Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

But why make up a story about a solo killer, if he would reasonably have expected at that point that the forensic evidence was going to show that three people did it? Even if Amanda and Raffaele were in on it, Rudy couldn't have known at that point that Amanda and Raffaele had miraculously left absolutely no trace of their presence in the room except for a trace of DNA on a bra hook which Stefanoni would have to make a special trip out to discover weeks later.

(...)

This coment makes no sense. We don't know how three people did it. We only know three people were there and are responsible.

There may be nothing miraculous in finding DNA three weeks later.

What I object to is the logical coupling of ideas

1.) We only know three people were there
2.) and are responsible.

That is a supposition. As such it is the beginning of an argument, not the end of an argument.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Quintavalle may have had recall of Amanda and what she wore a day or two after the news of the murder was public and arrests made. He just may not have shared it until a year later.

That would mean he for some reason decided to not share that information with the police that questioned him, and instead lied to them about seeing Amanda a few times, always in Sollecito's company.

 

[Kaosium]

I've got no agenda. I have no interest in anything but the truth - wherever it may lie. Ergo, I'm not "pushing" anything on anybody.

If I've made a mistake, my memory has failed me or a source I've cited has been discredited, I'm all ears. Just point it out.

Perhaps this is the problem for some. One thing I noticed when I looked back into this issue was how many arguments for guilt had been conclusively discredited. I think perhaps one of the main reasons many in the beginning assumed she must have been guilty was due to the tabloid depiction of her character and misunderstandings on what the actual evidence was. For example, once the context of the bra-clasp and 'murder weapon' was examined they become 'own goals' in the argument for guilt. However there was a time in this debate where people would talk of them as real evidence for murder, along with a host of other things like showering in a blood-soaked bathroom and a bleach receipt. This suggests to me than barring an agenda they actually believed all that was true, and finding it wasn't they might be inclined to re-examine their conclusion of guilty.

This brings me to wondering: just what is there left of the 'evidence' for guilt?

 

[Mary_H]

Perhaps this is the problem for some. One thing I noticed when I looked back into this issue was how many arguments for guilt had been conclusively discredited. I think perhaps one of the main reasons many in the beginning assumed she must have been guilty was due to the tabloid depiction of her character and misunderstandings on what the actual evidence was. For example, once the context of the bra-clasp and 'murder weapon' was examined they become 'own goals' in the argument for guilt. However there was a time in this debate where people would talk of them as real evidence for murder, along with a host of other things like showering in a blood-soaked bathroom and a bleach receipt. This suggests to me than barring an agenda they actually believed all that was true, and finding it wasn't they might be inclined to re-examine their conclusion of guilty.

This brings me to wondering: just what is there left of the 'evidence' for guilt?

Machiavelli says the defendants are implicated by their lies, but he hasn't yet said what the lies are.

 

[Kaosium]

Machiavelli says the defendants are implicated by their lies, but he hasn't yet said what the lies are.

Some that I still seen mentioned or can think of offhand are:

1. The 'confession/accusation.'

2. SomeAlibi made a big deal about whether they were in bed sleeping or in bed sleeping with a music track played and a phone call answered.

3. I suppose one might argue that either Quinteville or the fragrant bum make 'liars' out of them for testifying they were together in bed the night of, and the morning after, the murder.

4. There's the bit from Raffaele about pricking Meredith with the knife.

5. There's all too much mentioned about mops and showers, some of which are probably 'lies.' I've a suspicion where these 'lies' come from, along with the fable Raffaele told about the knife, but from a pendant's standpoint they would be 'lies.'

6. Her accusation that she was whupped upside the head a few times during the interrogation is apparently going to be considered a 'lie.'

I dunno, perhaps there's better ones I've not come across or can't recall. These seem kinda weak 'evidence' for murder, especially when the most suspicious ones are put into proper context.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is a big difference between implicating a perpetrator based on actual evidence and "blaming" people with whom no connection can be made to the crime. Sollecito's lawyers had forensic grounds for removing responsibility for the crime from Raffaele and assigning it to Rudy. (...)

