Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

And to think I've resisted believing you are the seer of the group, but you knew that was coming.

It keeps one's record intact, when one only reveals, "I knew it all along," after the fact.

Oh and Bill after your cross post someone (Zraush?) posted a summary of my position that was stunningly accurate. Give that poster a tip of the hat

I am now at a loss. I can only say, "I knew that all along," when you tell me what this is all about. Seers are not what they used to be.

Besides, I'm still choked about the Aston Martin thing.

 

[Grinder]

There appears to have been some kind of sexual assault involved in the crime. I would argue that is generally not consistent with a second person involved. I would also argue that Guede's bathroom activity is not consistent with a second person involved.

With a second person involved, unless they were screwed up in the head as well, the job would have been to grab whatever was worth something and basically get out of there.

Edit: In addition, there is no way that another could have been in that environment without leaving evidence such as bloody finger prints or shoe prints.

Well if the second person, the wheel man, never went inside all you assertions vanish.

Ever hear the term gang rape?

As I said just above ILE botched the case. They could easily have missed another person's DNA or print and AFAIK they were not able to match some fingerprints and we know they didn't match the "extra" DNA on the bra clasp.

If the second man was more of a pro and wore gloves etc., was very careful about where he put his hands and feet perhaps he didn't leave the evidence you posit. And as far as the prosecution and PGP are concerned there was a clean up.

But the main point is it wasn't the defenses remit to ferret it out and they didn't need to hang their hats on the lone wolf.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well if the second person, the wheel man, never went inside all you assertions vanish.

Ever hear the term gang rape?

As I said just above ILE botched the case. They could easily have missed another person's DNA or print and AFAIK they were not able to match some fingerprints and we know they didn't match the "extra" DNA on the bra clasp.

If the second man was more of a pro and wore gloves etc., was very careful about where he put his hands and feet perhaps he didn't leave the evidence you posit. And as far as the prosecution and PGP are concerned there was a clean up.

But the main point is it wasn't the defenses remit to ferret it out and they didn't need to hang their hats on the lone wolf.

Is it possible that there was a second man. . .

Maybe but I am arguing that it is quite unlikely for the reasons I gave. My understanding is that this specific kind of gang rape is extremely rare for one thing. I believe most gang rapes are in a party type atmosphere in developed nations at least.

There is some infinitesimally small chance that Amanda and Raff were involved but I consider the odds low enough that they can be disregarded.

Edit: Another way to think about it is that the prosecution has their perpetrator and there is no need to multiply your suspects without evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it possible that there was a second man. . .

Maybe but I am arguing that it is quite unlikely for the reasons I gave. My understanding is that this specific kind of gang rape is extremely rare for one thing. I believe most gang rapes are in a party type atmosphere in developed nations at least.

There is some infinitesimally small chance that Amanda and Raff were involved but I consider the odds low enough that they can be disregarded.

Edit: Another way to think about it is that the prosecution has their perpetrator and there is no need to multiply your suspects without evidence.

I think that psychiatrists and psychologists would make the following observation in respect of serious group criminal acts (including sexual assault/rape and murder): almost without exception, such group crimes are only ever carried out by groups in which a) a strong sense of trust has been established (over a significant period of time) between the members of the group, and b) there is an implicit or explicit understanding of self-preservation and self-protection among the members of the group.

Thus, group rapes (for example) tend to be committed by groups such as gangs or sports teams. In both cases, the members of the group have developed deep and intimate understandings of each other, and have also probably developed increasing levels of trust among each other over a considerable time period. In addition, each group member understands that group cohesion is an important insurance policy - i.e. that each member of the group will place the sanctity and preservation of the group above pretty much anything else (including, of course, splitting from the group to admit or discuss the crime with ex-group parties).

