Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Your spoiler section follows this:

9.1 The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose
objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering
progress of the proceedings, does not therefore allow [us] to be satisfied to the
standard of [beyond a] reasonable doubt, whose establishment is an achievement of
legal culture that must, always and in any case, be upheld since it is the expression
of fundamental constitutional values, centered around the key role of the human
being in the judicial system, whose protection in the context of a trial is also
exercised by the principle of presumption of innocence until the definitive decision
[verdict], as per Article 27, section 2 of the Constitution.
9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.
So how do you assess this introduction to your favorite sections? It seems clear they are saying here's what the two sides contended. Then they look at some of the PG contentions and say even if true it isn't enough to prove guilt.

So for example they say that even if one accepts that Amanda was there when Meredith was killed it doesn't prove she was part of the murder. While I agree this is strange, it is what they say and most likely because of the byzantine nature of the Italian system's requirements of judicial truths.

ETA -Can you tell us what this means they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

No, Grinder, these are the opinions of Bruno and Marasca. It is very clear. A synopis of what the prosecution believe would be in the form "it is submitted that XYZ..." but no, they go straight into their own vernacular, "[In our legal ruling] XYZ..."

Agreed, it is strange they should state uncategorically that Amanda was there, and almost certainly Raff with her, yet acquit.

 

[acbytesla]

According to the Penal Proceure Code, art. 628, all points of law decided by Chieffi are final, and others SC panels cannot overturn them.
This includes the finding that Hellmann's citation of art. 111, and his reasoning about the use of Guede's verdict, are wrong arguments, while Chieffi points out that Guede's verdict, which establishes that he was not holding the murder weapon, is to be used as circumstantial element against AK/RS.

Let's not forget that, btw, Marasca ruling itself states as a proven fact that there were multiple perpetrators.

This is just one example of the many things wrong with Italian jurisprudence. Judicial truths rise above actual truth. Oh well, that's no longer my concern. But let's also not forget that the Marasca court ruled that there was no proof that any of those attackers were either Amanda or Raffaele.

It's over my friend.

 

[Grinder]

The great news about Machiavelli's posts is that in the final analysis his opinions are not shared in the final ruling. Any preliminary rulings that adversely effected the young couple are now moot. I now find a lightness in the discussion as it is now really irrelevant.

You believe it is an opinion of Mach's A&R were not represented at Rudi's fast track trial? It seems to me, we have been misled for 7 years about this. Before someone somehow interprets this to mean I think A&R should have had the judicial truth of multiple attackers to contend with, I don't. However, I do get their system works this way. Here we have coroners' inquests determining how someone dies and the finding becomes "fact".

I must say if this subject doesn't interest you and your refrain is most always "they were acquitted" it begs the question...

 

[Vixen]

If you go back and look at the thread (not suggesting you actually do this) you'll see that the thread thrives on the conflict. There was almost a 2 week period without a post very recently. It dies on its own. Seriously, if Vixen disappears and no guilter takes her place we'll get bored fast and there won't be much if any activity on the thread.

I know that our opposition fuels Vixen and if we were really smart we would just ignore her and she would quit.

We're just not very smart.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Grinder]

So if your defence is that Guede did it, then you can not advance that defence? This would seem unfair.

They couldn't go after Guede in his trial (why were the Kerchers and Lumumba allowed to go after A&R?) but they were able to challenge the prosecution experts about the judicial facts we are troubled by.

I believe you are correct, Sollecito and Knox were represented at the fast track trial of Guede which was also their preliminary hearing. However as you accept there were limitations on the defence case. The nature of the fast track trial was that Guede accepted prosecution evidence as given and gave up the right to challenge it. The defence were limited in there right to challenge evidence by the court as you have said. It thus seems inappropriate that the conclusions of a court where Sollecito and Knox had limited rights of challenge and cross examination can be incorporated as judicial fact subsequently. Their trial should have been effectively 'de novo'. The preliminary trial only functioning like a Grand Jury or magistrates court hearing to remand the defendants to trial, but not making any binding ruling on the subsequent trial.

As I said up-thread, we allow a coroner's inquest to make determinations which carry forward into a trial. The defense for A&R were allowed to challenge the multiple attacker theory in their trial with multiple experts.

I don't see where Massei stated the multiple attacker theory was correct before the trial, only after.

 

[bagels]

It's because I can see some scenarios as logical, corroborated by physical details, in contrast with others that are manifestly illogical and inconsistent.

