Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Though I've only read bits and pieces of the report it seems the ISC is saying that because the investigation was botched so badly it is now impossible to convict BARD. It doesn't seem to say they are both innocent of everything. In fact, they agree with BW's former position that she was guilty of calunnia.

It is hard to see that this ruling and report ultimately will serve the kids. Perhaps another trial, though tedious, could have served them better.

I fear you could be right. Then again I'm working off substandard Google translations. IIARIAAC, the Marasca report seems to be telegraphing what Italy's position will be in front of the ECHR. Perhaps the best spin one can put on that is to suggest that at the least Italy knows it will have some future fight on its hands.

My position years' ago was that Amanda was perhaps convictable of calunnia, but not punishable. That assumed I knew what calumnis was, which given the way the courts have linked this, then unlinked it, then linked it again makes it hard to follow.

The compelling issue now for me is the belief that Mignini included calunnia in with these trials for purely strategic reasons - and that's been the one strategic success all of us should concede.

Look at the way people say Knox is guilty, almost solely because of Lumumba.

Well played, Giuliano, well played. I mean they are innocent, and now judicially innocent, and you still have judicial claws in them.

The big hole in the strategy now is - Knox is beyond arms reach. And you now pick a fight with Raffaele at your peril.

 

[toto]

My recommendation would be to read the following:

"Murder in Italy", by Candace Dempsey. Good straightforward presentation of the story and info. The PG folks hate this book because Ms. Dempsey became a public advocate for Knox and Sollecito's innocence, but the book itself does not advocate so much as explain what happened.

" The Fatal Gift of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh. Well researched take on the case. NB did some research on several of the characters involved, providing some info not found elsewhere, especially about Guede. She provides some opinions about some of the people involved that each reader must decide if they agree with. For example, although this book concludes they must be innocent, NB includes unflattering portraits of almost everyone involved, including Knox family members.

John Follain's book, the title of which escapes me for now. Disliked by PI people because Follain's appears to get most of his info from Mignini and the police, this is nevertheless worthwhile to see an attempt to present the case from a largely "they must have done it" POV, but failing.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I would agree with these and all the others mentioned. Plus Law and Order by John Douglas (one chapter pp 330 -337 ) and I would read A and R's books too.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Williams]

People like Mach will continue on as long as they have an audience. Thankfully the audience is minimal now. Amanda and Raffaele have moved on with their lives. This case is closed. Some will still cling to the hope that Amanda will be hauled back to prison, but they are just showing their own instability.

Alot depends on who the audience is, which is why I'm so curious that AFAIK he doesn't even try to take it to an Italian audience.

Still, if the only audience is on this webservice and PMF and Pete's site, that's not much of an audience.

 

[bagels]

One aspect of the Rudi courts saying there were more than one accomplice and Mignini et al. charging both kids with the crime is that it was impossible to prove BARD.

If only one was charged and idiotic testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Nara were not introduced, then scenarios of involvement, if not part of the murder, would be much harder to rule out.

Though I've only read bits and pieces of the report it seems the ISC is saying that because the investigation was botched so badly it is now impossible to convict BARD. It doesn't seem to say they are both innocent of everything. In fact, they agree with BW's former position that she was guilty of calunnia.

It is hard to see that this ruling and report ultimately will serve the kids. Perhaps another trial, though tedious, could have served them better.

From the limited translations that are out there it seems this report has Amanda doing things like washing her hands in blood "incidentally" as a means of explaining the "mixed blood DNA" in the bathroom. It's almost like a troll report, taking all the prosecutions evidence at face value, and then saying "well it still doesn't prove anything." I wonder if this is just the way it works over there at a cultural level? Are Italians reading the reports going to naturally understand, well, they don't literally believe Amanda washed her hands in blood, it just had to be written like that. From an outsider's perspective, the report makes no sense.

 

[moije2]

Closing time

I have always said Amanda was lucky. If you could say that about someone who unjustly spent 4 years in prison. Lucky because there is no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room. Sorry, Mach, her lamp doesn't prove that Amanda was in that room.

It would have been reasonable that Amanda left evidence of herself in that bedroom during the previous 42 days. Finding Amanda's DNA in Meredith's bedroom or even on Meredith's clothes would hardly been proof of Amanda's involvement. But the total absence of said evidence certainly points to a high probability of innocence.

