Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I think motive, especially in this case, goes beyond did so-and-so have a reason to kill. It's their motivation to engage in a plausible narrative. AK and RS at 8:40 learn their evening is free. Within 20 minutes they grab their biggest chef's knife to kill Meredith with in Amanda's own house, hope she's actually home, then recruit the local burglar on the way for no reason, and he agrees to tag along and rape the corpse for good measure. These actions are a sequence of social non sequiturs compounding on one another. It's evidence it didn't happen. Could it override AK's blood prints on the knife, no, but lots of different types of credible and probative evidence could be weighed against each other in such a manner.

To me, this is a good summary of the role of "motive" in the AK - RS case. There was no credible motive ever expressed to tie the defendants, Knox and Sollecito, to the murder, and none to tie them into a collaboration (conspiracy) with Guede, the convicted murderer. The lack of credible motive and the lack of credible evidence of Knox or Sollecito being present in the murder room both support their actual innocence.

 

[anglolawyer]

Motive is the why not the how or the proof. Many a crime has been dubbed senseless just because of that. Motive is not necessary and only motive isn't enough generally though Scott Peterson was convicted mostly because of it. On the other hand strong circumstantial is enough even in the total absence of motive. A bloody finger print on the knife and in the murder room is pretty damning without an excellent explanation. Better yet power residue on the hand and jacket, prints on the gun that produced markings that matched the bullet markings of the fatal bullet. Who would be convicted, the person that sworn to kill the person or the best friend that had the circumstantial evidence of powder and prints on the gun.



Direct evidence is witnessing of the act (crime). "I saw Tom shoot Linda" is direct evidence and is always some form of testimony. Direct evidence may be a fact or a fiction.

In this case, a fingerprint may be everything, but in that case not so much. While it's true it is easier to conceive a 'fingerprint only' than a 'motive only' case, in practise there's usually a bunch of stuff of which motive is a key part. If you think about it, nothing happens without a motive, almost in a Newtonian sense, even an apparently senseless murder will have a motive.

In the case we are discussing, motive is undoubtedly important and the lack of it is perfectly capable of trumping a fingerprint or a nanogram of DNA.

 

[Grinder]

I think motive, especially in this case, goes beyond did so-and-so have a reason to kill. It's their motivation to engage in a plausible narrative. AK and RS at 8:40 learn their evening is free. Within 20 minutes they grab their biggest chef's knife to kill Meredith with in Amanda's own house, hope she's actually home, then recruit the local burglar on the way for no reason, and he agrees to tag along and rape the corpse for good measure. These actions are a sequence of social non sequiturs compounding on one another. It's evidence it didn't happen. Could it override AK's blood prints on the knife, no, but lots of different types of credible and probative evidence could be weighed against each other in such a manner.

Well since I don't believe the prosecution case at all I must agree with your specifics. While many here will not be able to follow the hypothetical to come I hope you will.

The knife wasn't used but rather it was one of Raf's flick knives. Curatolo didn't see them at all. Instead of the three doing it together it was a variation of Rudi's story. He didn't get let in by Meredith but broke in and was hiding in the bathroom after she came home. The kids showed up and Amanda was in a rage (check with Vixen for the reason du jour ) and a melee broke out immediately. Rudi stayed in the bathroom for awhile and when he emerged Meredith had been stabbed and the kids made it clear he would be blamed.

Now I just made that all up because the stupid ILE screwed everything up, like Marasca said, and so much of the case doesn't make sense even if they did it. Clearly they wouldn't have taken the knife. Clearly they didn't plan it with Rudi. Clearly Curatolo didn't see them. I've tried to get the PGP to drop all the absurd stuff and come back and make a case, but for some reason they stick with the ridiculous.

Anyway there wasn't a motive that makes any sense but I will always believe that motive is overrated by some.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes ole brilliance but a very weak form of circumstantial though easy for the weaker minds to comprehend.

