Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

But we are talking about what the SC writes in the motivations - how many journalists present your interpretation of what the 5th chambers write? Anyone denies they found Knox was on the scene of crime?
(Even Luca Cheli reluctantly had to admit that "in a couple of passages" it really looks like they are placing Knox on the scene of crime - even if he forgets to point out how the 5th chambers agree on the timing of Knox hearing Meredith's scream).

But if you have doubts you may just look at other articles from that time:
http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/meredith-i-giudici-rudy-non-uccise-da-solo-e-forti-sospetti-contro-amanda-e-raf-ma-non-oltre-il-ragionevole-dubbio

http://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

or more recent ones:
http://www.nuovocorrierenazionale.it/sentenze-inconciliabili/

I am glad that you are now motivated to find the stuff that is out there - esp. after complaining that it isn't about counting who agrees with any one position or not.

Apparently it now IS about that!

 

[Machiavelli]

Would anyone have brought it up if Vixen hadn't? Like it or not he was joking about getting rid of evidence , cutting up black meat and the pallour of a dead victim. Not directly talking about his involvement of course, now that would be foolish. There should be some interest here in what drives and fascinates Sollecito since he is such an important figure in the case. I highly doubt Vixen could have brought it up at all without a degree of annoyance or defensiveness . The man if you can call him that still has serious compulsions which are self destructive . He may never succeed or be able to function independently of his father and in my opinion shows a personality that could have very well been capable of the crime.

This is what Judge Ricciarelli wrote about him: he found he was a dangerous person because he appeared to be a passive and "weak charachter" with a "dependent personality".

 

[Machiavelli]

I am glad that you are now motivated to find the stuff that is out there - esp. after complaining that it isn't about counting who agrees with any one position or not.

Apparently it now IS about that!

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[bagels]

But it is pointless because your approach is not honest. You are not really interested in finding out what the SC verdict actually says; you don't want to know it. In order to do so, you would need to stop asking about "what others say" and instead focus on those part of text that contain unequivocal information about the fact that what you call "my interpretation" is instead actually the only possible meaning of the text, and you would try to understand why it is so, and then afte that, maybe if you want you may also understand all the rest of those phrases that you point at, where you think there is the word "alleged", grasp their actual grammar and logical content too.

You're right, we really aren't interested. This is the same higher court that driveled out nonsense such as Curatolo is a reliable witness because he was able to recognize Amanda and Raffaele in the courtroom (Chieffi). Quintavalle is reliable because he became certain he saw Amanda after seeing her blue eyes in court (Chieffi). That Hellmann's court errored by not using findings from a separate trial against Amanda and Raffaele (Chieffi). That your own DNA being found in your own sink after you were the last one to use it proves you washed blood off your hands in it (M&B). That Rudy did not hold the knife because - well there is no actual reason given for this in the evidence, it's just believed self evidently (Everyone but Hellmann).

There's a reason there isn't a single solitary esteemed commentator outside of Italy that believes there was certainly evidence beyond reasonable doubt of Amanda's guilt.

Before the M&B verdict a final conviction was expected and sources inside the US State Department said extradition was not going to happen, not even a possibility. This was a preemptive refutation of the judicial process against Amanda Knox because the case was so self evidently garbage. These efforts were lead by a highly respected sitting US Senator, and no, she was not eager to unleash a psycho sex killer on her constituents for a dozen votes from the Knox clan.

The ECHR will eventually trash what is left of the initial police investigation, and you'll have to cast the giant conspiracy net ever wider.

 

[Briars]

This is what Judge Ricciarelli wrote about him: he found he was a dangerous person because he appeared to be a passive and "weak charachter" with a "dependent personality".

My thinking is he has a dependency disorder , one that keeps papa worried and coming to his rescue. Perhaps a way to punish dad for his mom's death. Why would he write " ti uccidero , gentilmente" I'll kill you gently to a young woman on the secret FB site. All this as he looks for 513,000 euro this month. I expected and wasn't all all disappointed at how irrelevant some try to spin this. This is what was on his on his mind before the murder with his mad psycho manga and still today. Creepy violence as entertainment is not normal especially when you claim to be just a sweet boy/man. I bet that friend who took him to Meredith's grave is keeping a low profile , no way anyone is going to believe it was a respectful visit.

