Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:




Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

Also, Vogt says this: "Cannot tell how the court is leaning. Reviewer made hurtful and helpful comments to both sides."

And, as far as I can tell, only the prosecution has made it's pitch so far.


Well, well, well . . . if I'm the prosecutor, I'm feeling nervous. Judges criticizing your case and telling you they don't know WTF happened? Ouch.

 

[Kauffer]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:




Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

Have I understood this correctly? Has the court just stated that there is reasonable doubt???

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:




Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

Was judge Bruno on the panel for this cassation hearing today?

 

[LondonJohn]

McCall got himself interviewed by AP - his wiki is the draw and Vogt always pushes it. He likes attention and he doesn't mind how he gets it. The case is just a vehicle for him.

I think "McCall" doesn't quite realise that the very subject of that AP piece was a peek into the bizarro world of the online campaigns, and specifically the highly unsusual phenomenon of so-called "pro-victim" campaigns. After all, people have campaigned on behalf of perceived wrongful convictions since justice systems first came into place: there's a very important principle at stake and the power of the state needs to be kept under close and constant scrutiny in a healthy democracy.

But the new phenomenon of "pro-guilt" campaigns is truly fascinating. I think it's genuinely fair for people (and the media) to wonder quite why coalitions of individuals who never knew the victim(s), the victim's family or the alleged perpetrators should feel the need/want to organise campaigns to argue for the convictions and incarcerations of the alleged perpetrators. Indeed, many sociologists and psychologists appear to have been looking at exactly this phenomenon, and attempting to explain it. "McCall" is just a useful - and clearly accessible - figurehead for this phenomenon. I wonder how jealous Ganong, Michael and God Ergon might have been though

 

[sept79]

Have I understood this correctly? Has the court just stated that there is reasonable doubt???

But 'reasonable doubt' doesn't translate very well into Italian

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:

Machiavelli @Machiavelli_Aki
· 23m 23 minutes ago
Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted.


Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

I summon he who must not be invoked, to kindly explain his tweet, and what the devil it means, and where he heard this.

Do the cassation judges just go out for lunch with people after court and start discussing their cases?

Mach, calling Mach, come in Mach....

 

[LondonJohn]

I can do better than that - Here’s the link again and another more recent one.
The context is the previous few pages.


Knock yourself out but don’t forget the ‘alibi’ issue

You seem curiously reticent to actually quote the paragraph in question. Here, I'll do it for you. Now can you tell what exactly I am referring to when I use the two words "utterly irrelevant", and the condition to which I am attaching that descriptor? For the latter element, perhaps I'll make it easier for you by highlighting the words which indicate conditionality


Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

When did I say that?
My trajectory on this case (as I've noted before) is that I heard the bare bones of the case and the verdict through the normal mainstream media. Then in April 2010 I happened to buy a book about the case: Darkness Descending (chiefly because it was in a "buy one, get one free" offer in WH Smiths ). Having read that book, I felt that Knox and Sollecito had to be guilty, but there were certain aspects that intrigued and concerned me. So I decided to see what information/debate there was online. I thus entered the hitherto (to me) murky and combative world of internet discussion forums. And as I learned more, I found that Darkness Descending had misrepresented several crucial facts - the ones that had led me to my initial belief in guilt. It didn't in fact take me long to conclude that in my opinion, there clearly was insufficient evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito.

Insofar as my holding any belief that Knox and Sollecito "were guilty, but that the courts did not prove this" goes, I don't think I've ever held that belief at all. As soon as I concluded that they should not be convicted of the murder, I concluded in parallel that there was also evidence pointing to their non-involvement. I would say that my belief in their factual innocence has strengthened over the past four and a half years or so, but I've always stated that I am not 100% convinced of their factual innocence: in the absence of an unimpeachable alibi, only Knox, Sollecito and Guede know the factual truth.