Your definition is a bit misleading for many as well, while being conventional. Circumstantial evidence is all evidence which isn't direct AFAIK. Direct evidence is some form of witness evidence including confessions.

Grinder, please allow me to present you with circumstantial evidence and see if it reminds you of someone.

A burglar breaks into lawyers' office on the second floor of a building.
He creates an entry by throwing a rock through a window.
He climbs up the outside of the building, indicating he is of a suitably athletic build and enjoys the physical challenge of the climb.
While in the office, he places several broken pieces of window glass on a table or desk and assembles them together as if constructing a jigsaw, indicating that he engages in "odd" behavior and is in no hurry to exit.
He eats food or drink from the office refrigerator, indicating that he is in no hurry to exit.
He steals a laptop computer and a cell phone or two.

Sound like anyone you know?

 

[Numbers]

In this case, a fingerprint may be everything, but in that case not so much. While it's true it is easier to conceive a 'fingerprint only' than a 'motive only' case, in practise there's usually a bunch of stuff of which motive is a key part. If you think about it, nothing happens without a motive, almost in a Newtonian sense, even an apparently senseless murder will have a motive.

In the case we are discussing, motive is undoubtedly important and the lack of it is perfectly capable of trumping a fingerprint or a nanogram of DNA.

There are many murders, at least in the US, that do not have "rational" but may have "irrational" motives.

 

[anglolawyer]

There are many murders, at least in the US, that do not have "rational" but may have "irrational" motives.

They all have motives though.

 

[Grinder]

In this case, a fingerprint may be everything, but in that case not so much. While it's true it is easier to conceive a 'fingerprint only' than a 'motive only' case, in practise there's usually a bunch of stuff of which motive is a key part. If you think about it, nothing happens without a motive, almost in a Newtonian sense, even an apparently senseless murder will have a motive.

In the case we are discussing, motive is undoubtedly important and the lack of it is perfectly capable of trumping a fingerprint or a nanogram of DNA.

If we had credible CSI work and workers and LCN DNA and positive TMB test on a knife that fit, as well as a bloody fingerprint, no one would be yelping about motive. Given the stupid alleged evidence the ILE produced, I wouldn't convict Amanda if she had posted on Myspace that Meredith was a prudish bitch that should die. Would you?

The is a reason for everything therefore there is always a motive - horse pucky. Everybody has a biggest problem but does everybody have a real problem?

 

[Grinder]

They all have motives though.

And the concept becomes meaningless. Perhaps Amanda wanted to act out a Manga Comic or had always wanted to kill someone or just went berserk when Meredith called her a dirty drugged up tart.

The fact that a motive wasn't posted on Myspace or conveyed to others just isn't strong evidence of anything.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, please allow me to present you with circumstantial evidence and see if it reminds you of someone.

A burglar breaks into lawyers' office on the second floor of a building.
He creates an entry by throwing a rock through a window.
He climbs up the outside of the building, indicating he is of a suitably athletic build and enjoys the physical challenge of the climb.
While in the office, he places several broken pieces of window glass on a table or desk and assembles them together as if constructing a jigsaw, indicating that he engages in "odd" behavior and is in no hurry to exit.
He eats food or drink from the office refrigerator, indicating that he is in no hurry to exit.
He steals a laptop computer and a cell phone or two.

Sound like anyone you know?

Tesla as a youth?

All of the above is weak circumstantial. It is a narrative. If they had found someone's prints there that would be strong circumstantial evidence.

You forgot that the office had a burglar alarm and that a printer was also stolen which would be difficult to move from the balcony to the ground. The balcony was much easier to reach and then enter than the window at the cottage.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm just glad this time it is everyone else bickering about what is, what isn't and how important.... motive.

Y'know, Stephen Colbert is not too shabby.....

 

[Grinder]

I'm just glad this time it is everyone else bickering about what is, what isn't and how important.... motive.

Y'know, Stephen Colbert is not too shabby.....

