Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

Are we going to have more fun with translations? I prefer "Whom Gods Destroy..." because it has more rolling thunder and sounds more like something from an ancient language and your version looks more like someone put English articles into it that weren't necessary in the original. It destroys the poetry in my view.

At any rate they mean the same thing, and you now know what I meant by it. I think the prosecution case is nothing but a conspiracy theory, and not a very good one. It ignores too many things provably false like the scientific and forensic data, and the character of the man who produced it. I think Mignini is probably a brilliant man who knows the rules of his 'game' like few others, but whose become delusional in the sense that he actually believes the nonsense he comes up with, even in the face of stark physical evidence to the contrary. I also think he is the sort who can be charming and refined until he is crossed, at which time he becomes vicious and vindictive. I think people fear to cross him, and there is damn good evidence of what happens to those who do. Even if they are just people overseas who can see what a mockery of justice he's made of this poor girl's death. How many people has he charged with 'slander' so far in this case? That carries a jail sentence in Italy, does it not?

Doesn't that set off warning bells in your mind?

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

It is interesting how far away one can wander from the factuality even after years of involvement in that fascinating case. I think that's the problem when for long time you neglect to do the reality check of confronting your mental picture with critical people.

 

[christianahannah]

I understand that you then base your theory on the 3 short sentences quoted without context by Massei.



To touch Comodi a little bit more - I was apparently wrong that Massei wouldn't dare to admit Comodi's dirty tricks directly into the motivation. Of course he did. On page 74 of the motivation Massei quotes Comodi's dirty lie imprecision directly from the trial transcripts without any clarification:



"Mother apparently told her", according to Comodi of course.

I believe Massei is summarizing what was said at the trial testimony of Amanda on page 75. On page 95 of the motivations it appears Massei and the jury were aware of the correct time.

This conversation [the first call] between mother and daughter was not intercepted. The first call, to U.S. phone user 00120069326457, was made at 12:47 pm on November 2 and corroborated by analyzing the telephone traffic of Amanda Knox’s cellphone. However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known.

There is also this partial transcript of Edda Mellas's testimony (linked on Candace Dempsey's blog). Q and E in parentheses are my addition.

(Q): Did you receive calls from your daughter night of 1 November.

(E): Early morning on the 2.

(Q): How many?

(E): 3.

(Q): What time in Seattle.

(E): The first around 4 am, maybe some minutes before. The second call within an hour and the third call shortly after the second.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/19800356/detail.html

While Comodi and Edda were off a bit in time, Massei was correct as to the time of the call on page 95.

 

[Antony]

If the court finds the knife was used in the murder, then the knife has to be transported from Raffaele's to the cottage. The conviction for the transportation is therefore nothing other than a logical consequence of the first conviction for the murder. It can't be any other way. You obviously disagree with the verdict but you've missed the causality / logical consequence about the knife transport. It can't be any other way.

No, that's got it the wrong way round. The finding of the knife in a location that doesn't make sense is evidence that it is not the murder weapon; it isn't evidence that it was transported before and after the murder - much less that Amanda was the person who transported it. Not only that, but the evidence at the murder scene is of a different, smaller knife.

Against that, we have - what? A speck of alleged DNA on the blade of the knife, so small that the test cannot be repeated, and matched to the murder victim by misuse of the testing equipment in unsuitable conditions.

There is no independent evidence for the allegation of transporting the knife, just the inverted logic "she must have done it, otherwise our 2-knife scenario is wrong". The 2-knife scenario is one of the prosecutions invented "facts", as is the use of Amanda's handbag to transport it.

The court acted wrongly in finding the knife to be the murder weapon on the available evidence, and this point on its own is enough to overturn the conviction, since there is no other primary evidence against Amanda.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Are we going to have more fun with translations? I prefer "Whom Gods Destroy..." because it has more rolling thunder and sounds more like something from an ancient language and your version looks more like someone put English articles into it that weren't necessary in the original. It destroys the poetry in my view.

