Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Guede only came into the picture later

Right but it's manifestly different: 'fit ups' happen when Police don't have someone in the frame for the killing as with any number of cases and here they had Guede. It has been serially characterised by some that Amanda Knox was framed for some anti-American reason. I could sort of understand this conspiracy theory on the part of the passionate if it wasn't for the inclusion of Sollecito in the case. I think it rather obviously gives the lie to that suggestion.

They did not have Guede when they took Sollecito and Knox into custody, so your difference is less than it first seems. Giobbi and the Perugia police had already made clear that they had the killers and the reason for the crime. Patrick had an unimpeachable alibi and it would have been impossible to hold him.

I have repeatedly said that this case is not about anti-Americanism. Not for the first time I offer my view that the phrase conspiracy theory is a loaded one, and one that is inappropriate here.

 

[platonov]

'Whom Gods destroy, they first make mad.' Euripedes I think, and it was the title of an original Star Trek episode, though they used the literal meaning in that Garth of Izar went insane. My classics teacher in college taught us another meaning, that a better translation would be for someone who went 'mad' with power; that in triumphalism they overreach which causes their demise. In other words more along the lines of 'Pride cometh before the fall.'

In Mignini's case it may very well be both, his erratic behavior, theories and stated beliefs indict him on both counts.



What makes you think this issue is limited solely to the appeal? This is about a delusional prosecutor who exploited the murder of a young girl and railroaded two innocent young people and splashed it all over the world's tabloids. This doesn't end with the appeal, no matter how many times Mignini shows he can game the system he is a master of he will not change the fact there's no physical evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement, and in fact the real evidence exonerates them. Common sense exonerates them. The real killer has even said repeatedly he did it alone.

If this hadn't come to the world's attention he might have gotten away with it, but at this point it is impossible the truth won't become glaringly obvious to all in time. My guess is the Italians will eventually give him the metaphorical meathook.

No Kaosium - (man this is completely irrelevant)
The phrase from Euripides [or the misattribution to Euripides - although I wouldn't quibble, one greek from antiquity is as good as another ] is usually 'Whom the Gods wish to destroy .....' or variations on the theme - that's what I was pointing out.
Yours is not from that source ! hence the jokey ref to cultural differences ?

But lets drop this - I'm more struck by your lack of interest in the appeal.

'The Man' has fixed the game and even the lawyer of Mr A & Mr B can't stop him.
Or is she in on it - Sounds like a CT so me.

 

[SomeAlibi]

They did not have Guede when they took Sollecito and Knox into custody, so your difference is less than it first seems. Giobbi and the Perugia police had already made clear that they had the killers and the reason for the crime. Patrick had an unimpeachable alibi and it would have been impossible to hold him.

I have repeatedly said that this case is not about anti-Americanism. Not for the first time I offer my view that the phrase conspiracy theory is a loaded one, and one that is inappropriate here.

I use 'conspiracy theory' here in a very defined sense: that believing Amanda Knox was "fitted up" due to anti-Americanism. That's not believed by you or LJ. It has been espoused widely elsewhere however. And that, I do believe, is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

On your first point, there is another mechanism which is if the stain was made by someone exiting the shower from where they were showering. The orientation of the bathmat could have been changed by Amanda if she really did a bathmat shuffle where she replaced it where it should go in her own words. But not the very unlikely rotation point.

On the second, there wouldn't be if they had been cleaned. We know that there isn't any evidence of egregiously stepping in the main areas of blood. Meredith was killed in the far corner of the room, on her knees facing away from the attackers who were restraining her. We know that *no-one* stepped in the very thickest part of the blood stains.

On the reason for the bathmat still being left there, Amanda and Raffaele were reported as being "startled" when the police turned up and they were sat with the mops outside the house, probably trying to get some fresh air and think. They knew they had a number of problems outstanding as they had not yet finished with the clean-up.

Then why did Amanda call Filomena? Why did Raffaele call the police? They didn't know the Postal Police were going to show up with the phones. If they hadn't called anyone, they might have had all day to clean whatever they wanted.

Also, there are the bloodstains in the bidet to account for - quite faint because they were made with bloody water.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bidet01.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bidet02.jpg

The stains in the bathroom are consistent with someone covered with blood washing himself up, but there's no indication that the floor was mopped or that any other cleaning activity took place.

 

[RoseMontague]

I also believe that, in a more general way, police and prosecutors in Perugia were under intense public pressure to find and convict the killer(s), having failed to solve the equally high-profile Sonia Marra case the previous year (and having implicitly been accused of incompetence in that case). I think that they were therefore very keen to announce that they'd "solved the crime" - which they hastily and improperly did within days of the actual murder. From then on, I think they were all tied in to protecting that theory.