Since the brilliant one stated that every crime has a motive then having a motive is meaningless. If Amanda had been involved, she therefore would have had a motive no matter how obscure or difficult to determine. If she weren't involved she still might have had a motive, which is why having a motive is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence.

What I really want to know is how many goals will C. Wilson score?

 

[bagels]

Well since I don't believe the prosecution case at all I must agree with your specifics. While many here will not be able to follow the hypothetical to come I hope you will.

The knife wasn't used but rather it was one of Raf's flick knives. Curatolo didn't see them at all. Instead of the three doing it together it was a variation of Rudi's story. He didn't get let in by Meredith but broke in and was hiding in the bathroom after she came home. The kids showed up and Amanda was in a rage (check with Vixen for the reason du jour ) and a melee broke out immediately. Rudi stayed in the bathroom for awhile and when he emerged Meredith had been stabbed and the kids made it clear he would be blamed.

Now I just made that all up because the stupid ILE screwed everything up, like Marasca said, and so much of the case doesn't make sense even if they did it. Clearly they wouldn't have taken the knife. Clearly they didn't plan it with Rudi. Clearly Curatolo didn't see them. I've tried to get the PGP to drop all the absurd stuff and come back and make a case, but for some reason they stick with the ridiculous.

Anyway there wasn't a motive that makes any sense but I will always believe that motive is overrated by some.

I agree if I was PGP the first thing I would drop is the knife. Why does it have to be the murder weapon? It creates so many problems. Before the police plucked it out of the hat the working theory was some sort of small penknife was used, which is consistent with the ample physical evidence.

I posted before that forming a pro-guilt position in this case acts as a filter for reasonable positions. I think if you start with the intuitive assumption Amanda must be guilty, but go about it reasonably and form a somewhat plausible theory that attempts to adhere to basic reality, you'll quickly realize not only does it not match anything in the prosecution's case or the existing evidence, it couldn't begin to establish itself beyond reasonable doubt, and you quickly move away from a pro-guilt position. I believe this is inevitable. So what you're left with is a group that universally and collectively believes in the total validity of the kitchen knife, and Curatolo, and the incompetence of C&V and Peter Gill, and all the other wacky things that don't just overwhelm the pro guilt narrative, but define it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Since the brilliant one stated that every crime has a motive then having a motive is meaningless. If Amanda had been involved, she therefore would have had a motive no matter how obscure or difficult to determine. If she weren't involved she still might have had a motive, which is why having a motive is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence.

What I really want to know is how many goals will C. Wilson score?

Is that not R. Wilson, and aren't they called touchdowns?

The brilliant one has not been the same since booting the relevant law on illegal house arrest of chickadees.

 

[acbytesla]

If we had credible CSI work and workers and LCN DNA and positive TMB test on a knife that fit, as well as a bloody fingerprint, no one would be yelping about motive. Given the stupid alleged evidence the ILE produced, I wouldn't convict Amanda if she had posted on Myspace that Meredith was a prudish bitch that should die. Would you?

The is a reason for everything therefore there is always a motive - horse pucky. Everybody has a biggest problem but does everybody have a real problem?

There is NO doubt that significant incriminating evidence reduces or eliminates entirely the need for motive. That said, this case screams out the need for and the absence of it. This is not one person but the idea that three people that knew each other for less than 2 weeks and that just barely and two people didn't know each other at all conspired to murder a fourth. THERE HAS TO BE A REASON.

 

[anglolawyer]

If we had credible CSI work and workers and LCN DNA and positive TMB test on a knife that fit, as well as a bloody fingerprint, no one would be yelping about motive. Given the stupid alleged evidence the ILE produced, I wouldn't convict Amanda if she had posted on Myspace that Meredith was a prudish bitch that should die. Would you?

The is a reason for everything therefore there is always a motive - horse pucky. Everybody has a biggest problem but does everybody have a real problem?

If. Then it would be another case. Not this one.

And the concept becomes meaningless. Perhaps Amanda wanted to act out a Manga Comic or had always wanted to kill someone or just went berserk when Meredith called her a dirty drugged up tart.

