The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

Well....... we have yet to work in the factor that other time-supportable evidence - the CCTV footage (with its timestamp) showing the arrival of Carabinieri officers just over half an hour later, set against provable time that those same officers called for directions to the cottage from inside their car since they could not find the cottage - shows clearly that the parking garage CCTV timestamp was in fact at least 10 minutes (and very probably around 12 minutes) SLOW.

In other words, when the CCTV timestamp reads 12:48, the ACTUAL time is almost certainly about 13:00 (i.e. 1pm).

So the Postal Police officers (whose legs are pointed out in that CCTV still, timestamped 12:48) actually arrived at the cottage at or very shortly after 1pm. Several minutes AFTER Sollecito had called his sister then the Carabinieri, and several minutes after Knox had called her mother in Seattle.


Funnily enough, this has personal resonance for me. My first (accidental) contact with this case was through reading "Darkness Descending" (which I truly had bought as an add-on book in a "buy one get one free" offer in a book shop). And DD produced it as a settled fact that the Postal Police officers had provably arrived BEFORE Sollecito called his sister and then the Carabinieri, and before Knox called her mother (and remember, in none of those phone calls was it ever mentioned that police officers of any sort had already arrived at the cottage). And I could not conceive of any reason how/why an innocent Knox or Sollecito would have snuck away from the Postal Police officers to make these calls, and then to avoid mentioning the presence of the Postal Police officers within any of those calls.

Of course, most of the other evidence as presented in DD also made one lean heavily to guilt. But for me at least, it was this idea of Knox and Sollecito sneaking away to call another (possibly more "favourable" unit of the Italian police) and to call relatives - all without mentioning that the Postal Police were already there - which sealed the deal for me.

And then I learned more. And I learned that the story was a heck of a lot more complicated than it had been presented to me in DD. And I learned that in fact the evidence strongly leaned in favour of the timestamp on the CCTV being 10-12 minutes slow. And I learned an awful lot more besides about this whole case. And I ceased to believe in guilt (legal for sure, and factual more and more as time went on).

I think this is the case with most people. One almost always assumes police have arrested the guilty party. After all, there must be some pretty damning evidence in order for an arrest to be made. I know I certainly did. But, like you, after becoming more educated on the evidence, I saw clearly that this was a massive screw up by the police and prosecution. Of course, some people, once they've formed an opinion, cannot admit they were wrong no matter what the evidence says. They will continue to see the evidence only through guilt-colored glasses. It is no longer about the case and evidence but about their own narcissism that cannot admit error. Rather like Trump saying the election meddling could have been done by Russia "but it could very well have been other countries" despite there being no evidence of any country involved but Russia.

 

[acbytesla]

I think this is the case with most people. One almost always assumes police have arrested the guilty party. After all, there must be some pretty damning evidence in order for an arrest to be made. I know I certainly did. But, like you, after becoming more educated on the evidence, I saw clearly that this was a massive screw up by the police and prosecution. Of course, some people, once they've formed an opinion, cannot admit they were wrong no matter what the evidence says. They will continue to see the evidence only through guilt-colored glasses. It is no longer about the case and evidence but about their own narcissism that cannot admit error. Rather like Trump saying the election meddling could have been done by Russia "but it could very well have been other countries" despite there being no evidence of any country involved but Russia.

This is what troubles me about my fellow humans. Which leads me to this question. What makes people obstinate even when facing very persuasive evidence?

I can think of certain events and studies which made me much less arrogant about what I know. The first being on the Debate team throughout high school and college. (Being forced to argue one side of an issue during one debate and the very opposite position in your next debate leads to constantly looking for the pros and cons on every issue.

The second is selling very high end communications and IT equipment to engineers. I might know the specs of my products inside and out, but my customers used that equipment and understood it better than I ever would. My job was to educate them on the products I sold, but inevitably I learned more from them than they did from me.

How do you get people to be open to changing their opinion? Not specifically, but generally as I see this attitude as an epidemic.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what troubles me about my fellow humans. Which leads me to this question. What makes people obstinate even when facing very persuasive evidence?

I can think of certain events and studies which made me much less arrogant about what I know. The first being on the Debate team throughout high school and college. (Being forced to argue one side of an issue during one debate and the very opposite position in your next debate leads to constantly looking for the pros and cons on every issue.

The second is selling very high end communications and IT equipment to engineers. I might know the specs of my products inside and out, but my customers used that equipment and understood it better than I ever would. My job was to educate them on yhe products I sold, but inevitably I learned more from them than they did from me.

How do you get people to be open to changing their opinion?

