Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

One thing that continues to intrigue is the obdurateness of both sides on the number of people needed to commit the crime and what range of suspects that might include. Since the PGP are fixed on Amanda being involved and since the only evidence putting Amanda there is her DNA on a knife that is meaningless, how can they argue it couldn't be someone else. The idea that the knife proves anything is absurd is obvious from all the technical reason but even if Meredith's blood had legitimately been found on it, Amanda's DNA would mean nothing. If Popovic had come by on the 4th and helped cook dinner would her DNA on the knife mean anything? How anyone can say Amanda's being on means anything is beyond me. So either people must accept that someone could have been part of the murder and not left anything the police found or that it could have been done solo. It's the Italians not the Locard.

 

[acbytesla]

One thing that continues to intrigue is the obdurateness of both sides on the number of people needed to commit the crime and what range of suspects that might include. Since the PGP are fixed on Amanda being involved and since the only evidence putting Amanda there is her DNA on a knife that is meaningless, how can they argue it couldn't be someone else. The idea that the knife proves anything is absurd is obvious from all the technical reason but even if Meredith's blood had legitimately been found on it, Amanda's DNA would mean nothing. If Popovic had come by on the 4th and helped cook dinner would her DNA on the knife mean anything? How anyone can say Amanda's being on means anything is beyond me. So either people must accept that someone could have been part of the murder and not left anything the police found or that it could have been done solo. It's the Italians not the Locard.

No Grinder, I just don't see the evidence of multiple attackers. I see no other shoe prints or fingerprints in Meredith's blood. Rudy is alone in the CCTV images. It's possible for others to have been involved, I just don't see it as very likely.

 

[Grinder]

No Grinder, I just don't see the evidence of multiple attackers. I see no other shoe prints or fingerprints in Meredith's blood. Rudy is alone in the CCTV images. It's possible for others to have been involved, I just don't see it as very likely.

Tesla you just don't get it. The point is that the PGP are perfectly willing to accept Amanda committing the crime without one piece of credible evidence putting her in the room. If they are willing to assume she could have murdered and left nothing, it is equally possible that someone else was with Rudi.

All the "compatible Luminol" not blood positive prints mean nothing. Why limit the bath mat print to only Raf or Rudi?

Can you name one piece of evidence pointing to Amanda's presence during the murder or Raf for that matter?

 

[LondonJohn]

Tesla you just don't get it. The point is that the PGP are perfectly willing to accept Amanda committing the crime without one piece of credible evidence putting her in the room. If they are willing to assume she could have murdered and left nothing, it is equally possible that someone else was with Rudi.

All the "compatible Luminol" not blood positive prints mean nothing. Why limit the bath mat print to only Raf or Rudi?

Can you name one piece of evidence pointing to Amanda's presence during the murder or Raf for that matter?

I think ac might have been responding to a certain aspect of your prior post - the part highlighted below:

"...the obdurateness of both sides on the number of people needed to commit the crime and what range of suspects that might include"

And I too wanted to comment on my opinion/position on the "number of attackers" aspect. In my view, it's clear that all the available evidence (and lack of evidence) is entirely consistent with just one perpetrator - Guede. Certainly the injuries to Kercher, the method of entry and the evidence left at the scene are all wholly consistent with this Guede-as-sole-attacker scenario.

Now of course it could be the case that Guede had accomplices who either left no trace at the scene or who left traces that the "crack" Perugia/Rome crime scene team failed to find. And of course in the absence of an unimpeachable alibi, Knox and/or Sollecito could at least in theory comprise those accomplices - but by the exact same token, so could every other person within around 50 miles of Perugia who didn't have an unimpeachable alibi for the time of the murder (which would comprise a very large number of people).

But in my opinion, the nature of the crime, and the apparent lack of (credible, reliable) evidence at the scene of anyone else, leads me to be very confident that this attack and murder was carried out by Guede acting alone.

