Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen, You have read a number of books on this case by your own statements. Would you list them for us?

You apparently are no clear as to whether the kids were/are clearly innocent, not guilty or guilty in terms of the law or otherwise.

Given the evidence presented and that which you trust could you please build a case including a timeline for guilt?

The stain testing convo is tedious and at this time is of no value except another nail in coffin of the ICSI's work on this case IMO.

Do you believe Curatolo and why? Do you believe Quintavalle or any of the key "witnesses"?

Do you agree that since no DNA of Amanda was found in Mez' room and only one tiny bit of Raf's was on the clasp that someone else could have abetted Rudi and not left any in the room?

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

 

[acbytesla]

Many, many psychopaths have a high IQ, as you state. Rudy is one damaged character. Sociopaths engage in reckless behaviour, they are glib and shallow. They make good con artists because they are good at mimicking emotions. However, they lack genuine empathy due to an inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Because of this deficiency, they can be ruthless and show a strange lack of remorse or compassion. They are users. Their only genuine emotion is rage.

Symptoms of sociopathy are casual lying, using people, and recklessness. They will often show asocial behaviour, crime, drug-taking and casual sex. They are master manipulators, who cause chaos wherever they go.

Avoid them like the plague, or they will bring you to your knees.

Sociopaths often show symptoms at an early age. For example, cruelty to animals.

As it is a personality disorder and not a mental illness, thus, there is little motivation for them to change their behaviour.

Bring one or two sociopaths together, or more (think Charles Manson, or Bonnie & Clyde) and the result can be particularly tragic.

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business. When I come across one, I avoid them like the plague. These are the ppl who manipulate others to their detriment.

I agree with all of this, that said, you are missing the point. There is no time for these three to develop any kind of trusting bonds.Why would any of them trust two other people that were almost strangers?

There is also no reason to think that these dedicated students would become manipulated disciples of the others. FYI: None of the 3 that you mentioned even graduated from High School, let alone college like Amanda and Raffaele. None of those 3 had a future that they had worked for like Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Kaosium]

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

And here you have a judge's opinion on the veracity of a witness he heard testify. One thing he left out is that this was Curatolo's third time testifying as a material witness in a murder case that Mignini prosecuted.

Here is the Cassation panel (who never heard the witness) on Curatolo.

Tell me what you think of that reasoning. Please.

 

[js202]

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Given that a multiplicity of decisions, based on more than one theory and motive, were issued in this case, for a certain breed of online contributor, this stance is a convenient one. In fact, this line of thinking is eerily reminiscent of the one maddeningly espoused by a longtime poster, who claimed to hail from Coulsdon, UK, in these very threads. Occupying some space between a faithful interlocutor and a gadfly, this poster has coincidentally *completely vanished* since Knox and Sollecito were declared innocent.

In a case like this, it is important to choose sides. Otherwise, on any given day, one can be expected to wake up loving Massei and hating Pratillo Hellmann, or hating Nencini and loving Marasca. And, on a board like this, it then becomes incumbent to support with citations why one has chosen their side. After seven-plus years of often preposterous internet wars, it is a prerequisite to establishing some indication of a combination of seriousness and good faith.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's Mr Carbo to you.

It is, or I am, a "Mr", but we're all friends here, and I wont stand on ceremony.

 

[Bill Williams]

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

Given the unique system in Italy, then.... you will have to accept that there is no evidence to suggest AK and/or RS was involved in this. Why?

Because that is the outcome of applying your stated standards to this case. In Italy, "the end of the trial" is the final sign-off by the Supreme Court.

 

[Bill Williams]

Many, many psychopaths have a high IQ, as you state. Rudy is one damaged character. Sociopaths engage in reckless behaviour, they are glib and shallow. They make good con artists because they are good at mimicking emotions. However, they lack genuine empathy due to an inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Because of this deficiency, they can be ruthless and show a strange lack of remorse or compassion. They are users. Their only genuine emotion is rage.

Symptoms of sociopathy are casual lying, using people, and recklessness. They will often show asocial behaviour, crime, drug-taking and casual sex. They are master manipulators, who cause chaos wherever they go.

Avoid them like the plague, or they will bring you to your knees.

Sociopaths often show symptoms at an early age. For example, cruelty to animals.

As it is a personality disorder and not a mental illness, thus, there is little motivation for them to change their behaviour.

