Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Really? You expect people with an extreme emotional connection to the crime to be able to objectively assess all the information that was flying around, a lot of which they would have been unable to even think about for emotional reasons?

And all this without us knowing whether they're even aware of the problems of wrongful convictions and the typical patterns that appear? Most people do not really understand how wrongful convictions happen and how often they happen.

I don't think any of us could possibly claim that we'd be able to be objective in such a circumstance, however much we'd like to think we could be.

It does seem to argue however that the case for guilt from the beginning was bad.

 

[Samson]

Really? You expect people with an extreme emotional connection to the crime to be able to objectively assess all the information that was flying around, a lot of which they would have been unable to even think about for emotional reasons?

And all this without us knowing whether they're even aware of the problems of wrongful convictions and the typical patterns that appear? Most people do not really understand how wrongful convictions happen and how often they happen.

I don't think any of us could possibly claim that we'd be able to be objective in such a circumstance, however much we'd like to think we could be.

I am watching currently two huge hoaxes being played out in NZ. The form is identical. Dual bloody murders with no blood. The families are divided.
I was unaware, so I am being extremely selective with that Big Nickel post. You caught me redhanded.
I wonder if anyone who follows trials and errors will be hoodwinked in the future......

 

[Desert Fox]

I am watching currently two huge hoaxes being played out in NZ. The form is identical. Dual bloody murders with no blood. The families are divided.
I was unaware, so I am being extremely selective with that Big Nickel post. You caught me redhanded.
I wonder if anyone who follows trials and errors will be hoodwinked in the future......

The answer to the last is a certain YES

 

[Samson]

The answer to the last is a certain YES

Surely not the mighty Desert Fox

 

[Desert Fox]

Surely not the mighty Desert Fox

Biggest issues are people who think they cannot be hoodwinked.
One of the important lessons is skepticism is that you have all the same biases of non skeptics.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder whether Arline will in fact go and visit Guede. There was some indication she might do this.

The tragedy of the Kerchers is that their position was always that they wanted to know the truth but that every action they took led them further away from it. Yet, they could have got themselves real independent experts to assess the evidence without adversarial bias. (They didn't like CandVs, after all).

But it really should have struck them early on that the theory of the crime was at the very least, extraordinary and it should have made them suspicious. The chances of finding a real sociopathic female rage killer are incredibly thin. The chances that one of them actually murdered their daughter - thinner still. The odds against her being her own roommate are astronomical.

Not that rare, there are plenty of them (Tracey Andrews, Joanna Dehanney, Aileen Wuornos, etc). Here in England, we had Mary Bell, who, aged 11, accompanied by her friend 13-year old Norma Bell, deemed of subnormal intelligence, throttled to death three-year old Martin Brown and three-year old Brian Howe, as well as mutilating the latter's groin region and carving her initial "M" with a razor on his stomach. He was found covered in grass and some wild purple flowers (speedwell?).

When questioned by police, Mary finally claimed she'd seen a little boy in the street carrying some bent scissors and "covered in grass and little purple flowers".

She then became prime suspect. Compare and contrast Amanda's detailed claim of how "Patrick had sex with Mez and killed her, whilst I covered my ears as she screamed".

Mary was a sociopath due to her horrendous early childhood, with her mother repeatedly trying to kill her or give her away (feeding her pills, pushing her out a window, giving her to a childless woman, etc) and submitting her daughter, as a common prostitute, to paedophiles whilst a toddler.

If Amanda killed Mez, then I would feel fairly confident there is childhood abuse there in the background, as was the case with the James Bulger child killers, Venables and Thompson.

 

[Samson]

Not that rare, there are plenty of them (Tracey Andrews, Joanna Dehanney, Aileen Wuornos, etc). Here in England, we had Mary Bell, who, aged 11, accompanied by her friend 13-year old Norma Bell, deemed of subnormal intelligence, throttled to death three-year old Martin Brown and three-year old Brian Howe, as well as mutilating the latter's groin region and carving her initial "M" with a razor on his stomach. He was found covered in grass and some wild purple flowers (speedwell?).

When questioned by police, Mary finally claimed she'd seen a little boy in the street carrying some bent scissors and "covered in grass and little purple flowers".

She then became prime suspect. Compare and contrast Amanda's detailed claim of how "Patrick had sex with Mez and killed her, whilst I covered my ears as she screamed".