But alongside that, I've always stated that it's wholly unnecessary to be 100% convinced of their factual innocence. I've often cited a hypothetical example to illustrate what I mean: that of a murder that occurred about half a mile away from where I live, at around 3-4am. I happened to be asleep alone on the night of the murder. I therefore don't have any sort of alibi. But in order to charge me with murder, far less convict me of it, the authorities are required to prove that I committed the crime. And in law and ethics within a modern democracy, if the accusations cannot be proved, then the person must be considered innocent. In that hypothetical example, only I (and the real murderer) would know with 100% certainty whether I was factually innocent.

Well, you did say that to me, on this board as well, regardless, I would credit you more than any other for my beliefs in this case. I once said I was 70 to 75 percent convinced of their guilt and everyone jumped on me and said I had to acquit then, for that is far from reasonable doubt. I agree, but instead of breaking the case down to several hundred small instances and looking at each from the point of just guilty or innocent, I look at everything combined, take everything into context, and while I can't say they are definitely guilty, I can say they are definitely not innocent. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between, I don't believe they were convicted due to evidence they committed this crime, I believe they were convicted due to evidence that they are lying about their involvement in this crime.

 

[Diocletus]

Have I understood this correctly? Has the court just stated that there is reasonable doubt???

Sounds that way to me.

 

[Antony]

Well, you did say that to me, on this board as well, regardless, I would credit you more than any other for my beliefs in this case. I once said I was 70 to 75 percent convinced of their guilt and everyone jumped on me and said I had to acquit then, for that is far from reasonable doubt. I agree, but instead of breaking the case down to several hundred small instances and looking at each from the point of just guilty or innocent, I look at everything combined, take everything into context, and while I can't say they are definitely guilty, I can say they are definitely not innocent. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between, I don't believe they were convicted due to evidence they committed this crime, I believe they were convicted due to evidence that they are lying about their involvement in this crime.

No, Sherlock - they were convicted because others lied about their involvement in the crime. That's an important distinction.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sounds that way to me.

I don't read it that way. I think the court is saying that the only pre-existing axioms (certainties) are that Kercher is dead and Guede is definitively convicted. I don't read it as the court stating that there is necessarily reasonable doubt over the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

 

[Diocletus]

Was judge Bruno on the panel for this cassation hearing today?

Yeah, he's the main guy apparently, i.e., the Reviewer.

 

[Diocletus]

I don't read it that way. I think the court is saying that the only pre-existing axioms (certainties) are that Kercher is dead and Guede is definitively convicted. I don't read it as the court stating that there is necessarily reasonable doubt over the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

Maybe. But it's an awfully strange way to tee somebody up for 28 years in prison, if that's what he's up to.

Sounds to me more like someone who is setting up to say: we still don't know what happened.

 

[Kauffer]

I don't read it that way. I think the court is saying that the only pre-existing axioms (certainties) are that Kercher is dead and Guede is definitively convicted. I don't read it as the court stating that there is necessarily reasonable doubt over the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

"Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted."

Isn't he saying that Guede's trial is over, done with - he's convicted, but the 'trials' (plural) of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito have "not many certainties"?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, or perhaps he's said too much he shouldn't have. Or perhaps he doesn't believe that not having many certainties amounts to much doubt.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yeah, he's the main guy apparently, i.e., the Reviewer.

I view this as extremely positive. If Mach is putting the judge in the Hellman/zanetti camp, that can only mean they are of the rational world.

The convictions are irrational, based on an anti-science reversal of burden of proof. The convictions must be annulled for that reason alone.

Only question in my view, is whether retrial is required, and I say no. They've got this mess in front of them now, and they need to correct not just the case, but the crazy precedents that it set in regard to burden of proof. No way they're leaving this to another court and hoping for the best.

I say annul with no re-trial, and a superb motivation report that brings Italy back in line with echr and modern science.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:

Machiavelli @Machiavelli_Aki
· 23m 23 minutes ago
Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted.


Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

All of this is old style Kreminology anyway.

However, taken at face value..... maybe the court is saying, "Each step of the way in this 7 1/2 year odyssey, each prosecutor and/or judge says something different. It begins to look like no one really does know much beyond that the victim was brutally murdered, and that the one guy everyone is agreed was involved is in jail. After that, there are more theories than grains of sand on the beach....."