Bring one or two sociopaths together, or more (think Charles Manson, or Bonnie & Clyde) and the result can be particularly tragic.

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business. When I come across one, I avoid them like the plague. These are the ppl who manipulate others to their detriment.

I agree with all of this, that said, you are missing the point. There is no time for these three to develop any kind of trusting bonds.Why would any of them trust two other people that were almost strangers?

There is also no reason to think that these dedicated students would become manipulated disciples of the others. FYI: None of the 3 that you mentioned even graduated from High School, let alone college like Amanda and Raffaele. None of those 3 had a future that they had worked for like Amanda and Raffaele.

Can someone please tell me why "psychopathology" is even being discussed in this case?

I know.... it's because Giuliano Mignini ventured into that territory when his "Satanic rite" theory, and then his "sex-hgame gone wrong" theory collapsed in court.

Vixen says it is the courts' job to listen to listen to what the experts have to say on these subjects. Ok: which expert at trial talked about psychopaths, sociopaths, or psychopathology?

That's right: none. No less than Machiavelli summarized for us Mignini's 2009 closing argument, which as far as I know was the first mention of it; the first mention that there might be something psychologically-off about Amanda Knox, some sort of insane jealousy against Meredith.

Did Mignini argue this because an expert, at trial, gave evidence? Was there a prison psychological-evaluation? I mean, they had her in prison for two years up until Mignini's closing....

What? You mean there was none? That's right.... there was none.

Yet posters can come on to obscure webservices like ISF, a full month after AK's and RS's complete exoneration and still talk about it as if it has anything to do with anything.

Why is it even being talked about at this point? For heaven's sake, half the PMF sites are now behind an iron curtain.....

 

[Vixen]

Given the unique system in Italy, then.... you will have to accept that there is no evidence to suggest AK and/or RS was involved in this. Why?

Because that is the outcome of applying your stated standards to this case. In Italy, "the end of the trial" is the final sign-off by the Supreme Court.

That's right. The Supreme Court's final verdict is exactly that, and we have to respect it.

 

[Vixen]

And here you have a judge's opinion on the veracity of a witness he heard testify. One thing he left out is that this was Curatolo's third time testifying as a material witness in a murder case that Mignini prosecuted.

Here is the Cassation panel (who never heard the witness) on Curatolo.

Tell me what you think of that reasoning. Please

.

Will do ASAP.

 

[carbonjam72]

Quantum justice

That's right. The Supreme Court's final verdict is exactly that, and we have to respect it.

And at an earlier time, during the pre-trial imprisonment, and Micheli, and Massei convictions, and then again after Nencini's re-conviction, we must have, by this logic, believed Amanda and Raf guilty at those times.

In one moment, they never left Raf's apartment that night, in the next, they met up with Guede, without any prior contact, and committed a violent bloody murder, while fiendishly cleaning up all traces of themselves and leaving behind only those of Guede.

So guilt, as a reality, seems to jump between states of affairs, neither here nor there, sometimes this and sometimes that, only glimpsed by a handful of humans, always accurately by virtue of their black dresses and noble bearing.

Italian justice is so much like Alice in Wonderland, I can't wait to have a go at it. Where scientists are guilty for not predicting earth quakes, and murder convictions can be found without any actual evidence, lying tramp witnesses, manufactured lab fraud, amoral tabloid media fanning the flames, and a raging psychotic named Giuliano Mignini playing ringmaster in a Felini-esque circus.

The assumption that the convicting judges are acting in good faith or with anything remotely approaching competence or impartiality, is unwarranted, imo.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei said the motive was Rudy's, with which AK and RS joined in, in an a "choice for evil", otherwise unexplained.

There you go again.... misrepresenting things. You were trying to slip in psychopathology in through the back door. Massei did not believe Mignini's claims of psychopathology, or he'd have included it in his motivations report, and he wouldn't have written what he wrote about what he DID think was the motive.

Rudy's lust.

Massei would not need to attribute psychological motive. It does not mean there is no psychopathology. All the criminal service is interested in is securing a criminal conviction. It is up to the defense to plead psychological mitigation. They do not, of course, as it gets scant sympathy from the courts.

No. Mignini started this "psychopathology" notion in his Dec 2009 closing to the Massei court.

However, your highlighted statement is ridiculous, as it was when Machiavelli (a former poster to ISF) tried this ruse. It is the equivalent of saying, "the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence."

And once again, true to form, you throw it back at the defence.