Mary was a sociopath due to her horrendous early childhood, with her mother repeatedly trying to kill her or give her away (feeding her pills, pushing her out a window, giving her to a childless woman, etc) and submitting her daughter, as a common prostitute, to paedophiles whilst a toddler.

If Amanda killed Mez, then I would feel fairly confident there is childhood abuse there in the background, as was the case with the James Bulger child killers, Venables and Thompson.

Open minds are good minds. Do you think she did?

 

[Vixen]

Open minds are good minds. Do you think she did?

It would not be fair or proper for me to be drawn on that question.

ETA However, it is suspicious Amanda had such a detailed knowledge of the murder.

 

[Numbers]

Hi Numbers - Do you know, let's say, of the cases dealt with this year by the court, what the typical or average time was from submission to communication, communication to admission and admission to judgement?

I agree it would be valuable to have statistics such as the averages (mean, mode, and median) times from submission of a claim until it was communicated (= official notification to the respondent State) and communication to admission and judgment, and the ranges and variations (standard deviations). Such times may vary for State and for claimed violation (Articles 2 and 3 supposedly being given priority). I don't have such quantitative information.

Inspection (cursory examination) of HUDOC shows that a delay of several years from lodging a claim and the communication of a case, and between communication and judgment, is not unusual, even for cases claiming violation of Articles 2 or 3.

 

[Desert Fox]

It would not be fair or proper for me to be drawn on that question.

There is a saying in the states that a "persecutor could indict a ham sandwich."
It is the basic idea, which is in many cases, where a prosecutor can indict or convict a defendant based on what is basically no evidence.

 

[Grinder]

In brief, About September 1 or 2 of 2007, at 2-3 am, Cristian was woken by a noise and discovered a black man in his flat. The apparent entry was through an open window. His girl friend, Monika Oltrarzvesca, called 113 while he chased the intruder downstairs. The police responded within 2 hours. On 7 January 2008 Cristian was heard by commissioner Monica Napoleoni where there was a summary report produced that was introduced to the Massei court on June 26, 2009.

Pretty much what I deduced. Another fable undone,

But it really should have struck them early on that the theory of the crime was at the very least, extraordinary and it should have made them suspicious. The chances of finding a real sociopathic female rage killer are incredibly thin. The chances that one of them actually murdered their daughter - thinner still. The odds against her being her own roommate are astronomical.

There is a 100% chance that the rare sociopath killer killed someone.

She then became prime suspect. Compare and contrast Amanda's detailed claim of how "Patrick had sex with Mez and killed her, whilst I covered my ears as she screamed".

Amanda gave no detail in her statement that wasn't obvious and/or in media before it was made. The only scream evidence at the time she was actually killed came from Rudi AFTER he read Amanda's statement.

Mary was a sociopath due to her horrendous early childhood, with her mother repeatedly trying to kill her or give her away (feeding her pills, pushing her out a window, giving her to a childless woman, etc) and submitting her daughter, as a common prostitute, to paedophiles whilst a toddler.

If Amanda killed Mez, then I would feel fairly confident there is childhood abuse there in the background, as was the case with the James Bulger child killers, Venables and Thompson.

Does it work the other way around? No abuse then not the killer?

 

[lonepinealex]

It would not be fair or proper for me to be drawn on that question.

ETA However, it is suspicious Amanda had such a detailed knowledge of the murder.

How is it suspicious, when her detailed knowledge was about stuff that never actually happened?

 

[Grinder]

He testified for the prosecution, albeit in a highly confused way. So why did he do that? I don't know, but I made a guess it wasn't because he was a concerned citizen doing his duty. My guess was that he did it because Mignini made it worth his while.

I think Mignini was using not credible witnesses like Toto to push his case forward. I don't think it's a big leap to imagine that the same guy that got one not credible, criminally leaning guy to testify by applying pressure on him, would have done something similar with another not credible, criminal type guy.

The best information to date is that a young cub reporter named Fois "found" Curatolo and Quintavalle talking both of them into coming forward. Nara first was heard on TV IIRC and then was interviewed by the police.

Both C and Q denied knowledge when interviewed shortly after the murder.

