Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

I see that the owner of the cottage in Perugia is having trouble finding tenants, owing to it having been the location of the Meredith Kercher murder. I'm sure, therefore, that the owner is really pleased that crime tourists are hanging around taking photographs and placing memorials to the murder victim on the gate of their private property, just to remind everyone of the house's past....

Evidence please? Have you spoken to him/her?

I note that the local papers which reported upon the flowers on the gate assumed that they'd been placed there by a well-meaning Perugia local. I wonder what the papers would think if they knew that they were actually put there by a crime tourist, who never know Meredith Kercher or any of her family or friends, who travelled well over 1,000 miles to specifically visit the scene, and who spent much of his time in Perugia pacing around with a stopwatch and a camera - often well into the small hours of the night....?

Specifics please, you are being very vague. I live near the grave of Harry Houdini and people who could not have known him still leave objects on his grave. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Alt+F4]

The Massei report for the most part.

You weren't there, you can't know for sure. All you can say is that based the evidence you have seen you that you do not believe he is guilty.

 

[Kaosium]

The motivations states the conflict in Volturno's and Quintavalle's testimonies a bit differently:

Indeed, which is why some look askance at the decisions of the Court. Are we supposed to believe that Quintavalle remembered what she was wearing on that specific day a year before and didn't think to mention it when shown her picture at the time? If I recall correctly, Volturno was asked if he'd shown her picture but didn't recall for sure, so Quintavalle's testimony was accepted. However his records from the time indicated he had.

However, there was no bleach receipt, no need to buy bleach with plenty on hand, and the forensics revealed no clean-up of that sort was ever done. The whole bleach clean-up theory had to be dropped by the prosecution.

So are we to believe Amanda Knox was traipsing about pointlessly on that morning, or perhaps that Quintavalle's 'magic' memory was enhanced by a little publicity-seeking and being egged on by a journalist?

I recall reading something about Quintavalle backing away from his claim in a subsequent TV show but I cannot seem to find anything about it now. :-/

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps but being extradited and knowing he was all over that crime scene I'd think his only hope would be to cooperate and try to get his story in first and as 'truthful' as he could make it. His only hope would seem to have been praying the police believed him, and giving them nothing and lying about who else was there doesn't seem to be the place to start. If there was no physical evidence and he hadn't fled the country your theory would make sense, but as I've noted you have to remove the context of being extradited and having bodily fluids and bloody fingerprints all over to make sense of it.

I don't think that it's good to mix your or our reasonings to Rudy's to look for a sense. The physical or non physical evidence can have little value for one who doesn't know about it. The context is rather more complex than being extradated: Rudy gave his report while he was free, in an internet café in Hannover, while speaking on Skype with his friend. In that phone call he expressed his purpose to come back to Italy and talk to the police - something he then actually did: he took a train to Milan, then he was identified on the train by police at Freiburg - and in the same phone call he told his story in which he explained the intruder was "unidentified", and he also gave some information about what Amanda did the same evening: some of his statements on AK and RS were exculpatory ("non c'entra" = she's not involved), some others statements were incriminating ("Amanda and Meredith had a quarrel for money and dope" ; "somebody was there after me" * these are not literal quotes, they are translated summaries, but this is what he said).
So Rudy already had a plan to go to the police and already had told a story as a free citizen. Then, he also wrote a diary about the facts. Obviously, being already bond to a recollection means that further additional data and changes must be done with cautiosly: a radical change would require to retract completely his story.
Yes I understand your guess that accusing an accomplice sometimes could work. I acknowledge that in fact it's possible that this works sometimes. But only in rare situations. We can easilly think in this case tha naming Amanda and Raffaele was not istincively perceived as not a good idea in Rudy's mind. Rudy's goal is to protect himself, not to accuse others. And many factors can contribute to a person's decision, including an Italian cultural adversion towards people who make names. One additional point: I bet that Rudy, at the time, didn't even know or remember of Raffaele's name.

 

[Machiavelli]

The truth is something about which there is NO argument.

In math and science there is a methodical method of testing proofs and theories that is widely accepted by members of the scientific community.

The double DNA knife had LCN DNA. That is true because there is no dispute over that fact.

Maybe you mean you possess the truth? And you don't need to make arguments?

Just one thing to say about proof: not all human rational thinking is coincident with mathematical science. Even a doctor on a diagnosis may be not able to demonstrate (mathematically) his conclusion: however you may have no chance to have a demonstration, you may loose your time if you do, while instead you have to take a decision anyway, based on available rational knowledge.
On the otehr hand, the concept of proof in law is not coincident with definitions of proof that you may have in mathematics. Justice is not math and science, a proof can consist in something non repeateble or not subject to known methodic tests.

 

[Justinian2]

I hope this is something you have learned after your comment about Meredith's fate vs. Amanda's that caused all kinds of dismayed reactions.

