Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

My problem with these kinds of 'what if's' or 'what who knew', is that it ignores the fact that no such selective clean-up of DNA, fingerprints, and footprints in wet-blood is physically possible. It didn't happen, because its not possible that it happened.

The reason for suggesting it did happen, is because those trying to assign guilt to Amanda and Raf know that they have to explain the complete absence of evidence against them, alongside the overwhelming evidence of only Rudy Guede. The single set of footprints in wet-blood alone creates an insurmountable barrier to suggesting any others more than Guede was in the room when the blood was wet.

The ideas of 'who knew what when' is avoiding the fact that the evidence does not permit the theorizing of additional perps, at least not inside the murder room when the crime was committed, nor really, anytime thereafter.

The clean-up is the prosecutor's theoretical crutch to hobble over the fact that there is zero evidence of anyone but Guede involved in this crime. There isn't any evidence of a clean-up, and indeed, it is plainly apparent there was no clean-up, nor could there be.

Without the theory of a 'selective clean-up of evidence', there is left only the fact of 'no evidence'.

Vixen's theory fails on its own and is irrelevant to whatever anyone said or allegedly behaved. Its all just nonsense, and I do not believe it is put forward in good faith.

I'll bet Mignini believes his own baloney, I don't believe Vixen does.

Posters like Vixen do not fully appreciate why judges like Judge Massei came to the view that a clean-up had taken place.

It hit me like a ton of bricks on the second read of Massei - Massei just completely ignores the issue of a clean-up in the murder room. He ignores it all together.

The clean-up Massei posits is between Meredith's room and the bathmat foottrack. Massei makes no mention of any positive-proof of a cleanup - swirls of bleach detected by luminol, that sort of thing.

Massei provides the proof in the negative - saying that unless there had been a clean-up in that little hallway space, he'd be stumped to suggest how the watery-boody foottrack got on to the bathmat!

That's it. That's the sum-total of Massei's discussion on a clean-up. He provisionally-convicted two innocents on that; and they had to spend an additional 22 months in prison...... for THAT kind of reasoning.

 

[Grinder]

Another thing theories like Vixen's leave out of account is that Amanda did not know Laura and Filomena were away for the weekend. She says so in her book and it must be true as it's too easily falsifiable if not. So, as far as she knew, either one of them might have come marching in during the murder or the subsequent clean up and staging. What was she going to do? Kill them too? And at some point during the night she is supposed to have thought, 'bugger this, I'm off for some kip. I'll buy some bleach in the morning and finish the job and if anyone shows up while I'm asleep I'll just have to make something up. Oh well. Nothing's perfect.'

I would think it would be more accurate for her to say she didn't remember being told just as the british girls didn't remember there was no school on Friday because of the holiday.

I think the idea of premeditation is undone by the lack of planning. Why would one plan to bring a knife when plenty of knives were available at the cottage? Since it has been stated that they left before 9 why wouldn't they have put on a movie they had both seen before that lasted two hours. Why didn't they go to Gubbio and wait to be alerted by text?

In terms of what they couldn't know would have been if Mez had invited someone over.

 

[Strozzi]

I, of course, agree with all this - except the highlighted part.


How far away was Marco's place? Any idea?

Mignini referred to it as being distant and on another side of the city. In the same breath he referred to Raffaele's place being just a few minutes away. He quantified that as 10 minutes.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would think it would be more accurate for her to say she didn't remember being told just as the british girls didn't remember there was no school on Friday because of the holiday.

I think the idea of premeditation is undone by the lack of planning. Why would one plan to bring a knife when plenty of knives were available at the cottage? Since it has been stated that they left before 9 why wouldn't they have put on a movie they had both seen before that lasted two hours. Why didn't they go to Gubbio and wait to be alerted by text?

In terms of what they couldn't know would have been if Mez had invited someone over.

In that case they could just abort and re-schedule (after checking on Rudy's dates to avoid of course).

