Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I am sure you would agree that it was pretty stupid to write and publish a book about your own case before a verdict.

If Casey Anthony had not sold her case to the media to fund her defense, she would have lost.

 

[Machiavelli]

To be fair to Mach he has previously agreed that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot arise from the murder act, but subsequent to its cleaning, (assuming it was the murder weapon), so even Mach accepts that it is illogical to use the Knox DNA on the knife as evidence of her presence or participation in the murder. Mach is satisfied there is sufficient other evidence and Knox is morally reprehensible, (she exchanged drugs for sex, was dirty, lied etc.) so must be guilty

Actually:
1. I only said that Knox's DNA (in particular, only one of Knox's DNA instances, trace A - but not so trace I) can be the consequence of its cleaning; not that it must be. It might be directly from wielding the knife, and not have been well cleaned like the blade.

2. I have absolutely no moral judgement about Knox's private behaviors. I wouldn't see them as morally reprehensible themselves (albeit I reject arguments that her character features would point away from Guede or from the drug fuelled sexual aggression scenario; and also, one thing is to consider character features alone, like narcissism or other aspects of personality, which may be harmless and shared by millions of individuals, another thing is consider them together with other elements, like put those harmless features in the context of a peculiar scenario in which they may become clues).

3. My certainty of her guilt beyond doubt stems from a set of pieces of evidence of various kinds, which you reject on grounds that I consider irrational and/or pointless.

4. I have a judgment which may have a moral aspect on some Knox's actions, which are not her private behaviors. This goes with Sollecito's actions too. I don't have a problem with her drug use or sexual habits; but I do have a problem with her manipulative letter of Nov.4 or her manipulative hand written notes, with her non credible account of facts, with the "blood on hands", with her alleged waiting and loosing time after discovering "strange things" instead if searching for Meredith, her not getting close to Metedith's room because she already did "her part" and so on, I have extreme problems with her fingering an innocent: her being a manipulative liar, unreliable and inconsistent would have a moral aspect even in the event she was innocent (especially in that event); the same with Sollecito: his diary where I find his "reconstructing and trying to remember" disgusting, his disgusting hand pricking lie, and so on...

 

[Bill Williams]

Er, no.

As I said when Raffaele published, it was stupid to do so before the third level verdict.

If he’d tried that in the UK he would have broken sub judice rule and been in contempt of court for publishing matters still under consideration by a court, this was Raffaele situation at the time of publishing.

Er, yes.

As you are fond of pointing out, this is Italy.

 

[anglolawyer]

Er, no.

As I said when Raffaele published, it was stupid to do so before the third level verdict.

If he’d tried that in the UK he would have broken sub judice rule and been in contempt of court for publishing matters still under consideration by a court, this was Raffaele situation at the time of publishing.

Respectfully, I doubt that. The rule exists as an aspect of the jury system, jurors being deemed too stupid to be trusted not to be swayed by material that does not form evidence in the trial itself. Judges are, or consider themselves to be, far above such things so I think (in fact I am sure) it would be OK for a convicted felon, or anybody, to get a book out pending his or her appeal. It's open season as soon as the guilty verdict comes in for any journo or true crime type to write more or less what they want, never mind any appeals. So, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this and also, that you are implying the judges of the CSC might have been adversely influenced by their books, which is quite something when you think about it.

 

[Machiavelli]

See highlighted text following your point #3.


Pro-guilt lobby forays into psychopathological diagnoses of Knox have absolutely no support in any of the trial records or anything else. The pro-guilt lobby simply chucks in those allegations of some sort of psychological malady (curiously, of Knox only) to give their faulty conclusions a better sound.


You certainty of her guilt is betrayed by very few references to Raffaele and Guede. You are obsessed with her. Your view of her guilt are an endless set of possibilities, which when challenged as such, you claim someone has to prove you wrong; thus reversing the burden of proof.



This is a long series of coming to a guilt conclusion by reading-into events the most extreme and unsubstantiatedly-cynical interpretation of things. It's the definition of confirmation bias....

.... where you interpret evidence as proving guilt, because you have first assumed guilt. Seeing the letter of Nov 4 that way is a classic. The only way to view it as evidence of guilt, is to first assume guilt and then interpret the letter that way.

No, the letter, besides showing a manipulative intent of the writer, it offers an account of facts which is a mass of inconsistencies (judge Micheli called it an "objectively not credible account") it is inconsistent on multiple internal and external levels at every joint, also depicts reprehensible details of behavior.

