Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[plumjam]

If anyone wants Knox exonerated I suggest you email Jeff Wagg.

 

[quadraginta]

If anyone wants Knox exonerated I suggest you email Jeff Wagg.

 

[Kestrel]

Perhaps you missed the difference between your example and the subject case? Which is that Amanda Knox had a roommate who was sexually assaulted and murdered.

Shortly before the Columbine massacre, one of the students made a video showing the destruction of the school. Does this prove that the student who made the video was responsible for the massacre?

If he was responsible, then Klebold and Harris were framed.

 

[Brainster]

I do not think that it is helpful to focus on anything like that Brainster: we have no base line against which to judge whether that is an unusual thing to do.

Fair enough, and from what I've been reading at PMF, it appears that the short story was written after the fact, while she was in prison. Ergo, less of a "coincidence" than if she'd written it shortly before the murder, which was my initial impression from accounts. OTOH, the story about her getting some friends to dress up in ski masks and to simulate an attack on a roommate in Seattle as a "prank" is very, very strange.

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps you missed the difference between your example and the subject case? Which is that Amanda Knox had a roommate who was sexually assaulted and murdered.

The "Project for the New American Century" group wrote that their project would be unlikely to succeed without a catalyzing, Peal-Harbor-type event...

 

[Brainster]

Shortly before the Columbine massacre, one of the students made a video showing the destruction of the school. Does this prove that the student who made the video was responsible for the massacre?

If he was responsible, then Klebold and Harris were framed.

And if he hadn't been the son of the FBI man doing the investigation, I am sure he would have been brought in for questioning. But as I noted in my response to Fiona, from what I'm reading now the rape story was written by Amanda while she was in prison, so it is much less of a "coincidence" than it seemed when I thought she had written it before the murder took place.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I have no more information than is available to you. ARubberChickenWithAPulley. I cannot find a transcript of Guede's case nor the judge's record of reasoning in english ( I assume he must make one but it is possible it is not required for a fast track hearing: I think it is necessary, for there is still an appeal)

So I do not know if he said what is reported: if he said something less lurid: or if he said nothing of the kind. I do know that in the judge's reasoning it was noted that some of the propositions put by the prosecution were "fantasy". But I do not know if that referred to the kind of content you outline or whether he meant that it was a nice story but with no evidence to suppport it.

Here is another mention of it, this time by the BBC, which seems to jibe with what you note above:

It all provided, said Ms Bremner, "a frightening parallel" to Meredith Kercher's trial in which Mr Mignini initially suggested that Amanda Knox had been taking part in a bizarre "Halloween rite".

That theory was rejected last year by the trial judge, and Mr Mignini has not advanced it since.

The article also talks a bit about Mignini being indicted for abuse of power.

I would also point out that Douglas Preston, who talks quite a bit about Mignini's alleged obsession with Satanic rites and such, wrote his book before the Knox case. And the story about police looking into a "Satanic Cult" in relation to the serial killer case (in relation to the specific "related" case of a doctor, that Mignini mentions in his letter that he was in charge of) seems to check out, according to the BBC. So none of this appears to be being invented out of whole cloth.

It is wrong for a prosecutor to speculate about motive, IMO. But I am reluctant to criticise because it is quite clear on this thread alone that there is very strong expectation from at least some people that they will be provided with a nice tidy case including "motive, means and opportunity".

Well, there's speculation and then... speculation. If he had speculated something logical or reasonable, then okay. But speculating about a Satanic cult? A Halloween sacrifical rite? That's beyond "speculation," that's... well, it's nuts. I'd be appalled if I ever saw a prosecutor seriously try to propose that kind of theory anywhere (and I say that because the U.S. has had its share of nutty prosecutors, including ones obsessed with Satanic cults). It's good to know that there was a reasonable judge on the case to shoot that down. But it makes me question the credibility of the prosecution and what they are trying to achieve, and indeed whether they've done anything improper in the case.

I agree that it is unreasonable to expect every case to be wrapped up in a tidy package. All cases have some little nuggets that don't make sense or aren't quite explainable. Heck, that's how most conspiracy theorists make a living.