I agree that it was a rush to judgment followed by a scramble for confirming evidence followed by a lack of reasoning by the court. Yet here we are defending things like Japanese manga and non bloody mops in non bloody water supposedly used to clean up non bloody footprints, and things like the number of times Amanda said a nice thing about Meredith in an e-mail. The arguments against Amanda and Raffaele has been reduced to one of trivialities, in my opinion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an alternative explanation

The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part. The mops are so over-mentioned by both in order to point to the fact that they knew they hadn't been used and that there was nothing on those mop heads (which are swapable on Vileda mops). What could be better than to appear to have cleaning up instruments at the scene or a somewhat cleaned up scene and to have nothing on them. Clearly innocent people unconnected to the crime is the impression that's trying to be conveyed - a double bluff.

Raffaele can't help himself in his diary:

"As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance
and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the
devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken
and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket
and it carried it in to another room"

He was "shaken and alarmed" but he wants to remember the micro-movements of a mop? It's not relevant to what's going on in any way shape or form, much less when you are "shocked and alarmed". Other than, of course, if it is being positioned as part of an alibi because you know there's no evidence on it. The alibi is a double bluff and the over-mentioning is called a "tell" in the business.

No-one who believes in the innocence of defendants can ever see this stuff. It's overwhelmingly frequently the family of the defendant who is there in absolute denial, even when cases are going horribly against.

SomeAlibi,

From Amanda’s words via the recollections of Laura, I recall that Amanda thought that the questioning on November 3rd was stressful. I seem to recall that she was yelled at on this date. My speculation is that she was questioned about the mop on this occasion and that both she and Raffaele were questioned about it on the night of November 5th. Therefore, it is natural it would be in their thoughts when they wrote the email and diary, respectively. My hypothesis can be refuted of course…

 

[SomeAlibi]

I heard about the automatic reduction frequently enough from an unreliable source. I am surprised that you would think I would take his word on it.

Well it's a simple mechanism of the sort that exists in many jurisdictions and has been widely reported in the press. You don't have to believe an unreliable source but there's plenty of reliable ones out there too and it's something that's quite important to appreciate for parity of sentencing comparisons between the three...

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi,

From Amanda’s words via the recollections of Laura, I recall that Amanda thought that the questioning on November 3rd was stressful. I seem to recall that she was yelled at on this date. My speculation is that she was questioned about the mop on this occasion and that both she and Raffaele were questioned about it on the night of November 5th. Therefore, it is natural it would be in their thoughts when they wrote the email and diary, respectively. My hypothesis can be refuted of course…

Just to complete the timings, the quote from Raffaele is based on his diary of Nov 7.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part. The mops are so over-mentioned by both in order to point to the fact that they knew they hadn't been used and that there was nothing on those mop heads (which are swapable on Vileda mops). What could be better than to appear to have cleaning up instruments at the scene or a somewhat cleaned up scene and to have nothing on them. Clearly innocent people unconnected to the crime is the impression that's trying to be conveyed - a double bluff.

This is exactly the kind of theory that I had on mind in my post about skepticism.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Manga: I said it was not significant but went to character in a minor way because of the rape content. But that's it.

Mops: I don't think it's hard to understand why this is an important area. It could be equally argued to be key to the defence that there was no DNA on it. Isn't that very helpful to the defence in another way of looking at it? I'd be using it! Can't understand your point of view on this at all.

Behaviour of a suspect after a murder: Is one of the the single most reviewed focuses of investigation. Even on the pro-Amanda side, it is widely acknowledged that Amanda's behaviour was atypical to others. Her family just said it was "Amanda being Amanda". Amanda herself yesterday said she knew she hadn't helped herself in this respect. It's very significant in the real world.

So I agree with you on 1 but you are way off base on 2 or 3 which also matter potentially a great deal to Amanda's defence case (2) and to Amanda herself (3).

 

[SomeAlibi]

Was there a reduction from 30 to 24 years in the appeal? Could the prosecution have appealed such a reduction?

As I already said he was reduced down at appeal to 24 * 2/3 = 16. We know the prosecution can appeal at first appeal but I don't know the answer at the final appeal stage.

 

[LondonJohn]

The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part. The mops are so over-mentioned by both in order to point to the fact that they knew they hadn't been used and that there was nothing on those mop heads (which are swapable on Vileda mops). What could be better than to appear to have cleaning up instruments at the scene or a somewhat cleaned up scene and to have nothing on them. Clearly innocent people unconnected to the crime is the impression that's trying to be conveyed - a double bluff.