At any rate they mean the same thing, and you now know what I meant by it. I think the prosecution case is nothing but a conspiracy theory, and not a very good one. It ignores too many things provably false like the scientific and forensic data, and the character of the man who produced it. I think Mignini is probably a brilliant man who knows the rules of his 'game' like few others, but whose become delusional in the sense that he actually believes the nonsense he comes up with, even in the face of stark physical evidence to the contrary. I also think he is the sort who can be charming and refined until he is crossed, at which time he becomes vicious and vindictive. I think people fear to cross him, and there is damn good evidence of what happens to those who do. Even if they are just people overseas who can see what a mockery of justice he's made of this poor girl's death. How many people has he charged with 'slander' so far in this case? That carries a jail sentence in Italy, does it not?

Doesn't that set off warning bells in your mind?

Not long ago getting into his little notebook of personal enemies meant you had a good chance of being wiretapped and accused of conspiring with a satanic cult.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe Massei is summarizing what was said at the trial testimony of Amanda on page 75. On page 95 of the motivations it appears Massei and the jury were aware of the correct time.

While Comodi and Edda were off a bit in time, Massei was correct as to the time of the call on page 95.

Thanks Christiana,
I am wondering about Massei's reasoning (again). This is the quote:

However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known.

I never would have guessed a perplexity could reveal so much detail. It must have been a rather large perplexity.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, that's got it the wrong way round. The finding of the knife in a location that doesn't make sense is evidence that it is not the murder weapon; it isn't evidence that it was transported before and after the murder - much less that Amanda was the person who transported it. Not only that, but the evidence at the murder scene is of a different, smaller knife.

Against that, we have - what? A speck of alleged DNA on the blade of the knife, so small that the test cannot be repeated, and matched to the murder victim by misuse of the testing equipment in unsuitable conditions.

There is no independent evidence for the allegation of transporting the knife, just the inverted logic "she must have done it, otherwise our 2-knife scenario is wrong". The 2-knife scenario is one of the prosecutions invented "facts", as is the use of Amanda's handbag to transport it.

The court acted wrongly in finding the knife to be the murder weapon on the available evidence, and this point on its own is enough to overturn the conviction, since there is no other primary evidence against Amanda.

That is a really nice post Antony, and a good one to use as a "short summary" of the problems with the knife.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe Massei is summarizing what was said at the trial testimony of Amanda on page 75. On page 95 of the motivations it appears Massei and the jury were aware of the correct time.



There is also this partial transcript of Edda Mellas's testimony (linked on Candace Dempsey's blog). Q and E in parentheses are my addition.



While Comodi and Edda were off a bit in time, Massei was correct as to the time of the call on page 95.

But here again we encounter Massei's flawed reasoning. He says this of the 12.47pm call (4.47am in Seattle):

"However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known."

He's saying here that because Edda was "perplexed" about this call, this necessarily indicates that the reason for this perplexity was that Knox had relayed details she couldn't yet have known if she didn't participate in the murder (presumably, the state of affairs inside the murder room).

But where's the evidence that Knox mentioned any information that she "could not have known" in this 12.47pm call? If there indeed was such evidence, it would of course be damning to Knox. Yet such evidence is never once mentioned in Massei's reasoning, except in this illogical and unsupportable inference quoted above.

It's inconceivable that if this evidence exisited (e.g. if Edda had said to Knox in the prison conversation "I'm certain that you told me in that very first call that Meredith's throat had been slit"), it wouldn't have featured prominently in both the trial and the Massei report.

 

[Antony]

Did you just ask: why did Raffaele point out a "difference" in his footprint to that on the mat? Think OJ and gloves. Did you mean something else?

No, I meant that he pointed out the footprint to police. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't see we can progress beyond what's been said. Even if you don't believe the measurements (which I don't accept). The proportions of the foot cannot make it Guede's right - the ratio of length and width are out. You literally cannot make this his. So if it isn't his, whose is it?

No, I disagree. It's a partial footprint, with the heel off the edge of the mat - so the length measurement can't even be made. You can't exclude Guede on the basis of length, while the shape of the big toe clearly excludes Raffaele.

 

[Antony]

You're expressing your subjective opinion of the evidence rather than making an objective point. You think I'm not objective. I think you're in grade A denial. Doesn't get us anywhere.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that your claim of "overwhelming evidence of guilt" is not an objective judgement, and doesn't match the facts.

As for being in denial, I have no personal attachment to the case at all, so there is no reason for me to be in denial. I judge Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent because this case has all the indications of a miscarriage of justice - if it didn't, then I wouldn't take such an interest in it.