Lucky.......hmmmmmm

I have always said this too. Evidence of Ms Knox in Meredith's room - in terms of DNA or physical elements - would mean nothing in terms of guilt. She lived there and easily could have looked at a photo album or such with Ms Kercher and shed a hair for instance. The gain is that she didn't have to fight more idiotic arguments from idiots about guilt through items that showed no physical activity at the time of the murder. Of course the idiots will argue that surely this is a sign of microscopic clean up. More "logic". LOL.

I am glad the final MR has come out. I am arriving at the point where my passing energy on this can be redirected to other travesties. The silly and spineless statements of the justices in this MR will let the guiltards feel justified in their avenue of hate. Good for them. I am getting closer to full sign off. I have accomplished what I want in terms of learning about a group of people and a system that allowed them to inflict such harm. Enough said.

 

[Ken Dine]

Hellmann was the last breath of sanity from the Italian courts, quickly snuffed out lest it spread and infect others.

FUNNY, but probably true!

 

[carbonjam72]

Looking from the perspective of working to correct wrongful convictions, it was disappointing to see the court working so hard to cover for all involved, including their prior ruling regarding Guede. The report added unnecessary information in an attempt to connect all of the dots. In this case, that is not possible and not the right path to take.

The report shows the flaws of a system in need of reform. The court should not feel the need to protect others involved. They should not feel the need to protect their prior rulings. They should follow the facts as they know them to be at that given time. They should stand up and say the system got it wrong. Of course, no one ever admits they were wrong, so that is just wishful thinking.

In the end, the system did what was right and released Amanda and Raffaele. Sadly the truth will forever be clouded due to the flawed process. It would be nice to see lessons learned about the issues raised about the investigation. We can only hope that something positive will eventually come from all of this.

Hey Bruce,

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but have you seen the case of the "kayak killer" in New York?

Many similarities to the accusations against Amanda, including zero actual evidence, factually impossible claims, and a determination of guilt based exclusively on behavior in a young woman with language challenges, and claims of confessions under coercion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/n...was-victim-of-homicide.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

Still in prison, though its in pre-trial phase. But there's no possibility the case is real, and the prosecution is clearly out of hand.

Is there any logical recourse to stop it?

 

[moije2]

People like Mach will continue on as long as they have an audience. Thankfully the audience is minimal now. Amanda and Raffaele have moved on with their lives. This case is closed. Some will still cling to the hope that Amanda will be hauled back to prison, but they are just showing their own instability.

I agree Bruce and want to thank you for your posts and participation in all of this. Way way back when, when I was first exposed to this case I posed a simple question to you when I was trying understand what this was all about. You gave and appropriate simple answer that helped me on my way. At that time Harry Rag was prominent in his postings and I posted a question to him and he blasted back - because of my question - that I must be one of Bruce Fischer's brainwashed followers. Instead of just answering my question when I point out how he was losing credibility by posting all of his half-truths (which added up to one big lie).

Anyway, thanks again.

Please let me add that I also agree it is time to stop creating an audience for loose nuts. The likes of Machiavelli will float down stream in their own chosen boat. They owns that boat. Further more, M's contribution regarding legal goings-on serves a purpose but at this point is limited. We already know they write whatever they want and logic and facts do not stand in their way.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have always said this too. Evidence of Ms Knox in Meredith's room - in terms of DNA or physical elements - would mean nothing in terms of guilt. She lived there and easily could have looked at a photo album or such with Ms Kercher and shed a hair for instance. The gain is that she didn't have to fight more idiotic arguments from idiots about guilt through items that showed no physical activity at the time of the murder. Of course the idiots will argue that surely this is a sign of microscopic clean up. More "logic". LOL.

I am glad the final MR has come out. I am arriving at the point where my passing energy on this can be redirected to other travesties. The silly and spineless statements of the justices in this MR will let the guiltards feel justified in their avenue of hate. Good for them. I am getting closer to full sign off. I have accomplished what I want in terms of learning about a group of people and a system that allowed them to inflict such harm. Enough said.

Yup, about the same here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hey Bruce,

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but have you seen the case of the "kayak killer" in New York?

Many similarities to the accusations against Amanda, including zero actual evidence, factually impossible claims, and a determination of guilt based exclusively on behavior in a young woman with language challenges, and claims of confessions under coercion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/n...was-victim-of-homicide.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

Still in prison, though its in pre-trial phase. But there's no possibility the case is real, and the prosecution is clearly out of hand.

