Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Did Massei refuse to grant the independent DNA study requested by the defense so as not to 'muddy the water'--i.e., his appointed mission was to find the defendants guilty?

With 20/20 hindsight, it looks even more suspicious. As a first-grade (level) judge, he could always pass this off as, "Well, this will be caught at appeal."

His stated reason for refusing to grant the independent DNA study was this: he'd already heard contrasting DNA-analysis along predictable lines. All an independent study would do is side with one or other of them.

Instead of this being seen as a tie-breaker, Massei uses some strange judicial math - One plus One still equals One; meaning that there'd still only be two equal possibilities, Stefanoni was right or Stefanoni was wrong.

Even before 20/20 hindsight this reasoning looks, shall we say, "shaky". With 20/20 hindsight it begins to look like Massei doesn't really mind screwing up innocent lives, to save the reputation of a colleague.

Massei probably went as far as he could go - by rejecting MAJOR elements of Mignini's prosecution, particularly those things as invented by Mignini at the prosecution's closing at the 2009 trial. Instead, Massei started the tradition of simply inventing another narrative; rejecting sex-games and psychopathology, and advancing this as essentially Rudy's crime within which Raffaele and Amanda inexplicably inserted themselves under the influence of marijuana.

And from that point on the cycle that the later judges got caught in was this - Gentlemen, start your imaginations. Pooh in the toilet. Argument over rent money.

The important thing from Massei onwards was not to explain to the Kerchers how their loved one was brutally murdered - it was to save judicial ass. Knox and Sollecito were just collateral damage. I mean, why not just lock up someone who sang at the oddest moments in exchange for protecting powerful men?

 

[Numbers]

Prosecutor announces case closed. Lady Macbeth and her boyfriend the Thane of Cawdor are arrested for the murder of Ophelia. Trace DNA is found but the prosecutor claims Lady Macbeth washed all the blood away. The weird sisters, friends of Ophelia announce they knew Lady Macbeth was guilty by the pricking of their thumbs. Meanwhile the scientific police brew a charm of powerful trouble.

In a sensational twist Rosencrantz and Guildernstern flee the scene and are suspected of hiding out in a mid twentieth century plot; Thursday Next to investigate.

Jasper Fforde could model his next villains after Mignini, Giobbi, Matteini, Massei, Chieffi and Nencini.

 

[acbytesla]

I am very fro Free Speech. I will support anybody saying that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty even though I do not share the thought.

The only issue I might have is if there are threats against either one. If the language reaches a threatening stage, then I have an issue.

Still, I will not pay attention to the pro guilt side unless there is a reasoned argument.

As long as they make it clear that it's only their opinion and not a statement of fact, I'm fine with free speech. They cross the line when they make defaming statements.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not that I really understand this post. But why should that be different than your last posts?
You have always talked in riddles and not really cared about clarity.

But allow me to say why it should be open season on the guilt websites now. It's not about revenge, it's about stopping the malicious activity that truly threatens Amanda Knox's quality of life if not even her actual life.

It keeps alive a culture of hate. While I really don't think most of the guilters would actually commit violence against Knox, there are a few that should concern us all, for example; both Grimbal (Grahame Rhodes) and the machine havery both posted actual death threats.

I expect most of the guilters and us will all melt away.. (it's over) Some of the PIP will now focus on others that have been wrongfully convicted ie: Miseri, Faria.
But I expect that most will just go back to their lives. My hope is that both Raffaele and Amanda can now just go on to have full productive and happy lives. But I do worry that in an interest in some kind of justice (although misguided) that the guilters won't allow that to happen.

A number of people are monitoring online comments and discussion to assess potential threats. Beyond that, I don't think Amanda or her family are going to focus on the negativity at all. They are busy leading productive lives, and they are surrounded by people who know them and hold them in the highest regard.

The decision makers in the Italian court system reached a point where they had to face facts and put a stop to this travesty. Cranks on the Internet don't have to answer to anyone. They can nurture their delusions and their malice indefinitely, some of them probably will, and there is nothing any of us can do about it.

The best thing we can do at this point - to honor the memory of an innocent girl who was murdered, and to support Amanda and Raffaele - is to ignore bitterness and inane provocation.