On the other hand, those clinging to the guilty verdict seem to me to be irrationally attached to the belief that the courts cannot get it wrong, and that the police cannot be guilty of misconduct. Now that really is grade A denial.

 

[christianahannah]

But here again we encounter Massei's flawed reasoning. He says this of the 12.47pm call (4.47am in Seattle):

"However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known."

He's saying here that because Edda was "perplexed" about this call, this necessarily indicates that the reason for this perplexity was that Knox had relayed details she couldn't yet have known if she didn't participate in the murder (presumably, the state of affairs inside the murder room).

But where's the evidence that Knox mentioned any information that she "could not have known" in this 12.47pm call? If there indeed was such evidence, it would of course be damning to Knox. Yet such evidence is never once mentioned in Massei's reasoning, except in this illogical and unsupportable inference quoted above.

It's inconceivable that if this evidence exisited (e.g. if Edda had said to Knox in the prison conversation "I'm certain that you told me in that very first call that Meredith's throat had been slit"), it wouldn't have featured prominently in both the trial and the Massei report.

Perhaps Massei is giving more credence to Edda's rather than to the information of what Amanda could not have known. The 12:47 call was not recorded so there is no transcript of which to compare it against the November 10, 2007 prison conversation.

Obviously, if there was access to the prison conversation transcript it may make this reasoning of Massei clear. In my opinion, the evidence (if there is any) is probably of a more subtle nature rather than a prominent one.

Massei had access to the complete transcript of the November 10, 2007 prison conversation. I do not know if the jury also heard the conversation. If so, this may have had a part in the reasoning.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that your claim of "overwhelming evidence of guilt" is not an objective judgement, and doesn't match the facts.

As for being in denial, I have no personal attachment to the case at all, so there is no reason for me to be in denial. I judge Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent because this case has all the indications of a miscarriage of justice - if it didn't, then I wouldn't take such an interest in it.

On the other hand, those clinging to the guilty verdict seem to me to be irrationally attached to the belief that the courts cannot get it wrong, and that the police cannot be guilty of misconduct. Now that really is grade A denial.

Well, I suspect that some who believe in the safety and validity of the guilty verdicts for Knox and Sollecito have come their conclusion independent of the court's verdict, via their own analysis of the evidence. I happen to think they are wrong, but I don't begrudge them holding that position whatsoever. People can think whatever they like on discussion boards - and for that matter, in the printed and broadcast media.

It's a constant source of wonder to me how obsessed certain sections of the debating public are with what's being said either online or in the media - to the degree of trawling personal Facebook pages and intervening in employment law disputes. The only people whose opinions actually matter in this case are those directly connected to it. All the rest is just noise (including, of course, everything written on here and other forums).

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps Massei is giving more credence to Edda's rather than to the information of what Amanda could not have known. The 12:47 call was not recorded so there is no transcript of which to compare it against the November 10, 2007 prison conversation.

Obviously, if there was access to the prison conversation transcript it may make this reasoning of Massei clear. In my opinion, the evidence (if there is any) is probably of a more subtle nature rather than a prominent one.

Massei had access to the complete transcript of the November 10, 2007 prison conversation. I do not know if the jury also heard the conversation. If so, this may have had a part in the reasoning.

But even "subtle" evidence that went some way towards indicating that Knox knew more than she should have in that 12.47pm call would absolutely definitely have come out in court, and would have been mentioned prominently in the Massei report. After all, any indication whatsoever that Knox knew about e.g. the state of the murder room at 12.47pm is probably sufficient to convict her in and of itself. Yet we have heard nothing.

I can only conclude from this that not a shred of evidence to support this assertion actually exists, and that the linkage is in the prosecution's (and the court's) minds, rather than based upon actual evidence of any kind.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

When the inspectors examined Rudy's apartment, did they happen to find traces of blood on the door handles going into his place of on any of the light switches?

They don't seem to have tested any door handles or light switches. They tested about 15 items and found no DNA other than Guede's.

 

[RoseMontague]

Perhaps Massei is giving more credence to Edda's rather than to the information of what Amanda could not have known. The 12:47 call was not recorded so there is no transcript of which to compare it against the November 10, 2007 prison conversation.

Obviously, if there was access to the prison conversation transcript it may make this reasoning of Massei clear. In my opinion, the evidence (if there is any) is probably of a more subtle nature rather than a prominent one.