Is there any logical recourse to stop it?

Just letting you know that we have a separate thread on that case
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292779

 

[Ken Dine]

By the way, Mignini may no longer by the dumbest craziest prosecutor on earth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/n...iner-says-kayaker-was-victim-of-homicide.html

Several months ago I also cited the Kayak murder case in NY as having many similar parallels to the Knox case.

Even if his (foreign-born) wife did remove the plug from her husband's kayak, shame on him for going out into freezing waters without fully checking out his equipment.

Actually, it was a small drain plug which wouldn't normally allow much water into the kayak during normal use.

Also, shame on the husband for taking his wife out into freezing waters not properly dressed with thermal suits and life preservers. She also went into the water, and if a passing boat hadn't plucked her out in time, she'd be as dead as her husband.

If the wife planned on killing her stupid husband (who deserves a Darwin Award for stupidity), there should have been better ways than nearly killing herself in the process.

But his wife was foreign-born (and younger), and that in itself can be suspicious!

 

[carbonjam72]

Several months ago I also cited the Kayak murder case in NY as having many similar parallels to the Knox case.

Even if his (foreign-born) wife did remove the plug from her husband's kayak, shame on him for going out into freezing waters without fully checking out his equipment.

Actually, it was a small drain plug which wouldn't normally allow much water into the kayak during normal use.

Also, shame on the husband for taking his wife out into freezing waters not properly dressed with thermal suits and life preservers. She also went into the water, and if a passing boat hadn't plucked her out in time, she'd be as dead as her husband.

If the wife planned on killing her stupid husband (who deserves a Darwin Award for stupidity), there should have been better ways than nearly killing herself in the process.

But his wife was foreign-born (and younger), and that in itself can be suspicious!

She was his fiancée, not wife. And she had been named as beneficiary to insurance worth about $250k.

There is not a shred of evidence she took out the drain plug from his kayak, her lawyer is claiming it had been missing for some time, and the kayak was found floating, so it didn't sink the kayak in any event.

The prosecution is out their minds, and they had a medical examiner who just essentially fabricated a cause of death report that Stefanoni could love, as reported in the article link provided.

DF, thanks for the notice to another thread, I will take a look -

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.
I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

Mach is incensed by the ISC verdict. I don't get it from his posts that he is overly bothered about Amanda herself. If I believed what he does, I would be pissed at the judges too. I was pissed at the idiots who reversed Hellman. So were we all. Let's get off his case a little bit and use him as a source of (perhaps somewhat slanted) information about the motivation and the recent slander trial.

I also would like more information from Mach about the background of his ideology. The authors he listed are or were all anti-Mafia activists. I think Mach has acknowledged in the past, too, that he is a member of the Communist Party in Italy.

I would like to know how those he considers his enemies influenced the judicial processes for this trial, and I would like to know how aggressive foreigners took advantage of it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree Bruce and want to thank you for your posts and participation in all of this. Way way back when, when I was first exposed to this case I posed a simple question to you when I was trying understand what this was all about. You gave and appropriate simple answer that helped me on my way. At that time Harry Rag was prominent in his postings and I posted a question to him and he blasted back - because of my question - that I must be one of Bruce Fischer's brainwashed followers. Instead of just answering my question when I point out how he was losing credibility by posting all of his half-truths (which added up to one big lie).
Anyway, thanks again.

Please let me add that I also agree it is time to stop creating an audience for loose nuts. The likes of Machiavelli will float down stream in their own chosen boat. They owns that boat. Further more, M's contribution regarding legal goings-on serves a purpose but at this point is limited. We already know they write whatever they want and logic and facts do not stand in their way.

The highlighted part was my experience with posting to TJMK in the fall of 2011, just after the first acquittal. I cannot remember if this was before or after joining IIP/IA, but I was only half aware of who this Bruce Fis(c)her guy was at the time.

To be honest, I was fast becoming embedded in the "innocence camp", but was unaware of the emotive force behind guilters using terms like "FOAKers" pejoratively. My posting history at TJMK lasted 7 posts and then suddenly my log-on info did not work. I'd been saying that "Kermit's powerpoint" about the break-in was completely wrong; it was doable..... etc., and thn "click", TJMK hung up on me!