While I'm shocked that you find the only scenario compatible with the girl you hate being a murderer the logical one let's have a brief refresher on what you find logical:

In the late afternoon/early evening of November 1st Amanda and Raffaele are seen in Raff's apartment by an independent witness who Raff agrees to give a ride to later that night. At this point Amanda believes she will be called into work that night at the pub. Soon after this Raffaele launches the movie Amelie on his computer.

Meanwhile, across town somewhat later that evening, Rudy Guede is captured alone by the CCTV camera near the cottage. This appearance, compatible with him, a burglar with a criminal history, scouting a burglary target, is merely a spectacular coincidence or psychic premonition. The students can't know that they will be vising the cottage later in the evening, being currently engaged with other plans, thus Rudy can't know he will be visiting the cottage later in the evening. And yet here he is for no reason at all.

Later Amanda finally gets a text message that she wont be needed at work. Then later still Raff's apartment is visited unexpectedly by the independent witness a second time, who drops by to say the ride is no longer needed.

At this point in time Amanda and Raffaele, who have known each other five days and barely speak the same language, are free for the evening and decide to spontaneously leave their cozy apartment out into the cool November evening on the off chance they happen to run into Meredith, presumably to murder her, although this is not clear. Amanda grabs Raffaele's largest kitchen knife that is inventoried by the meticulous apartment manager and can never leave the apartment.

Along the way they happen by chance to run into Rudy Guede, a virtual stranger neither is on a first name basis with and indeed Raffaele has never met him before. While carrying the deadly weapon with possible nefarious plans they spontaneously decide to invite him along for no reason. He accepts.

Once they arrive at the cottage Meredith has either just beaten them home or she arrives soon after them. At this point the digestive evidence tells us the attack happened nearly instantly. Raffaele used one of his knives to violently subdue Meredith while Rudy held down the witness who was his friends girlfriend for no reason. Amanda then plunged the kitchen knife into Meredith's neck, delivering a fatal blow. By some miracle this giant knife delivered a wound exactly compatible with the smaller penknife that was never found. The small never found penknife is the one that left the bloody imprint on the bed, and was the only knife forensically proven to be at the scene.

At this point Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith to help the two white students out by insuring the DNA of a black criminal would be in the victims genitals. He then walked around in her blood getting footprints and handprints around the body. Luckily for Amanda and Raffaele they didn't leave a trace of themselves in the crime scene.

After they were finished murdering their housemate in their shared house turning it into a crime scene and making Amanda homeless, they knew they needed to stage a break-in. Amanda got a big rock from outside and tossed it into an upper story window above climbable metal bars and inside she tossed some clothes around. By a spectacular, astonishing, amazing stroke of good fortune for her, the stranger burglar accomplice she happened to invite, and who left all the forensic evidence, had just gotten released by the police for an arrest related to a break-in at a law office involving a rock smashed upper story window in which clothes were thrown around the room.

Then the police concluded the break-in was staged and discovered the American student who claimed she was home with her boyfriend all evening was actually texting a black man named Patrick about a secret evening, misinterpreting the English goodbye "cya later." After strong arming a statement corroborating the story they knew to be correct out of her they declared case closed. This was all a mistake, but by another amazing coincidence the girl they arrested for the wrong reasons turned out to be guilty anyway once they had a chance to go back to the crime scene and gather the "rest" of the evidence which included stains that tested negative for blood, and her DNA in her own sink.

This is more or less what you actually believe

 

[Grinder]

Exactly this.

IMO, it's so blindingly clear to anyone with any modicum of intellect and perspicacity that a trial whose sole aim was to determine whether or not Guede was judicially guilty of the crimes with which he was charged can have any form of binding impact upon the trial process of anyone else. Any year-1 student of jurisprudence would laugh at the very idea that this should constitute justice.

Hellmann makes this very point explicitly in his judgment, and it's manifestly clear (IMO) that the Marasca SC panel dances uncomfortably round this issue - and since the Marasca ruling in effect contradicts findings of fact from the previous K/S SC ruling and from the Guede SC ruling, it's clear that a) there's something fundamentally smelly and unfit-for-purpose about this aspect of Italian criminal justice (along with many, many other aspects), and b) the Marasca SC panel knows this full well.

It was a preliminary hearing for all three. It was not " a trial whose sole aim was to determine whether or not Guede was judicially guilty of the crimes"

Should one of three have the right to a separate trial? Just for argument's sake, if Rudi was innocent and the other kids did it, should the kids' defense be allowed to bring experts to Rudi's fast track?

The Italian system is so different from ours, at times it seems very difficult for us to see the value in theirs. By have the fast track as part of the joint preliminary hearing they do achieve representation for those choosing a full trial. If the fast track was a separate trial as I and I think others were led to believe, it would be significantly more unfair.