I also think that one important coda needs to be added: even if there were reliable evidence that this crime had to have been perpetrated by more than one attacker (or if there were reliable evidence that this crime was probably perpetrated by more than one), there still would be no justifiable reason to believe that Knox and/or Sollecito comprised those others - any more than there would be any justifiable reason to believe that anyone in or near Perugia with no unimpeachable alibi comprised one of the others.

In order to believe that Knox and/or Sollecito were participants (assuming for a moment that there was reliable evidence that this crime had to have been committed by multiple attackers), one needs compelling evidence to support that belief. And since there's no credible, reliable physical evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in any way, and since there's also no credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito would/could have teamed up with Guede to commit this crime, and since there's also no credible, reliable evidence to refute the claims of Knox and Sollecito to have spent the evening/night in Sollecito's apartment..... there's no more reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito of being Guede's accomplices than there would be to suspect anyone else. And on top of that, I would argue that if Guede did have accomplices, they'd far more likely to be people from within his drug-dealing and stolen-goods circles than anyone such as Knox or Sollecito.

(Of course all of the above two paras is moot IMO, since there's no reliable evidence to positively support the idea of multiple perps, and at the same time all the reliable evidence is wholly consistent with a single perp - Guede)

 

[Grinder]

As I said obdurateness of both sides is very interesting. And the above is an example of it. The point is there is as much evidence of other attackers as there is of the kids. If the prosecution wants to say there were multiple attackers, so be it but the lack of evidence is just as great for everybody in Perugia without an alibi (there were exactly 29,202 people without an alibi) as the kids and there was as much evidence of 1 or more of the 29,202 being there as the kids.

What makes this line even more interesting is the PGP saying it couldn't be anybody but the kids falls on its face.

So perhaps you can explain why if there were others it means the kids had to be those others.

Currently the PGP latch onto some testimony saying multiple attackers are possible or even likely and therefore it must be the kids because, well because, because.

I'm surprised no one has used Rudi's description of the crime to "prove" there was only one attacker.

So does someone have evidence that makes it more likely the kids were more likely to be accomplices than unknowns?

ETA - LJ i think you erred in what Tesla was responding to.

 

[Numbers]

....
4. I don't have any further info immediately available on this point. However, note the recent censure of Mignini by the CSM (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) indicates that Mignini violated the CPP by not providing a "reasoned decree" in writing for denying Raffaele Sollecito legal counsel while Sollecito was detained. I don't know whether the length of the period of denial of counsel was given by the CSM.

I have looked up Raffaele's account of this in his book, Honor Bound.

He writes there (a few pages after the start of Part II, Kafka on the Tiber; p. 64 of 213 in my ebook copy):

I was told about the preliminary hearing {the first judicial review of the arrest and detention} an hour before it began. The guards brought me to the prison's makeshift courtroom in the early afternoon of November 8, and I was relieved to see Tedeschi {a lawyer and long-time friend of Raffaele's father}, even if we had only a few seconds to confer before the judge brought us all to order. His was the first friendly face I'd seen in almost three days.

This is the only documentary evidence I have relating to this topic. No doubt there are court and prison records extant which having bearing on this account.

I should again point out that it is a violation of Convention Article 6.3c to deny a detained person an attorney (ECHR case-law: Dayanan v. Turkey) and that since each court proceeding, including a preliminary hearing, is a stage of the defense, it must be conducted according to adversarial procedures (Italian Constitution, Article 111) and by ECHR case-law there must be an adequate facilities (where the authorities cannot listen) and adequate time for the suspect or accused and the lawyer to meet to discuss the case (failure to provide adequate facilities and time is a violation of Convention Article 6.3b).

 

[Grinder]

I have looked up Raffaele's account of this in his book, Honor Bound.

He writes there (a few pages after the start of Part II, Kafka on the Tiber; p. 64 of 213 in my ebook copy):



This is the only documentary evidence I have relating to this topic. No doubt there are court and prison records extant which having bearing on this account.

