answering her phones, and they worry about whether she might be inside her locked room.

This is not an "event". It's still rather vague.

2) Sollecito therefore tries to gain entry to her room. He tries to force the door, but in doing so, the frame starts to crack.

What a surprise: if you try to attempt to break down a door, the door will crack.
It seems quite consequential to me.

What's not consequential, is the assumption that Sollecito wouldn't expect a door to crack if he tries to force it. This is not plausible.

3) Sollecito thinks along the lines of: "Woops. If I carry on like this, let alone use even more force, then I'm going to totally break the frame.If I do that, then Amanda will almost certainly incur the cost of repair, whereas if I stop now it will be a very cheap and easy repair.

Of course: if you crack it just a little, rather than completely, you will spend less to replace it.
I assume you expect an "objective" thinker would take this supposition as reasonable.

Your blinkers on how concocted, incomplete and inconsistent your "plausible explanation" is are amazing.

That's how a reasonable, rational, objective person might evaluate the situation as an entirely feasible possibility.

Oh yes.
I assume that you can guess on your own that you failed to be convincing, no need to reply. I obviously point out again the existence of the objective insonsistencies as I listed them above.

In my view, only a partisan, biased poor thinker would reach the conclusion that "it makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to and that he cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down"

In my opinion, it's simply objective and obvious.

Furthermore, poor thinking also leads to the bogus "reasoning" that Knox and Sollecito must have been frantically worried at that point, while they waited some time to call Romanelli.

It's not just that they waited some time before calling Romanelli.
They also waited some other time after Romanelli told them to call the police immediately.

In fact, it's far, far more likely (you know, thinking in an objective, rational way) that Knox and Sollecito only had moderate concern at that point.

Which - you should not forget it along the road - it is something that objectively points in a different direction from the attempt of breaking down the door (something which objectively indicates urgency), and it is also something in contradiction with Knox's own account, where she describes her feeling in terms of "panic" (screaming, banging on Meredith's door, attempting to climb through the window, hallucinating, jumping into Raffaele's arms, understanding that someone must have entered in the apartment, etc.).

And of course once the Postal Police turned up with the two phones, this was a material new factor that naturally turned prior concern into genuine panic and worry.

But in fact, Knox and Sollecito didn't look as if they were worried or in panic at all, to the postal police officers. Especially not worried about the locked door. Neither they looked worried to Marco Zaroli or to Altieri, it was Filomena who - shortly after - urged them to break down the door.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - given that here you actually do present evidence to back up your claims....

.... is it then fair game that when you simply restate your premise (when asked for evidence) to assume that you actually have no evidence - just a premise that you cling to?

Absolutely not.
In fact, I do not even "present evidence" as a rule. I didn't even have attempted to back my assertion about the brown panties for weeks. I assumed it was obvious that I checked facts and there was no need to present anything.
I am not going to make attempts to bolster my credibility. I don't care if you believe me or not.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
"If you have two equally probable explanations for something, presumption of innocence means that you must choose the option which tends to acquit." In Italy, according to Chieffi's beliefs about osmosis, the item can still be amassed omsotically against other similar unlikely things to come to a determination of guilty.

(...)

There is a very big problem with the statement above.
The problem is the word "something".
In fact, the above rule only applies to the comprehensive set of evidence taken as a whole; only to the final conclusion.

It does not applies to just any something. It does not apply to single pieces of evidence.
Presumption of innocence is not a method for evidence assessment.

 

[Dan O.]

ETA: I would appreciate other opinions on what RW's photos show. Can anyone make a credible case that these differences are merely results of changes in perspective?

I hadn't noticed the foot move but I had pointed out earlier that the bra moved from its position where it was initially photographed and there is even a blood stain on the tile marking where it had been. Clearly not an illusion of perspective. The stupid cops were kicking the evidence around even before it could be fully documented.

 

[Vibio]

3) Sollecito thinks along the lines of: "Woops. If I carry on like this, let alone use even more force, then I'm going to totally break the frame. If I do that, then Amanda will almost certainly incur the cost of repair, whereas if I stop now it will be a very cheap and easy repair. What's more, we don't know whether or not Meredith is actually in her room, let alone whether she's in any actual trouble, so it's simply not worth risking doing serious damage to the door frame purely on the chance that Meredith might be in the room and in need of our help. Therefore I'll stop before I do any more damage."

LOL.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - given that here you actually do present evidence to back up your claims....

.... is it then fair game that when you simply restate your premise (when asked for evidence) to assume that you actually have no evidence - just a premise that you cling to?