 

[Numbers]

Another thing theories like Vixen's leave out of account is that Amanda did not know Laura and Filomena were away for the weekend. She says so in her book and it must be true as it's too easily falsifiable if not. So, as far as she knew, either one of them might have come marching in during the murder or the subsequent clean up and staging. What was she going to do? Kill them too? And at some point during the night she is supposed to have thought, 'bugger this, I'm off for some kip. I'll buy some bleach in the morning and finish the job and if anyone shows up while I'm asleep I'll just have to make something up. Oh well. Nothing's perfect.'

{Highlighting and bold added to quote.}

I had to look up "kip" to confirm it meant "sleep". I don't think any American generally a user of American English would have thought with those specific words bolded. But your point is right-on.

Of course, Rudy Guede didn't know who in the upstairs flat might be coming home and when, either, supposedly. The general assumption, though, is that he was burglarizing with the intent to steal rather than to rape. There are those burglars who break into residences with the intent to await the occupant(s) in order to attack said occupants.

 

[Grinder]

In that case they could just abort and re-schedule (after checking on Rudy's dates to avoid of course).

All right what would the difference be between roommates and visitors? Roommates could come in with a key but still...

 

[Numbers]

I would think it would be more accurate for her to say she didn't remember being told just as the british girls didn't remember there was no school on Friday because of the holiday.

I think the idea of premeditation is undone by the lack of planning. Why would one plan to bring a knife when plenty of knives were available at the cottage? Since it has been stated that they left before 9 why wouldn't they have put on a movie they had both seen before that lasted two hours. Why didn't they go to Gubbio and wait to be alerted by text?

In terms of what they couldn't know would have been if Mez had invited someone over.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Would Amanda have known when or if Meredith was coming back to the cottage on the night of Nov. 1?

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Would Amanda have known when or if Meredith was coming back to the cottage on the night of Nov. 1?

No. There was no communication between them that day after the afternoon IIRC.

 

[acbytesla]

What I am trying to do is to get a view of the extent of the "conspiracy" or team effort to commit official misconduct in this case. Obviously, it probably must include PM Mignini and Stefanoni, and possibly Giobbi who claimed in this testimony to have set up the interrogation of Nov. 5/6. What about the other Perugian police? Were they active leaders for the team, or simply following orders (Nuremburg "defense"), perhaps trusting their leaders knew something they didn't?

I've gone back and forth on the idea of a full scale conspiracy in this case. Overall, I'm skeptical of them. One, people have a hard time keeping secrets and what motive could they have to do this.

Stefanoni could certainly do a better job of framing a suspect. That said I could see someone in her position trying to help the police hold a suspect so the police would have enough time to perform a proper investigation. That is my only answer other than contamination for the marginal amount of DNA.That would explain her lack of disclosure.

 

[Numbers]

Posters like Vixen do not fully appreciate why judges like Judge Massei came to the view that a clean-up had taken place.

It hit me like a ton of bricks on the second read of Massei - Massei just completely ignores the issue of a clean-up in the murder room. He ignores it all together.

The clean-up Massei posits is between Meredith's room and the bathmat foottrack. Massei makes no mention of any positive-proof of a cleanup - swirls of bleach detected by luminol, that sort of thing. Massei provides the proof in the negative - saying that unless there had been a clean-up in that little hallway space, he'd be stumped to suggest how the watery-boody foottrack got on to the bathmat! That's it. That's the sum-total of Massei's discussion on a clean-up. He provisionally-convicted two innocents on that; and they had to spend an additional 22 months in prison...... for THAT kind of reasoning.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Is the highlighted text an example of "arbitrary reasoning" from a legal view point, or does it fall to the judges discretion to formulate such reasoning even when there is no evidence? Could a claim be lodged with the ECHR that the unfairness of the intermediate trials led to a violation of the reasonable length of trial and thus a violation of Convention Article 6?

If Knox or Sollecito were to lodge a claim for unreasonable length of trial (a violation of Convention Article 6), would they be able to cite this reasoning and similar ones (if considered arbitrary) as contributing violations?

Another issue for unreasonable length would be the "reasonableness" of the "reasonable suspicion" listed in the arrest warrant, and justification of the length and even need for remand detention. But that may involve some other issues, such as the six-month deadline after final domestic judgment.

For ECHR purposes, exhaustion of domestic (Italian) remedies must also be demonstrated.

