Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

No, Rudy did not maintain "honor". He serves his own interest. He is a bit like Pelosi on the Pasolini murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

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:

(...)

Just for clarity, Amanda Knox is not "the girl I hate".
Amanda Knox is insignificant to me. She was just a disturbed young person.
(the people I hate are others).

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Decide what topic you are talking about.

 

[moije2]

No, Rudy did not maintain "honor". He serves his own interest. He is a bit like Pelosi on the Pasolini murder.

There has long been asserted on this thread that Rudy changed his story to accommodate the prosecution's desire to pursue their case against AK (and perhaps RS as well). Is that illogical? If there is no plea bargain ability, then that would not make sense, correct? Then what self interest did Rudy serve by changing his story to vaguely identifying others?

What self interest by Rudy is served by not now clarifying his identification of them? I am guessing it could be said that it is no longer relevant to him as his sentence has been imposed.

 

[bagels]

Just for clarity, Amanda Knox is not "the girl I hate".
Amanda Knox is insignificant to me. She was just a disturbed young person.
(the people I hate are others).

Miranda Barbour is a disturbed young person. She has a history of being sexually abused as a minor, and claimed to be a member of a satanic cult that practiced ritualistic killings.

Amanda Knox is a normal Seattle suburbanite that played soccer, previously studied abroad in Japan, was on the honor roll, went to typical college parties, and then during a one hour window on the evening of November 1st you believe she became a psychopath at coincidentally the exact same time a random lowlife knife carrying burglar was walking around in the blood of a murder victim.

And you don't hate her you just hate anyone that has the nerve to defend her from one of the weakest cases in criminal history.

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, the judges' job is to make a judgment. They have moved on from their very brief summing up, thus in section 9.4 they write in plain language, for example, and thenceforth their [legally binding] opinion [=i.e. legal fact]:
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house,
the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also
contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the
kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher
together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her
friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her
ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgment of reliability
expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s
narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person
mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the
detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor
the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible
scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia
and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those
declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State
Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which
earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato],
[they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young
American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time
– except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No, bagels. Rudy Guede was not captured by the CCTV camera near the cottage. Among the several passers by captured, there is one unknown passer by whom the RS defence asserts is compatible with Rudy Guede. Btw, the CCTV also captured a black car compatible with Sollecito's Audi parking in front of the cottage few minutes from the tow truck; also captured some woman compatible with Amanda Knox at different times.
Also, Guede in fact did not have a criminal record at the time and was never proven that he was a burglar, in fact he was no records for burglaries.
It is also a fact that Knox attended several drug dealers who do have criminal records, and both Knox and Sollecito have some disturbing personality reports themselves.

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.

Actually, there are phone records showing Knox did go out, and there is Sollecito's testimony saying he was home alone, describing lone activities and saying she went out and got bat at his place very late.
There is a contradiction between Sollecito's father testimony and Knox's testimony, showing that she lied about the time of dinner.
There is the failure of Sollecito and Knox to remember anything that they would agree about about their having dinner together.

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.

Actually, both Knox & Sollecito are connected to the drug deling environment of Piazza Grimana. Guede used to spend his time at about 90 meters from Knox's doorhouse and about 60 meters from her university, in a piazza where she would walk every day going to school. It is known that Guede was a friend of downstairs boys, that he attended the cottage and that he was even attracted by Amanda Knox (not much by Meredith), and that he had a penchant for American female students. Witnesses reported that Knox & Guede would talk to each other "very friendly" at the downstaris apartment. Knox admitted she knew him "a little".
It is just unrealistic to state that Knox & Guede would be "virtual strangers" in Perugia.

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.

Digestive evidence does not "show" anything that could be defined as instantly.

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.

(...)

Knox and Sollecito did leave significant traces on the murder scene, comparable to the traces left by Guede, albeit they didn't leave bloody fingerprints. I am not interested in going forward, just say: you need to consider the actual evidence instead, the actual physical traces and details. The actual evidence. That is where you apply and compare consistency of scenarios.
Instead you work the other way around: you seem to start from a "narrative" that you demnd to ring natural, or plausible and ordinary to you. But this is prejudicial and illogical. It lacks completely the most important part, the application of the alternative scenarios to the actual evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Miranda Barbour is a disturbed young person. She has a history of being sexually abused as a minor, and claimed to be a member of a satanic cult that practiced ritualistic killings.