Truth is: Mignini tried to argue psychopathology (of a sort) and no one believed him.

You're doing a rhetorical bait and switch here - yes, it is true as you say: "Massei would not need to attribute psychological motive." Yet is it also true that Massei DID attribute motive - it was Rudy's, it was Rudy's lust. Why do you wish to move it back to people who've actually now been cleared of the crime?

You obviously have not read Judge Massei. I will do this for you, just once:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.
This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.
It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox
and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be
encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.​

Please do not try to force concepts on to Massei, using the excuse that just because he didn't include it doesn't mean he didn't rule it out.

It was presented to him at court (by Mignini) and it never got farther than that.

Except in guilter-comments to webservices like ISF.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with all of this, that said, you are missing the point. There is no time for these three to develop any kind of trusting bonds.Why would any of them trust two other people that were almost strangers?

There is also no reason to think that these dedicated students would become manipulated disciples of the others. FYI: None of the 3 that you mentioned even graduated from High School, let alone college like Amanda and Raffaele. None of those 3 had a future that they had worked for like Amanda and Raffaele.

Druggies don't need "trusting bonds".

What about Leopold & Loeb? There are plenty of privileged persons who ended up in prison.

IIRC Bonnie was a talented manager of her criminal outfit.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's right. The Supreme Court's final verdict is exactly that, and we have to respect it.

So, why don't you respect it? Why even bring up psychopathology?

 

[acbytesla]

That's right. The Supreme Court's final verdict is exactly that, and we have to respect it.

Do we really? While I agree with this decision, I can tell you unequivocally that there have been many US Supreme Court decisions that I do not respect. Just because they have the authority, doesn't mean that their decisions were correct.

 

[js202]

First a little background on me here. My knowledge of this case is a small fraction of many of the other posters in this thread. Secondly, the DNA on the bra clasp was of particular interest to me because it is the only piece of evidence that I have noticed that can't easily be dismissed. I think it can be dismissed in the context of the overall evidence, but I don't think that any of the common non-guilt explanations for it are convincing although since I don't think that Sollecito is guilty, I think at least one of the non-guilt explanations is correct.

I don't agree with your idea that there was surprisingly little DNA of Guede when you consider the sheer quantity of blood found. It was Kercher whose throat was cut and was the source of the blood. I wouldn't expect that Guede's DNA would be found in any of it. Guede's DNA was found where one would expect to find Guede's DNA at concentration levels that the test results were uncontroversial. In addition, Guede's foot prints at the scene were damning so even without DNA there can be no question of Guede's guilt.

I guess your point here was that the almost complete lack of evidence for Sollecito in Kercher's bedroom shouldn't be considered conclusive as to Sollecito's innocence because the police might have missed it. That idea pushes the envelope on what can be known to a certainty. Absolutely no evidence of Solecito's presence in the room is unexplainable if he was there. There are no footprints attributable to Sollecito in the murder room. There was no DNA of Sollecito detected on the bra strap the way Guede's was. There was no DNA detected in the feces in the toilet the way Guede's was. And of course there is no evidence of Sollecito DNA in Kercher's vagina the way there was of Guede.

The only DNA detected of Sollecito was on the bra clasp that was found a long time after the initial evidence was collected. One of the important things I have come to understand about DNA evidence is the difference between DNA evidence where the nature of the source can be identified and DNA trace evidence where the amount is so tiny that the source can't be identified. The DNA detected of Sollecito falls into the latter class. That is no blood, skin cells, semen or any other biological material identified as the source. That is very different if DNA from Sollecito's blood or semen had been found. The existence of those kinds of biological material would be strongly suggestive of Sollecito guilt. That isn't what is reported to be the case here. The DNA was a trace result that has many possible innocent explanations and some explanations that involve active fraud on the part of the police (which is suggested by the nature and timing of the finding of the bra clasp). The lack of Sollecito's DNA on the bra straps strongly suggests that Sollecito's DNA did not end up on the bra clasp during the crime. How was it that Sollecito's DNA ended up on the bra clasp without any being found on the strap? When Guede ripped the bra off Kercher his DNA was found on the strap but somehow Sollecito's DNA isn't where it is most likely to be if he had participated in this murder and it is only found on the bra clasp?


