Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

This is why we have to defer to the facts and evidence as supplied by the prosecution and debated by the defence. By your definition, no witnesses would be allowed to supply their opinions in a courtroom. Investigators' questioning of witnesses would be pointless.

The issue of Meredith's belongings was not a part of the charges against RS and AK. They were not in Filomena's room.

I don't mind your challenges but the verdict was supported by the witness statements that you call logically flawed. The police had two options when they started piecing together the scene in Filomena's room. They could go with a burglary or a fake burglary. Why do you suppose they approached it as a fake burglary rather than a real one? Don't worry about the semantics of what constitutes a "legal" burglary or the fact that Meredith's possessions were taken.

What did all the evidence collected by the police support? An actual burglary? Or a fake one?

I'm short on time but will get back to you in more detail later. Suffice it to say, Filomena is not an expert in burglaries. Her opinion on whether the break in was faked is absolutely useless. I have no problem with the police questioning her about facts: "Did you see glass on top of x?" "What did the room look like"? Etc. Lay witnesses are called because of their personal knowledge, not their opinions. Filomena isn't qualified to give her opinion on whether the break in was faked.

As far as why the police thought so. Fine. I'll be happy to examine the facts of that in more depth later, but I'll have to look into it more closely when I have time. Regardless, you don't need to know anything about the case to see all the false syllogisms roaming around this forum.

You wrote: "The issue of Meredith's belongings was not a part of the charges against RS and AK. They were not in Filomena's room." Actually, they were charged with theft as well as Guede. All three were exonerated of the theft charge. Does that mean none of the three actually stole her credit cards and phones? Of course not.

You wrote: "but the verdict was supported by the witness statements that you call logically flawed."

Well, I can just hope for the integrity of that tribunal that when the motivation is released they don't put material importance on a layperson's unqualified opinion about whether a burglary was fake or not.

On it's face, the "fake burglary" does sound contrived and fanciful, but I could be persuaded either way. I'll try to put all the objective facts in one post later this week, and of course I'll carelessly put my own spin on it to which any and all are welcome to disagree.

Edit: Maybe someone can correct me. Was Guede actually NOT charged with theft? I guess I just assumed Rudy was.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Why do you suppose the police didn't charge RG with burglary?

Well, from a purely strategic point of view, it makes no sense to charge Rudy Guede with a burglary when your theory in the case against the other two suspects is that the burglary was faked. Kind of dismantles your whole theory. If there really was a burglary, it obviously wasn't AK and RS. And then your theory of the crime is even more ludicrous because you have the two lovers meeting Guede after breaking in the house and then murdering. I've seen some strange characteristics attributed to RS and AK, but that I think we can all agree is not a plausible scenario.

 

[stilicho]

Suffice it to say, Filomena is not an expert in burglaries. Her opinion on whether the break in was faked is absolutely useless.

I have obviously not explained myself well enough. The people in the cottage around the time of the discovery of Meredith's body weren't experts in faked burglaries and I didn't intend to imply that they were.

But none of them thought anything had been taken.

Those initial impressions of the Postal Police, the roommates, their friends, and RS and AK themselves, helped formulate the theory that there was no burglary. It was consequent investigation that established the window was not entered through the outside, that the glass was on top of the clothes, that the rock was likely used from inside the room, and that the whole scene was staged to make it appear to be something it wasn't.

Filomena's statements to the police were important to them because, without those, they couldn't begin to suspect nothing was stolen. How else would they look for an alternate explanation? AK's and RS's statements certainly weren't enough. She isn't an expert on faked burglaries but Filomena is probably the only expert on what she had in her own room.

 

[piktor]

What did all the evidence collected by the police support? An actual burglary? Or a fake one?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... we must demand proof that is endorsed by FOA and not jump to idle speculation without certification by Seattle's The Cook.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=69

 

[Kestrel]

None of those things. Judge Micheli threw Tramontano and his testimy out of court, since he judged that he'd just made it all up.

Do you have proof for that, or did you just make it up on the spot?

If it's in the Micheli Report, give us a quote.