 

[christianahannah]

Do you mind if I lean in and point out that one reason the case took so long in this instance is because Raff's attorney, Bongiorno, took a substantial amount of maternity leave during the trial.

So, the trial progressed at about two days per week whilst she went off for her medical care, and then another several months whilst she took leave to have the baby.

In the UK a trial revolves around the court. In this trial it revolved around the defence attorney, and still the defence complains.

I think more it takes so long due to the amount of cases to be heard plus the appeals not so much Bongiorno's maternity leave. Rafaelle did have another attorney besides Bongiorno to be at his side.

If this length of cases helps the Italian judiciary achieve its judicial truth I will not find fault, however, many cases may not have a satisfactory verdict for either side due to the length of time it takes to hear and finally decide a case.

 

[LondonJohn]

My thinking is he has a dependency disorder , one that keeps papa worried and coming to his rescue. Perhaps a way to punish dad for his mom's death. Why would he write " ti uccidero , gentilmente" I'll kill you gently to a young woman on the secret FB site. All this as he looks for 513,000 euro this month. I expected and wasn't all all disappointed at how irrelevant some try to spin this. This is what was on his on his mind before the murder with his mad psycho manga and still today. Creepy violence as entertainment is not normal especially when you claim to be just a sweet boy/man. I bet that friend who took him to Meredith's grave is keeping a low profile , no way anyone is going to believe it was a respectful visit.

This is, I'm afraid, a jaded and biassed interpretation (or, at the very least, it's at least as biassed from a "pro-guilt spin" perspective as you would submit the other interpretation is biassed from a "pro-acquittal/pro-innocence spin" perspective).

Firstly, I shouldn't need to reiterate this (but somehow I feel I probably ought to...), but I think all reasonable pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators (on this thread and elsewhere) readily agrees that the actual words Sollecito wrote were foolish, unpleasant, in very poor taste, ill-judged and just plain idiotic. So hopefully we can get that potential straw man out of the way before it might stick its ugly head above the parapet again.

But, that said, I absolutely don't think it's reasonable to draw the sorts of conclusions you're drawing from the words Sollecito wrote on that FB group. To me, it's very clear that Sollecito was (stupidly and in an ill-judged and very poor-taste manner, remember) replying to deliberately- and intentionally-provocative questions from others in the group, in a sort of "bad taste badinage" exercise.

So, for example, Sollecito could have replied to a question such as "Don't be cruel when you kill me, master?" with something such as "I'm not going to kill you. Don't be ridiculous. And don't get the idea that I have any experience in killing anyone else, because I don't". But that would clearly not have been the answer the questioner was looking for: Sollecito was expected to play the game, and he was (regrettably and stupidly) seemingly very willing to do so. And so therefore he replied in the same "joke" spirit: "Don't worry, I'll make it nice and painless".

I think it's ridiculous (and extremely reductive) to infer that Sollecito was either making any sincere reference to killing the (female) questioner with that response, nor that he was making any sort of coded reference to his participation in the Kercher murder. Rather, I believe any reasonable interpretation is that Sollecito believed (borne of immaturity, stupidity, lack of awareness of how others might choose to perceive this, and extremely poor taste) that he was "playing along with the joke".

But..... he most certainly gave another magazine of ammunition for those with a particular agenda - there's no denying that.

 

[bagels]

This is what Judge Ricciarelli wrote about him: he found he was a dangerous person because he appeared to be a passive and "weak charachter" with a "dependent personality".

Wow they found his psychology to be exactly compatible with the shedevil theory of the crime they already had. What incredible insight.

 

[Briars]

This is, I'm afraid, a jaded and biassed interpretation (or, at the very least, it's at least as biassed from a "pro-guilt spin" perspective as you would submit the other interpretation is biassed from a "pro-acquittal/pro-innocence spin" perspective).