 

[acbytesla]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Would Amanda have known when or if Meredith was coming back to the cottage on the night of Nov. 1?

She might, since they had been together earlier. That said, there was no way for her to know for sure since there was no electronic communication between them that day. Also, keep in mind that Amanda had expected to work that evening.

 

[carbonjam72]

Ringleader or Dupe?

I've gone back and forth on the idea of a full scale conspiracy in this case. Overall, I'm skeptical of them. One, people have a hard time keeping secrets and what motive could they have to do this.

Stefanoni could certainly do a better job of framing a suspect. That said I could see someone in her position trying to help the police hold a suspect so the police would have enough time to perform a proper investigation. That is my only answer other than contamination for the marginal amount of DNA.That would explain her lack of disclosure.

And the forensic police frying the computer drives one at a time?

And the shoe print and foot print experts?

And the cell phone experts?

And the bogus witnesses?

Aren't they all just doing their bit in their one area of activity?

But its all done to please Mignini. Everybody doesn't need to know what everyone else is doing, only Mignini needs to know that.

So is that still a conspiracy? Or just a runaway prosecutor abusing his office.

Either Mignini is coordinating or inducing all these actions, or he is a dupe of massively parallel incompetence that all just happens to support a conviction.

 

[Grinder]

And the forensic police frying the computer drives one at a time?

Why woulkd they fry them on purpose? Pictures of the two at the chocolate festival would hardly be exculpatory. Incompetence.

And the shoe print and foot print experts?

It's not like Raf's people took one look and knew. The prints in blood aren't like a reference print.

And the cell phone experts?

What specifically?

And the bogus witnesses?

Nara wasn't bogus just worthless. Curatolo didn't show up for months.

Aren't they all just doing their bit in their one area of activity?

Que?

But its all done to please Mignini. Everybody doesn't need to know what everyone else is doing, only Mignini needs to know that.

Most likely most all thought they were guilty and gave 110% to find evidence. Citizens probably thought it their duty to help convict the killers.

 

[acbytesla]

And the forensic police frying the computer drives one at a time?

And the shoe print and foot print experts?

And the cell phone experts?

And the bogus witnesses?

Aren't they all just doing their bit in their one area of activity?

But its all done to please Mignini. Everybody doesn't need to know what everyone else is doing, only Mignini needs to know that.

So is that still a conspiracy? Or just a runaway prosecutor abusing his office.

Either Mignini is coordinating or inducing all these actions, or he is a dupe of massively parallel incompetence that all just happens to support a conviction.

That isn't what I would call a conspiracy. That said, it is in fact a conspiracy.

If you're going to actually frame a suspect, you would expect a better job. So they are either incompetent in doing it wrong or doing it right.

 

[carbonjam72]

That isn't what I would call a conspiracy. That said, it is in fact a conspiracy.

If you're going to actually frame a suspect, you would expect a better job. So they are either incompetent in doing it wrong or doing it right.

I'd call it 'soft-framing'. They leave room for plausible deniability, but they know who they work for, and know they get promoted based on supporting prosecutions.

An innocent person could always find proof of their innocence, but a guilty person can't. Overtly breaking the law and planting evidence takes nerve and is risky, especially in a high profile case. Experiencing accidents that favor the prosecution is a lower risk IUAM.

We've talked about this up thread, Anglo had an interesting take I thought.

 

[Grinder]

I'd call it 'soft-framing'. They leave room for plausible deniability, but they know who they work for, and know they get promoted based on supporting prosecutions.

An innocent person could always find proof of their innocence, but a guilty person can't. Overtly breaking the law and planting evidence takes nerve and is risky, especially in a high profile case. Experiencing accidents that favor the prosecution is a lower risk IUAM.

We've talked about this up thread, Anglo had an interesting take I thought.

This is a little like our PGP poster.

Name one piece of evidence that was planted.

Provide a source for your earlier remark about Mignini getting from Rome what he needed beyond the obvious fact that the lab results had to come from Rome.

What is soft framing? They could have planted blood on the footprints but they didn't. They could have put blood on the knife but they didn't. They could have found blood in Raf's place but they didn't.

They could have put Raf's DNA on the bra clasp without others there as well. The video of the collection was broadcast to the van outside where the defense experts could see what was going on, which to me explains the show and tell format.