 

[Kestrel]

Well, from a purely strategic point of view, it makes no sense to charge Rudy Guede with a burglary when your theory in the case against the other two suspects is that the burglary was faked. Kind of dismantles your whole theory. If there really was a burglary, it obviously wasn't AK and RS. And then your theory of the crime is even more ludicrous because you have the two lovers meeting Guede after breaking in the house and then murdering. I've seen some strange characteristics attributed to RS and AK, but that I think we can all agree is not a plausible scenario.

Rudy was caught breaking and entering twice in the two months before the crime. He was caught with items stolen in a burglary where a rock was tossed through a second story window to gain entry. Rudy had no visible means of support during this time, yet still managed to pay his rent. The rational conclusion is that Rudy's occupation was burglar.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Italian justice system

It this intended as a direct answer to the simple and direct question I asked? If so it fails on many levels.

-------------

As a separate question, when you say ...

"I also think that a prosecutor should be given less power to direct the details of an investigation."
​

... are you conflating the function of the prosecutor and the judge in the Italian system, or are you suggesting that an Italian prosecutor has significantly more control over the direction of an investigation than an American prosecutor does?

Admittedly my grasp of the fundamentals is somewhat tenuous, but as I understand it one of the basic differences between Napoleonic law and English common law is that the participation of the judge is more investigative. I'm not certain that this leads to comparatively increased discretionary power for the prosecutor. It might even suggest that there is less.

I have been somewhat bemused by the baseless caricature of Mignini when it seems that much of the thrust in pursuit of information in the case seems to have been driven by Judge Micheli. It appears to me that vehicles such as Preston's novel book have made the character assassination of Mignini more convenient from a media perspective even though many if not most of the decisions and opinions that culminated in the conviction of Sollecito and Knox were actually Micheli's, a less opportune target for distortion.

Quadraginta,

I am not sure why you consider my reply a failure, but I will try again. In my previous reply I gave two things I thought were better in Italy than the in the United States and two that were worse. From this one can correctly infer that I consider these to be systemic issues, not particular to the Knox/Sollecito case, and that I don’t consider one justice system better than the other across the board. Having the jury produce a statement also seems like a good idea, and one that may be worth emulating in the United States. I have not yet formed an opinion on Napoleonic versus English common law.

It sounds to me as if the prosecutor gets involved in the case at an earlier juncture in Italy than in the U.S., but I am not an expert. Despite the fact that you don’t think highly of him, I will offer Douglas Preston’s insights from the interview he gave to blogger Candace Dempsey: “One other detail that American readers might like to know: in Italy, prosecutors are firmly in charge. They tell the police what to look for, where to go, what evidence to analyze, what evidence not to analyze. In America, the police work independently and are specifically trained in evidence gathering and criminal investigation. In Italy, the police must do what the prosecutor tells them. As a result, many criminal investigations in Italy are botched by prosecutors who are judges, trained in the law, who have no background in criminal investigation, police work, or forensic science.”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/131443.asp

My source for the comment on the summation from the prosecution was the blog Simple Justice, which is maintained by a New York lawyer unaffiliated with this case (http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/05/a-trial-without-evidence.aspx). Hope this helps.

Chris

 

[RoseMontague]

They were photographing a room that simply by all appearances, had been rifled. There were no forensics. Close up pics weren't considered to be needed at the time.

In any case, they aren't required...we have at least two qualified witnesses.

I knew that Filomena had testified to the glass on her computer and clothes, was there another witness that confirmed this?

This is my first post here but I have been following this case for some time and lurking here on occasion. Hope you don't mind that I am late to the discussion.

 

[Dan O.]

The best that I've been able to piece together is that there was one pile of clothes under the window that had glass on top and the PC was in or on that pile. Filomena lifted her laptop out of the pile and noticed the glass on top.

From the Micheli Report: "The R. in one of the records containing his statements, remember that the glass window above the clothes were thrown on the ground, which confirms that the glass was broken after the activation of who fumbled into the room, even if the minutes and photographs of this particular spot is apparently not, it is significant to record what was the perception of the girl." The investigators and photographs recorded no glass on the cloths.

It would not be inconsistent to conclude that Filomena saw a couple of large pieces of glass on top of her computer when she lifted it off the top of the cloths and subsequently dumped those pieces on the floor when she put her computer back on the desk. The window is above this pile of cloths and can easily drop additional pieces of broken glass if a person or the wind moves the window.