And likewise, murders committed by more than one person almost always involve similar levels of deep trust (and, in certain scenarios, significant degrees of psychological control as well). Where romantically-attached couples kill, for example, a number of critical elements are almost always in place: 1) the couple have been intensively attached for at least several months; 2) the couple have engaged in an escalating series of lower-level criminal activities together (this serves to push the barriers in small increments, while testing the trust and cohesion elements in the same small steps); 3) very often, one member of the couple (usually, but not always, the male in a male/female couple) had gradually asserted psychological control over the other, to the extent that the dominant member uses escalating criminal acts to test the submissive partner's willingness to submit, and to feed the controlling ego of the dominant partner.

And of course none of these dynamics can be said to apply in any way whatsoever to a group comprising Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Knox and Sollecito had been romantically attached for all of 6 days by the night of the murder. This is blindingly obviously not enough time to even begin to cultivate the sort of elements (as outlined above) that appear to be mandatory for "couples who kill" murders. And it's a fact that Knox was only on nodding terms with Guede, and Sollecito had never even met Guede. So the idea that Knox and/or Sollecito would place such trust levels into a person such as Guede is, frankly, ludicrous.

Simply put, this was not - and cannot have been - a group assault and murder carried out by Knox, Sollecito and Guede in concert. That would have flown in the face of all the evidence about group sex crimes and group murders. If it was a group crime, then the only possible candidates for other group participants would have to be people with whom Guede had developed strong levels of trust and understanding (possibly fellow drug dealers?). But in any case, everything actually points towards this being a sole-assailant crime. Committed by Guede. Acting alone.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
And of course none of these dynamics can be said to apply in any way whatsoever to a group comprising Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Knox and Sollecito had been romantically attached for all of 6 days by the night of the murder. This is blindingly obviously not enough time to even begin to cultivate the sort of elements (as outlined above) that appear to be mandatory for "couples who kill" murders. And it's a fact that Knox was only on nodding terms with Guede, and Sollecito had never even met Guede. So the idea that Knox and/or Sollecito would place such trust levels into a person such as Guede is, frankly, ludicrous.

Yet, it bamboozled Italian justice for 7+ years . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that psychiatrists and psychologists would make the following observation in respect of serious group criminal acts (including sexual assault/rape and murder): almost without exception, such group crimes are only ever carried out by groups in which a) a strong sense of trust has been established (over a significant period of time) between the members of the group, and b) there is an implicit or explicit understanding of self-preservation and self-protection among the members of the group.

Interesting stuff. In rebuttal, all the remaining guilters have to offer are clinical diagnoses from quack-psychologists.... "quack" because they made diagnoses without ever seeing their subject in a controlled, clinical setting!

Indeed in this very thread someone claims that psychological evaluations can be made by reading diary entries.

And of course none of these dynamics can be said to apply in any way whatsoever to a group comprising Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Knox and Sollecito had been romantically attached for all of 6 days by the night of the murder. This is blindingly obviously not enough time to even begin to cultivate the sort of elements (as outlined above) that appear to be mandatory for "couples who kill" murders. And it's a fact that Knox was only on nodding terms with Guede, and Sollecito had never even met Guede. So the idea that Knox and/or Sollecito would place such trust levels into a person such as Guede is, frankly, ludicrous.

In my view it is the complete ludicrousness of this that works in the prosecutions' favour - I mean, a crime like this committed by those three is so ludicrously unlikely, that some impartial third party would be forced to give it credence......

....... on the grounds that it would not be advanced in the first place unless there was some truth to it. Right there is the Nazi-theory of the "big lie".

But that last point.... a crime like this with "multiple assailants" DOES require a level of group-trust that transcends fear of going to jail. Did that group-trust exist between those three?

Well, the group-trust did exist between Knox and Sollecito - who for 7 years (past the initial interrogation) simply did not turn on one another.

The remaining guilters kept trying to suggest that Raffaele's last ditch separation-strategy was a de facto betrayal of Knox. However, if one actually reads the appeals' documents Sollecito put forward to the Marasca/Bruno court, Sollecito was not turning-against Knox.....