Oh well, if you say so. Maybe those forensic grounds were not actually so true and solid (they were dismissed in fact). And moreover maybe Rudy Guede in his opinion doesn't see the move as so legitimate.

You seem to be implying that if Raffaele and Amanda's lawyers hadn't accused Rudy first, Rudy would not have accused Raffaele and Amanda. In that case, the prosecutor would have been left with only the paltry evidence he had against Amanda and Raffaele, and no corroboration from Rudy. In fact, Rudy presumably would have held to his original scenarios about strangers he didn't recognize having committed the crime.

The evidence is solid not paltry. And in fact, he was left with no corroboration from RUdy, because all his declarations were tossed out.
Nobody knows what Rudy would have done in a would have been different history, maybe himself neither, but yes, I think he decided to make his more "incriminating" declarations only in response to RS defence's attack on him.

In other words, you're suggesting that Amanda and Raffaele would likely have been acquitted had their attorneys not defended their clients by utilizing the forensic evidence that put Rudy at the scene of the crime.

No, I am not. Why people make up things all the time on this discussion by trying to twist "in other words" every opinion they dislike? I never suggested they would have been acquitted. If Rudy remained totally silent they would have been convicted anyway.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I object to is the logical coupling of ideas

1.) We only know three people were there
2.) and are responsible.

That is a supposition. As such it is the beginning of an argument, not the end of an argument.

I think it is a proven thesis.

 

[Justinian2]

If Rudy remained totally silent they would have been convicted anyway.

Objection!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

misinformation versus disinformation

I did, however, see that you recently characterized some of my posts as "misinformation."

I'm not sure how that could be, exactly...

I've got no agenda. I have no interest in anything but the truth - wherever it may lie. Ergo, I'm not "pushing" anything on anybody.

If I've made a mistake, my memory has failed me or a source I've cited has been discredited, I'm all ears. Just point it out.

However, 'blanket' assertions expressly dismissing all of my comments as tantamount to "misinformation" - without providing specific objections or details - are difficult to respond to! Indeed, where would I begin?

Can you be more specific about the alleged "misinformation" that strikes you as objectionable?

Treehorn,

Misinformation is simply that which is not true. It is not the same thing as disinformation, which is that which is untrue and known by the speaker as such. Many of the comments I previously listed gave specific examples of erroneous information, such as a claim that Amanda had sex with at least three strangers (12160) and the claim that Amanda had sex with Daniel while dating Raffaele. In addition. I also commented (12369) on what manga was, to counter your description in 12353.

 

[Machiavelli]

Which explains quite nicely why he might change his story to try to implicate them, but doesn't explain why he tried to blame it on someone else first. You've shown a motive for him to lie against them, the real question is why he would 'lie' for them.

No testimony from anyone was needed to convict Rudy Guede, I'm sure Italian courts convict solo criminals all the time, they do it using evidence of the kind collected on Rudy Guede.

No testimony from Rudy was needed to convict Amanda and Raffaele neither.
He didn't lie for them. He lied for himself.
And, at the begining, he didn't exactly "blame an unknown", since he didn't make up an invented identity in replacement of Sollecito's. What Rudy did is to affirm he was not able to see the person's features because the scene was "obfuscated" (dark? blurred?). This is not credible and extremely suspicious. And this is not giving much for Sollecito and Knox defence. He could have "invented" a stranger, actually didn't, he left a qustion mark. This means he wanted a non identifiable person rather than intrude an unknown person in his scenario.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh well, if you say so. Maybe those forensic grounds were not actually so true and solid (they were dismissed in fact). And moreover maybe Rudy Guede in his opinion doesn't see the move as so legitimate.

The evidence is solid not paltry. And in fact, he was left with no corroboration from Rudy, because all his declarations were tossed out.
Nobody knows what Rudy would have done in a would have been different history, maybe himself neither, but yes, I think he decided to make his more "incriminating" declarations only in response to RS defence's attack on him.

The DNA, fingerprint and shoe print evidence against Rudy was dismissed and his declarations were tossed out before Raffaele's attorneys accused Rudy of the crime?