 

[RoseMontague]

The best that I've been able to piece together is that there was one pile of clothes under the window that had glass on top and the PC was in or on that pile. Filomena lifted her laptop out of the pile and noticed the glass on top.

From the Micheli Report: "The R. in one of the records containing his statements, remember that the glass window above the clothes were thrown on the ground, which confirms that the glass was broken after the activation of who fumbled into the room, even if the minutes and photographs of this particular spot is apparently not, it is significant to record what was the perception of the girl." The investigators and photographs recorded no glass on the cloths.

It would not be inconsistent to conclude that Filomena saw a couple of large pieces of glass on top of her computer when she lifted it off the top of the cloths and subsequently dumped those pieces on the floor when she put her computer back on the desk. The window is above this pile of cloths and can easily drop additional pieces of broken glass if a person or the wind moves the window.

Thanks, Dan O. What do you think of Amanda's claim that the computer was on the desk where it always was (before Filomena got there) in her email to everyone?

 

[piktor]

This is my first post here but I have been following this case for some time and lurking here on occasion. Hope you don't mind that I am late to the discussion.

Welcome, RoseMontague. Your comments are appreciated.

 

[piktor]

My source for the comment on the summation from the prosecution was the blog Simple Justice, which is maintained by a New York lawyer unaffiliated with this case (http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/05/a-trial-without-evidence.aspx). Hope this helps.

Chris

halides1,

Hope this Wiki link about Italian Criminal Procedure helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Criminal_Procedure

 

[stilicho]

Rudy was caught breaking and entering twice in the two months before the crime. He was caught with items stolen in a burglary where a rock was tossed through a second story window to gain entry. Rudy had no visible means of support during this time, yet still managed to pay his rent. The rational conclusion is that Rudy's occupation was burglar.

I might suspect that his occupation was not entirely above board but where is his rap sheet for burglary? Besides, that would be largely irrelevant to this case because the scene in Filomena's room was not found to be an actual burglary. (Don't want to fall afoul of HumanityBlues' legal definitions).

So, we have no burglary and someone involved who may have been previously involved in breaking and entering. Either the police are idiots or the evidence to support charges against RG was simply not there. Given the thoroughness of the investigation, I'm inclined to believe the police are not idiots.

 

[piktor]

Either the police are idiots or the evidence to support charges against RG was simply not there. Given the thoroughness of the investigation, I'm inclined to believe the police are not idiots.

stilicho,

Do you have verifiable proof of this, links, The Cook approves of your temerity?

Meanwhile, back at a proof unladen narration, we have a tale of intrigue and few documents, if any, to back the ever-thicker plot, presented for your consideration- Christian Tramontano's tale:

..." Some noise woke him up. He looked down and he saw a black boy searching in their drawers. The guest had entered through a window they had left open and he wasn't aware that someone was sleeping in the room, since the bed was elevated."...

..."Then Christian says he called the police, and they arrived immediately, in just 2 hours. The police said he could come to the station the next day and report the intruder. But Christian let it go. It must not have been a very frightening experience for him and his girlfriend if they didn't even have the time to file a suit.
Naturally, when three months later he saw that the same uninvited guest was the main suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher, he took the time to go to the police station and testify.
Is this another megalomaniac or a reliable witness? History will tell us. But this is not a psychiatric case"...-Perugia Shock May 5, 2008

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/05/monster-in-my-bedroom.html

 

[stilicho]

stilicho,

Do you have verifiable proof of this, links, The Cook approves of your temerity?

I went to school with a guy who's done several 5.12 solo free climbs and there's little doubt he could have gotten through that window but most of us wouldn't even contemplate it because of the risk of injury. RG is apparently felled by bad kebabs--not quite the fearless risk-taker portrayed.

Meanwhile, back at a proof unladen narration, we have a tale of intrigue and few documents, if any, to back the ever-thicker plot, presented for your consideration- Christian Tramontano's tale:

There is precious little about this guy. I would have to believe the police statement was made as reported. His name is included in the list of witnesses but he wasn't called to the stand to testify.

Usually there's a very good reason for that to happen. Without the written reason sitting in front of us, we'd have to assume the defence teams knew he would be of no help.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks, Dan O. What do you think of Amanda's claim that the computer was on the desk where it always was (before Filomena got there) in her email to everyone?