 

[Grinder]

For some reason it reminds me of all the times pro-guilt posters brought up the "number" argument about how many judges found Knox & Sollecito guilty and failed to realise how nonsense it was.

Both are nonsense.

 

[Matthew Best]

This is more or less what you actually believe

And no further mockery is really needed. I mean, what would be the point?

 

[acbytesla]

You believe it is an opinion of Mach's A&R were not represented at Rudi's fast track trial? It seems to me, we have been misled for 7 years about this. Before someone somehow interprets this to mean I think A&R should have had the judicial truth of multiple attackers to contend with, I don't. However, I do get their system works this way. Here we have coroners' inquests determining how someone dies and the finding becomes "fact".

I must say if this subject doesn't interest you and your refrain is most always "they were acquitted" it begs the question...

I'm really not sure what the point is Grinder. It's clear that the Italian courts made the multiple attackers a judicial fact in Rudy's trial casting it in stone forcing all subsequent courts to accept as fact. . Cheiffi's court's overruling of Hellman demonstrate this clearly. Even though the evidence that even you say shows little to no evidence of being true.

It's also clear that the Marasca court accepted that begrudgingly and not actually believing it.

Is there really anything left after that?

 

[Vixen]

Well obviously Amanda is guilty of plotting to kill her roommate for no reason with a boy she met 5 days prior and a burglar she recruited after meeting once in an intricate plan involving careful staging and reconstructing a manga ritual all done by three conspirators who had never been in the same room before and couldn't speak a mutually intelligible language, and then got the mafia to influence the Supreme Court of Cassation when things went south. That goes without saying!

But do you know what the word hypothetical means? In a hypothetical universe where Meredith is killed by say, a random burglar, but the police make a series of incorrect assumptions that they self reinforce and end up arresting say, an innocent bar owner and two student accomplices, after legally questionable interrogations, how might the case have played out?

It seems plausible that with careers and reputation on the line, especially for the prosecutor who was already facing criminal charges for previous infractions, there would have been tremendous pressure to rectify their wrongful arrests and salvage their case. If, once the actual killer was caught, they could construct a case with him as merely the accomplice to the their initial suspects, they would be highly motivated to do so. I can imagine this could have lead to a suspect centric approach where you end up with deficient evidence propped up by innuendo and twisted forensics that might ultimately result in acquittals due to "glaring errors" "investigative amnesia" and "culpable omissions" on the part of the investigators.

Obviously we don't live in the universe where this happened

No, police do not work on assumptions, they work on suspicions and prima facie evidence. In the Briggs-Myers scale, they would be heavily practical, straightforward and nothing 'deep'. The detectives will act on hunches and on the scale would be more intuitive and pragmatic than PC Plod.

There is no point in framing a suspect, because

(a) there are literally hundreds of cops, and you are suggesting they are all in the same conspiracy, and anyway, what happens when the 'real' perp turns up? OK, you argue, but what about "wanting to please Mignini"? But Mignini was not top cop, that was Giobbi. Sure, a thoroughly unbearable pompous character, but hey, he's a cop.

(b) The cops do not decide the issue, that is for the prosecution to present a case to the state that they have a case that is well-founded.

(c) This is decided by a judge (normally, someone with years of barrister practice). It is not rational to claim the judiciary were also 'in on the conspiracy'. If anything, judges love to slap down the lower ranking barristers, and are quite capable of independent thought, again quite different from the thought processes of cops or detectives. They are obliged to weigh up objectively both sides of the argument, and they take an oath to this effect.

(d) The law is based on rules, a bit like taxation, actually, and judges are highly trained to know what those rules are and to apply them.

Conclusion
The cops, detectives, prosecutor and judge do not have the means to be 'in a conspiracy' against two nonentities and have no motive to be.

 

[Grinder]

No, Grinder, these are the opinions of Bruno and Marasca. It is very clear. A synopis of what the prosecution believe would be in the form "it is submitted that XYZ..." but no, they go straight into their own vernacular, "[In our legal ruling] XYZ..."

Agreed, it is strange they should state uncategorically that Amanda was there, and almost certainly Raff with her, yet acquit.

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

The M&B court is saying the contradictory nature of the evidence can be shown for each defendant presented in a summary fashion for both guilt and innocence as was produced in all the court cases preceding theirs. They then proceed to summarized the arguments of both prosecution and defense.

