Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Anode]

The prosecutor argued today that the two then spent their time after the murder devoted to a "selective clean-up".
Of DNA and fingerprints, leaving only Rudy's?

Do you think maybe the Kerchers could question that?

Seriously? Did the prosecutor really argue that today??

 

[Numbers]

Thanks. 'Arbitrary reasoning' is an oxymoron, isn't it?

To take your first example, I do not think you are in a position to reach a view without first seeing the testimony of the expert. It may well be that Hellman derived his findings on her statement of mind based on his (or her) expert testimony and from questions put to the expert at the hearing.

...
I am not sure I would call that 'arbitrary' though. Arbitrary would be, say, choosing between alternative hypotheses randomly.

I saw no reasoning or wording in the English language translation of Hellmann's motivation report regarding the memory expert (Carlo Caltagirone) at all. I am handicapped by only having translated small sections of the expert's testimony. May be he made no statements worth refuting. But then IMO the judge should have mentioned that. Another possibility is that the translation of Hellmann's motivation report is not complete. But assuming that it is, I believe it is lacking the refutation or reasoning needed to address the false memory issue.

And regarding "arbitrary", it would be helpful if lawyers and judges defined their terms before or even after use, but this is not an ideal world. I did get 12 HUDOC case hits for the phrase "arbitrary reasoning".

ETA: Checking the hits, in a number of instances a judgment states that the ECHR did not find any arbitrary reasoning in a domestic court's decision. (So they know what it is well enough not to find it!)

 

[Bill Williams]

LJ, do you really believe for a moment that Sollecito was asleep between 9 and 10 pm that fateful night?

I have to admire you Sherlock. You're convinced correctly that the TOD was between 9 and 10. But you still belive that Amanda an Raffaele were involved. But you should know that your thinking is not shared by virtually anyone else especially the Italian courts. I think I am speaking fairly when I say that most people think the only way for them to be involved would necessitate a much later TOD.

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

 

[Bill Williams]

So yet another attempt to mislead from Mach/Yummi....

Clander on.ORG writes....

"Yummi should have added that the Italian State was forced to pay damages to Judge Bruno for the completely unfounded accusations made by then prosecutor De Magistris (current mayor of Naples)"

So Clander is picking a fight with Yummi/Machiavelli? LOL!

 

[Diocletus]

Well, here's Yummi's dumb explanation:

However, personallly what I don't like of Bruno are two things.
First, his comment about the "few certainities in this story except that a girl has died and that one person was definitely found guilty". This comment is too much identical to the famous Zanetti's one to be random. It looks too much like a code to me.
The second thing I don't like is his rumored friendship with people from a certain political group which could mean a connection with Bongiorno.
It doesn't mean really much, because at this stage of the proceedings this may matter reallly little (and this reported connections may be just rumors).

At this stage, the Supreme Court doesn't have an option to question Knox's and Sollecito's involvement in Meredith's murder.

Oh, you mean just like when the Supreme Court didn't have an option to question their adjudicated actual innocence last time?

The only wriggle room they have, theoretically, in terms of points of law regarding the assessment of evidence, is to question their roles in the murder.

This is the only question mark that I have, and this is what Bruno's comment may refer to. It is theoretically possible for the Supreme Court to come out with a finding that the role of one of the defendant (or both) has not been sufficiently defined beyond reasonable doubt. This could theoretically lead to differentiate the positions and say that Sollecito may be only guilty of altering the scene, covering up and side tracking, or that since both the roles are uncertain to some degree the same degree of uncertanity about the roles may apply to both.
There were too many "clues" of that feeling among judges, I didn't like that judge Simonetta Matone seemed to allow for this possibility, and I didn't like neither Bruno's comments nor the rumors in court about differentiating the two positions.

The second-best outcome of this whole process is that they disassemble the "roles" of the two defendants and point the finger at that American girl. It would just be so ridiculous and inflammatory.

 

[Kauffer]

Well, here's Yummi's dumb explanation:



Oh, you mean just like when the Supreme Court didn't have an option to question their adjudicated actual innocence last time?