Someone is definitely confused here and it is probably Amanda.

She must have seen the computer in the room or she would not have told Filomena that it was still there. It may have been on the pile of clothes when she first looked into the room but the next time she looks into that room is after Filomena had moved it back to her desk. The last image sticks as what Amanda remembers seeing several days later when she writes the email.

 

[lane99]

...the lack of stealing the laptop proves absolutely nothing and is completely subjective and irrelevant. There could be a number of reasons someone might not steal something. Just like there could be a number of reasons he might have left his stool in the toilet...

Apart from the obvious reason that only a moron (or someone so desperate not to care if they get caught) would try to convert tracable property from a burglary where someone was murdered, Rudy also likely didn't steal the laptop because he'd already been caught- just a few days before- with the laptop stolen from the lawyer's office. So he'd already cashed in his get-out-of-jail free "I bought the laptop from a mysterious stranger" card.

As for the argument that Rudy perhaps not flushing the toilet is evidence that he had nothing to hide, perhaps those who believe that would think differently if they adopted more civilized sanitary habits. Most people I know flush the toilet after use whether they're otherwise trying to cover-up a crime or not.

So an unflushed toilet normally suggests oversight, not a proud proclamation of forthrightness and innocence.

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

I am not sure why you consider my reply a failure, but I will try again.

I have to think you are being purposely obtuse. Again. I asked you a very simple and direct question concerning a very straightforward statement you made. Your answer was quite obviously a deliberate evasion. Nothing in your posts here suggests that you are ignorant, illiterate, or dealing with English as a second language, so your transparent effort to avoid a simple answer is quite disingenuous. Yes or no would have sufficed. You managed to escape the topic entirely by a segue into somewhat related personal viewpoints, specifically not what I asked you after you made a claim about other people's comments.

<snip>
It sounds to me as if the prosecutor gets involved in the case at an earlier juncture in Italy than in the U.S., but I am not an expert. Despite the fact that you don’t think highly of him, I will offer Douglas Preston’s insights from the interview he gave to blogger Candace Dempsey: “One other detail that American readers might like to know: in Italy, prosecutors are firmly in charge. They tell the police what to look for, where to go, what evidence to analyze, what evidence not to analyze. In America, the police work independently and are specifically trained in evidence gathering and criminal investigation. In Italy, the police must do what the prosecutor tells them. As a result, many criminal investigations in Italy are botched by prosecutors who are judges, trained in the law, who have no background in criminal investigation, police work, or forensic science.”

<snip>

The highlighted portion reflects the sort of distortion common to the arguments being made by Knox supporters here and elsewhere. Far from 'not liking' him I have stated before that I enjoy Preston's novels. I do not see the sense of offering his ability as a suspense writer as credentials for comment in the Knox case, and I do not concede the relevance much less the accuracy of his book about "The Monster of Florence" as significant to this case.

On the subject of prosecutor discretion and control over investigations, since argument by anecdote seems to be so attractive to some here, I would be interested to know if you think that D.A. Mike Nifong restricted himself to the "independent" investigations of the police, and did not exercise any control over the evidence gathering and investigation of the Duke lacrosse team.

Do you really think that D.A.s in the U.S. normally merely sit back and wait for the police to present them with a completed investigation, and exercise no control over its direction? Somehow I suspect that you don't, but if you really do that is touchingly naive.

 

[lane99]

You repeat those statements about PMF and still fail to provide one single shred of evidence for it...

I provided evidence in my previous posts. And challenged anyone to refute it. No one has.

In addition, I've challenged Funnisilli to back up his accusation that I have been "screaming all over the internet that Amanda is innocent". He didn't, because he couldn't. Because it was another one of his lies.

That's two "shreds" of evidence right there. So I'd have to say your point is not well taken.

Take the blinders off. Or keep them on. Makes no difference to me.

 

[lane99]

Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.

The other elements of socipathy, of course, was his ability to lie so brazenly and not to show any signs of sheepishness even after being caught redhanded breaking into the building. Lack of conscience and empathy.

Not much doubt Rudy has sociopathic tendencies. Check for bias anyone who refuses to concede even that much.