 

[Machiavelli]

Funny how Mignini takes the side of Rudy Guede who killed Meredith Kercher, and also takes the side of Antonio Vinci, whom Preston & Spezi (and others) have identified as the likely lone serial killer behind the Monster of Florence crimes.

Mignini asked, and obtained, a 30 year sentence against Guede, and didn't speak very highly about him.
Antonio Vinci instead is completely innocent. Your associating him with Guede is malicious and unacceptable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Respectfully, I doubt that. The rule exists as an aspect of the jury system, jurors being deemed too stupid to be trusted not to be swayed by material that does not form evidence in the trial itself. Judges are, or consider themselves to be, far above such things so I think (in fact I am sure) it would be OK for a convicted felon, or anybody, to get a book out pending his or her appeal. It's open season as soon as the guilty verdict comes in for any journo or true crime type to write more or less what they want, never mind any appeals. So, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this and also, that you are implying the judges of the CSC might have been adversely influenced by their books, which is quite something when you think about it.

It is stupid because what one writes can be used against him or her. Sollecito and Knox changed the stories again and they came to show themselves liars at the third power.

 

[carbonjam72]

Er, no.

As I said when Raffaele published, it was stupid to do so before the third level verdict.

If he’d tried that in the UK he would have broken sub judice rule and been in contempt of court for publishing matters still under consideration by a court, this was Raffaele situation at the time of publishing.

Do you believe this case would have ever made it to court in the UK?

Would the vilification of Knox in particular in the UK press and media, have been a similar violation in your opinion?

Do you believe the state UK forensic experts would have turned over the Electronic files for the DNA runs, or suppressed and manipulated DNA profiles as Stefanoni has been proven to have done?

Or committed perjury on the witness stand, and there have been no investigation of Stefanoni's perjuries?

Or that a prosecutor under indictment would have been allowed to prosecute a case, and smear the defendants in the media, relentlessly?

You have a strange sense of fairness CoulsdonUK, and of justice.

 

[Desert Fox]

Respectfully, I doubt that. The rule exists as an aspect of the jury system, jurors being deemed too stupid to be trusted not to be swayed by material that does not form evidence in the trial itself. Judges are, or consider themselves to be, far above such things so I think (in fact I am sure) it would be OK for a convicted felon, or anybody, to get a book out pending his or her appeal. It's open season as soon as the guilty verdict comes in for any journo or true crime type to write more or less what they want, never mind any appeals. So, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this and also, that you are implying the judges of the CSC might have been adversely influenced by their books, which is quite something when you think about it.

I am wondering if you might understand this with a jury trial
Saw this in a case and just does not make sense
Trying to word this in a manner that does not create huge sentences which are had to understand

In numerous cases, a witness will allege that the defendant told them that they either committed murder or planned to commit murder. This seems to almost always be accepted as evidence.

Was however watching a case where a friend of the victim alleged that the victim was suicidal. This was a case where the defense was that the victim actually committed suicide. In this case, the witness was not allowed to testify. I believe that the reasoning stated was "Hearsay"

I don't see how they are actually different.

 

[carbonjam72]

Mignini asked, and obtained, a 30 year sentence against Guede, and didn't speak very highly about him.
Antonio Vinci instead is completely innocent. Your associating him with Guede is malicious and unacceptable.

IIUC, Mignini argued for and obtained a "Life" sentence at Guede's original trial, meaning 30 years without possibility for reduced time. (So I accept your statement is partially true to that extent).

However, didn't Mignini later argue that Rudy Guede showed remorse, and therefore was entitled to mitigation at Rudy's appeal?

That Rudy's sentence was dropped from Life to thirty years, less mitgation brought Rudy down to 24 years, and then one third fast track discount from there brought Rudy down to 16 years. Isn't that how Rudy got 16 years?

Concerning Antonio Vinci, my understanding of the Monster of Florence crimes, is based on reading "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi.

The story they tell made a case I found convincing that Antonio Vinci is in fact the lone serial killer behind the Monster of Florence crimes. And there is ZERO credible evidence that a satanic sect had anything to do with it.

And Mignini's 'Narducci trail' is a hallucination that tormented scores of innocent people, "a kind of delirium", to quote a judge.

And yes, I find it very telling that Mignini sides with Rudy Guede and Antonio Vinci over Knox, Sollecito, Spezi, and all the other innocent people he has tormented and threatened with his meritless prosecutions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Respectfully, I doubt that. The rule exists as an aspect of the jury system, jurors being deemed too stupid to be trusted not to be swayed by material that does not form evidence in the trial itself. Judges are, or consider themselves to be, far above such things so I think (in fact I am sure) it would be OK for a convicted felon, or anybody, to get a book out pending his or her appeal. It's open season as soon as the guilty verdict comes in for any journo or true crime type to write more or less what they want, never mind any appeals. So, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this and also, that you are implying the judges of the CSC might have been adversely influenced by their books, which is quite something when you think about it.