.... Sollecito was turning against the evidence against Knox. I suggest that that was ultimately the winning strategy that resulted in acquittals for them both.

Simply put - what did the evidence against Knox have to do with Raffaele? Adding to your points above, LJ, Knox may have had a passing acquaintance with Rudy - but Rudy was a complete unknown to Raffaele. (Where's the group-trust between those two?)

And once one took Raffaele out of the case as being innocent, and obviously innocent - then the case against Knox also dissolves. (Unless one, like Nencini, believes Rudy's account of the rent-money dispute. But then even that has no role for Raffaele..... see where the separation strategy is heading!?)

Even Andrea Vogt has moved her goal posts into the, "we'll now never know what happened," camp. That is a ludicrous position to hold, but it is slightly better than the now completely debunked Barbie Nadeau (cf. Winterbottom film) who tried to maintain the meme, "Knox knows something she's not telling us." That is really a hugely ludicrous position to defend - as opposed to a garden-variety ludicrous position Vogt holds.

Finally - to move into the group-trust camp, that those three had some group trust based on their well known (lack of) relationship with each other - Knox and Sollecito although intense only 9 days! - means its almost mandatory to makes aspersions about their mental health; all the way to psychosis. I mean, who other than three psychopaths would do what is claimed?

And who claims the latter? Someone whose sum total of clinical evaluation is reading a diary entry.

Have we reached the threshhold or really, really, really ludicrous yet?

Yet, it bamboozled Italian justice for 7+ years . . .

Quite.

 

[Vixen]

All one has to show is that a reasonably athletic person can climb up to the window.

"Bill" said the climber was perched on the top bar of the lower window.

However, there were no bars on the lower - or upper - windows in Nov 2007.

The climber in effect, has the benefit of a climbing frame, and with cast iron bars for leverage. There's no way he could have hoisted himself by the elbows alone onto the window sill (unless he was a trained gymnast with great upper body strength). I note in the photos he hauled himself up by grabbing the bars and in addition being able to stand atop of some bars.

I guess it can only be done by cheating.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Bill" said the climber was perched on the top bar of the lower window.

However, there were no bars on the lower - or upper - windows in Nov 2007.

The climber in effect, has the benefit of a climbing frame, and with cast iron bars for leverage. There's no way he could have hoisted himself by the elbows alone onto the window sill (uness he was a trained gymnast with great upper body strength). I note in the photos he hauled himself up by grabbing the bars and in addition being able to stand atop of some bars.

I guess it can only be done by cheating.

"Yawn".

 

[Vixen]

The lower window was barred.

Look at the police photo of the window, attached. It is not barred. It is an ordinary lattice frame with no foothold whatsoever, except maybe for a spider.

 

[Vixen]

If you can't even acknowledge that the PIP scenarios are based on the available evidence and made in good faith then you will never have a reasonable discussion about this case.

If the lower window wasn't barred nobody would be arguing that the climb was particularly feasible (and Rudy would have broken in a different way, but I digress).

It wasn't. See above.

 

[Vixen]

And to think I've resisted believing you are the seer of the group, but you knew that was coming.

Obviously someone could have been with Rudi and not entered the house. The PLE botched the case. If there had been footprints below the window, they did nothing to find them. There were unidentified prints and DNA in the cottage, so someone could have been there with Rudi. How was Rudi going to move all the loot? Was he going to steal a suitcase or just a pillowcase?

I've always thought that the defense insisted on the lone wolf theory to their own detriment. Maybe Rudi did it alone or maybe he had an outside or inside accomplice, but it wasn't or shouldn't have been the remit of the defense to figure that out. That is the duty of the state.

We all most all know that the prosecution didn't make anything resembling a BARD case against the kids. The PGP can't put together a time line that includes what they call the facts. They certainly can't put together a theory of the crime when confronted with elements such as the state of digestion or Curatolo seeing them from 9:27 until almost midnight.