Firstly, I shouldn't need to reiterate this (but somehow I feel I probably ought to...), but I think all reasonable pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators (on this thread and elsewhere) readily agrees that the actual words Sollecito wrote were foolish, unpleasant, in very poor taste, ill-judged and just plain idiotic. So hopefully we can get that potential straw man out of the way before it might stick its ugly head above the parapet again.

But, that said, I absolutely don't think it's reasonable to draw the sorts of conclusions you're drawing from the words Sollecito wrote on that FB group. To me, it's very clear that Sollecito was (stupidly and in an ill-judged and very poor-taste manner, remember) replying to deliberately- and intentionally-provocative questions from others in the group, in a sort of "bad taste badinage" exercise.

So, for example, Sollecito could have replied to a question such as "Don't be cruel when you kill me, master?" with something such as "I'm not going to kill you. Don't be ridiculous. And don't get the idea that I have any experience in killing anyone else, because I don't". But that would clearly not have been the answer the questioner was looking for: Sollecito was expected to play the game, and he was (regrettably and stupidly) seemingly very willing to do so. And so therefore he replied in the same "joke" spirit: "Don't worry, I'll make it nice and painless".

I think it's ridiculous (and extremely reductive) to infer that Sollecito was either making any sincere reference to killing the (female) questioner with that response, nor that he was making any sort of coded reference to his participation in the Kercher murder. Rather, I believe any reasonable interpretation is that Sollecito believed (borne of immaturity, stupidity, lack of awareness of how others might choose to perceive this, and extremely poor taste) that he was "playing along with the joke".

But..... he most certainly gave another magazine of ammunition for those with a particular agenda - there's no denying that.

He does reference the murder referring to the pallour of a victim who has bled out. it's more than immaturity when you go out of your way to join a private group which condones violent fantasies. He wasn't caught off guard and played along as you suggest. He joined the group knowing the expectations before. He has an appetite for that kind of hobby and got caught. The seriousness of his risk taking considering his past is self destructive and disturbing as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think more it takes so long due to the amount of cases to be heard plus the appeals not so much Bongiorno's maternity leave. Rafaelle did have another attorney besides Bongiorno to be at his side.

If this length of cases helps the Italian judiciary achieve its judicial truth I will not find fault, however, many cases may not have a satisfactory verdict for either side due to the length of time it takes to hear and finally decide a case.

I believe that in a criminal court in England & Wales, if a defendant's barrister was a female who had a baby and then maternity leave (or, for that matter, someone of either gender who was justifiably indisposed - for example through a family bereavement or a serious accident or something like that), then the defendant would have the option to have the case adjourned until the defence barrister was once again able to take part in proceedings (alternatively the defendant could choose to appoint a new barrister - but I believe the choice between a new barrister and an adjournment would be entirely up to the defendant). But in either case, I don't think any court would accept (or would, for that matter, require) an adjournment of anything longer than a few months.

And, that being the case, the "argument" about Bongiorno's pregnancy/maternity being a significant factor in the eight-odd years this case took to reach a final verdict (in Italy) is somewhat misleading. As you point out, the Italian system is utterly overwhelmed, owing chiefly to the crazy system of multi-trial processes and the batting of cases to and fro between the various courts. The Knox/Sollecito case was, of course, a textbook example of the worst of this.

The Italian system could - and IMO should - easily be changed to one in which the appeal court stage is totally skipped on the way "up the chain". In other words, there's a court-of-first-instance trial, then - for all serious cases - there's no appeal-level second trial, bu rather the case moves all the way up to an automatic review of that first-instance court's verdict by the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court finds that the first-instance court has erred, the case is sent back to an appeal-level court for a (higher form of) retrial.

Note that in this system, the automatic SC review would only take place for the most serious of crimes: murder, rape, serious organised crime, kidnapping, etc. For all other crimes, those convicted by lower courts (or the state, if the defendants were acquitted, under certain circumstances) would have to apply for leave to appeal, and would have to present material evidence of either failures in the first-instance trial or (in the case of an appeal against conviction) new exculpatory information. So at a stroke, the workloads of both the appeal-level courts and the Supreme Court would be hugely reduced.