I have a problem with all of this because to be perfectly honest I get the feeling that some are more likely to believe he is a nutter because he is foreign. Yet all I have read about the Italian system seems to show that prosecutors are well-qualified; subject to strong oversight; and admirably independent from political interference. Mignini says that prosecutors are often challenged in Italy, and when they are there are investigations into their conduct. I honestly do not know if that is as common as he says it is

Since Mignini himself is under indictment, he may be right. I'm sure you're right that some people believe he is a nut because he is foreign; I'm believe he is likely a nut because I've read a few different sources now that say he proposed a 'satanic cult' theory in court, and that he had done it before. It concerns me not because he is a foreigner, but for much the opposite reason: because the U.S. has had some pretty overzealous, and sometimes borderline insane, prosecutors -- the McMartin case, for example (which also delved into occult conspiracies and so forth), or the Duke rape case -- in which innocent people were locked up and had their lives torn apart.

But even if he is as nutty as a fruitcake it does not seem to me that this has been central to this trial: there is a (probably apocryphal) anecdote told about a solicitor in a British court. He said to have briefed the barrister concerned as follows "we have no case: abuse the opposition"

Interesting quote... Amanda Knox took her share of abuse, did she not? For example, in an earlier post, someone linked to an article about the "shopping trip" she took after the murder. The article noted that the video was turned over to the prosecutor, and was all over the world just a couple of days later.

Of course, given the above quote, it seems silly to give the opposition ammunition. At least we can say Knox was a naive (and maybe sociopathic) 21 year-old. What would Mignini's excuse be?

 

[Solnishko]

None of this makes a bit of sense, save for the conviction of Rudy Guede.

Here are my issues with the case, as I've read it.

1. The motive: Prosecution made this out as a "sex game gone wrong." So why is it that it's only Guede's DNA on the victim's body. Not a trace of DNA from Knox was found on the victim's body. Or in the victim's bedroom. The only trace of DNA, which was a small trace, was Sollecito's on the victim's bra clasp. No DNA on her body, no other DNA in the bedroom. That's a crummy sex game, if two parties aren't even in the same room with the others.

2. The murder weapon: So, they find a knife with minute traces of the victim's alleged DNA and Knox's DNA. The victim's DNA was so fragmented and minute that they can't even repeat the test. Really? That's evidence? And the double knife theory doesn't mean that there has to be more than one assailant. The really simple explanation for that is... the killer put one knife down and produced another one. Which would explain the bloody outline of... a knife.

3. The bathroom evidence: Knox's DNA is going to be in her bathroom. She showers there. She brushes her teeth there. She pees there. Because it's her bathroom. Her DNA is all over the place. When the victim's blood was introduced there... I can't see how Knox's DNA wouldn't mix with it... because it's the bathroom that she used regularly for what... two months.

4. The confessions: Let's not forget that Knox and Sollecito are admitted drug users. I know a few of those and they say some insane things when they're either high or going through withdrawals. When it was my turn to babysit an acquaintance who was coming down off a cocktail of epic proportions, we went on a two hour meet and greet for all of his invisible friends and he gave me a really interesting account of what he'd down the day before. He did not visit China. Nor were there two Russian Mafia guys playing poker in the bathroom. He was delusional from drug use.

So, we have the ramblings of two drug users who were stoned out of their gourds on the night in question... after being interrogated for an extended length of time, without food or sleep. I'm sorry, but that's not credible in the least. Having been in the military and trained extensively on enemy interrogation and psychological torture, eventually a prisoner will say anything to appease their captors. They'll tell them anything that they think will get the suffering to stop. Anything that will get them fed. Anything that will get them a few hours of sleep. Combine that with the drugs and... not shocking that neither of them could get their stories straight.

5. Contaminated evidence: DNA mixes easily. You take two shirts with DNA on them, rumple them together and there will be two sets of DNA on both shirts. So, why was there 5 sets of DNA on Meredeth Kercher's bra clasp (hers, Sollecito's and three unidentified?) Why weren't those three people identified?

There's just too many holes in the prosecutions story for it to really add up to a conviction for all three. I can see Guede's conviction. Pretty cut and dried. However, it appears that the prosecution formulated a story, in the early days of the case and built the evidence around it, rather than collecting the evidence and using that to determine what happened. Rather than admit that their satanic sex sacrifice theory was wrong (like anyone had any doubt that it was...) they continued to roll with it and put Knox and Sollecito in the appropriate roles, despite the lack of physical evidence.

This annoys me to no end, because... this is what the woo contingent of the world does. They formulate an idea and they work backwards to prove it, rather than looking at the world and the evidence in it, to determine what's true and what's not. I guess this just proves that the woo extends far and wide.