No, I am not. Why people make up things all the time on this discussion by trying to twist "in other words" every opinion they dislike? I never suggested they would have been acquitted. If Rudy remained totally silent they would have been convicted anyway.

You're right, I should not have suggested you were claiming Amanda and Raffaele would have been acquitted without the evidence against Rudy. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

 

[Kaosium]

No testimony from Rudy was needed to convict Amanda and Raffaele neither.
He didn't lie for them. He lied for himself.
And, at the begining, he didn't exactly "blame an unknown", since he didn't make up an invented identity in replacement of Sollecito's. What Rudy did is to affirm he was not able to see the person's features because the scene was "obfuscated" (dark? blurred?). This is not credible and extremely suspicious. And this is not giving much for Sollecito and Knox defence. He could have "invented" a stranger, actually didn't, he left a qustion mark. This means he wanted a non identifiable person rather than intrude an unknown person in his scenario.

I think at this juncture you're making my point, actually. This 'non-identifiable' person he couldn't see is extremely suspicious as you note. Much better would have been to implicate the two people he supposedly 'knew' were at the scene that the police could gather evidence on in hopes they would believe his story. Otherwise his goose was cooked with all the evidence they had on him and his fleeing the country.

At any rate I do appreciate the valiant effort on your behalf to make sense of this, however it's not something that can be maintained over the course of the timeline as there's too many instances where things don't make sense at all under the presumption of guilt, which is why there can be no coherent theory of guilt. No physical evidence, no rational theory and no motive amount to no real chance they're guilty.

The only real hope for those who want them eventually found guilty is that the truth can be kept out of an Italian court. That bodes poorly for the prestige of the Italian court system, and the longer this goes on the worse the eventual fallout in my opinion. This is a story that begs to be told, and it cannot be kept a secret forever...

 

[Alt+F4]

The only real hope for those who want them eventually found guilty is that the truth can be kept out of an Italian court. That bodes poorly for the prestige of the Italian court system, and the longer this goes on the worse the eventual fallout in my opinion. This is a story that begs to be told, and it cannot be kept a secret forever...

What do you think the worse eventual fallout would be? How is any of being kept a secret? Who is keeping "truth" out of the Italian court system?

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
What I object to is the logical coupling of ideas

1.) We only know three people were there
2.) and are responsible.

That is a supposition. As such it is the beginning of an argument, not the end of an argument.

I think it is a proven thesis.

Proof -- from Webster:

1archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
4: to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>
intransitive verb
: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

1.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby each of the court's evidences is NOT true to show that this case is NOT proven.

2.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby each of the court's theories are NOT true to show that this case is NOT proven.

3.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby the alibi is correct to to show that this case is NOT proven.

1,2&3 have been done many times.

 

[Kaosium]

What do you think the worse eventual fallout would be?

It depends on how much longer it goes on. As it stands I think it likely this case will be remembered for cementing the concept of 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' into the Italian Court system.

How is any of being kept a secret?

A figure of speech, I'm suggesting the exposure of the case will widen with time especially due to all the books and movies. Also due to the nature of the Italian System it will come up with every stop.

Who is keeping "truth" out of the Italian court system?

There is an argument I read elsewhere that with 'Foxy Knoxy' dead that the best hope for a second conviction lies in legal maneuvering that allows the 'confession/accusation' without the context of the interrogation, that they don't have to produce a theory for conviction, and they don't have to produce a motive.

So in other words, guilty by technicalities, even though it doesn't make a whit of sense.

 

[Onofarar]

What do you think the worse eventual fallout would be? How is any of being kept a secret? Who is keeping "truth" out of the Italian court system?

Well ... in the Alfred Dreyfus affair in France the government in power fell and those in the "Dreyfus is guilty" faction were in the political minority for almost the rest of their adult lives - except for a brief period when the Germans put them in charge of the Vichy puppet state.
The fabricated case, the cover-up and unjustly convicting Zola of libel for speaking the truth resulted in the general populace turning away from the conservative party and put the socialists in power where they remained for 100 years (except the aforementioned interval noted above) and it is only in the last 10 - 20 years that the French people have begun to trust the conservatives enough to put them in positions of power.
Whether Italy will parallel France's experience remains to be seen but your question asked for speculation on the worst case.
BTW - interesting parallel between libel charges against Zola to shut him up (he fled to England (was convicted in abstentia) and stayed there for 18 months until the whole sordid mess was revealed) and the slander charges against Amanda and her parents - non?