In addition, if there's an automatic system of appeals (as there currently is in Italy), then the State really must find a way to process those appeals expeditiously and in a just timeframe, or be forced to alter the system. Far wiser minds than I have stated - correctly - that justice delayed is justice denied. Frankly, given that there is such a huge backlog of cases waiting for appeal-level and SC-level review in Italy, the Italian state should have changed the system long ago in order to vastly reduce the waiting times between each (mandatory) trial.

(Note that the same rule applies to the European Court of Human Rights, which also has a tremendous backlog (due in no small part to the number of applications against Italy......). The ECHR should have been reformed and/or greatly expanded a long time ago. But since the ECHR is a supra-national court and since it can - and does - expedite those cases where the applicant is either currently in custody or under some other form of state punishment, the waiting times cannot be viewed as quite so troubling in most instances (including that of the Knox application).

 

[acbytesla]

What is this, old home week? Months go by and the only PGP that posts here is Vixen and we get posts from both Machiavelli and Briars? This battle is over. The good guys won. Amanda and Raffaele were both exonerated. Going on 2 years now. Any way, good to see ya.

 

[Vixen]

This is, I'm afraid, a jaded and biassed interpretation (or, at the very least, it's at least as biassed from a "pro-guilt spin" perspective as you would submit the other interpretation is biassed from a "pro-acquittal/pro-innocence spin" perspective).

Firstly, I shouldn't need to reiterate this (but somehow I feel I probably ought to...), but I think all reasonable pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators (on this thread and elsewhere) readily agrees that the actual words Sollecito wrote were foolish, unpleasant, in very poor taste, ill-judged and just plain idiotic. So hopefully we can get that potential straw man out of the way before it might stick its ugly head above the parapet again.

But, that said, I absolutely don't think it's reasonable to draw the sorts of conclusions you're drawing from the words Sollecito wrote on that FB group. To me, it's very clear that Sollecito was (stupidly and in an ill-judged and very poor-taste manner, remember) replying to deliberately- and intentionally-provocative questions from others in the group, in a sort of "bad taste badinage" exercise.

So, for example, Sollecito could have replied to a question such as "Don't be cruel when you kill me, master?" with something such as "I'm not going to kill you. Don't be ridiculous. And don't get the idea that I have any experience in killing anyone else, because I don't". But that would clearly not have been the answer the questioner was looking for: Sollecito was expected to play the game, and he was (regrettably and stupidly) seemingly very willing to do so. And so therefore he replied in the same "joke" spirit: "Don't worry, I'll make it nice and painless".

I think it's ridiculous (and extremely reductive) to infer that Sollecito was either making any sincere reference to killing the (female) questioner with that response, nor that he was making any sort of coded reference to his participation in the Kercher murder. Rather, I believe any reasonable interpretation is that Sollecito believed (borne of immaturity, stupidity, lack of awareness of how others might choose to perceive this, and extremely poor taste) that he was "playing along with the joke".

But..... he most certainly gave another magazine of ammunition for those with a particular agenda - there's no denying that.

So presumably the SUN - the UK's top selling paper - the DAILY MIRROR, the INDEPENDENT and the SCOTTISH SUN, who have all picked up on the story 'have a particular agenda'.

A 32-year old who is due to appear at a significant compensation hearing is leading secret facebook pages that dwell on femicide, crude racism and misogyny, together with crass hashtags and indecent photos of unconsenting females, filched from elsewhere.

Mignini describes Raff as 'icy cold' in his closing submissions to Matteini.

When will Raff get the psychological help he desperately is in need of?

Persons with a personality disorder rarely seek treatment as they feel no distress about their condition.

The weird thing is, the lady (Lucarelli) who complained about these FB pages was banned by FB... for complaining, in reproducing a sample of the offensive posts.