We all played a role in righting an injustice. We have every right to hold our heads high. We can continue our discussion as we see fit, as long as we stay within the MA, and we have no need to explain anything to people who don't want to participate in good faith. I for one have too much self respect.

 

[Dougm]

A number of people are monitoring online comments and discussion to assess potential threats. Beyond that, I don't think Amanda or her family are going to focus on the negativity at all. They are busy leading productive lives, and they are surrounded by people who know them and hold them in the highest regard.

The decision makers in the Italian court system reached a point where they had to face facts and put a stop to this travesty. Cranks on the Internet don't have to answer to anyone. They can nurture their delusions and their malice indefinitely, some of them probably will, and there is nothing any of us can do about it.

The best thing we can do at this point - to honor the memory of an innocent girl who was murdered, and to support Amanda and Raffaele - is to ignore bitterness and inane provocation.

We all played a role in righting an injustice. We have every right to hold our heads high. We can continue our discussion as we see fit, as long as we stay within the MA, and we have no need to explain anything to people who don't want to participate in good faith. I for one have too much self respect.

Great post, agree with every word. Thank you!

 

[Anode]

Its weird how guilters manage to make themselves the victims, after slandering two obviously innocent people for over 7 years.

They shouldn't have needed a court judgement to know that Amanda and Raf had nothing to do with it, that this is ALL Rudy's crime 100%, and Mignini is a menace to society with his deranged fantasies of satanic orgies.

And now that they have such a judgment, establishing the pure falsity of their misguided enterise, they still won't LISTEN. It's over ladies and gentleman, Elvis has left the building.

Some people just can't admit when they are wrong. It's painfully obvious reading Mach's posts. I think in all that I read, he conceded one minor point in the 3 years that I've been here.

I most always admit when I'm wrong. I'm a processor chip architect and designer. If I didn't admit when I was wrong, none of your computers would work. And ACbyTesla's auto-correct would be even worse that it is now!!

 

[Welshman]

I know you don’t like hearing from black people [ or is it just PL ] but it appears AK is in the news again

If Amanda was so racist why did she supposedly help a black man rape and murder a white woman.

 

[Desert Fox]

As long as they make it clear that it's only their opinion and not a statement of fact, I'm fine with free speech. They cross the line when they make defaming statements.

If somebody called me a "murder", I guess fine unless it interferes with my life.
I think with Amanda's case, a good argument can be made but it is complicated by the fact that she was convicted for murder twice even if the trials were crap.

 

[acbytesla]

A number of people are monitoring online comments and discussion to assess potential threats. Beyond that, I don't think Amanda or her family are going to focus on the negativity at all. They are busy leading productive lives, and they are surrounded by people who know them and hold them in the highest regard.

The decision makers in the Italian court system reached a point where they had to face facts and put a stop to this travesty. Cranks on the Internet don't have to answer to anyone. They can nurture their delusions and their malice indefinitely, some of them probably will, and there is nothing any of us can do about it.

The best thing we can do at this point - to honor the memory of an innocent girl who was murdered, and to support Amanda and Raffaele - is to ignore bitterness and inane provocation.

We all played a role in righting an injustice. We have every right to hold our heads high. We can continue our discussion as we see fit, as long as we stay within the MA, and we have no need to explain anything to people who don't want to participate in good faith. I for one have too much self respect.

I don't think we should provoke anyone Charlie, And at this time I think it is counter productive. I expect that most of them will burn themselves out left without any real credibility. But I do worry if their group works themselves up too much.

 

[acbytesla]

If somebody called me a "murder", I guess fine unless it interferes with my life.
I think with Amanda's case, a good argument can be made but it is complicated by the fact that she was convicted for murder twice even if the trials were crap.

But that is the point. It could, it could give employers and new acquaintances pause before associating with you. It could be an obstacle to you future .

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't think we should provoke anyone Charlie, And at this time I think it is counter productive. I expect that most of them will burn themselves out left without any real credibility. But I do worry if their group works themselves up too much.

I don't honesty understand the hate. . . . It is not Raffaele hate but just Amanda hate.