Massei had access to the complete transcript of the November 10, 2007 prison conversation. I do not know if the jury also heard the conversation. If so, this may have had a part in the reasoning.

In my opinion this is another "leap of faith" type of reasoning as discussed in Raffaele's appeal. I disagree not just on the basis of lack of anecdotal evidence of such evidence but also on the basis that this type of reasoning is very common in the Massei report.

 

[christianahannah]

But even "subtle" evidence that went some way towards indicating that Knox knew more than she should have in that 12.47pm call would absolutely definitely have come out in court, and would have been mentioned prominently in the Massei report. After all, any indication whatsoever that Knox knew about e.g. the state of the murder room at 12.47pm is probably sufficient to convict her in and of itself. Yet we have heard nothing.

I can only conclude from this that not a shred of evidence to support this assertion actually exists, and that the linkage is in the prosecution's (and the court's) minds, rather than based upon actual evidence of any kind.

I don't know the conversation nor have I seen the transcripts so I can't conclude anything. But the court did have those transcripts (perhaps heard the prison conversation), listened to testimony from Amanda and Edda and were able to come to a conclusion.

Only speculation - what if Amanda said nothing was taken in the house. Would that be evidence to convict her? No. Would it maybe raise a question as to how she would know that information? Perhaps. This is what I mean by subtle.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a small postscript to an earlier post of mine about Knox's/Sollecito's post-murder missing clothing and footwear (or, rather, lack thereof):

I couldn't begin to know what clothing and footwear was in my wardrobes and drawers, and certainly none of my friends or even family could. But that's because I have an accumulation of clothing and footwear stretching back many years, which have been transported from house to house in a large removals van whenever I've moved house.

In contrast, Knox came to Europe from Seattle with only as much luggage as she could carry, and she travelled around Europe until coming back to Perugia in mid-September. Of course, she could have bought more clothes between mid-September and early November, but it's probably safe to say that Knox did not have an extremely wide variety of clothing and footwear in her possession by November 1st 2007.

Knox's Italian flatmates would have seen her practically every day for the six weeks before the murder, and I strongly suspect that they would have seen most of Knox's limited clothing and footwear during that time. And unless Knox changed into some sort of special "murder outfit", she was most likely wearing the kind of clothes and shoes that she wore every day on the evening of the 1st. Yet nobody can remember a piece of clothing or footwear that they'd seen Knox wearing previously that was no longer accounted for. I'd say that's fairly interesting.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know the conversation nor have I seen the transcripts so I can't conclude anything. But the court did have those transcripts (perhaps heard the prison conversation), listened to testimony from Amanda and Edda and were able to come to a conclusion.

Only speculation - what if Amanda said nothing was taken in the house. Would that be evidence to convict her? No. Would it maybe raise a question as to how she would know that information? Perhaps. This is what I mean by subtle.

But even if she said that, she was wrong. And no, in any case that's a million miles from being incriminating.

Finally, to re-iterate, any hint of Knox knowing things she "could not have known" (which is a very strong statement in itself) at 12.47 cannot fail to have been majored upon in court, and reported widely in the media. Yet....silence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have never been able to document from a reliable source the claim that a shorter sentence was the result of a fast-track trial, but I have heard private comments that challenged this notion. I am also under the impression that there may have been two separate reductions of his sentence.

I do not know the answer about the defense. I think tunnel-vision may be part of the story for not testing the stain originally. I think that the prosecution owes the Italian people an explanation for why they did not appeal Rudy's sentence.

Vinci (a consultant hired by Sollecito) discovered the possible semen stain when he analyzed the pillow using a crimescope. This was in July of last year, after Guede's trial had ended.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't know the conversation nor have I seen the transcripts so I can't conclude anything. But the court did have those transcripts (perhaps heard the prison conversation), listened to testimony from Amanda and Edda and were able to come to a conclusion.

Only speculation - what if Amanda said nothing was taken in the house. Would that be evidence to convict her? No. Would it maybe raise a question as to how she would know that information? Perhaps. This is what I mean by subtle.

If there was a shred of such evidence Amanda would have been confronted with it. Instead we've seen dirty tricks and sarcastic remarks ("you called to tell that nothing happened") from Comodi.