The story told is that he went to friends soon after the fateful night and told them his bizarre tale. Koko left shortly after the murder for Albania. He returned from there a couple of months later and had an attorney set up a meeting with Mignini.

He wasn't found by the reporter or the police. He came forward on his own.

I see nothing to suggest any deal was made or any reason Mignini wanted this guy. Don't you think if Mignini set up his testimony he would have at least had the weather conditions correct?

As an aside, before your post I didn't realize that there was a theory that Diaz didn't exist. I thought that was an established fact.

Other than Nina there is no other source for the Diaz story. I don't think she doesn't exist but not even that was established at first. Someone may found a listing for her. The more important aspect is that no reports of a house being badly damaged and a pet cat being killed made any report that has been produced. Even if all of the above were true there is nothing to tie Rudi to it other than he lived next door.

Nina has a detail that the fire that badly damaged the house was started by a scarf being put over a lamp, which would seem impossible to determine if a fire resulted in the described damage.

 

[Samson]

The best information to date is that a young cub reporter named Fois "found" Curatolo and Quintavalle talking both of them into coming forward. Nara first was heard on TV IIRC and then was interviewed by the police.

Both C and Q denied knowledge when interviewed shortly after the murder.

The story told is that he went to friends soon after the fateful night and told them his bizarre tale. Koko left shortly after the murder for Albania. He returned from there a couple of months later and had an attorney set up a meeting with Mignini.

He wasn't found by the reporter or the police. He came forward on his own.

I see nothing to suggest any deal was made or any reason Mignini wanted this guy. Don't you think if Mignini set up his testimony he would have at least had the weather conditions correct?



Other than Nina there is no other source for the Diaz story. I don't think she doesn't exist but not even that was established at first. Someone may found a listing for her. The more important aspect is that no reports of a house being badly damaged and a pet cat being killed made any report that has been produced. Even if all of the above were true there is nothing to tie Rudi to it other than he lived next door.

Nina has a detail that the fire that badly damaged the house was started by a scarf being put over a lamp, which would seem impossible to determine if a fire resulted in the described damage.

But a gold watch existed, and was in Rudy's backpack. Why is proof necessary when the data points stray so little from the curve? And as acbytesla pointed out, Rudy said he purchased the lawyer's cellphone but did not own it. This means he lied in saying he purchased it, therefore he stole it. But don't get me wrong, I understand your position. But I am sure a jury would convict on all 4 charges. I would, I think. After all, we are continually watching juries convict completely innocent people.

 

[Grinder]

Bill and others have expressed little interest in continuing to explore what really happened in various aspects. As was discussed at other times some were advocates for the kids innocence and had emotional connection to the kids and I'm guessing the verdict completes the case for them.

I have been convinced since reading the police chief's comments the day after arrest that something was rotten in Perugia. When Patrick was cleared the feeling intensified. The detail of how badly the DNA evidence was handled took some time to become clear.

One of the oddest aspects for me was the defense both legal and PR argued it had to be Rudi as the "lone wolf". Obviously if the kids could be suspects as accomplices and leave no evidence in the murder room then so could someone else. It was noted early on that evidence of unidentified people was found. IIRC both DNA and fingerprints were found.

I have wondered if the semen stain was from an unidentified man which would thrown a wrench in the gears of the prosecution's theory.

Koko was established to be there from phone records IIRC. What was he doing there? Did he know Rudi? Did they work at the same place for a time?

 

[Grinder]

But a gold watch existed, and was in Rudy's backpack. Why is proof necessary when the data points stray so little from the curve? And as acbytesla pointed out, Rudy said he purchased the lawyer's cellphone but did not own it. This means he lied in saying he purchased it, therefore he stole it. But don't get me wrong, I understand your position. But I am sure a jury would convict on all 4 charges. I would, I think. After all, we are continually watching juries convict completely innocent people.

How many gold watches do you think there are? What data points? Produce any account of this devastating fire from a contemporary source.

So Rudi being questioned by Mignini about the murder of Meredith didn't continue his Milan fable. No one ever believed that; however, do you think if he had been fronted the merch from the burglar he would say that? He didn't say he stole the phone. His statement is perfectly consistent with him being fronted items for sale.

I doubt that he could be charged much less convicted of anything except possession of stolen items, which in fact was what he was charged and convicted of.

Why wouldn't the police have gone after him for the Diaz burglary?