I have argued this case on other boards, not pro guilt boards, and people often seem to get this instead hatred of Amanda and I still have no understanding where it comes from.

This is from people who know nothing about the case and not prone to believe in things like Satanist cabals either.

As well, Amanda is pretty but she is no super model. I suspect that if you meet her in person, she would be a bit geeky as well.

 

[Desert Fox]

But that is the point. It could, it could give employers and new acquaintances pause before associating with you. It could be an obstacle to you future .

I guess I will have to cross that bridge when it comes to it.
I could definitely understand her wishing to sue for libel.

 

[sept79]

With 20/20 hindsight, it looks even Instead of this being seen as a tie-breaker, Massei uses some strange judicialmore suspicious. As a first-grade (level) judge, he could always pass this off as, "Well, this will be caught at appeal."

His stated reason for refusing to grant the independent DNA study was this: he'd already heard contrasting DNA-analysis along predictable lines. All an independent study would do is side with one or other of them.
.
.
.

But Stefanoni had been caught lying about the DNA sample size of the knife and she had been caught concealing the TMB testing. If he truly felt that he was charged with delivering justice, ordering an independent study would be a no brainer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting food for thought:

Is it possible (or impossible) to be a believer in the non-guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito in this case, and at the same time to be "pro-victim" (i.e. in favour of justice for the victim in this case, Meredith Kercher)?

If not, why not? If one holds the belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in this murder (and that there's certainly no credible, reliable evidence that they did), then does this automatically imply that one has no regard for the victim (or her family)?

Or would it be nothing more than a lazy, deliberately-inflammatory, artificial distinction made in order to try to confer moral legitimacy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's conviction, and at the same time try to confer moral degeneracy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence?

And if so, what would it say about the intellectual honesty and underlying motivations of those making that incorrect distinction?

 

[carbonjam72]

Interesting food for thought:
Is it possible (or impossible) to be a believer in the non-guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito in this case, and at the same time to be "pro-victim" (i.e. in favour of justice for the victim in this case, Meredith Kercher)?

If not, why not? If one holds the belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in this murder (and that there's certainly no credible, reliable evidence that they did), then does this automatically imply that one has no regard for the victim (or her family)?

Or would it be nothing more than a lazy, deliberately-inflammatory, artificial distinction made in order to try to confer moral legitimacy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's conviction, and at the same time try to confer moral degeneracy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence?

And if so, what would it say about the intellectual honesty and underlying motivations of those making that incorrect distinction?

This is unquestionably a food provocation of the first order!

 

[Bill Williams]

Interesting food for thought:

Is it possible (or impossible) to be a believer in the non-guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito in this case, and at the same time to be "pro-victim" (i.e. in favour of justice for the victim in this case, Meredith Kercher)?

If not, why not? If one holds the belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in this murder (and that there's certainly no credible, reliable evidence that they did), then does this automatically imply that one has no regard for the victim (or her family)?

Or would it be nothing more than a lazy, deliberately-inflammatory, artificial distinction made in order to try to confer moral legitimacy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's conviction, and at the same time try to confer moral degeneracy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence?

And if so, what would it say about the intellectual honesty and underlying motivations of those making that incorrect distinction?

Related to this: Maresca said today that his time defending the Kerchers is formally over. Case closed.

But "defending"!? At most he was **advancing** their interests at trial! To the point of his shameful display of Meredith's lifeless body in court.

 

[carbonjam72]

Related to this: Maresca said today that his time defending the Kerchers is formally over. Case closed.

But "defending"!? At most he was **advancing** their interests at trial! To the point of his shameful display of Meredith's lifeless body in court.

That really is progress. I wonder what they will say when the motivation report is released, and who will speak for them. Is he no longer their attorney in the sense of representing them in a legal case? Will he still be acting as their spokesperson in other matters?

Bill, I'd ask you what you think, but, well...

 

[Bill Williams]

That really is progress. I wonder what they will say when the motivation report is released, and who will speak for them. Is he no longer their attorney in the sense of representing them in a legal case? Will he still be acting as their spokesperson in other matters?

Bill, I'd ask you what you think, but, well...