Was Massei part of the conspiracy?

 

[Bill Williams]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Is the highlighted text an example of "arbitrary reasoning" from a legal view point, or does it fall to the judges discretion to formulate such reasoning even when there is no evidence? Could a claim be lodged with the ECHR that the unfairness of the intermediate trials led to a violation of the reasonable length of trial and thus a violation of Convention Article 6?

If Knox or Sollecito were to lodge a claim for unreasonable length of trial (a violation of Convention Article 6), would they be able to cite this reasoning and similar ones (if considered arbitrary) as contributing violations?

Another issue for unreasonable length would be the "reasonableness" of the "reasonable suspicion" listed in the arrest warrant, and justification of the length and even need for remand detention. But that may involve some other issues, such as the six-month deadline after final domestic judgment.

For ECHR purposes, exhaustion of domestic (Italian) remedies must also be demonstrated.

As per the highlighted part, I do not have legal training so am not a lawyer, and I do not have theatrical training so am not an Italian lawyer.

 

[Kauffer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Is the highlighted text an example of "arbitrary reasoning" from a legal view point, or does it fall to the judges discretion to formulate such reasoning even when there is no evidence? Could a claim be lodged with the ECHR that the unfairness of the intermediate trials led to a violation of the reasonable length of trial and thus a violation of Convention Article 6?

If Knox or Sollecito were to lodge a claim for unreasonable length of trial (a violation of Convention Article 6), would they be able to cite this reasoning and similar ones (if considered arbitrary) as contributing violations?

Another issue for unreasonable length would be the "reasonableness" of the "reasonable suspicion" listed in the arrest warrant, and justification of the length and even need for remand detention. But that may involve some other issues, such as the six-month deadline after final domestic judgment.

For ECHR purposes, exhaustion of domestic (Italian) remedies must also be demonstrated.

Does this help?

271. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 224).An accumulation of breaches by the State constitutes a practice that is incompatible with the Convention (Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], § 22).

 

[carbonjam72]

This is a little like our PGP poster.

Name one piece of evidence that was planted.

Provide a source for your earlier remark about Mignini getting from Rome what he needed beyond the obvious fact that the lab results had to come from Rome.

What is soft framing? They could have planted blood on the footprints but they didn't. They could have put blood on the knife but they didn't. They could have found blood in Raf's place but they didn't.

They could have put Raf's DNA on the bra clasp without others there as well. The video of the collection was broadcast to the van outside where the defense experts could see what was going on, which to me explains the show and tell format.

Was Massei part of the conspiracy?

I think you may have misread my post, or my intention.

Yes, Massei was a biased idiot who wanted to convict. I don't need to use the 'C' word, but feel free to.

 

[Strozzi]

This is a little like our PGP poster.

Name one piece of evidence that was planted.

Provide a source for your earlier remark about Mignini getting from Rome what he needed beyond the obvious fact that the lab results had to come from Rome.

What is soft framing? They could have planted blood on the footprints but they didn't. They could have put blood on the knife but they didn't. They could have found blood in Raf's place but they didn't.

They could have put Raf's DNA on the bra clasp without others there as well. The video of the collection was broadcast to the van outside where the defense experts could see what was going on, which to me explains the show and tell format.
Was Massei part of the conspiracy?

I am not sure they could have put Raf's DNA on the bra clasp without the DNA of others there as well. That would necessitate obtaining a sample from Raf that only had his DNA on it, wearing clean latex gloves, possibly using sterile tweezers, and packaging the item in an appropriate evidence container such as a sterile calendar box. . Then using a clean lab instrument devoid of contamination to test it. Doing it really right would have been outside their area of expertise.

If I remember correctly, the video of Stefanoni finding and flaunting the bra clasp as if it were a patron saint medal does not actually show her locating it on camera herself. It was reportedly located under a rug, off camera. What you do not see is that. For all we know, another police officer hunched over and with his back to Stefanoni picked up the bra clasp off-camera, wiped it with a sock taken from Raf, turned around and handed it off camera to Stefanoni who then holds it up to the camera. The defense rep sitting in a police van outside did not see any of it.