One of the odder aspects is a statement made, determined to be false, is then accepted in any way as being true at all. The calunnia conviction does not place AK at the cottage and M&B state even if she had been there during the murder, it doesn't mean she took part. Odd but true.

 

[bagels]

No, police do not work on assumptions, they work on suspicions and prima facie evidence. In the Briggs-Myers scale, they would be heavily practical, straightforward and nothing 'deep'. The detectives will act on hunches and on the scale would be more intuitive and pragmatic than PC Plod.

There is no point in framing a suspect, because

(a) there are literally hundreds of cops, and you are suggesting they are all in the same conspiracy, and anyway, what happens when the 'real' perp turns up? OK, you argue, but what about "wanting to please Mignini"? But Mignini was not top cop, that was Giobbi. Sure, a thoroughly unbearable pompous character, but hey, he's a cop.

(b) The cops do not decide the issue, that is for the prosecution to present a case to the state that they have a case that is well-founded.

(c) This is decided by a judge (normally, someone with years of barrister practice). It is not rational to claim the judiciary were also 'in on the conspiracy'. If anything, judges love to slap down the lower ranking barristers, and are quite capable of independent thought, again quite different from the thought processes of cops or detectives. They are obliged to weigh up objectively both sides of the argument, and they take an oath to this effect.

(d) The law is based on rules, a bit like taxation, actually, and judges are highly trained to know what those rules are and to apply them.

Conclusion
The cops, detectives, prosecutor and judge do not have the means to be 'in a conspiracy' against two nonentities and have no motive to be.

Yeah except I'm not the one proposing a mass conspiracy up the highest chain of the judiciary. You are. That's why the students were acquitted, and you think it was the mafia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah except I'm not the one proposing a mass conspiracy up the highest chain of the judiciary. You are. That's why the students were acquitted, and you think it was the mafia.

I was going to say the very same thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you go back and look at the thread (not suggesting you actually do this) you'll see that the thread thrives on the conflict. There was almost a 2 week period without a post very recently. It dies on its own. Seriously, if Vixen disappears and no guilter takes her place we'll get bored fast and there won't be much if any activity on the thread.

I know that our opposition fuels Vixen and if we were really smart we would just ignore her and she would quit.

We're just not very smart.

Speak for yourself.

No, no, acbytesla speaks for me too.

 

[Desert Fox]

While I'm shocked that you find the only scenario compatible with the girl you hate being a murderer the logical one let's have a brief refresher on what you find logical:

In the late afternoon/early evening of November 1st Amanda and Raffaele are seen in Raff's apartment by an independent witness who Raff agrees to give a ride to later that night. At this point Amanda believes she will be called into work that night at the pub. Soon after this Raffaele launches the movie Amelie on his computer.

Meanwhile, across town somewhat later that evening, Rudy Guede is captured alone by the CCTV camera near the cottage. This appearance, compatible with him, a burglar with a criminal history, scouting a burglary target, is merely a spectacular coincidence or psychic premonition. The students can't know that they will be vising the cottage later in the evening, being currently engaged with other plans, thus Rudy can't know he will be visiting the cottage later in the evening. And yet here he is for no reason at all.

Later Amanda finally gets a text message that she wont be needed at work. Then later still Raff's apartment is visited unexpectedly by the independent witness a second time, who drops by to say the ride is no longer needed.

At this point in time Amanda and Raffaele, who have known each other five days and barely speak the same language, are free for the evening and decide to spontaneously leave their cozy apartment out into the cool November evening on the off chance they happen to run into Meredith, presumably to murder her, although this is not clear. Amanda grabs Raffaele's largest kitchen knife that is inventoried by the meticulous apartment manager and can never leave the apartment.

Along the way they happen by chance to run into Rudy Guede, a virtual stranger neither is on a first name basis with and indeed Raffaele has never met him before. While carrying the deadly weapon with possible nefarious plans they spontaneously decide to invite him along for no reason. He accepts.

Once they arrive at the cottage Meredith has either just beaten them home or she arrives soon after them. At this point the digestive evidence tells us the attack happened nearly instantly. Raffaele used one of his knives to violently subdue Meredith while Rudy held down the witness who was his friends girlfriend for no reason. Amanda then plunged the kitchen knife into Meredith's neck, delivering a fatal blow. By some miracle this giant knife delivered a wound exactly compatible with the smaller penknife that was never found. The small never found penknife is the one that left the bloody imprint on the bed, and was the only knife forensically proven to be at the scene.

At this point Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith to help the two white students out by insuring the DNA of a black criminal would be in the victims genitals. He then walked around in her blood getting footprints and handprints around the body. Luckily for Amanda and Raffaele they didn't leave a trace of themselves in the crime scene.