I should again point out that it is a violation of Convention Article 6.3c to deny a detained person an attorney (ECHR case-law: Dayanan v. Turkey) and that since each court proceeding, including a preliminary hearing, is a stage of the defense, it must be conducted according to adversarial procedures (Italian Constitution, Article 111) and by ECHR case-law there must be an adequate facilities (where the authorities cannot listen) and adequate time for the suspect or accused and the lawyer to meet to discuss the case (failure to provide adequate facilities and time is a violation of Convention Article 6.3b).

Nov. 7, 2007 Prison Diary

............

I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At
least I am happy for that. My total restrictions were removed today so I can watch TV... At
least time goes by since I can do practically nothing. But, apart from the usual cartoons, it
bores me

When did he see his father for the first time? If he wrote this on the 7th it was before the court hearing and not mere minutes because he says tomorrow. Writing his father in a diary seems very odd.

 

[dropzone]

The point is there is as much evidence of other attackers as there is of the kids.

Yeah, none at all. I don't know why you brought it up.

So perhaps you can explain why if there were others it means the kids had to be those others.

Did I miss where either LondonJohn or acbytesla or Numbers came out in support of multiple attackers? Either you are arguing with a strawman or you should be clearer whom you are addressing.

 

[Grinder]

Yeah, none at all. I don't know why you brought it up.
Did I miss where either LondonJohn or acbytesla or Numbers came out in support of multiple attackers? Either you are arguing with a strawman or you should be clearer whom you are addressing.

It was you of course. I don't think you need to argue for your list but the point isn't at all that they believes in multiple attackers (Numbers isn't talking on it significantly) it is that the PG believe in multiple attackers and just because they do doesn't mean PIP need to argue for a single attacker.

The logic the prosecution has used is, because experts said it was likely multiple attackers were involved and PIP have advocated the only defense is to say no there was only one. Look at LJ's response.

Since there is no evidence of Amanda in the room at all and only the questionable DNA on the bra for Raf, why couldn't it be someone else?

Why couldn't it be one of the 29,202 without an alibi that acted as an accomplice? Why must the mat print be either Raf's or Rudi's? That choice has always been a false one.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla you just don't get it. The point is that the PGP are perfectly willing to accept Amanda committing the crime without one piece of credible evidence putting her in the room. If they are willing to assume she could have murdered and left nothing, it is equally possible that someone else was with Rudi.

All the "compatible Luminol" not blood positive prints mean nothing. Why limit the bath mat print to only Raf or Rudi?

Can you name one piece of evidence pointing to Amanda's presence during the murder or Raf for that matter?

Of course it's possible, I just don't see any persuasive evidence for it. I'm of the belief that very very few murders involve more than a single assailant. Not impossible mind you, just rare. I don't see the evidence pointing in that direction to take me there. Multiple assailants doesn't mean the kids were involved so that in itself is irrelevant to that question. Maybe Koko was a lookout for the burglary but I don't see the evidence that he entered the cottage.

 

[dropzone]

It was you of course. I don't think you need to argue for your list but the point isn't at all that they believes in multiple attackers (Numbers isn't talking on it significantly) it is that the PG believe in multiple attackers and just because they do doesn't mean PIP need to argue for a single attacker.

I don't see them arguing for a single attacker as much as noting there is no evidence of other parties, so there is at present no need to discuss multiple assailants. Law of Parsimony or Occam's razor or simply not following a red herring, however you prefer it.

The logic the prosecution has used is, because experts said it was likely multiple attackers were involved...

It has been determined that the initial prosecution was hopelessly incompetent and at this time can be safely ignored. You are arguing about yesterday's news.

Since there is no evidence of Amanda in the room at all and only the questionable DNA on the bra for Raf, why couldn't it be someone else?

Again, you are arguing a hypothetical that nobody but Vixen has put forward in this thread or believes. There is no need for there to be someone else. There is no evidence of someone else. It is a waste of your time to discuss it.

 

[Grinder]

Of course it's possible, I just don't see any persuasive evidence for it. I'm of the belief that very very few murders involve more than a single assailant. Not impossible mind you, just rare. I don't see the evidence pointing in that direction to take me there. Multiple assailants doesn't mean the kids were involved so that in itself is irrelevant to that question. Maybe Koko was a lookout for the burglary but I don't see the evidence that he entered the cottage.