In the last few days Tesla's theory of no phone access and CT reporting the crime directly to Nappy have been shattered. Tick tock, what's next?

 

[Samson]

How many gold watches do you think there are? What data points? Produce any account of this devastating fire from a contemporary source.

So Rudi being questioned by Mignini about the murder of Meredith didn't continue his Milan fable. No one ever believed that; however, do you think if he had been fronted the merch from the burglar he would say that? He didn't say he stole the phone. His statement is perfectly consistent with him being fronted items for sale.

I doubt that he could be charged much less convicted of anything except possession of stolen items, which in fact was what he was charged and convicted of.

Why wouldn't the police have gone after him for the Diaz burglary?

In the last few days Tesla's theory of no phone access and CT reporting the crime directly to Nappy have been shattered. Tick tock, what's next?

Remember he purchased the goods in Milan, therefore it was a legitimate trade. Small town boy in the big smoke. He will believe it a legitimate purchase and be proud of securing a great deal and claiming ownership.

 

[Kauffer]

Really? You expect people with an extreme emotional connection to the crime to be able to objectively assess all the information that was flying around, a lot of which they would have been unable to even think about for emotional reasons?

And all this without us knowing whether they're even aware of the problems of wrongful convictions and the typical patterns that appear? Most people do not really understand how wrongful convictions happen and how often they happen.

I don't think any of us could possibly claim that we'd be able to be objective in such a circumstance, however much we'd like to think we could be.

I can forgive the Kerchers their emotionalism, the early imprinting of the prosecution case, their anger, their despair and agree that it could reasonably have been expected to sustain them for quite some time. But for how long should we expect them not to have engaged their brains? Seven and a half years?

Kercher senior was hardly unaware of the phenomenon of miscarriages of justice. A world famous one occurred right on his doorstep in Surrey - the Guildford four wrongly convicted with shoddy forensic evidence of an IRA bombing in a case with similarities to Amanda Knox's.

When the data dump occurred late in the Massei trial, should he have been concerned to hear that the bloody footprints were not actually blood and that this evidence had been withheld from the court? Should he have asked how it was possible for Amanda to stab his daughter to death without leaving a speck of evidence?

At a certain point somewhere between November 6th 2007 and March 27th 2015, with the "heartbreaking quest for the truth" about his daughter's murder prominent in his mind, he should have been expected to have asked some better questions. Did he never search the internet for clues? Stray onto the IIP site or the PI wiki? Did he never read Moore, Hendry, Halkides? Did none of his friends privately and quietly express some doubt? Did he ever ask his family liaison, Nick Scola, a senior Metropolitan police detective with impeccable credentials what he thought about the case?

 

[lonepinealex]

I can forgive the Kerchers their emotionalism, the early imprinting of the prosecution case, their anger, their despair and agree that it could reasonably have been expected to sustain them for quite some time. But for how long should we expect them not to have engaged their brains?

Kercher senior was hardly unaware of the phenomenon of miscarriages of justice. A world famous one occurred right on his doorstep in Surrey - the Guildford four wrongly convicted with shoddy forensic evidence of an IRA bombing in a case with similarities to Amanda Knox's.

When the data dump occurred late in the Massei trial, should he have been concerned to hear that the bloody footprints were not actually blood and that this evidence had been withheld from the court? Should he have asked how it was possible for Amanda to stab his daughter to death without leaving a speck of evidence?

At a certain point somewhere between November 6th 2007 and March 27th 2015, with the "heartbreaking quest for the truth" about his daughter's murder prominent in his mind, he should have been expected to have asked some better questions. Did he never search the internet for clues? Stray onto the IIP site or the PI wiki? Did he never read Moore, Hendry, Halkides? Did none of his friends privately and quietly express some doubt? Did he ever ask his family liaison, Nick Scola, a Metropolitan police detective with impeccable credentials what he thought about the case?

How do you know he hasn't? The Kerchers haven't said anything much at all in the last couple of years. Certainly nothing concrete.

 

[Vixen]

There is a saying in the states that a "persecutor could indict a ham sandwich."
It is the basic idea, which is in many cases, where a prosecutor can indict or convict a defendant based on what is basically no evidence.

I honestly think a prosecutor has better things to do with his or her time than try to frame innocent people.