 

[tyr_13]

Please read Fiona's posts.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

5. Contaminated evidence: DNA mixes easily. You take two shirts with DNA on them, rumple them together and there will be two sets of DNA on both shirts. So, why was there 5 sets of DNA on Meredeth Kercher's bra clasp (hers, Sollecito's and three unidentified?) Why weren't those three people identified?

First, welcome to the forums.

A lot of what you wrote has been discussed in the thread, but the above caught my eye. Do you have a cite for there being three unidentified people's DNA on the bra? I don't think I've seen that anywhere, and I don't recall it being mentioned here (unless I missed it).

 

[stilicho]

None of this makes a bit of sense, save for the conviction of Rudy Guede.

Hello, brand new JREF member!

I am just going to address a couple of these since the media reports (especially those in the US) appear to differ from anything the defence said in court.

3. The bathroom evidence: Knox's DNA is going to be in her bathroom.

The issue wasn't just Knox' DNA being there; it was Knox' mixed with Kercher's.

4. The confessions: Let's not forget that Knox and Sollecito are admitted drug users.

Not quite confessions. Knox accused her former employer after a witness testified that she scrolled through her cellphone and found his name there. Her story (or, more properly, her family's) is that the police slapped her on the head until she named him. His name features prominently in her written 'dream sequence'.

5. Contaminated evidence: DNA mixes easily.

This will probably be the tack they take on appeal. It's the only straw left to grasp, really.

-----------

One thing where I slightly agree with skeptigirl: There are many instances in this case where a cultural difference is evident between Italy and both North America and the UK--specifically linguistic differences.

1] The Italian word for "attorney" is akin to "one who irrevocably ties things up in a knotted muddle" so in Europe lawyers tend to call themselves "barristers" or some equivalent.

2] Whereas the police reported that the victim's door was "closed", in Italian it's shorthand for "locked".

3] The term for slitting the throat wasn't the same as the one used in the police report or (I recall) the testimony. The Italian idiom was akin to "butchering" as in the slaughter of a farm animal.

These are just a few of several terms that I found on the Perugia Murder Files site thanks to their contributor Catnip, who arrived there in January 2009, and continued up to the most recent posts.

I've now spent over 24 hours at that site reading through as many of the entries and links as I could. Just a personal opinion, but it appears that Knox has largely exhausted any hopes for a successful appeal unless (at the very least) they are able to convince the courts that only Sollecito was lying and not her.

The prospect of facing most of their adult life in prison might just convince one of them to lift the 'dream sequence' fog and tell the truth.

 

[stilicho]

First, welcome to the forums.

A lot of what you wrote has been discussed in the thread, but the above caught my eye. Do you have a cite for there being three unidentified people's DNA on the bra? I don't think I've seen that anywhere, and I don't recall it being mentioned here (unless I missed it).

That's on the PMF site too. Sollecito's is the most abundant though.

 

[Brainster]

There's an interesting summary of the prosecution's speculations on motive at the (UK) Times.

According to Mignini’s reconstruction, Kercher arrived home and shortly afterwards Knox turned up with Sollecito and Guede, who was strongly attracted to Knox. The two other housemates were away.

The prosecutor believes Knox and Kercher started rowing — either because Kercher was looking for some missing money or was annoyed by Knox bringing both Sollecito and Guede to the cottage.

The row soon escalated. Knox, Sollecito and Guede, “under the influence of drugs and maybe of alcohol, decided in any case to involve Kercher in a heavy sex game”, Mignini said. The two young men took part in the assault “to please Knox, because they were competing to please her”.

No mention of satanic ritual in there that I can see.

 

[Fiona]

Here is another mention of it, this time by the BBC, which seems to jibe with what you note above:

The article also talks a bit about Mignini being indicted for abuse of power.

Yes, I have read that. I have also read what other people have to say about it. I suppose you pays your money and you takes your choice

What Mignini says is this:

He did not at any point suggest or believe there was any "satanic" element in this case. He did consider that there was a Halloween connection, however. It was established that Knox made several attempts to persuade the victim to spend Halloween with her, though the girls did not normally socialise together. It was established that Sollecito had a collection of manga magazines, which included what might be described as "vampire porn", and that he had said he was keen to experience extreme sexual experiences. It happened that Kercher's halloween costume was as a vampire. The crime was committed the day after Halloween and the victim was sexually assaulted.