They cannot see being wrong as a weakness.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

Curatolo was a remarkably honest and sincere witness IMV.

 

[Vixen]

True, but it turned out OK in the end.

So you agree the kids are likely guilty as charged as the end result was an annulment without any compensation for four years served in prison - six months in solitary for Raff - and a lot of damning statements with the Motivational Report.

By that criteria getting out of a life sentence in jail would be a result that's 'OK in the end'.

 

[Vixen]

I need to correct myself; Massei mentions the disco buses and costumes but completely ignores the obvious contradiction. Perhaps the defense attorney's failed to drive home this point but Massei doesn't seem to care.

Conversely, Nencini pays a great deal of attention to it but he relies on the argument made by Cheffi - namely that on 31 Oct Amanda and Raffaele were in two different locations, therefore this part of Curatolo's recollection can't be correct and is subsequently ignored. Apparently 'mistaken identity' never crossed their minds. Curatolo is adamant about the buses, the people in costume and mentions several times the ruckus because it was a holiday. There is no reason to not conclude, therefore, that Curatolo sees a man and woman on 31 Oct and thinks it's Amanda and Raffaele when it's not. A year later he thinks this event took place the night before he sees the Scientific Police but in fact he's forgotten there was a day in between these two events. This is absolutely the most obvious, logical explanation for Curatolo's testimony.

There is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Apparently Massei, Cheffi and Nencini all felt that it was impossible that an old heroin addict, late at night, from a distance could have mistaken two people for Amanda and Raffaele. It's like the thought never crossed their minds that Curatolo could be wrong. Incredible.

But Tarantamonto's (_sp?) testimony is ultra-reliable.

 

[Vixen]

Correction: this was his third time being a witness for the police in three murder cases between 2004 and 2007. This, along with the fact that he only came forward a year later when urged by a reporter, should have aroused suspicion as to his credibility from the beginning. Well, that and the fact he was admittedly high on heroin that night. Sheesh.

Fact: heroin is a depressant, not a stimulant. It also has the effect of normalising, so like alcohol, for example, also a depressant, the user needs to take ever more quantities to feel any effect.

IOW you can be drunk, but still be a reliable witness as to what you saw. (Assuming you were not in a parylitic coma.)

 

[Vixen]

This case will forever stand out from the rest for the incredibly strange group of followers it attracted that have ideas that don't make any sense or follow any coherent thinking.

We call them PGP but it's more correct to refer to them as Rudy Guede groupies and police thug groupies.
A burglar with a history of knife wielding and window break-ins is found covered in blood at a window break-in stabbing. They defend him and say he didn't slay Meredith. That's groupie behavior.

The violent police thugs punch and kick a local married business owner innocent of any crime, and call him a dirty black. They defend the police and say job well done. That's groupie behavior.

How did this case attract such people while most cases attract normal people interested in law & order and justice, except for the odd Charlie Manson fan or w/e. I just don't know.

LOL, I only know one person who believes Rudy is innocent and know nobody who supports police brutality. If there are any bent policemen, then they fully deserve whatever the punishment is in law.

The reason this case has been scandalous is because it was a particularly wicked crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

Curatolo was a remarkably honest and sincere witness IMV.

You are entitled to your view. However to have it you have to make dumb comments about the effect of heroin on people, the reality that Curatolo did not say anything to police for a year, and that he was 3x a dial-up, rent-a-witness witness for various prosecutions. Also that what he described matches more Oct 31 than Nov 1.

Other than that, I share your view.

 

[Vixen]

This is what troubles me about my fellow humans. Which leads me to this question. What makes people obstinate even when facing very persuasive evidence?

I can think of certain events and studies which made me much less arrogant about what I know. The first being on the Debate team throughout high school and college. (Being forced to argue one side of an issue during one debate and the very opposite position in your next debate leads to constantly looking for the pros and cons on every issue.

The second is selling very high end communications and IT equipment to engineers. I might know the specs of my products inside and out, but my customers used that equipment and understood it better than I ever would. My job was to educate them on the products I sold, but inevitably I learned more from them than they did from me.

How do you get people to be open to changing their opinion? Not specifically, but generally as I see this attitude as an epidemic.

Change Management.

First you explain to people the 'trigger' for change.

Then you educate them of the need for change, advocate for them with their concerns about change, change corporate culture, as the culture trickles down from the top. Thus, if you were an aggressively profit oriented organisation and you want to be seen as more caring, you might change the logo to 'Save the Whale' and adopt green colours.

Ultimately, you can fire anyone who resists the change.

In the world of law, change comes about through (a) a new piece of evidence (b) a new witness (c) being able to demonstrate faulty legal logic.