After they were finished murdering their housemate in their shared house turning it into a crime scene and making Amanda homeless, they knew they needed to stage a break-in. Amanda got a big rock from outside and tossed it into an upper story window above climbable metal bars and inside she tossed some clothes around. By a spectacular, astonishing, amazing stroke of good fortune for her, the stranger burglar accomplice she happened to invite, and who left all the forensic evidence, had just gotten released by the police for an arrest related to a break-in at a law office involving a rock smashed upper story window in which clothes were thrown around the room.

Then the police concluded the break-in was staged and discovered the American student who claimed she was home with her boyfriend all evening was actually texting a black man named Patrick about a secret evening, misinterpreting the English goodbye "cya later." After strong arming a statement corroborating the story they knew to be correct out of her they declared case closed. This was all a mistake, but by another amazing coincidence the girl they arrested for the wrong reasons turned out to be guilty anyway once they had a chance to go back to the crime scene and gather the "rest" of the evidence which included stains that tested negative for blood, and her DNA in her own sink.

This is more or less what you actually believe

I wish there were ways to "like" posts because this is excellent

 

[Bill Williams]

I wish there were ways to "like" posts because this is excellent

In fairness to Machiavelli, that is not what he believes.

He believes in a long standing pre-existing relationship between Rudy and Amanda. What he is short on is any indication, much less proof, that this is so, but it is what he believes.

He also believes that rather than the PLE strong-arming a statement out of Amanda at interrogation, that the supposed misdirection towards Patrick was part of her plan. She'd gone into that interrogation not sleep deprived, but alert and able to best seasoned investigators; who only declared "case closed" because of her deliberate misdirection.

 

[bagels]

In fairness to Machiavelli, that is not what he believes.

He believes in a long standing pre-existing relationship between Rudy and Amanda. What he is short on is any indication, much less proof, that this is so, but it is what he believes.

But it's a circular belief. He believes Amanda and Rudy were pals because otherwise her randomly inviting him to the murder, which is necessary for her to be guilty, is a non sequitur, and since she is guilty, they must be pals.

 

[moije2]

In fairness to Machiavelli, that is not what he believes.

He believes in a long standing pre-existing relationship between Rudy and Amanda. What he is short on is any indication, much less proof, that this is so, but it is what he believes.

He also believes that rather than the PLE strong-arming a statement out of Amanda at interrogation, that the supposed misdirection towards Patrick was part of her plan. She'd gone into that interrogation not sleep deprived, but alert and able to best seasoned investigators; who only declared "case closed" because of her deliberate misdirection.

And he also apparently believes that Rudy has maintained honor by not ratting out his accomplices after all these years. He covered for Amanda at first by denying her presence during a monitored Skype conversation, but then got caught in his later vague allusions to the presence of both the (other) kids, so he was stuck with that. He thought it would "buy" him some sort of favor, but having counsel soon realized that plea bargains are illegal in Italy. But just the same he refused to out and out name them even though he could still maintain that it was not he who did the dirty work. Rudy must be a stand up guy.

 

[Machiavelli]

In fairness to Machiavelli, that is not what he believes.

He believes in a long standing pre-existing relationship between Rudy and Amanda. What he is short on is any indication, much less proof, that this is so, but it is what he believes.

I don't know what you usually call "long standing" and what you mean by "relationship". If it was me speaking, I would say "2-months acquaintance" rather than "long stand relationship".

He also believes that rather than the PLE strong-arming a statement out of Amanda at interrogation, that the supposed misdirection towards Patrick was part of her plan. She'd gone into that interrogation not sleep deprived, but alert and able to best seasoned investigators; who only declared "case closed" because of her deliberate misdirection.

Obviously I believe just what facts are. An alleged issue of sleep deprivation won't have any implication in my opinion, unless sleep deprivation is so severe that would induce a state of hallucination and mental disorder causing total cognitive impairement. Such claim would require specific evidence in support - and here there is evidence of the contrary. But still, even a hypothetical state of mental disorder could not explain her actions, because in fact we are not talking about what happened during an interrogation: it is a repeated and prolonged behaviour of Knox (as acknowledged even by Bruno/Marasca btw), from what she told before the interrogation to what she said at the presence of the magistrates and what she wrote after, and what she said and didn't say subsequently.
Evidence against Knox includes also additional elements such as testimony of Anna Donnino and the changing statements by Sollecito that include a withdrawal of her alibi. And there are many other logical considerations.
The behaviour of Knox is an overall pattern with a very obvious logic.