Mignini was convinced the crime could not have been committed by one person. He knew that Knox and Sollecito had lied about many things and that neither could establish their whereabouts at the time of the murder. He believed they were involved. He had good reason for that. Like everyone else he presumably wanted a narrative: both because it is telling in making a case and because he is human. Mignini did believe that the motive was sexual; and he did tie it to the fantasy material and to Halloween.

He proposed this scenario and it was not accepted, but it was not a scenario of satanic abuse: it was a lot less lurid than that.

Nevertheless the judge did not accept it and he has never raised it in connection with the trial of Knox and Sollecito. The only people who have raised it are the Friends of Amanda and their media supporters.

Bremner is said to be one of those supporters. Indeed she is the lawyer for that organisation. That does not of itself discredit what she has to say, of course. But this is an article from Newsweek (you have bear in mind I have no knowledge of the american media and I do not know if it is a respectable publication: the report is, on its face, fairly balanced. It mentions Mignini's alleged beliefs in terms which would lead you to the conclusion you have already drawn so it is hardly a snow job for the prosecution

http://www.newsweek.com/id/166206

Bremner infuriated Perugian prosecutor Mignini by taking swipes at the work of Italian police on NBC, enumerating ways in which prosecutors may have inadvertently contaminated DNA evidence. Lawyers for both sides of the case quickly pointed out, however, that Bremner was basing her comments on video footage of an apartment below the crime scene, not the actual crime scene itself

Not very good research, at least.

s Bremner told the BBC that the Friends of Amanda in no way endorsed the allegations of mental instability against Mr Mignini.

We will presumably get some information as to the truth of all this because Miginini has sued the Seattle Herald. Which may go some way to explaining Bremner distancing of her organisation from the comments.

I have already linked the BBC's interview with Mignini in response to Bremner's allegations, about abuse of power: but here it is again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

And I have also linked a relevant blog which strikes me as informative:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-01/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/

The article you cite also mentions Heavey

Seattle judge Michael Heavey wrote a damning letter to Italy's justice minister about the potential for injustice against Knox,

Here is a report on his comments from what appears to be a local publication in seattle: it is not very balanced, IMO.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/389777_knox28.html

Heavey also works with and for the Friends of Amanda. That organisation is admittedly interested in PR. The letter referred to, from Heavey, is addressed by TJMK, who have this to say

Heavey, a neighbor of Knox’s, actually wrote a letter to the authorities in Italy asking for a change of venue. That letter – which incidentally was written on Heavey’s official Superior Court Judge letterhead—was so full of errors, and was so embarrassing to Knox’s own defense team, that Heavey is said to have written an apology.

The first letter, after being prominently displayed on Anne Bremner’s website, was then quietly removed. As if it had never existed. Never apologize, never explain, as Flaubert said. Where is that letter of apology? Why is it not displayed on Bremner’s website? Was it too written on official letterhead? As a King County taxpayer, I’d sure like to know.

I have no independent confirmation of that account, so make of it what you will.

I would also point out that Douglas Preston, who talks quite a bit about Mignini's alleged obsession with Satanic rites and such, wrote his book before the Knox case.

And after a confrontation with Mignini detailed in my links above: yes I know.

And the story about police looking into a "Satanic Cult" in relation to the serial killer case (in relation to the specific "related" case of a doctor, that Mignini mentions in his letter that he was in charge of) seems to check out, according to the BBC. So none of this appears to be being invented out of whole cloth.

You have this account and you have Mignini's. I am inclined to accept what Mignini says because his statements seem to be straightforward in the face of very serious allegations made without much in the way of fact checking. But obviously you can decide otherwise. It is a question of judgement in the end.


<snip>

It's good to know that there was a reasonable judge on the case to shoot that down. But it makes me question the credibility of the prosecution and what they are trying to achieve, and indeed whether they've done anything improper in the case.