None of these things happened in the Kercher murder trial.


In fact, Italian courts have doubled down and made it clear they believe Knox for a fact was at the murder scene and spell out that this was:

at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed
constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty

Florence Feb 2017, upheld on appeal to Cassazione 28 June 2017

In addition, it states:

it is evident that the statements
made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and
that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were
doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning. It is logical to
assume that she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she
knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate, would have been greatly distraught, a
circumstance which would have allowed Sollecito to remember well what happened that
night even if he had never set foot in the house where the serious crime had happened.

What is it that causes people to deny clear facts?

 

[Bill Williams]

What is it that causes people to deny clear facts?

What both the Florence court and Cassation in Raffaele's compensation trial(s) did not hear was facts. They heard no evidence. They recited what they believed to be judicial facts.

At this point, the Cassation appeal hearing of record - the Marasca/Bruno review of 2015, summarized that issue the best - courts and court members can have their beliefs and hunches about a case, but ultimately have to (in this case) acquit because there was no evidence.

As an aside - you are rebooting all the old arguments from the PGP side that have been countered more than adequately. What you need to do now is to do something other than a simple repetition of ad naseam stuff is to:

1) detail the eloquent proof that Knox sloughed blood from her hands, when even the original judge postulating this in 2010 admitted that there was no forensic reason to believe she had.

2) cite one, just one forensic DNA expert who agrees with Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA analysis of this case. Novelli doesn't count because his main contribution was to confirm to the Hellmann court that Stefanoni had not followed international standards which required multiple tests.​

If this next thread is simply going to be your restatement of a failed position, at least move it forward (a tiny bit, pleeeze!) by addressing those two issues.

 

[acbytesla]

Change Management.

First you explain to people the 'trigger' for change.

Then you educate them of the need for change, advocate for them with their concerns about change, change corporate culture, as the culture trickles down from the top. Thus, if you were an aggressively profit oriented organisation and you want to be seen as more caring, you might change the logo to 'Save the Whale' and adopt green colours.

Ultimately, you can fire anyone who resists the change.

In the world of law, change comes about through (a) a new piece of evidence (b) a new witness (c) being able to demonstrate faulty legal logic.


None of these things happened in the Kercher murder trial.


In fact, Italian courts have doubled down and made it clear they believe Knox for a fact was at the murder scene and spell out that this was:

Florence Feb 2017, upheld on appeal to Cassazione 28 June 2017

In addition, it states:


What is it that causes people to deny clear facts?

Exhibit A. Vixen. This case was reversed. Amanda and Raffaele were exonerated.

 

[Vixen]

Exhibit A. Vixen. This case was reversed. Amanda and Raffaele were exonerated.

No, they were not 'exonerated'.

The word 'innocent' appears in no judgment.

 

[whoanellie]

So you agree the kids are likely guilty as charged as the end result was an annulment without any compensation for four years served in prison - six months in solitary for Raff - and a lot of damning statements with the Motivational Report.

By that criteria getting out of a life sentence in jail would be a result that's 'OK in the end'.

No. That's not what I said at all. I agreed with you that it is a "tragedy" that AK and RS didn't have better representation in court. Had they better representation, they perhaps might never have been convicted in the first place. Fortunately, In the end their convictions were reversed and they are free.
The funny thing is aside from "damning statements" in the MR, which you cling to like they were a life preserver and you had been on the Titanic, your the one who is unhappy with the result, aren't you? Perhaps you and Mach and some of the other Guilters should have been with Mignini in court?

 

[TruthCalls]

This is what troubles me about my fellow humans. Which leads me to this question. What makes people obstinate even when facing very persuasive evidence?

I can think of certain events and studies which made me much less arrogant about what I know. The first being on the Debate team throughout high school and college. (Being forced to argue one side of an issue during one debate and the very opposite position in your next debate leads to constantly looking for the pros and cons on every issue.

The second is selling very high end communications and IT equipment to engineers. I might know the specs of my products inside and out, but my customers used that equipment and understood it better than I ever would. My job was to educate them on the products I sold, but inevitably I learned more from them than they did from me.

How do you get people to be open to changing their opinion? Not specifically, but generally as I see this attitude as an epidemic.

It depends... if the issue is subjective then people are entitled to an opinion and there's nothing wrong with them being unwilling to change. Some people like Trump, others despise him. It's just an opinion.. leave it alone.

However, in a case such as this, if you are dealing with a truly open minded and honest individual, you can try by breaking it down into small pieces that can be researched and debated to a definitive conclusion. Take the Luminol samples issue. You can scientifically prove there is great uncertainty, based on the tests performed, that the samples were made from blood, let alone human blood. But even more importantly, there is no disputing that without a DNA profile you can not prove the sample, what ever it is, came from the victim. The science and the rules of forensic investigations dictate the Luminol samples are unreliable and prove nothing.