Absolutely not.
In fact, I do not even "present evidence" as a rule. I didn't even have attempted to back my assertion about the brown panties for weeks. I assumed it was obvious that I checked facts and there was no need to present anything.
I am not going to make attempts to bolster my credibility. I don't care if you believe me or not.

That last sentence is obvious.

It is fair game to come to forums like this and simply make assertions. It is fair game to answer requests/demands for evidence with, "I am not going to make attempts to bolster my credibility." I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

As long as it is understood that most of what you claim here is presented as an assertion only, and not something remotely proven.

Which is my way of saying that I then find it strange that you can so easily access proof - as you see it (brown panties) - and put it on this thread, when you say you're not here to prove things or present evidence, just assert things.

It remains a question, though, why you feel a need to go way, way beyond what the convicting judges feel they have "proven". You simply assert things often contrary to what those same convicting judges claim, and often beyond what they claim.

Why do you feel a need to improve upon the reasons for conviction - esp. if those reasons are claimed to be so solid? Don't they stand on their own?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a very big problem with the statement above.
The problem is the word "something".
In fact, the above rule only applies to the comprehensive set of evidence taken as a whole; only to the final conclusion.
It does not applies to just any something. It does not apply to single pieces of evidence.
Presumption of innocence is not a method for evidence assessment.

The disclaimer was that this was a charge to a jury in California. What it prevents is what I believe is steering you wrongly here.

If there are 10 bits of evidence presented at trial, and each one of them (for sake of argument) is only 10% probative, with a 90% chance of otherwise pointing to an innocent explanation......

..... each one of them ....

You seem to be saying that those 10 things can still be held on to as, in total, an indication of guilt. And not only that, in total an indication of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suggest to you that this is the reasoning you (and Cassazione) use in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

But in fact, Knox and Sollecito didn't look as if they were worried or in panic at all, to the postal police officers. Especially not worried about the locked door. Neither they looked worried to Marco Zaroli or to Altieri, it was Filomena who - shortly after - urged them to break down the door.

This is pure confirmation bias.

Similarly, the postal police themselves were not worried. The only one who was worried enough was, as you say, Filomena.

No one but Filomena was worried; yet for some reason you cherry-pick AK and RS out.

Every so often your confirmation bias shines forth.

 

[Dan O.]

It's not that we denigrate him. It's that we don't believe him; since it's not credible. It makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to (and that ge cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down). It also makes little sense to put together an attempt to break the door and the fact that Knox downplayed the importance of the locked door: it's inconsistent; or to put it together with the fact that they had waited at less another 15 minutes before calling the police after Filomena told them to do so immediately: if they felt that opening the door was so urgent to the point of attempting to break it down, this is also inconsistent.

Who ever said that someone tried to break down the door before the police arrived? You have absolutely no evidence yet you choose to formulate a belief of guilt. This says more about you than it says what happened back in early November 2007.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not just that they waited some time before calling Romanelli.
They also waited some other time after Romanelli told them to call the police immediately.

Having had to call the police numerous times in my job, you often wonder if you really should call them or not. It is often hard to judge how serious something is. As such, assuming what you wrote is correct, it does not mean anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is pure confirmation bias.

Similarly, the postal police themselves were not worried. The only one who was worried enough was, as you say, Filomena.

No one but Filomena was worried; yet for some reason you cherry-pick AK and RS out.

Every so often your confirmation bias shines forth.

But it is not true.
First, I note that you implicitly admit tha Knox was not worried.
But the fact is, Filomena and Amanda were the only ones among the present ones who actually lived there, and could be the only ones who were aware that the locked door was unusual.
Filomena was also the one who knew most about the "strange" things in the house since Knox had told her.
But then, also Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli, and the postal police officers, became concerned too, that means they asked, in order to understand, whether the locked door was an usual element or not; or anyway they were told (by Knox) that it may have been usual, and they felt reassured by Knox's words.

There is nothing here to cherry pick.

The plain and simple truth is that Knox was just inconsistent.
Knox was not concerned and was reasssuring to those who didn't know about Meredith's habits.
This is inconsistent both with factual reality and with Knox's claims to have been in "panic", as ell as with Sollecito's attempt to break down the door (in addition to the several other aspects of intrinsic inconsistence within their acounts: Sollecito who "fails" to break down the door etc.).

 

[Machiavelli]

Having had to call the police numerous times in my job, you often wonder if you really should call them or not. It is often hard to judge how serious something is. As such, assuming what you wrote is correct, it does not mean anything.

If, hypothetically, Meredith was having a severe blood loss in that moment, that delay would have meant the difference between life and death.