The second-best outcome of this whole process is that they disassemble the "roles" of the two defendants and point the finger at that American girl. It would just be so ridiculous and inflammatory.

Yummi is worried. He's got issues with what Bruno said but also Judge Matone. He's preparing the ground for denouncing the judges if the ruling doesn't confirm the convictions. If they confirm, he'll dig over that ground.

Today is not what the guilters expected. Harry Rag thought that Mr Sollecito would be in prison by bedtime.

 

[GreyFox]

Sherlock's position has not shifted one iota since he first came to this site. He has learned not to try and argue the actual facts because he is soundly defeated every time. Instead, he wraps up a big bundle and claims they are all lies without examining any of them.

Well give him/her some credit. He/she does run his/her veiws of the case by a group of friends at the back yard campfire. And well .....they agree with him ???
Of course Sherlock is their only source of information.lol

 

[Numbers]

I saw no reasoning or wording in the English language translation of Hellmann's motivation report regarding the memory expert (Carlo Caltagirone) at all. I am handicapped by only having translated small sections of the expert's testimony. May be he made no statements worth refuting. But then IMO the judge should have mentioned that. Another possibility is that the translation of Hellmann's motivation report is not complete. But assuming that it is, I believe it is lacking the refutation or reasoning needed to address the false memory issue.

And regarding "arbitrary", it would be helpful if lawyers and judges defined their terms before or even after use, but this is not an ideal world. I did get 12 HUDOC case hits for the phrase "arbitrary reasoning".

ETA: Checking the hits, in a number of instances a judgment states that the ECHR did not find any arbitrary reasoning in a domestic court's decision. (So they know what it is well enough not to find it!)

Here is a case with arbitrary or insufficient reasoning (excerpts from a press release):

Donadze v. Georgia (no. 74644/01)***** Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

The Court noted that none of the courts dealing with the applicant’s case had taken into account the applicant’s arguments and that their main reasons for dismissing his claim had been based on facts which he had neither complained of nor contested in his appeal, and therefore had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the dispute.

It did not appear that the Georgian courts had conducted a thorough, serious examination of the applicant’s arguments, that they had based their reasoning on the evidence he had adduced or that they had given valid reasons for dismissing his claim. Even though courts were not required to explain the reasons for dismissing each and every argument a party might raise, they were not absolved from the obligation to give due consideration to and reply to a party’s main submissions. The shortcomings noted, and the failure of the Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s statement of the grounds of appeal, had placed the applicant at a clear disadvantage in relation to the respondent.
The Court therefore concluded that Mr Donadze had not had an effective hearing by the Georgian courts, which had not protected his right to a fair trial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Moreover, the Court did not deny that the judges’ negligent observations and the disturbing casualness of the judges of fact could well have undermined the applicant’s confidence in the proper administration of justice. However, in view of the finding of a violation which it had just reached, it considered that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.
____
Relation to AK-RS case: IMO, the Nencini motivation report in several instances does not address, or speculatively invents "evidence", and thus does not fairly address the claims of the defendants or the report of the independent DNA experts, Conti and Vecchiotti.

 

[acbytesla]

But isn't this the point. If it was my child who was murdered I would want to know exactly what happened and who was responsible. I would not rely entirely on what my lawyer or what the prosecutor says. Knowing how vocal Gil has become and given his expertise, under what rationale could you explain why they haven't reached out to him. Do they think he's a paid shill? Do they think he doesn't know what he's talking about? Do they not care that two people who might be innocent could possibly go to jail?

I've not walked in their shoes as moije2 has (sorry to hear that, btw) so I am not criticizing them for how they have handled things. I just find it curious that they don't seem to be the least bit interested in the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Perhaps they have done significant research on their own without making that public knowledge, but based on their public statements as well as what John put into his book, it would appear they swallowed the prosecutions argument hook, line and sinker and have never looked back.

While I agree with you for the most part, I refrain from criticizing the Kerchers, mostly because it is both unseemly and a no win proposition to speak negatively about the parents of a murder victim.

 

[kwill]

Today is not what the guilters expected. Harry Rag thought that Mr Sollecito would be in prison by bedtime.