Tesla I'm not saying you should see any evidence of multiple attackers. What I am saying is that the defense need not prove that there was only one attacker but rather just say there is no evidence of the kids and in particular Amanda. Getting into a debate with a PGP as to whether or not Meredith could have been killed by one person isn't necessary but rather a distraction.

Why should the foot print on the mat be either Raf's of Rudi's? Why couldn't it be someone else's? I know you don't believe there were multiple attackers but even if you did why would it have to be Raf of Rudi?

 

[Grinder]

I don't see them arguing for a single attacker as much as noting there is no evidence of other parties, so there is at present no need to discuss multiple assailants. Law of Parsimony or Occam's razor or simply not following a red herring, however you prefer it.
It has been determined that the initial prosecution was hopelessly incompetent and at this time can be safely ignored. You are arguing about yesterday's news.

Again, you are arguing a hypothetical that nobody but Vixen has put forward in this thread or believes. There is no need for there to be someone else. There is no evidence of someone else. It is a waste of your time to discuss it.

Actually it is a judicial fact that there were multiple attackers. Perhaps you didn't follow the case much but the PIP have argued for a single attacker for 7 years.

The fact is the defense did follow a red herring by fighting the multiple attacker theory.

Anyway you've called Occam so we all know that ends all debate or skepticism.

 

[Numbers]

Nov. 7, 2007 Prison Diary

............

I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [translator’s note:
Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge. At
least I am happy for that. My total restrictions were removed today so I can watch TV... At
least time goes by since I can do practically nothing. But, apart from the usual cartoons, it
bores me

When did he see his father for the first time? If he wrote this on the 7th it was before the court hearing and not mere minutes because he says tomorrow. Writing his father in a diary seems very odd.

Thanks for posting this. There is obviously some contradiction. But I think that there are more contradictions than you are noting.

The highlighted sentence, if correctly written on Nov. 7, would mean that Raffaele had his preliminary hearing and saw Tedeschi on that day, rather than on Nov. 8. Perhaps the date in the diary is incorrectly given as Nov. 7, when Nov. 8 would have been correct. On the other hand, one could argue that the text of Honor Bound is not correct, and the lawyer and preliminary hearing were indeed on Nov. 7.

I would think that court or prison records would be required to clear this up for a skeptic.

If one examines the report of judge Claudia Matteini, who was the magistrate of the preliminary hearing, one see that she signed and dated it on Nov. 9, 2007. It is likely that the hearing began on Nov. 8, not Nov. 7. Thus, I believe that the text of Honor Bound is correct, and that there is an error in the date of the diary entry.

I suggest that one seeking information on, for example, what Raffaele Sollecito said before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation read the Matteini report. It states that he supported every detail of Amanda Knox's statements of Nov. 2, except that he saw no feces in the toilet. That appears to have been his only statement prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation.

The Matteini report of her conclusions from the preliminary hearing, which included authorizing detention of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for one year, may be found in English translation at:

https://matteinireport.wordpress.com/the-matteini-report/

An image of the original Italian report may be found at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

 

[Numbers]

If I may make one comment - and only one - on the multiple attacker theory, I am aware of no objectively credible evidence indicating more than one attacker murdered/raped Meredith Kercher.

Persons wishing to believe that there were multiple attackers are, of course, free to do so. But skeptics would ask for objectively credible evidence to support the theory.

Bring forth the DNA or bloody footprint or CCTV evidence, or similar objectively credible evidence, and I would, perhaps, believe; but without it, I do not.

 

[dropzone]

Anyway you've called Occam so we all know that ends all debate or skepticism.

Is that a new Rule of the Internet? No? Just to you? (Whatever happened to the good rolleyes? The one that dripped with disdain? I miss it.) And who the hell is PIP or PGP?

Okay, I admit that I have not obsessed about this case like some people, but I know enough to know that there is no evidence whatsoever of multiple attackers, making any discussion of them a waste of electrons. They add needless complexity, thus the need for Occam's razor to strip them from the discussion. Competent skeptics do not ignore actual evidence, but they do insist on it existing before they will debate it.