Oh and Bill after your cross post someone (Zraush?) posted a summary of my position that was stunningly accurate. Give that poster a tip of the hat

All the judges and lawyers visited the scene in person. Massei decreed even if Rudy was super athletic (and you can see from his photo he is a skinny slightly built guy of average height; no biceps or pecs to haul himself up without bars or a foothold) it is completely unrealistic to imagine he'd shin up twice.

 

[Grinder]

Interesting stuff. In rebuttal, all the remaining guilters have to offer are clinical diagnoses from quack-psychologists.... "quack" because they made diagnoses without ever seeing their subject in a controlled, clinical setting!

I must have missed the experts consulted that interviewed the kids and determined that they couldn't have done it on a psychological basis.

Did the defense present such experts in the trial?

While there is no reason to rebut what a posters thinks psychologists opinion might be about the possibility of the three killing without being teammates or members of a gang I will say that we just don't know what evil and darkness that lurks.

If I were to insert my vast knowledge of the workings of group rape and murderers I'd say many would be associated with heavy drinking or other drug use.

The dynamics of group violence is certainly a subject that still mystifies.

But that last point.... a crime like this with "multiple assailants" DOES require a level of group-trust that transcends fear of going to jail. Did that group-trust exist between those three?

I would think that in the heat of the moment or under the influence of a very persuasive person or drug that people get involved in things they would never do if left to their own sober devices.

And difference does it make what Vogt writes now?

 

[Grinder]

Look at the police photo of the window, attached. It is not barred. It is an ordinary lattice frame with no foothold whatsoever, except maybe for a spider.

What is the white frame behind the bars holding?

ETA - When did they add the bars according to you?

 

[Vixen]

There appears to have been some kind of sexual assault involved in the crime. I would argue that is generally not consistent with a second person involved. I would also argue that Guede's bathroom activity is not consistent with a second person involved.

With a second person involved, unless they were screwed up in the head as well, the job would have been to grab whatever was worth something and basically get out of there.

Edit: In addition, there is no way that another could have been in that environment without leaving evidence such as bloody finger prints or shoe prints.

So you agree that for a burglar, speed is of essence. No time to hunt around for a boulder and then cower behind a bush for half an hour. Burglars by the nature of their vocation tend to be highly nervous, far more so than the householder of the property they are burgling. They grab the stuff and get the heck out.

The PIP scenario is the burglar hung around a very long time. Undressing and moving the body. Only stealing items belonging to Mez' and nobody else's. Cleaning up the blood in the bathroom and hallway, too.

 

[Grinder]

So you agree that for a burglar, speed is of essence. No time to hunt around for a boulder and then cower behind a bush for half an hour. Burglars by the nature of their vocation tend to be highly nervous, far more so than the householder of the property they are burgling. They grab the stuff and get the heck out.

The PIP scenario is the burglar hung around a very long time. Undressing and moving the body. Only stealing items belonging to Mez' and nobody else's. Cleaning up the blood in the bathroom and hallway, too.

Are you describing the lawyers' office caper?

 

[Vixen]

Interesting stuff. In rebuttal, all the remaining guilters have to offer are clinical diagnoses from quack-psychologists.... "quack" because they made diagnoses without ever seeing their subject in a controlled, clinical setting!

Indeed in this very thread someone claims that psychological evaluations can be made by reading diary entries.



In my view it is the complete ludicrousness of this that works in the prosecutions' favour - I mean, a crime like this committed by those three is so ludicrously unlikely, that some impartial third party would be forced to give it credence......

....... on the grounds that it would not be advanced in the first place unless there was some truth to it. Right there is the Nazi-theory of the "big lie".

But that last point.... a crime like this with "multiple assailants" DOES require a level of group-trust that transcends fear of going to jail. Did that group-trust exist between those three?

Well, the group-trust did exist between Knox and Sollecito - who for 7 years (past the initial interrogation) simply did not turn on one another.