Raffaele can't help himself in his diary:

"As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance
and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the
devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken
and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket
and it carried it in to another room"

He was "shaken and alarmed" but he wants to remember the micro-movements of a mop? It's not relevant to what's going on in any way shape or form, much less when you are "shocked and alarmed". Other than, of course, if it is being positioned as part of an alibi because you know there's no evidence on it. The alibi is a double bluff and the over-mentioning is called a "tell" in the business.

No-one who believes in the innocence of defendants can ever see this stuff. It's overwhelmingly frequently the family of the defendant who is there in absolute denial, even when cases are going horribly against.

So much so that when they were "surprised" by the arrival of the postal police they had their mops at the ready yet left a blood/water footprint on the bath mat?

And why invent elaborate cover for the mops at all? That would just be either sheer stupidity on their behalf, or an extraordinarily cunning and audacious attempt to double-bluff the police. But if the latter, why on earth would they take that risk? It is nonsensical at every level to suggest that if you've just jointly participated in the murder of your housemate you would choose to draw attention to yourself with the visible presence of mops and repeated referral to mops, in order to somehow attempt to "misdirect" the investigators. Same as the nonsense about "deliberately leaving blood in the bathroom". It's totally implausible.

Some warped criminal masterminds there.

EDIT: And in answer to your question "what could be better than...?", I'll supply an answer. Better would be to thoroughly mop up Meredith's room, the small bathroom and the hallway in the middle of the night, leave the soiled mop right there in the house, go back to Sollecito's apartment, and stay there until somebody calls you to tell you what's happened. No need to go back to the cottage, or to call Meredith's phone. Just claim that you were spending the day mooching around Sollecito's place together. That doesn't take much thought to figure out.

By the way, what clothing and footwear were Knox and Sollecito wearing during the murder (and the clean-up, for that matter)? Why was no blood or DNA ever found on any of their clothes or shoes, and why was none of their clothing or footwear ever established as having gone missing after the murder?

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by SomeAlibi View Post
The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part. The mops are so over-mentioned by both in order to point to the fact that they knew they hadn't been used and that there was nothing on those mop heads (which are swapable on Vileda mops). What could be better than to appear to have cleaning up instruments at the scene or a somewhat cleaned up scene and to have nothing on them. Clearly innocent people unconnected to the crime is the impression that's trying to be conveyed - a double bluff.

This is exactly the kind of theory that I had on mind in my post about skepticism.

I am going to guess that this is another one that SomeAlibi will end up saying that he doesn't give any "weight" to.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Right it's Sunday evening. Time to get ready for a full week where I cannot post at the sort of volumes required by JREF. It's been an interesting experiment which I'm probably not going to repeat. I've learned a bit about faith and passion and I've enjoyed debating with those who keep it civil, which it was with a couple of self-harming exceptions

If anyone wants to post me an explicit question, they can. A couple of sentences which may irritate but are meant honestly. Look away if you can't take them for what they are: My advice to the pro-defence side is, you need to focus on taking apart the judgement far more - that's where it's all done now. If you want to help them, work there. If I might say, there's a couple who don't seem to know Massei which is just not credible at this stage of the game. This is why Steve Moore's boast he hasn't read it is just completely and utterly farcical, whatever else you think of him. It does tell you something very clear about him but again, I know many of you don't want to hear that. But if you listen to your thoughts quietly you know I'm right. 99% of your world should be about finding holes in Massei's document if you want to help.

Other than that, thanks for the experience. You have the upside of this debate. If Knox goes free, you'll feel you've been part of something big. Temper your enthusiasm: they aren't going to get an innocent verdict but there's a chance of an unsafe conviction finding and that will be good enough to get them home. I don't think it's likely - perhaps 10% at this stage but that's your hope.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I agree that it was a rush to judgment followed by a scramble for confirming evidence followed by a lack of reasoning by the court. Yet here we are defending things like Japanese manga and non bloody mops in non bloody water supposedly used to clean up non bloody footprints, and things like the number of times Amanda said a nice thing about Meredith in an e-mail. The arguments against Amanda and Raffaele has been reduced to one of trivialities, in my opinion.

That's a good observation. But what can we expect when no one is prepared to defend the forensic evidence on other grounds then "the court found it OK", on the Quintavalle front we see a full scale retreat by the colpevolisti, and bringing up Amanda's forgotten phone call seriously backfired in the form of exposed dirty tricks and lies of Comodi.