Perhaps LoJo will argue she has 'no sense of humour'.

 

[toto]

He does reference the murder referring to the pallour of a victim who has bled out. it's more than immaturity when you go out of your way to join a private group which condones violent fantasies. He wasn't caught off guard and played along as you suggest. He joined the group knowing the expectations before. He has an appetite for that kind of hobby and got caught. The seriousness of his risk taking considering his past is self destructive and disturbing as well.

It would help to have a great many of the posts published in chronological order in English to get a sense of what kind of posts these really are. Also, to know a little of the culture behind them. Are we talking VIZ or quazi BNP type stuff?
I remember, when I first got interested in U.S. politics, when Obama was running, that I saw some of (in England) the Bill O' Reilly programmes. He went on about the degeneracy of such sites as The Daily Kos and Media Matters, quoting a few of the comments. This led me to the sites and found them rather interesting and of course nothing like how they had been described.
However, RS's comments are horrible as everyone says, even when put in the most mitigating light. If it were not for the fact that I still have an interest in how the ECHR scenario develops, I do not think I would stick around: he is too much of a (insert word to show total lack of respect). Most posters on this site I think are just interested in the cool analytical analysis of the evidence and that is why they have come to the same conclusion as Hellmann and the others. But I was concerned mainly with locking up innocent people, and hoping, once aquitted that they could start to rebuild their reputations. AK seems to be doing this, but she is hardly helped by the antics of this rather weak willed man.

 

[LondonJohn]

He does reference the murder referring to the pallour of a victim who has bled out.

Well, you see, not quite. Certainly not in the way you choose to represent it.

Sollecito replies to a comment/question of "I see that you're pale (in complexion), don't you go to the seaside?" with "Oh, I see so many people turn pale". And then somebody else (who is, in fact, the blogger who infiltrated the group to expose it) writes "Ahahaha you laugh, actually Meredith must have been fairly pale, considering that they found not so much as a centilitre of blood in her body".

Now, of course I get that Sollecito might have been making some reference to Kercher bleeding out. But IMO it's far from the only interpretation. And the fact that he writes "so many people (plural)" points further away from any reference to Kercher (singular) - he might equally have been making some sort of reference to having seen many people go pale with shock or surprise (again, many people and not just one in particular).

Had Sollecito written something like "Oh I remember one particular person who went very pale hahaha", then I'd be far more ready to agree that he was making a (horrifically poor-taste at the very least, and potentially self-incriminating at worst) reference to the Kercher murder. But that's not what he wrote. And it's worth repeating that it was the blogger (the one with the agenda to expose the group) who was the one who linked Sollecito's words to the Kercher murder.

It's more than immaturity when you go out of your way to join a private group which condones violent fantasies. He wasn't caught off guard and played along as you suggest. He joined the group knowing the expectations before. He has an appetite for that kind of hobby and got caught. The seriousness of his risk taking considering his past is self destructive and disturbing as well.

Well firstly, I don't understand your implied suggestion that one can only be stupid or immature, or exercise poor judgement, if one says/writes something purely on the spur of the moment. You seem to be implying here that because Sollecito chose to join this group, this in itself overrides the idea that this was stupidity/immaturity/bad taste/poor judgement from Sollecito, and somehow leans instead more towards something "more".

I'd also point out at this juncture that none of us (presumably) has gone through what Sollecito went through between 2007 and 2015. Assuming for a moment that he factually had nothing to do with the murder* (regardless of whether or not you think he did), one could easily see how the ordeal he would have gone through as an innocent person - including many months in an isolation cell in prison, and the process of conviction, acquittal, re-conviction and re-acquittal/annulment - might have caused deep and long-lasting psychiatric trauma. The psychiatric/psychological effect that all of this could have on an innocent person is hard for most people to understand


* Obviously another interpretation of all of this is that Sollecito factually DID participate in the Kercher murder, and is making coded "sticking his fingers up to the authorities" references to it in these FB group posts. But I'm trying to point out that another reasonable interpretation is a factually-innocent Sollecito (who also has underlying problems related to immaturity and poor judgement) who has been significantly adversely psychiatrically affected by what he's been through, which in turn has magnified his behaviour on this FB group.