The remaining guilters kept trying to suggest that Raffaele's last ditch separation-strategy was a de facto betrayal of Knox. However, if one actually reads the appeals' documents Sollecito put forward to the Marasca/Bruno court, Sollecito was not turning-against Knox.....

.... Sollecito was turning against the evidence against Knox. I suggest that that was ultimately the winning strategy that resulted in acquittals for them both.

Simply put - what did the evidence against Knox have to do with Raffaele? Adding to your points above, LJ, Knox may have had a passing acquaintance with Rudy - but Rudy was a complete unknown to Raffaele. (Where's the group-trust between those two?)

And once one took Raffaele out of the case as being innocent, and obviously innocent - then the case against Knox also dissolves. (Unless one, like Nencini, believes Rudy's account of the rent-money dispute. But then even that has no role for Raffaele..... see where the separation strategy is heading!?)

Even Andrea Vogt has moved her goal posts into the, "we'll now never know what happened," camp. That is a ludicrous position to hold, but it is slightly better than the now completely debunked Barbie Nadeau (cf. Winterbottom film) who tried to maintain the meme, "Knox knows something she's not telling us." That is really a hugely ludicrous position to defend - as opposed to a garden-variety ludicrous position Vogt holds.

Finally - to move into the group-trust camp, that those three had some group trust based on their well known (lack of) relationship with each other - Knox and Sollecito although intense only 9 days! - means its almost mandatory to makes aspersions about their mental health; all the way to psychosis. I mean, who other than three psychopaths would do what is claimed?

And who claims the latter? Someone whose sum total of clinical evaluation is reading a diary entry.

Have we reached the threshhold or really, really, really ludicrous yet?


Quite.

Niether the police, the patholgist nor the judge said Mez was gang-raped, so you are arguing a straw man.

Someone did return to moved and undress the body, cover it with a duvet, scatter bits of paper on top of it (hang on, wasn't the burglary supposed to have come first?). The removal of the bra and other clothes after death and the posing of the body was sexual assault in itself.

BTW it's nonsense that gang-rapists have a great bond of trust with each other. There have been gang-rapes by gangs of youths, famously along the canal at King's Cross, I doubt any of them trusted the others as far as they could throw them.

 

[Bill Williams]

I must have missed the experts consulted that interviewed the kids and determined that they couldn't have done it on a psychological basis.

Did the defense present such experts in the trial?

Not that I'm aware of.

Why would they? I am open to correction here, but the first time Mignini raised the issue of psychopathological jealousy was at his **closing** at the 2009 trial.

Massei is so convinced by it that he makes no mention of any psychological factor in his motivations report. (The exception is the decidedly non-pathological psychological opinion, that AK and RS committed the murder because they were away from their normal, home-based frame of reference.)

At the acquitting 2011 trial, I'm not aware of the prosecution making any reference to the psychological make-up of the kids being at issue.

The 2013 ISC returned the case to Florence, nary a word in its motivations report about some abnormal psychological factor. Maybe Chieffi had never read the diary!

So, aside from a reversal of burden of proof - why WOULD the defence go there, if no court thought that was an issue on which they even needed a defence?

 

[Bill Williams]

What is the white frame behind the bars holding?

ETA - When did they add the bars according to you?

It's amazing that Vixen would post a photo that disproves her own point.

Own goal.

 

[Vixen]

What is the white frame behind the bars holding?

ETA - When did they add the bars according to you?

Double glazing added in retrospect.

The bars were added IIRC circa 2008.

 

[Vixen]

It's amazing that Vixen would post a photo that disproves her own point.

Own goal.

Here's the police pic of the window again. Blow it up. Those are not bars, it is an ordinary wooden frame encasing window panes, with NO foothold and certainly no "top bar" for a climber to stand on whilst he hoists himself up using arms only (no bars were available then, and to the left of the bottom window, which means sliding along the ledge by the finger tips).