The fact that a motive wasn't posted on Myspace or conveyed to others just isn't strong evidence of anything.

Why? People with no motive to murder don't murder except in somnambulism cases (when it's still not murder). That's an axiom. If they did it, they musta had a motive and the fact that no one has yet detected it is a clue. Maybe they didn't do it after all.

 

[Kauffer]

Since the brilliant one stated that every crime has a motive then having a motive is meaningless. If Amanda had been involved, she therefore would have had a motive no matter how obscure or difficult to determine. If she weren't involved she still might have had a motive, which is why having a motive is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence.

What I really want to know is how many goals will C. Wilson score?

Well, it is the determination that a credible motive exists, which is valuable. This never happened with our case.

The existence of a motive may well be weak evidence in the absence of other circumstantial evidence, but the absence of it, even in the presence of other circumstantial evidence may render the other evidence weaker.

In our case, all of the evidence was weak and driven by suspect status, which was achieved by the application of behavioural factors investigators were not trained to apply and so misconstrued. From real evidence emerges a real suspect but not from an unreal suspect emerges real evidence.

 

[Numbers]

They all have motives though.

I suggest that those murders which involve a conspiracy of murderers will indeed have a recognizable motive, whether or not rational, without exception.

Thus, in this case, in which a conspiracy to commit murder is alleged, of individuals who on the one hand are a romantic couple, of about one week or slightly more of history of knowing each other, and a third individual, of perhaps a "nodding acquaintance" at most (that is, a history of two brief meetings IIRC and no other communication) with one of the couple and no acquaintance at all with the other, the lack of a credible joint motive is highly significant evidence against such a conspiracy. The circumstantial evidence only allows inference of motive (including facilitation of rape, theft, and elimination of a witness) and criminal action to the third individual.

 

[Grinder]

If. Then it would be another case. Not this one.

And disproves the need for a motive. Are you saying as some have that because lacking a motive she couldn't be guilty?

Why? People with no motive to murder don't murder except in somnambulism cases (when it's still not murder). That's an axiom. If they did it, they musta had a motive and the fact that no one has yet detected it is a clue. Maybe they didn't do it after all.

Droll. The motive could be that she didn't like Thursdays. Or Fridays depending on TOD. Vixen has a motive or many motives.

 

[Grinder]

I suggest that those murders which involve a conspiracy of murderers will indeed have a recognizable motive, whether or not rational, without exception.

Thus, in this case, in which a conspiracy to commit murder is alleged, of individuals who on the one hand are a romantic couple, of about one week or slightly more of history of knowing each other, and a third individual, of perhaps a "nodding acquaintance" at most (that is, a history of two brief meetings IIRC and no other communication) with one of the couple and no acquaintance at all with the other, the lack of a credible joint motive is highly significant evidence against such a conspiracy. The circumstantial evidence only allows inference of motive (including facilitation of rape, theft, and elimination of a witness) and criminal action to the third individual.

Actually it is more likely that a murder is committed by a mob with no motive than by an individual.

The Supreme Court finally agrees with me that the investigation was so botched that no verdict can be reached. I don't for a second believe the conspiracy theory of Mignini et al. and therefore need not explain it as the PGP do.

What evil lurks in the hearts of men - only the Shadow knows.

 

[Grinder]

The existence of a motive may well be weak evidence in the absence of other circumstantial evidence, but the absence of it, even in the presence of other circumstantial evidence may render the other evidence weaker.

In our case, all of the evidence was weak and driven by suspect status, which was achieved by the application of behavioural factors investigators were not trained to apply and so misconstrued. From real evidence emerges a real suspect but not from an unreal suspect emerges real evidence.

If the bloody fingerprint is found and the prints owner denied being a the scene a lack of motive wouldn't change a thing.

This case was a bungle from day one. The ISC seems to have it partly correct in stating that.

Someone claimed years ago the interrogation recording would be coming out very soon. Any updates?