Last attempt of explaining the murder dynamics ended rather badly too.

The question why there is zero evidence of a crowd of people struggling in the room still remains, not to mention the funnier stuff like how the knife got to the cottage and why a kitchen utensil?

 

[LondonJohn]

Manga: I said it was not significant but went to character in a minor way because of the rape content. But that's it.

Mops: I don't think it's hard to understand why this is an important area. It could be equally argued to be key to the defence that there was no DNA on it. Isn't that very helpful to the defence in another way of looking at it? I'd be using it! Can't understand your point of view on this at all.

Behaviour of a suspect after a murder: Is one of the the single most reviewed focuses of investigation. Even on the pro-Amanda side, it is widely acknowledged that Amanda's behaviour was atypical to others. Her family just said it was "Amanda being Amanda". Amanda herself yesterday said she knew she hadn't helped herself in this respect. It's very significant in the real world.

So I agree with you on 1 but you are way off base on 2 or 3 which also matter potentially a great deal to Amanda's defence case (2) and to Amanda herself (3).

You must know that "strange" behaviour can be a very useful tool in directing investigators towards potential suspects, and can also have a limited degree of validity in the courtroom. But if can't convict someone of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, nor come anywhere close to helping do so.

 

[LondonJohn]

Right it's Sunday evening. Time to get ready for a full week where I cannot post at the sort of volumes required by JREF. It's been an interesting experiment which I'm probably not going to repeat. I've learned a bit about faith and passion and I've enjoyed debating with those who keep it civil, which it was with a couple of self-harming exceptions

If anyone wants to post me an explicit question, they can. A couple of sentences which may irritate but are meant honestly. Look away if you can't take them for what they are: My advice to the pro-defence side is, you need to focus on taking apart the judgement far more - that's where it's all done now. If you want to help them, work there. If I might say, there's a couple who don't seem to know Massei which is just not credible at this stage of the game. This is why Steve Moore's boast he hasn't read it is just completely and utterly farcical, whatever else you think of him. It does tell you something very clear about him but again, I know many of you don't want to hear that. But if you listen to your thoughts quietly you know I'm right. 99% of your world should be about finding holes in Massei's document if you want to help.

Other than that, thanks for the experience. You have the upside of this debate. If Knox goes free, you'll feel you've been part of something big. Temper your enthusiasm: they aren't going to get an innocent verdict but there's a chance of an unsafe conviction finding and that will be good enough to get them home. I don't think it's likely - perhaps 10% at this stage but that's your hope.

I'm sure I speak for us all when I say I feel privileged to have been in your presence for the past couple of days. And your advice on what to think and how to act is incredibly gratefully received. Thank you for taking the time to give us the instruction.

Oh and I almost forgot, thanks also for telling us what's going to happen in the appeal.

 

[Dan O.]

The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part.

Perhaps you need to lay out the timeline for when Amanda and Raffaele were being questioned. How many hours of questioning every detail had they both been through before they took to writing those statements? Do you imagine the police would have not asked Amanda why she was at the house that morning? Do you imagine that the police would not have questioned what she was doing the night before? Your apparently biased position precludes you from seeing that somewhere during those questions Amanda is going to mention having taken the mop and bucket back to Raffaele's place and the very first mention of the mop is going to set off major alarm bells. From that point on the police are going to grill the two on every detail of that mop. Just like you, they won't be able to set that subject aside.

Amanda and Raffaele were reported as being "startled" when the police turned up and they were sat with the mops outside the house...

Show evidence that the postal police saw the two outside the cottage with the mop and bucket or retract that statement. There was one early news report that made that claim but it never came out during the trial and the Massei report never mentions it. If your stated goal here is to win converts, lying about the evidence is not going to do it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Perhaps you need to lay out the timeline for when Amanda and Raffaele were being questioned. How many hours of questioning every detail had they both been through before they took to writing those statements? Do you imagine the police would have not asked Amanda why she was at the house that morning? Do you imagine that the police would not have questioned what she was doing the night before? Your apparently biased position precludes you from seeing that somewhere during those questions Amanda is going to mention having taken the mop and bucket back to Raffaele's place and the very first mention of the mop is going to set off major alarm bells. From that point on the police are going to grill the two on every detail of that mop. Just like you, they won't be able to set that subject aside.

Thanks, Dan O. That seems to me to be a reasonable explanation on the mop. The constant mention and tracking of that pesky mop in her e-mail was one of the things that really bugged me when I first started researching the case.

 

[RoseMontague]

Other than that, thanks for the experience.

I am glad you decided to join us and hope you come back again.