 

[LondonJohn]

So presumably the SUN - the UK's top selling paper - the DAILY MIRROR, the INDEPENDENT and the SCOTTISH SUN, who have all picked up on the story 'have a particular agenda'.

A 32-year old who is due to appear at a significant compensation hearing is leading secret facebook pages that dwell on femicide, crude racism and misogyny, together with crass hashtags and indecent photos of unconsenting females, filched from elsewhere.

Mignini describes Raff as 'icy cold' in his closing submissions to Matteini.

When will Raff get the psychological help he desperately is in need of?

Persons with a personality disorder rarely seek treatment as they feel no distress about their condition.

The weird thing is, the lady (Lucarelli) who complained about these FB pages was banned by FB... for complaining, in reproducing a sample of the offensive posts.


Perhaps LoJo will argue she has 'no sense of humour'.

Ermmmmm. The newspapers do indeed have an agenda: to find and dish up sensationalist stories to their readers, in order to attract and retain readership. This is increasingly true in an age of a fragmented media market and hugely increased financial pressure on "traditional" titles.

If you didn't know this before, well.... you do now.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow they found his psychology to be exactly compatible with the shedevil theory of the crime they already had. What incredible insight.

Wrong. "They" (who?) had no "shedevil theory of the crime" at the time.

Btw, no "shedevil theory of the crime" was ever put forward (at least not by the public prosecutions)

 

[Bill Williams]

Wrong. "They" (who?) had no "shedevil theory of the crime" at the time.

Btw, no "shedevil theory of the crime" was ever put forward (at least not by the public prosecutions)

Did you watch the clip from Nick Pisa which he offered to the Netflix documentary?

 

[Machiavelli]

My thinking is he has a dependency disorder , one that keeps papa worried and coming to his rescue. Perhaps a way to punish dad for his mom's death. Why would he write " ti uccidero , gentilmente" I'll kill you gently to a young woman on the secret FB site. All this as he looks for 513,000 euro this month. I expected and wasn't all all disappointed at how irrelevant some try to spin this. This is what was on his on his mind before the murder with his mad psycho manga and still today. Creepy violence as entertainment is not normal especially when you claim to be just a sweet boy/man. I bet that friend who took him to Meredith's grave is keeping a low profile , no way anyone is going to believe it was a respectful visit.

Another couple aspect - worth of not being missed, imho - are, the way he addresses Amanda Knox. He openly calls her a kinda ******* crazy nut, says she's mentally insane, and also he openly addresses her as a murderess.
He photoshopped a Cluedo cover with the faces of Amanda Knox among a crowd of famous murderers.
He is not ironical when he says she's a murderess and an insane person, even if the style is that of the group this is exactly what he means.
The publicity he gives her this way should make the pro-Knox crowd think about. He points at her being a murderess in a way more rude and direct than how guilters do it on this group.
He shoots directly on the sacred idol of the innocentisti.

Another aspect how he "likes" racist stances. He puts "like" on the picture of Amanda with the racist notice blaming the black guy - but the word is not "black" (jokes about race and about Knox's being guilty at the same time).


*

We might also expect more jokes about his craze for violent porn and knife collecting, or about his injuring a little girl with scissors when he was at middle school and the omertà of school personnell, one day who knows - humour has no boundaries.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did you watch the clip from Nick Pisa which he offered to the Netflix documentary?

Only a few scenes.

But he has nothing to do with the real trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

Only a few scenes.

But he has nothing to do with the real trial.

The reason I asked is because he covered what he termed, "the crazy theories" of the original prosecution, the very crazy theories which Barbie Nadeau also wrote about.

Nadeau wrote that Maneula Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini went to trial with one of the crazier theories. He said he would simply print the stories leaked to him without fact checking, not expecting the prosecution would lie to him.

You'll have to ask Nadeau why she would write that.