 

[anglolawyer]

McCall just posted this:

"I have a request from major press organization for a friend of Meredith's they would like to interview. I was hoping maybe someone here could help. PM me."

If this happens it will provide a strong link between PMF and the Kerchers.

I don't see one of her friends talking to the press without the family's permission.

So what?

 

[anglolawyer]

"Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted."

Isn't he saying that Guede's trial is over, done with - he's convicted, but the 'trials' (plural) of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito have "not many certainties"?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, or perhaps he's said too much he shouldn't have. Or perhaps he doesn't believe that not having many certainties amounts to much doubt.

I thought there were more axioms - such as that there were multiple killers and that Nara did hear a scream and so on. And if there aren't many certainties then it's very simply - you must acquit. That's my reading of the tea leaves for the day anyway

 

[JREF2010]

My take on this issue is as follows: I think the Kerchers have become convinced in their own minds that the prosecution case is correct - that Knox, Sollecito and Guede acted together to attack and kill Meredith Kercher. I think that this is a complex psychological issue, and is heavily related to the (wholly understandable) fragility and desperation of the Kerchers in the weeks and months after the murder. They naturally looked to the Italian State, in the form of the prosecutor, to solve the crime, and so were naturally predisposed to accept the prosecution theory. And implicitly (and maybe explicitly as well) they were inclined to believe that the prosecution only ever had/has the interests of truth and justice at heart - whereas there's a very obvious motive for the defendants to want to save their own skin at any cost. Why (the Kerchers might have asked themselves) would the prosecution - and police - conclude that Knox and Sollecito were involved unless this was what they had found as a result of their impartial investigation?

So I think that the Kercher family is operating under a blanket presumption that Knox and Sollecito were factually involved in the murder. I think they realise that factual involvement and judicial proof beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things. I think that the statements of the family related to this issue (eg after the Hellmann verdict, and after the Nencini verdict) indicate pretty clearly that the family would accept acquittals if that were the judicially proper thing to do (i.e. if there was insufficient evidence to convict), but I think in their hearts they would always think that Knox and Sollecito almost certainly would have "got away with murder".

And while I believe that they're psychologically wedded to the presumption that Knox and Sollecito were factually involved, I think one also has to take into account the mechanics of the judicial process and their relationship with their lawyer Maresca. And the monetary implications of that relationship. And then things get even more murky and sad.........

murky and sad is an understatement...

The power of the lawyer for people not frequent in the court of law, is understandable. Maresca leads them, Maresca tells them when to talk, who to talk to, the Victims in mourning put all their faith into their Lawyer, they trust him....etc..

Maresca the Mouthpiece, he is obviously severely biased for the prosecution.
We'll never know how much of an influence he has made on the Kerchers, and which Kercher.

I got the idea, from some pieces over the years, the Kerchers each had their own take, and personality like any family.

John Kercher wanted Rudy to end this, and tell the truth. To me that says he is not satisfied with the Prosecutions case and several theorys they've created like Satanic sex orgys, then its the Poop argument, then it was the fighting over cleaning..... fact is if the prosecution had one argument and would have stood behind that one argument, John Kercher might accept it. But instead the prosecution had to keep changing the accusations, keep covering for the mistakes.
So it seems the Kerchers, in general, dont feel they have the truth.

Maresca objected to Rudy being questioned in Hellmans court, even though John Kercher pleaded for Rudy to talk. This case is rife with this type of contradictions.

Like computer experts destroying hardrives, not one ....but four of them?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, he's the main guy apparently, i.e., the Reviewer.

But according to PMF's ace "press observer" Kristeva, he's a "realtor":


Kristeva @KristevaPMF · 2h 2 hours ago

Realtor Judge P. A. Bruno laughs once and while getting names wrong such as Hallowo instead of Halloween. #amandaknox lol


Maybe he's doing a bit of house price negotiating in the court recesses