I remember when they were high-fiving each other about how he'd be locked up by Christmas.

I will say this . . . if I knew that, for example, Mr Maresca was going to be publicly humiliated for his role in this mess, I would be glad. I would read articles about it. I would not pop champagne, or invite my friends over, or pound the table with joy.

I'd just be glad to see a person get held accountable for hurting others. They've moved a long way past that ordinary sort of liking-justice and out into some kind of blood-lust territory. It's creepy as hell.

 

[Dougm]

But isn't this the point. If it was my child who was murdered I would want to know exactly what happened and who was responsible. I would not rely entirely on what my lawyer or what the prosecutor says. Knowing how vocal Gil has become and given his expertise, under what rationale could you explain why they haven't reached out to him. Do they think he's a paid shill? Do they think he doesn't know what he's talking about? Do they not care that two people who might be innocent could possibly go to jail?

I've not walked in their shoes as moije2 has (sorry to hear that, btw) so I am not criticizing them for how they have handled things. I just find it curious that they don't seem to be the least bit interested in the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Perhaps they have done significant research on their own without making that public knowledge, but based on their public statements as well as what John put into his book, it would appear they swallowed the prosecutions argument hook, line and sinker and have never looked back.

I think that is what I said. Why is open to interpretation.

I don't know why they have not reached out to people like Gill, if they have not. My guess is that they have become convinced, by Mignini, Maresca, and others, that AK and RS are guilty, and any arguments to the contrary are a product of an evil PR campaign. If they believe that, it is easy to dismiss anyone -- minds have been made up. Notice that no one else on the pro-guilt side is convinced by Gill, or any of the other experts that have come forward, with no agenda other than to point out the truth.

The pro-guilt side trashes anyone that supports innocence, for any reason. Many of them give, as the reason, that they became convinced that Amanda, Raffaele and their families launched a big PR campaign to divert attention from the facts and get away with murder. It seems hard to understand, and I don't support or rationalize it, but I think there are a set of people who, based on their belief in this "PR campaign" myth, dismiss anyone who argues in favor of innocence as part of that campaign. Based on public comments from both the Kerchers and their attorney, it seems like they may see it that way.

 

[GreyFox]

The irony of all this, of course, is that if Machiavelli is suggesting that political affiliations, masonic conspiracies or other skulduggery can affect the outcome of court rulings, then this - in and of itself - is a gigantic indictment of Italian criminal justice.

Once more, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.........

I've never understood that myself. He claims Italian law is all that and justice will be served ,yet when Hellman set them free it was BS politics because he's a Mason ? Not a system I would feel comfortable with.

 

[lonepinealex]

Hearing over for today.
Raffaele's defence on Friday

https://twitter.com/andreavogt

Is Amanda's team giving a defence too?

 

[lonepinealex]

I've never understood that myself. He claims Italian law is all that and justice will be served ,yet when Hellman set them free it was BS politics because he's a Mason ? Not a system I would feel comfortable with.

I've never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about Masons anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yummi is worried. He's got issues with what Bruno said but also Judge Matone. He's preparing the ground for denouncing the judges if the ruling doesn't confirm the convictions. If they confirm, he'll dig over that ground.

Today is not what the guilters expected. Harry Rag thought that Mr Sollecito would be in prison by bedtime.

Yup - back in the fridge with that Aldi "champers"...................

 

[LondonJohn]

I remember when they were high-fiving each other about how he'd be locked up by Christmas.

I will say this . . . if I knew that, for example, Mr Maresca was going to be publicly humiliated for his role in this mess, I would be glad. I would read articles about it. I would not pop champagne, or invite my friends over, or pound the table with joy.

I'd just be glad to see a person get held accountable for hurting others. They've moved a long way past that ordinary sort of liking-justice and out into some kind of blood-lust territory. It's creepy as hell.

I fully agree. The level of triumphalism is distasteful at best, and disgusting at worst. But they will pretend to others (and to themselves) that what they are toasting is "justice for Meredith" and "closure for poor Meredith's family", when the real underlying psychological reasons are probably very different.....