Amanda Knox is a normal Seattle suburbanite that played soccer, previously studied abroad in Japan, was on the honor roll, went to typical college parties, and then during a one hour window on the evening of November 1st you believe she became a psychopath at coincidentally the exact same time a random lowlife knife carrying burglar was walking around in the blood of a murder victim.

And you don't hate her you just hate anyone that has the nerve to defend her from one of the weakest cases in criminal history.

Your idea of mental disorder is a compendium of prejudice about human nature. You don't really need to add much to this, expressing the utmost prejudicial view of the world on your part.

 

[bagels]

I am not interested in going forward, just say: you need to consider the actual evidence instead, the actual physical traces and details. The actual evidence. That is where you apply and compare consistency of scenarios.
Instead you work the other way around: you seem to start from a "narrative" that you demnd to ring natural, or plausible and ordinary to you. But this is prejudicial and illogical. It lacks completely the most important part, the application of the alternative scenarios to the actual evidence.

If there was a way to turn blood and DNA negative stains and sink DNA into a coherent theory with the two students and the burglar, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, my interest in this case would have ceased years ago.

 

[bagels]

Your idea of mental disorder is a compendium of prejudice about human nature. You don't really need to add much to this, expressing the utmost prejudicial view of the world on your part.

I don't really have a view about anyone's mental health with regards to this case. You've taken a perfectly ordinary girl that goes 175,000 hours without engaging in any anti-social behavior, and then the 1 hour in her life where she apparently becomes criminally disturbed just happens to coincide with a knife carrying burglar covered in Amanda's alleged victim's blood. I mean that strikes me as a rather remarkable fact. And from this you extrapolate as if it's well established that she's a narcissist, drug addict, sociopath, and every other derogatory description you can think of, all because you can't process a clueless airheaded girl was manipulated into signing a statement that corroborated the very theory the police themselves believed.

 

[Bill Williams]

The behaviour of Knox is an overall pattern with a very obvious logic.

Yet even the PLE/Rome cops early on say her behaviour had nothing to do with the outcome of the interrogations. Why? "Because she buckled and told us what we already knew." In short, they arrived at what they already knew to be true - Lumumba did it - even before Amanda's "behaviour".

Aside from many considerations, this actually states well the sole purpose of interrogation to begin with. Cops go into the interrogation with a theory, and their sole goal is to get the interogatee to confirm it for them through confession.

There have been many attempts to twist that into some specious argument that Amanda, somehow, manipulated the interrogation to wilfully throw the cops off in the wrong direction and to conceal her guilt. All of those attempts in the end fail.

However, I do agree with one thing - and that is to do with your hatred and where it is placed. Acc. to Andrea Vogt you have had the courage to act on that hatred.

 

[Vixen]

I was going to say the very same thing.

Fact:

1. Raff's counsel Avv Bongiorno was a cabinet minister

2. Avv Bongiorno was Andreotti's counsel. Andreotti has been strongly suggested to have had strong links wth the mafia. Indeed, boasted of being a diplomat between the mafia and the establishment. Andreotti was charged with various mafia corruption issues.

3. The Supreme Court set a legal precedence in acquitting Andreotti under Section 530 para II 'insufficent evidence'.

4. this was a legal precedence because evidence is the preserve of the lower courts.

5. Andreotti had actually been found not guilty at the first instance merits court

6. in Raff's case, Avv Bongiorno being a 'mover and shaker' managed to manipulate the case away from First Chambers of the ISC, expert in murder cases to the inferior Fifth Chamber, more used to commercial and civil law.

7. Avv Bongiorno was given two days to present her appeal to this inferior Supreme Court, other counsels were given just twenty minutes each.

8. the Fifth Chamber allowed Raff to tack on a few chapters of commercial writer of pop DNA-science Dr Gill arguing transfer of Raff DNA from out of nowhere onto the bra clasp. Gill was not cross examined by the prosecution at any time.

9. If the Fifth Chambers believed the DNA was an issue, under penal code 628-30 (IIRC), legal protocol entails sending it back down to a lower court to be assessed on its merits. In any case the DNA was not new evidence - Gill got his opinions from the defective Conti & Vecchiotti report - so Gill's testimony should have been barred. Avv Bongiorno had ample opportunity to produce him at the first instance court in 2009.