It is stupid because what one writes can be used against him or her. Sollecito and Knox changed the stories again and they came to show themselves liars at the third power.

It is instructive that the only people who say what you've said, Machiavelli, are those who have been involved in the pro-guilt lobby for the last number of years.

Everyone else reads their books and sees consistency of stories. There have been two, or is it three, blogs put up in the last year or so put out there because as the blogger says, they read the books, looked into the case and discerned for themselves that the Italian judiciary is persecuting AK and RS.

Ok, one of the "new blogs" of which I know is from a long time supporter.

But point is: other than your assertions that they are liars and consistently changing their stories, no fair minded person coming to this new sees it that way.

Most certainly, for someone as committed to guilt as you, even you have had to construct a narrative which is something more than that AK and RS are liars. You've had to rely on something we all agree upon - that the Italian judiciary is corrupt - even you would want Hellmann and De Nunzio charged with crimes.

The only disagreement you and I have is which part of the judiciary is corrupt!

You (and Harry Rag) can repeat your assertions ad nauseum and probably will. In the wold west of the internet, no one (apparently) can stop you.

 

[Kauffer]

Do you believe this case would have ever made it to court in the UK?

Would the vilification of Knox in particular in the UK press and media, have been a similar violation in your opinion?

Do you believe the state UK forensic experts would have turned over the Electronic files for the DNA runs, or suppressed and manipulated DNA profiles as Stefanoni has been proven to have done?

Or committed perjury on the witness stand, and there have been no investigation of Stefanoni's perjuries?

Or that a prosecutor under indictment would have been allowed to prosecute a case, and smear the defendants in the media, relentlessly?

You have a strange sense of fairness CoulsdonUK, and of justice.

Not only would this case not have made it to court in the UK and not only would Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not have been arrested, it would not have occurred to anyone to consider they could possibly have been involved, as the Perugians did. And our police are not always the brightest bunch are they?

The case went south immediately because an untrained idiot decided firstly that the burglary was fake and probably an attempt at an insurance fraud and then, following the discovery of the body, another idiot decided that Rommanelli's room window was too high to climb to (referenced later by idiot Ricciarelli, too lazy to check, with his Spider-Man comment). So the investigation is derailed before it starts. The context is a fake and staged burglary. And real burglars don't fake and stage burglaries, they commit real ones.

When the real burglar and murderer, (whose actual presence at the crime scene had already been eliminated), inconveniently and ineradicably emerged a couple of weeks later, he had to be woven, improbably, into the already written story as the wronged accomplice of the stagers. You couldn't make this up. It's so improbable. And yet it happened. The PLE should move to Hollywood and become script writers. They'd coin it in!

 

[Bill Williams]

No, the letter, besides showing a manipulative intent of the writer, it offers an account of facts which is a mass of inconsistencies (judge Micheli called it an "objectively not credible account") it is inconsistent on multiple internal and external levels at every joint, also depicts reprehensible details of behavior.

You are a funny guy Machiavelli. So your "proof" is Micheli's assertions!!!!!

You realize, don't you, that Micheli also said the murders were not premeditated.

Micheli also dismissed as fantasy the motive that Mignini brought to trial - the Halloween induced ritualistic killing.

Are you SURE you want to invoke Micheli?

ETA - so to add to your process for discerning guilt - an endless set of possibilities which you do not bother to prove - you add cherry-picked stuff from Micheli! You are a strange dude, dude. All this from a trial to set them over for the main trial, where "proof" is not what it is about, but the probable cause to set them over for a main trial.

You'll say anything, and quote the most specious of sources to continue your pro-guilt lobbying.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am wondering if you might understand this with a jury trial
Saw this in a case and just does not make sense
Trying to word this in a manner that does not create huge sentences which are had to understand

In numerous cases, a witness will allege that the defendant told them that they either committed murder or planned to commit murder. This seems to almost always be accepted as evidence.

Was however watching a case where a friend of the victim alleged that the victim was suicidal. This was a case where the defense was that the victim actually committed suicide. In this case, the witness was not allowed to testify. I believe that the reasoning stated was "Hearsay"

I don't see how they are actually different.