FTR, I'm normally much nicer. Grinder just grinds my gears with his baselessly supercilious tone. This board seems to attract such types.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I'm not saying you should see any evidence of multiple attackers. What I am saying is that the defense need not prove that there was only one attacker but rather just say there is no evidence of the kids and in particular Amanda. Getting into a debate with a PGP as to whether or not Meredith could have been killed by one person isn't necessary but rather a distraction.

Why should the foot print on the mat be either Raf's of Rudi's? Why couldn't it be someone else's? I know you don't believe there were multiple attackers but even if you did why would it have to be Raf of Rudi?

It shouldn't and that is one of the absurd ideas in this case. I've said dozens of times that I cannot attributed it to or exclude either Raff or Rudy or anyone else in Italy. It is a worthless piece of evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Tesla I'm not saying you should see any evidence of multiple attackers. What I am saying is that the defense need not prove that there was only one attacker but rather just say there is no evidence of the kids and in particular Amanda. Getting into a debate with a PGP as to whether or not Meredith could have been killed by one person isn't necessary but rather a distraction.
Why should the foot print on the mat be either Raf's of Rudi's? Why couldn't it be someone else's? I know you don't believe there were multiple attackers but even if you did why would it have to be Raf of Rudi?

This is essentially Hellmann's position on the issue of multiple attackers. At first blush it satisfies even the "judicial truth" generated by the definitive conviction of Guede, that he murdered with the help of others.

It's not clear, though, why you'd say - "and in particular Amanda." The "evidence against" Raffaele is an indistinct, watery foottrack on a cotton-bathmat, and Y-material mixed in with Meredith material and at least two or three other men in a single sample on a bra-hook, found on a floor 46 days after the crime in a place it wasn't when the first forensic sweep happened.

 

[Grinder]

This is essentially Hellmann's position on the issue of multiple attackers. At first blush it satisfies even the "judicial truth" generated by the definitive conviction of Guede, that he murdered with the help of others.

It's not clear, though, why you'd say - "and in particular Amanda." The "evidence against" Raffaele is an indistinct, watery foottrack on a cotton-bathmat, and Y-material mixed in with Meredith material and at least two or three other men in a single sample on a bra-hook, found on a floor 46 days after the crime in a place it wasn't when the first forensic sweep happened.

There is absolutely nothing that places Amanda in the murder room. The closest thing they have is the knife and since she used it at Raf's house her DNA being on it means nothing. The fact, none of Raf's DNA was found on the knife would indicate it had been washed thoroughly at some point. (Always wondered why his missing DNA on the knife never became an issue.)

So if the DNA work were to be accepted not even the Meredith DNA on the knife would put Amanda in the room but it would make a small case against Raf. His DNA would have been found on an article of clothing that Meredith was wearing when killed.

The 46 days isn't important but the movement more so. You have helped make the case, it could have been another person with Rudi, as at least two people weren't identified from the DNA on the clasp. There were also fingerprints never identified.

 

[Grinder]

Is that a new Rule of the Internet? No? Just to you? (Whatever happened to the good rolleyes? The one that dripped with disdain? I miss it.) And who the hell is PIP or PGP?

Okay, I admit that I have not obsessed about this case like some people, but I know enough to know that there is no evidence whatsoever of multiple attackers, making any discussion of them a waste of electrons. They add needless complexity, thus the need for Occam's razor to strip them from the discussion. Competent skeptics do not ignore actual evidence, but they do insist on it existing before they will debate it.


FTR, I'm normally much nicer. Grinder just grinds my gears with his baselessly supercilious tone. This board seems to attract such types.

Just because you are not aware of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. DNA and prints were found and never identified. Now your tone and melody are so sweet.

You obviously are having a problem understanding. The Italian system produces judicial facts. Were you aware of that?

Were you aware the system declared there were multiple attackers?

It isn't "baselessly" to suggest the defense could have made the case, even if there were multiple attackers, it doesn't mean A&R.