That is an interesting question and I don't have any particular expertise on the issue. A great deal of what Mignini presented as evidence was of such a low quality I am not sure I would have allowed it if I had been a judge. Mignini applied the throw a lot of spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks theory of prosecution. If I had been on the jury, I would have found that approach difficult to deal with. I would attempt to remain objective in the face of an over the top prosecution which is presenting completely implausible evidence. Are they doing that because their whole case is bogus or buried somewhere in the evidence that is being presented is there a plausible case for guilt?

ETA: I also think this case demonstrates strongly what a bad idea it is that Italy allows the simultaneous prosecution of a civil and criminal case. Evidence that was specifically excluded for the criminal trial makes its way into the criminal trial via the simultaneous civil trial. That seems like a really bad idea, but what made it even worse was the tag team nature of the prosecution as the Kercher family attorney and Lumumba's attorney were allowed great leeway to malign the defendants based on what was likely to have been their self interest in the collection of contingency fees in the event of a guilty verdict.

An excellent, thoroughly reasoned post-mortem on the whole, sad affair. Yours is the rationalist's perspective on the case, in a nutshell.

 

[Vixen]

Can someone please tell me why "psychopathology" is even being discussed in this case?

I know.... it's because Giuliano Mignini ventured into that territory when his "Satanic rite" theory, and then his "sex-hgame gone wrong" theory collapsed in court.

Vixen says it is the courts' job to listen to listen to what the experts have to say on these subjects. Ok: which expert at trial talked about psychopaths, sociopaths, or psychopathology?

That's right: none. No less than Machiavelli summarized for us Mignini's 2009 closing argument, which as far as I know was the first mention of it; the first mention that there might be something psychologically-off about Amanda Knox, some sort of insane jealousy against Meredith.

Did Mignini argue this because an expert, at trial, gave evidence? Was there a prison psychological-evaluation? I mean, they had her in prison for two years up until Mignini's closing....

What? You mean there was none? That's right.... there was none.

Yet posters can come on to obscure webservices like ISF, a full month after AK's and RS's complete exoneration and still talk about it as if it has anything to do with anything.

Why is it even being talked about at this point? For heaven's sake, half the PMF sites are now behind an iron curtain.....

The prosecution aren't going to bring it up. Their raison d'etre is to secure a conviction.

The defense is hardly going to bring it up either, as pleading pychopathy would have the effect of being labelled "Criminal Borderline Personality Disorder" and incarcerated in a secure unit for the rest of their lives (cf Charles Bronson).

 

[Strozzi]

What the Americans now call PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, they used to call battle fatigue. General Patton called it cowardice and had the poor bastards shot.

The Brits, in their infinite sense of superiority (!) called it "Lack of Moral Fibre". If an LMF appeared on your service record, you could not get a job once free from service, and had to emigrate to Canada. (No comments, please.)

Canada. Beautiful Canada! That, we learned at Machiavelli's expense, is where the girls all smell of maple syrup.

 

[Bill Williams]

The prosecution aren't going to bring it up. Their raison d'etre is to secure a conviction.

The defense is hardly going to bring it up either, as pleading pychopathy would have the effect of being labelled "Criminal Borderline Personality Disorder" and incarcerated in a secure unit for the rest of their lives (cf Charles Bronson).

You left someone out.

Why are YOU bringing it up?

ETA: the prosecution DID bring it up, they brought it up at closing, citing no evidence. Sort of like you.

 

[davefoc]

...

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

I am not sure I understand your position any more. Are you arguing that AK/RS are factually guilty but the ISC let them off so we need to accept that?

Are you arguing that AK/RS are factually innocent but sometimes a criminal justice system makes mistakes and for the sake of societal dependence on the rule of law it is necessary to let incorrect verdicts stand?

Are you arguing whether AK/RS are factually guilty or not the ISC made a mistake when it reversed the previous guilty decision because it went outside the legal limits place on it to only consider technical details of the case? If this is your view and the ISC had based its decision on the notion that AK's initial statement should have been excluded from the trial even if it was introduced by civil attorneys you would consider that a legitimate issue for the ISC to consider and therefore they may not have made a mistake? How about the issue that the Guede verdict was used against RS/AK without their attorneys ever being being present during the Guede trial. Was that the kind of thing you think the ISC should have considered? And of course there is the issue that has been mentioned several times that Italian appeals don't seem to be limited in practice or law to technical details.

 

[Samson]

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

You should be encouraged that process on ISF generally finds a concensus before the courts stumble to the correct conclusions. The Shrien Dewani thread on this forum got there before the case went to trial.