DF

Generally, you may only give evidence of what you yourself saw and heard, not what someone else claims to have seen or heard. You are not in a better position than that person to prove whatever it is they can testify to. But evidence of what the defendant himself said is evidence of what he said, not of the truth of what he said. That is not hearsay.

 

[tsig]

What is refreshing here is that both CoulsdonUK and tsig are de facto admitting that the Italian judiciary is corrupt. (Anglolawyer beat me to this observation, but then the time zones are on his side. Bloody Brits organized it that way!)

One cannot fault, really, Giuliano Mignini for seeking redress if he believes he was defamed.....

However, the implication above is that criminal decisions in the courts ARE effected by commentary, rather than the evidence. (Innocentisti complained about the effect of the media on non sequestered popular judges, and we were told that the media/books did not effect the!!!! Now tsig and CoulsdonUK admit, maybe they were!)

Strangely, this is one of the conspiracy theories of the innocentisti side - that after the Hellmann verdict Rocco Girlanda threatened investigations into the PLE for the malicious prosecution of two innocents. And that it was THIS (not the books) which caused even the Supreme Court to start to circle the wagons to protect the power of the PMs.

It seems in a backhanded sort of way, even tsig and CoulsdonUK agree.

Oh yes, and CouldsdonUK was dangerously close to expressing an opinion!

Interesting that my post, which is standard defense attorney advice, is twisted into some sort of admission.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF

Generally, you may only give evidence of what you yourself saw and heard, not what someone else claims to have seen or heard. You are not in a better position than that person to prove whatever it is they can testify to. But evidence of what the defendant himself said is evidence of what he said, not of the truth of what he said. That is not hearsay.

How could you ever insert evidence of a victim being suicidal then?
Many people do not go to psychologists if they are suicidal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Interesting that my post, which is standard defense attorney advice, is twisted into some sort of admission.

What's the point of saying it, then, if it is not a de facto admission of Italian judicial corruption? You're hardly inclined to give advice favourable to the defence!

The whole point of a defence advising as you suggest, is to avoid giving a corrupt judiciary fuel. The fact that you suggest it DID give Cassazione fuel, seems less a criticism of Raffaele and his ghost writer, than it is a warning to millions of Italians that they, too, can expect this from their judiciary.

 

[Samson]

It is stupid because what one writes can be used against him or her. Sollecito and Knox changed the stories again and they came to show themselves liars at the third power.

The writing of the books is an extremely powerful demonstration of innocence for the following reasons.
1. They had the ability to correlate details to avoid accusations of inconsistent stories but chose not to.
2. They were either guilty or innocent.
a) If guilty they are fully aware there is a third trial to negotiate and will stay silent. This is a given. Talk of book deals to fund this third trial is an appalling risk/reward stategy, given full knowledege that their innocence status has been misjudged by Hellmann, and may well be overturned.
b) If innocent they will have listened with great care to Hellmann's judgement, recognising and knowing at every step that he is correct. They will have full belief that this logical truth will be accepted and embraced by the majority, and have no existential conception of a truth being replaced once more by a pack of lies. This does not accord in any way with people's real world experience.

The books are by this argument de facto strongly exculpatory.

 

[anglolawyer]

How could you ever insert evidence of a victim being suicidal then?
Many people do not go to psychologists if they are suicidal.

I don't think direct evidence of an alleged murder victim expressing suicidal intention would be hearsay. It would be evidence of what the person said, not of the truth of what they said, but I admit I'm not steeped in the subject.

 

[Antony]

Not only would this case not have made it to court in the UK and not only would Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not have been arrested, it would not have occurred to anyone to consider they could possibly have been involved, as the Perugians did.

Yet, in the UK, Barry George was initially convicted of the Jill Dando murder, allegedly having converted a replica handgun into a working one, when he had neither the skills to do so nor access to a workshop capable of it.

And our police are not always the brightest bunch are they?

UK police suffer from the same perverted incentives as police anywhere else: the "achieving" of a conviction is everything, while finding the truth comes nowhere. Maybe our courts are not as awful as in Italy, but far too often both police and the courts are part of the problem, rather than the solution.

...

When the real burglar and murderer, (whose actual presence at the crime scene had already been eliminated), inconveniently and ineradicably emerged a couple of weeks later, he had to be woven, improbably, into the already written story as the wronged accomplice of the stagers. You couldn't make this up. It's so improbable. And yet it happened. The PLE should move to Hollywood and become script writers. They'd coin it in!

I rather think the antics of the police in this case, if written as a crime story or sreenplay, would never convince any publisher or film producer as remotely plausible.