Other posters wondered where I'd gone, some said they'd seen me "scurrying back to Bruce Fischer's site". I'd been unaware of any "scurrying", but the use of that pejorative was illuminating! I thought of myself at the time, rightly or wrongly, as simply going where the conversation was. Peter Q. himself denied logging me out, and made the same sort of comment about all of these "Bruce Fischer minions".

WTF!? WTFWTAA? (.... was that all about?) I then spent way, way too much time looking into what was in late 2011 a well established hatred between the PI and PG camps; that I was coming to new. Wow.

Re: Marasca's motivations report - I am beginning to understand that Machiavelli, perhaps, does have grounds, at least, to put things the way he does in this thread. Truly, this is not the report which 100% sticks it to the PLE, prosecutions, Stefanoni's, prosecutors of the case who are otherwise implicitly condemned in its 52 pages.

Between the Google-translates I can manage, as well as Italian speakers who've been commenting - clearly Marasca's report does continue that tradition of ISC-uniformity with the attempt to not be seen to be completely out of step with what has gone on before......

....... all the while, while still condemning the out of control judicial process which led Marasca's division to acquit without remand.

I'm told something, which also makes sense with regard to the Italian media coverage: the Italia media almost universally "gets" that this is the most harsh condemnation of a wrongful conviction that an Italian court can manage.....

..... that this is still a report which levels a broadside at the usual suspects to us, the embedded innocentisti. Those people know how to read between the lines - even with the bones thrown in, like Hellmann did by convicting Knox of calunnia, yet she was able to leave the country - and everyone has something.

Yet it remains - in Italy among the Italian language press and media - they know what this means. We can argue Machiavelli's points here, in English on an obscure webservice all we want - once again, maybe I'll even join Machiavelli in his conspiracy thinking..... which would get the biggest "who cares" that one can imagine.

It seems that in Italy everyone knows what Marasca's report means and what it signals, and it does it in such a way as it does not trigger what needs to happen in Italy.... a change to the systemic reason why Mignini's madness could go on for 8 years until someone called a halt to it.

Maybe that's all we get out of this, and the rest is just arguing on webservices because we have too much time on our hands!

 

[Vixen]

Seriously, you need to take a few days off. Because you steadfastly refuse to offer a narrative of this crime into which the evidence for guilt fits.

Instead, you think that because Knox is female, that's why her forensic presence is not in Meredith's room.

I just hope there are enough lurkers left to read what you have to say.

Bill, please take a course in DNA For Dummies, or study wiki.

You haven't the foggiest idea what you are chuntering about.

 

[Bill Williams]

Seriously, you need to take a few days off. Because you steadfastly refuse to offer a narrative of this crime into which the evidence for guilt fits.

Instead, you think that because Knox is female, that's why her forensic presence is not in Meredith's room.

I just hope there are enough lurkers left to read what you have to say.

Bill, please take a course in DNA For Dummies, or study wiki.

You haven't the foggiest idea what you are chuntering aboit.

Well, how about this?

On the face of it, Machiavelli is describing something that can happen. But one cannot take the phenomenon of one woman's DNA overwhelming and perhaps masking by volume an alleged female's perp's DNA-signature as **positive** proof of the female perp's identity.

It's only when there is other, overwhelming evidence of that perp in the room, that this can be dusted off as explaining the lack of DNA evidence.

There's also, for instance, the matter that there is no Meredith forensic material which anyone other than Rudy Guede took out of that room. Meaning, there is no evidence at all that either Raffaele or Amanda took forensics out of that room.

They simply were not there.

ETA - not a total loss, though. I'd never heard "chuntering" before!

 

[Vixen]

Yes it's plain idiotic.

It's the same of accusing the Palestinians of hating the Israeli Zionists because of an anti-Semitic prejudice.
Indeed the Palestinians hate the Israeli Zionists.

But hatred is the effect of something, not the cause of it.

I guess very easilly that the pro-Knoxes will try to subvert the causal order of things: instead of admitting that someone hates them because they are thugs, they will state that someone sees them as thugs because they hate them.

It's a childish denial.

The reason why I see an enemy, is not because I am prejudiced. On the contrary. It's because I don't share yours.
Prejudice is ignorance. But the hatred of Palestinains does not originate from ignorance about the Zionists, it originate from the knowledge of Zionism.