 

[Machiavelli]

Proof -- from Webster:



1.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby each of the court's evidences is NOT true to show that this case is NOT proven.

2.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby each of the court's theories are NOT true to show that this case is NOT proven.

3.) It's only necessary for us to show an exception whereby the alibi is correct to to show that this case is NOT proven.

1,2&3 have been done many times.

I'm sure there will be people who can show different things to themselves. I spoke for myself.

 

[RoseMontague]

An article concerning the filing of additional documents to Raffaele's appeal (or I think it is in addition to the first documents filed). The details of the new filing are not known at this time. If I am wrong about the content of this article please correct.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/umbria/2010/11/04/visualizza_new.html_1704919157.html

They make it seem as if there is something new but it may just be recycled as a new story talking about the appeal documents. I didn't see other stories about this but I did run into one from a manga fan that complained about some TV show that made a connection between manga comics and vilolence and mentioned Raffaele. It has a pretty funny (Google translated) quote:

I am reminded of a piece of a song by Caparezza:
" Non guardare Devilman , diventi violento, non leggere Spiderman , diventi violento, non ascoltare Method Man, diventi violento, figurati cos'è restare un giorno in parlamento" "Do not look Devilman, become violent, do not read Spiderman, become violent, do not listen to Method Man, become violent, imagine what a day to stay in parliament"

http://nuvoleparlanti.blogosfere.it/2010/11/devilman-e-trigun-sospettati-di-omicidio.html

 

[Machiavelli]

I think at this juncture you're making my point, actually. This 'non-identifiable' person he couldn't see is extremely suspicious as you note. Much better would have been to implicate the two people he supposedly 'knew' were at the scene that the police could gather evidence on in hopes they would believe his story. Otherwise his goose was cooked with all the evidence they had on him and his fleeing the country.

At any rate I do appreciate the valiant effort on your behalf to make sense of this, however it's not something that can be maintained over the course of the timeline as there's too many instances where things don't make sense at all under the presumption of guilt, which is why there can be no coherent theory of guilt. No physical evidence, no rational theory and no motive amount to no real chance they're guilty.

The only real hope for those who want them eventually found guilty is that the truth can be kept out of an Italian court. That bodes poorly for the prestige of the Italian court system, and the longer this goes on the worse the eventual fallout in my opinion. This is a story that begs to be told, and it cannot be kept a secret forever...

Your post appears like a series of rantings. I will resond with the same very simple statement: no.
It's not true. I see no sense in what you say. Rudy did not lie "for others" and did not say anything but what one would be expected to say in his position as an accomplice.
As an accomplice, he has no actual chance of giving a consistent account. He has to satisfy contrasting instances in order to defend himself. One of the instances is conceal the truth: Rudy must tell something false, he cannot tell something that we would consider truthful or really believable, because he is a guilty party in the crime. He cannot tell something that can be checked or challenged in a response by the person he accuses. He cannot do this and has no interest in doing this even if they are guilty and he knows it.

 

[Kaosium]

Your post appears like a series of rantings. I will resond with the same very simple statement: no.
It's not true. I see no sense in what you say. Rudy did not lie "for others" and did not say anything but what one would be expected to say in his position as an accomplice.
As an accomplice, he has no actual chance of giving a consistent account. He has to satisfy contrasting instances in order to defend himself. One of the instances is conceal the truth: Rudy must tell something false, he cannot tell something that we would consider truthful or really believable, because he is a guilty party in the crime. He cannot tell something that can be checked or challenged in a response by the person he accuses. He cannot do this and has no interest in doing this even if they are guilty and he knows it.

Hmmm...no, not ranting. I was just trying to bring the tangent back to my original point. I still think it makes more sense for the guy caught with his hand in the cookie jar to blame someone he 'knew' was there, as opposed to this tortured logic where he has to say something untrue, but no matter.