10. Penal code 628-630 (IIRC) in any case decrees that in serious crime such as murder, the ISC judges do not have the power to reverse a guilty finding by the lower courts. It has to be remitted back.

11. In Raff and Amanda's case, both the lower courts had found them guilty - unlike in the precedent Andreotti case - so again, defective.

12. Avv Bongiorno occupies Andreotti's old office and worships the ground he walked on. She often represents powerful mafia figures in court.

13. Aviello and Kokomani both claim Raff's defense offered them €100K to pervert justice with false testimony. Avv Bongiorno has never sued them for calumny or libel.

14. Really, the Fifth Chambers were letting off Raff - and you note his alibi for Amanda remains withdrawn - as Avv Bongiorno in her Appeal pled that Raff be assessed separately.

15. Having bought into Avv Bongiorno's Andreotti-worshipping mindset - Bruno himself had once come under mafia suspicion and had scooped up €'000's in compo when acquitted - they could hardly let Raff go free without freeing Amanda, too.

16. Amanda is extremely heavily criticised in ISC's written reasons. We are left in no doubt of her imputed involvement in the murder.

Clear now?

 

[bagels]

Clear now?

The New York mafia recently vowed to defend the city from ISIS. Maybe they spared these two students from a miscarriage of justice as one of their charity deeds

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

In the US, I am almost sure he would have testified in court against spinning a fantastic tale, either his own invention or with help by the cops.

listening to Charles Boney in the David Camm case is fascinating. Makes you almost respect Omar Ballard for admitting he acted alone.

 

[Bill Williams]

Clear now?

It's clear what you believe. It's your right to believe all those things.

What you lack is any citation for this elaborate conspiracy theory. Go for it. Providing actual evidence would go a long way to making it clear.

Otherwise, you've listed a number of un-referenced assertions, none of which have found any currency in Italy. If you had references from Italian sources, you would have used them.

Perhaps it's time to repost the picture of the lower window, you know - the one with the bars on it.

 

[bagels]

In the US, I am almost sure he would have testified in court against spinning a fantastic tale, either his own invention or with help by the cops.

listening to Charles Boney in the David Camm case is fascinating. Makes you almost respect Omar Ballard for admitting he acted alone.

The David Camm case didn't happen because police and prosecutors never make mistakes and when they do they admit to them right away. We must have dreamed it up.

Actually it would have been a riot to hear Rudy attempt to testify against the students. I think Mignini knew the less he said the better.

 

[acbytesla]

Decide what topic you are talking about.

Was that really too difficult to follow?

 

[Grinder]

No, the judges' job is to make a judgment. They have moved on from their very brief summing up, thus in section 9.4 they write in plain language, for example, and thenceforth their [legally binding] opinion [=i.e. legal fact]:
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house,
the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also
contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the
kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher
together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her
friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her
ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgment of reliability
expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s
narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person
mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the
detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor
the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible
scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia
and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those
declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State
Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which
earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato],
[they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young
American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time
– except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).

Come on you're better than this Vixen - the section preceding reads as follows and changes the meaning of 9.41

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not
have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the
room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f:
76).
No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others.
9.4.1. With this premise, ...

"even if it is hypothesised" what do you think those words mean?

 

[Vixen]

"9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial,..."

Vixen, why do you think the words "...in the trial,..." follow on from "...is a proven fact..."?

Do you think it could be because the courts are bound by "factual" findings of the lower courts,.....perhaps? If it was a fact in the pure sense do you think "...in the trial,..." is necessary?

Exactly. The ISC do not have the power to overturn facts found by a lower court. Bruno-Marasca had no choice but to uphold the facts found.

 

[Vixen]

You are allowed your opinion I guess. However, there have been two, if not three newspieces posted here in the last few days from Italy which see it differently.

They see the M/B acquittals as representing the rule of law, with the Stasi conviction being a return to roulette wheel justice.

More to the point you have not provided anything other than your own opinion. You have not provided anything from Italy to sustain your belief that M/B was, "a bad verdict.... Illogical, unworkable, confusing and undermining." There it sits.

I am sure I referred directly to the Stasi case as an example of how a bad verdict will rarely be accepted as a case precedent for long, but never mind.