No good taking the upgrade to carbonjam73, I've now got the screen shot. You're toast, fella'!

 

[Dougm]

Interesting food for thought:

Is it possible (or impossible) to be a believer in the non-guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito in this case, and at the same time to be "pro-victim" (i.e. in favour of justice for the victim in this case, Meredith Kercher)?

If not, why not? If one holds the belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in this murder (and that there's certainly no credible, reliable evidence that they did), then does this automatically imply that one has no regard for the victim (or her family)?

Or would it be nothing more than a lazy, deliberately-inflammatory, artificial distinction made in order to try to confer moral legitimacy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's conviction, and at the same time try to confer moral degeneracy on those who campaign for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence?

And if so, what would it say about the intellectual honesty and underlying motivations of those making that incorrect distinction?

I think we all know the answer to these questions.

Another one: Can anyone think of a murder case, ever, where there was a group of people that were "anti-victim"? Does this even make any sense?

I can see a situation where the victim of a murder might be someone that some people did not care for, like an abuser, or rapist, or someone who had previously murdered others. But what purpose would it ever have to be "against" the victim? The victim is DEAD. Even if there were some reason to be against the victim (and there certainly is none in the Kercher case), why would anyone bother?

I also fail to understand why anyone would campaign for years to support the cause of prosecuting and convicting individuals in a case where the police and prosecutors are already working 24/7 on that, but fortunately, people that would do that seem to be rare.

 

[davefoc]

I'm afraid I disagree on the fundamental point regarding how Stefanoni might have "found" the DNA on those two items.

In my view, this can most reasonably be explained by three factors:

1) Stefanoni was essentially being instructed to find evidence linking Knox and/or Sollecito to the murder of Kercher, and knew that the two items (the knife and the bra clasp) were of critical value in that regard;

2) Stefanoni's lab was shoddily run, and was in no way set up for low template DNA work - meaning contamination was undoubtedly very feasible at low template ranges;

3) The processes of collection, storage and transportation of those two items by the police was egregiously wrong and improper.

I think therefore that there was ample opportunity for both of these items to have become contaminated at low template levels, either during collection/storage/transportation (or during that 46 days among a pile of detritus in Kercher's bedroom in the case of the bra clasp) or within Stefanoni's laboratory. I then think that Stefanoni improperly cranked up the machines - well beyond her remit and understanding, and well beyond the proper operating envelope for those machines - to try to find the evidence she knew she was being asked to find. And I think that she therefore - perhaps almost-inevitably - managed to find low-template contamination on these items.

I suspect that if many of the other more mundane items in this investigation had been subjected to similar over-analysis by Stefanoni, she might well have found low-template contamination on them too - not least because there was very probably low-template contamination occurring everywhere in her laboratory (only she didn't know it, because she had no experience of low-template work, and never normally even looked for DNA in that range).

My* feeling about this is that you are right about the knife results. Everything about the knife results is silly and the many ways that this is true has been discussed many times in this thread.

But the bra clasp hook results seem to be different. The DNA concentration seemed to be in the range of where other reliable results were obtained. There is the issue that the reported concentration is based mostly on Kercher DNA but even given that wasn't there enough alleged Sollecito DNA to make the result reliable? There are problems here as far as assuming the Sollecito DNA on the clasp was a strong indicator of Sollecito guilt, like no Sollecito DNA on the strap or any where else in the room but isn't it likely that the DNA on the clasp was Sollecito's?

To me this suggests either an unlikely accidental contamination before or during the collection, accidental contamination after the collection or intentional contamination. Despite the fact that people were (reasonably enough) critical up the kazoo about the collection techniques it seems unlikely that contamination with Sollecito DNA happened then. What was the percentage of Sollecito DNA to non-Sollecito DNA in the room where the clasp was collected? My gut feel is that the fraction would be measured in parts per million. A similar argument could be made about some of the other contamination theories including the washing machine theory.

This leaves accidental contamination after the collection and intentional contamination before or after the collection. I don't know enough to make a good guess as to what is more likely but right now it seems that the theory that bad measurement technique was the cause of a bogus DNA match is unlikely to be correct.


* I do not understand the DNA issues very well