The key to this is you must be dealing with someone who is open minded, honest and capable of critical thought. They must be capable of changing their opinion if the facts dictate they should. The remaining PGP that I know of don't appear to fit this description. They reason, as Massei and Nencini did, that the samples must have been made from Meredith's blood because "what else could they be" and because it fits their theory. People that reason that way are not going to change their opinion. Why this happened with two courts in Italy I have no idea. But for the general PGP population I suspect it's just a matter of the vast majority of early material on the case, be it the media, websites, police briefings or books published early on all cemented the idea of guilt and that has proven to be unshakable.

 

[TruthCalls]

No, they were not 'exonerated'.

The word 'innocent' appears in no judgment.

Just out of curiosity...

What other legal standings are available other than "guilty" and "innocent" ? They were found "not guilty". If they are not innocent, but they are also not guilty, then what are they?

 

[Bill Williams]

The key to this is you must be dealing with someone who is open minded, honest and capable of critical thought. They must be capable of changing their opinion if the facts dictate they should. The remaining PGP that I know of don't appear to fit this description. They reason, as Massei and Nencini did, that the samples must have been made from Meredith's blood because "what else could they be" and because it fits their theory. People that reason that way are not going to change their opinion. Why this happened with two courts in Italy I have no idea. But for the general PGP population I suspect it's just a matter of the vast majority of early material on the case, be it the media, websites, police briefings or books published early on all cemented the idea of guilt and that has proven to be unshakable.

One wonders that when summarizing the case against, combined with the case for the guilt of AK/RS, Marasca/Bruno meant it snidely when they referred to the "Knox sloughing blood from her hands," as having an "eloquent proof."

As Vixen has forced us to do, we've now read back to the original of this, "Knox sloughed blood from her hands," claim. (Put aside for a minute that M/B also say that even if this is true, Knox must have picked up the blood at some other time than the murder and in some other part of the house. That alone should put an end to what M/B claim by even referencing it, but Vixen and Machiavelli persist.....)

Reading back to what Judge Massei made of it in 2010, he specifically says that it is impossible to use the forensics to come to this conclusion. Yes, Massei says that. (That should also put an end to the discussion, but Vixen, Machiavelli, Massei, and the Nencini persisted.....)

In the end Massei's judicial reasoning is exactly as you say, the "eloquent proof" is Massei writing that if it is not a result of Knox sloughing blood from her hands, "what else could it be?" That. Is. The. Elegant. Proof.

One can only remind Judge Massei that the collection methods used by the SciPol were sloppy, as detailed in the very video of the collection the SciPol took of themselves, but also this was the bathroom that Knox and the victim shared - for weeks.

Massei tries to discount that by quoting Knox, who'd said that the bathroom had been cleaned that morning - but remember also the other criticisms of Knox, that she was a slob who wouldn't know a clean bathroom if one was staring her in the face.....

...... and is Massei REALLY going to take Knox's comment as proof that the bathroom was FORENSICALLY CLEAN, ready to receive forensics which could ONLY be related to the murder?

That's it. That's the eloquent proof that M/B reference in their 2015 report. Are you sure that M/B did not reference an "eloquent proof" snidely?

 

[Bill Williams]

Just out of curiosity...

What other legal standings are available other than "guilty" and "innocent" ? They were found "not guilty". If they are not innocent, but they are also not guilty, then what are they?

Vixen herself linked to a Repubblica newpiece which covered Raffaele's compensation claim - such piece which 5 times said they been acquitted. Machiavelli said that Repubblica had used that only as a "figure of speech."

 

[acbytesla]

No, they were not 'exonerated'.

The word 'innocent' appears in no judgment.

As I said. Exhibit A. Can you say DENIAL?

 

[bagels]

LOL, I only know one person who believes Rudy is innocent and know nobody who supports police brutality. If there are any bent policemen, then they fully deserve whatever the punishment is in law.

The reason this case has been scandalous is because it was a particularly wicked crime.

Rudy Guede had bloody hands and knife marks on them. This is the literal definition of caught red handed. If I ask you who delivered the fatal stab you will say not him. If I ask you who delivered the non fatal stabs you will say not him. Rudy Guede is only involved at an academic level with you guys. You don't intrinsically view him as one of the killers. It's very strange apologia for neutral observers. That's what's so interesting about a case that is otherwise a pedestrian burglary gone bad homicide followed by provincial police screw ups.