 

[Dougm]

While I agree with you for the most part, I refrain from criticizing the Kerchers, mostly because it is both unseemly and a no win proposition to speak negatively about the parents of a murder victim.

I agree. I see little to be gained by criticizing them, and I don't really have any way of knowing what motivates them anyway. My earlier posts were just conjecture, trying to understand why they would seemingly ignore so much evidence that Knox and Sollecito have been railroaded.

Just like Amanda Knox after Meredith's murder, I really don't know how I would act if my daughter was murdered. I think they are victims twice over in this sorry saga, once for losing their daughter, and again for being led down the wrong path to support prosecution of their daughter's innocent friends.

 

[Dan O.]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

I saved a note from when Sherlock was kind enough to actually provide his theory

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 26th April 2013 09:31 AM

Well, here are some things I believe are possible, but not written in stone

1) I don't believe Amanda or Ralf had anything to do with the murder
2) Amanda and Ralf did not stay at Raf's house that evening
3) The broken window may or may not have been staged, it really does not matter, if staged, Amanda and Ralf did it, but it does not matter, I'm leaning towards Rudi broke in before Meredith came home, the reason it does not matter is because of #4
4) Amanda or Raf, definitely locked Meredith's door, I can see no other alternative to this
5) The mistake Amanda and Ralf made, was not calling the police the night it happened. I believe there was a reason for this initially, but when it became apparent there was a murder, it was too late, or so they thought.
​

There he is clearly leaving Amanda and Raffaele out of the cottage while the murder is committed by Rudy Guede alone. So, why is he now trying to put them out of Raffaele's flat between 21:00 and 22:00?

There are a few points he appears to get stuck on. One is believing the only way Raffaele's DNA profile could be found on that clasp is for Raffaele to have been there after the murder:

Because I find it most unlikely that Raff had these balls of DNA rolling around the apartment, I believe he was there only for a few hours on Nov 1st and about an hour on Nov 2nd, 3/4 hours at most, while people that lived there would be thousands of hours, why wasn't their DNA on the clasp. Now if you want to say it was deliberately put there that would be far more likely, though I don't know why this would happen either.
​

Apparently sherlock just missed my recent post about the possible ways for that profile to be found.

Another being the Luminol tracts which only show Rudy walking out of Meredith's room without locking the door at that time.

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 3rd June 2013 12:10 PM

No one ever said Rudy walked straight out the front door, that's just some things some PIP's like to say to think they are somehow discrediting someone, the shoe print evidence clearly shows he walked around at the front door, maybe collecting his coat, maybe peeking out the front door waiting for the coast to be clear, who knows, however, it also shows that he did not return, even when tested with Lumina.​

The Luminol evidence is not a complete survey of the hallway and does not include tracks smaller than a complete footprint so there is no way that it can be used to exclude a return trip to find the keys to unlock the front door.

 

[Numbers]

I've never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about Masons anyway.

I've read its part of the drive by totalitarian society & government (Fascist, Nazi, Communist) to eliminate non-governmental or private organizations not controlled by the government - single allowed party. Plus, some Christian groups (for example, Catholic) have claimed there are pagan elements in the Mason symbols & ceremonies.

In the US, Masons are known for charitably funding hospitals. And their Shriners, who parade dressed as clowns. It's all very subversive. (Not)

ETA: George Washington, Lafayette, Ben Franklin and other US founders were supposedly Masons.

 

[carbonjam72]

Seriously? Did the prosecutor really argue that today??

Think I saw it in an article deSud or something like that, but it gave a review in English of the main points. I've tried to follow in other articles and tweets, and I've seen similar descriptions. That's the story and they're sticking to it. A version in Italian, which I can only access through Google translate, (recommended by Candace Dempsy in her blog today) said something like 'there was a clean-up that only people connected to the crime would do, because no burglar or rapists ever stops to clean-up.

Wish I could grab this for you. But really unbelievable.

Seems like there are two Italys; one where judge Hellman's rationality prevails, and the other where there are selective clean-ups. I can't tell if its sadder that the prosecutor would make that argument in public, or thinks anyone reasonable would find it credible.