Why? Do you see anything improper in the conduct of the case? Do you see any allegation of satanic abuse in the evidence presented? Even if I assume you are correct how does this "nuttiness" make any difference at all, given the structure of the Italian legal system and the content of this trial? I can only think you are hinting(as someone did earlier) that the prosecutor might have deliberately tampered with the evidence. So how did he get the accused to tell lies repeatedly? How did he put the washing machine on and stage the break in? How did he remove all trace of the phone calls from Sollecto's phone and all activity from his computer? How did he turn Knox's phone on at 5:30 am while she was sleeping till 10? How did he do the same for Sollecito's phone? How did he introduce the footprints and clean them up s they only showed with luminol? Did he have help? Is the whole Italian justice system and everyone it it corrupt? And corrupt in a way which means they would not do much less to get a conviction of Lumumba: but they go to all this trouble for Knox and Sollecito? Give me a narrative, please. Without that narrative and some evidence to underpin it the suggestion is frankly shameful

<snip>

Interesting quote... Amanda Knox took her share of abuse, did she not? For example, in an earlier post, someone linked to an article about the "shopping trip" she took after the murder. The article noted that the video was turned over to the prosecutor, and was all over the world just a couple of days later.

Good point: I do not know how that was leaked, do you? We do know that evidence is made available legitimately in some circumstances, because members of Sollecito's family have been indicted for leaking material which was obtained in that way.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...ertain_for_serious_disrespecting_of_meredith/

But I do not know why it was legal to give it to them in the first place, nor how the rules about passing it on are framed.
I note that the Friends of Amanda do not believe it was quite as you say, though:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/Radar_Knox.pdf

That is one year after the crime.

They are clearly aware and upset by the publicity given to the story in the media: but it is curious they do not mention the tape, because that would seem natural: instead her father apparently believes that the owner of the shop was paid for quotes. So I do not know what to think.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

No mention of satanic ritual in there that I can see.

The prosecution presented it at the beginning of the trial, and the judge shot it down. They didn't attempt to present it again after that.

 

[stilicho]

So, we have the ramblings of two drug users who were stoned out of their gourds on the night in question....

And this caught my eye.

Were they "stoned out of their gourds" when they were found together by the postal police who were investigating the origin of the cellphones discarded in a nearby garden? By all accounts they had almost finished cleaning up the house and Kercher's clothes were busy being washed when they were likely interrupted by the unanticipated arrival of the first authorities on the scene. Sollecito had the presence of mind to lie about calling the real police prior to the arrival of the postal police.

It was this original contact that aroused the suspicions of the authorities and caused them to arrange phonetaps and surveillance of the pair.

 

[Kestrel]

The issue wasn't just Knox' DNA being there; it was Knox' mixed with Kercher's.

Time for a scientific reality check.

Bathrooms are places where humans perform the kind of hygiene tasks that cause us to shed material containing DNA. Things like showering, trimming toenails and brushing hair. This material doesn't evaporate, it stays around. Normal cleaning doesn't get rid of all of it. Take a swab from a random spot in anyone's bathroom and you are likely to find their DNA.

The bathroom in question was routinely used by both the suspect and the victim. Even in the absence of a murder, finding DNA from both of them in that room would be expected. Finding DNA from both persons in the same swab would not be considered odd.

 

[Fiona]

The prosecution presented it at the beginning of the trial, and the judge shot it down. They didn't attempt to present it again after that.

Noi. It was never presented in that way IMO: but assuming you are correct it was NEVER presented at this trial. Whatever was presented was presented in Guerde's trial

 

[stilicho]

The article you cite also mentions Heavey

Here is a report on his comments from what appears to be a local publication in seattle: it is not very balanced, IMO.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/389777_knox28.html

Heavey also works with and for the Friends of Amanda. That organisation is admittedly interested in PR. The letter referred to, from Heavey, is addressed by TJMK, who have this to say...

Heavey also (rather irresponsibly, IMHO) sent the Italian authorities a letter of support for Knox on the equivalent of official letterhead stationery.

He apparently apologised for this later and declined to go to Perugia with the rest of the FoAK crew.

---------

Fiona, is it just me or are we going over stuff that the PMF site has followed closely and assessed carefully since November 2007? I'd hate to have to repeat everything they've already accomplished there. As I've said, in 24 hours of reading I've scarcely dented the site and its links. There is really that much of it.

Especially vital is anything where the Knox/Mellas account (via David Marriott--an expensive Seattle PR consultant) varies from what the defence actually used in the court proceedings.

Note that Marriott's PR corporation doesn't include Curt Knox et al among his prominent clients:

http://www.gsminc.com/clients.htm

 

[Policenaut]

Watching the reporting of this story on the news shows is infuriating. Earlier today "the judge" was talking to Shepard Smith and declared "There is no physical evidence against Knox." No one knows enough about the case to refute morons who themselves don't know what the hell they are talking about. It seems like almost everyone is on Knox's side except for one or two prosecutors these shows have on to play devil's advocate.