Mary H just proves to build idiotic reasoning, based on ignorance, also elsewhere, as in the example that I have cited: for example where she states, adamantly, that interrogation must have been illegal because the SC declared them non usable.
This is a patent example of prejudicial thinking. And this is the model of Mary H thinking on this point too.

Mary H (and you) basically call "prejudice" the fact that I have a knowledge of facts from a point of view that you don't have and don't understand, and leads to a view of facts that is irreconciliable with yours.

I could guess you would pick up the word "hatred", this is why I added provocatively the line, saying if you like you can interpret it and call it that way. Because you don't understand the difference of ideology, of contexts and realities. People fail to understand why someone hates them, because they are shielded by their own ignorance they think hatred is a prejudice.
What "motivates" me is certainly more complex than what I expressed in forum lines. What I find curious, and what I note, is that a poster (analemma) was telling about her speculations of what "motivates" me and presented tortuous theories: wondering if I try to defend the "honor of the Judiciary", or if I'm a police officer defending some particular career, etc. That poster was only able to imagine "utilitaristic" motives, some rather disingenuous or cynical motivation.
In fact the object of my interest is narratives. Conflicting narratives, false narratives. Nobody seem to consider that what "motivetes" me (which is what motivates Palestinians, too) may be truth.
The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.

Can't agree with you about Palestine. I was in Israel ten months ago and got to chat to lots of Palestinians, notably in Bethlehem, where they had subtle posters up ('Welcome to Bethlehem, free Palestine') and Jericho, where the bedouins have been banned from roaming around in their nomadic lifestyle. I have buckets of sympathy for them. However, the Israelis have established Israel as an official state, and they are entitled to live there and expect safety. They are surrounded on all sides by Muslim states, so understandable they are very defensive about terrorist attacks, for example, destroying the homes of perps.

What we need in the Middle East is peace, my friend.

 

[Mary_H]

Can't agree with you about Palestine. I was in Isreal ten months ago and got to chat to lots of Palestinians, notably in Bethlehem, where they had subtle posters up ('Welcome to Bethlehem, free Palestine') and Jericho, where the bedouins have been banned from roaming around in their nomadic lifestyle. I have buckets of sympathy for them. However, the Israelis have established Israel as an official state, and they are entitled to live there and expect safety. They are surrounded on all sides by Muslim states, so understandable they are very defensive about terrorist attacks, for example, destroying the homes of perps.<snip>

Folks, don't even start.

 

[toto]

One aspect of the Rudi courts saying there were more than one accomplice and Mignini et al. charging both kids with the crime is that it was impossible to prove BARD.

If only one was charged and idiotic testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Nara were not introduced, then scenarios of involvement, if not part of the murder, would be much harder to rule out.

Though I've only read bits and pieces of the report it seems the ISC is saying that because the investigation was botched so badly it is now impossible to convict BARD. It doesn't seem to say they are both innocent of everything. In fact, they agree with BW's former position that she was guilty of calunnia.

It is hard to see that this ruling and report ultimately will serve the kids. Perhaps another trial, though tedious, could have served them better.

I don't agree with this. I go along with something a poster, Alex K, wrote on the injustice website:

Flawed motivations for a definitive acquittal are preferable to impeccable motivations for a retrial. From the defendants' point of view, at least.​

The headlines were helpful to A and R, and it is too late for the pro guilty people to hope for headlines such as "Amanda WAS there!" If A and R are well advised they won't go near the pro guilt sites and this thread will slowly fade after a flurry of activity regarding the recent report. I do hope the remaining trials go well for the two, but even if they don't I don't think it will alter their lives that much. Considering how it could have turned out, freedom for the remainder of their lives is not so bad. Their friends and family and the majority of decent people they will come across will wholly outnumber the odd few who will mainly comment on censored websites.

 

[Vixen]

What books would people recommend for an overview of this case?

For example, I just read a review of The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox by Nina Burleigh. Is that worth reading?

Burleigh is a self professed advocate for Amanda, and as a consequence, half the book is an astonishing attempt to demonstrate Rudy was the most prolific burglar Perugia has ever seen, as supposed proof of her darling's innocence and Rudy as the sole killer. If you find didactic or proselytising prose that browbeats the reader's basest emotions irritating, avoid this book. Burleigh is basically a liar who sets out to convince the reader her lies are the truth.