The anger is from the grief. We discussed the grief without getting angry. That is good.

People are grief stricken about MK, AK and RS.
People - like myself - are also grief stricken about their court systems and their governments.

The emotion expresses itself as anger. It's good to let it out. Not the anger, the grief.

On the other hand, I hate fake grief. The ones that got angry probably had the most grief and the ones that expressed grief were likely to be fakes - but maybe not. That's why I asked.

Sorry, but I'm a hodge-podge of eclectic ideas. I don't expect you to believe as I do.

 

[Justinian2]

Maybe you mean you possess the truth? And you don't need to make arguments?

Just one thing to say about proof: not all human rational thinking is coincident with mathematical science. Even a doctor on a diagnosis may be not able to demonstrate (mathematically) his conclusion: however you may have no chance to have a demonstration, you may loose your time if you do, while instead you have to take a decision anyway, based on available rational knowledge.
On the otehr hand, the concept of proof in law is not coincident with definitions of proof that you may have in mathematics. Justice is not math and science, a proof can consist in something non repeateble or not subject to known methodic tests.

No. I mean we both possess several truths. We also possess several irrationalities. It's our job to use the known truths to find other truths. It's our job to discard the irrationalities.

It is also our job to sometimes say that we don't have sufficient information and that we cannot therefore determine guilt or innocence. It ain't going to kill us to let a person free that MIGHT be guilty. We probably did that with OJ. Society didn't end. We're still here.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But there is no "my story". I only reject the argument based of "what Rudy said shows they were not with him".
This is not logical, there is no argument. It doesn't stand. This has been shown to be inconsistent, which doesn't prevent anyone from propose it again and afain and afirm it is logical. I'm not going to argument against obviously irrational beliefs.

Even if you assert this four or five times in a single paragraph, merely repeating the assertion still does not constitute a rational argument.

The point is very simple: Rudy would have expected a three-person murder to leave a crime scene consistent with a three-person murder, and a one-person murder to leave a crime scene consistent with a one-person murder. Rudy initially claimed that Meredith had been murdered by one person.

You have not answered the important question: If Rudy knew Meredith to have been murdered by three people, why didn't he make up a story with three unknown people instead of a single unknown person?

Rudy has good motivation not to testify about the involvement of the other two, if you just consider that he considers how the involvement of the other two would expose him to the truth, and his priority was to conceal the truth. Not much more is needed to say or explain, to see his sequence of testimony has been logical.

Actually a lot more is needed to make sense of this contradiction.

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.

The point is that Rudy could not possibly have known at the time he made his statement, if indeed he had done it with Raffaele and Amanda, that there would be a miraculous total absence of evidence of their involvement in the murder room.

It was truly an amazing stroke of luck for Rudy, in your scenario, that he made up a fairy story about a single killer which should by rights have been immediately exploded by the forensic evidence leaving him in a very bad position, and then it turned out that no such evidence could be found. But how, barring psychic powers, could he have known that it would turn out this way? The answer is that he couldn't, and he didn't, and he made up the single killer story because he thought it was the best fit with the evidence as he knew it at that moment.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. I mean we both possess several truths. We also possess several irrationalities. It's our job to use the known truths to find other truths. It's our job to discard the irrationalities.

It is also our job to sometimes say that we don't have sufficient information and that we cannot therefore determine guilt or innocence. It ain't going to kill us to let a person free that MIGHT be guilty. We probably did that with OJ. Society didn't end. We're still here.

Let's make clear a couple points.
To me, there is no reasonable doubt Amanda is guilty. She is guilty, not "maybe guilty". I think there is sufficient information to determine Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty. I think guilt can be argumented and maintained rationally, but I would argue of it only with neutral interlocutiors.

Second, i will never agree on an argument baset on letting go one person. If one person walks free on arguments based on concepts of absolute demonstration, then all people convicted on circumstantial evidence and testimonies have to go free. The basic requirement of justice is equality: what society can afford, the public sense of justice and security, must be assessed considering that all defendants who have the same kind of evidence against them have to walk free.

Third: justice is not between one individual and society, surely not only that. It is so in the common law US system. In Italy, justice is something partly private: it is between two families. The Kerchers must have justice, not the rest of society. The culprits have to owe them their belongings and must comply to their terms.

 

[Machiavelli]

Even if you assert this four or five times in a single paragraph, merely repeating the assertion still does not constitute a rational argument.

The point is very simple: Rudy would have expected a three-person murder to leave a crime scene consistent with a three-person murder, and a one-person murder to leave a crime scene consistent with a one-person murder. Rudy initially claimed that Meredith had been murdered by one person.

You have not answered the important question: If Rudy knew Meredith to have been murdered by three people, why didn't he make up a story with three unknown people instead of a single unknown person?

(..)

Your "if" is a wrong axiom. First you introduce an arbitrary concept of three people murdering Meredith as if there were actually three people in the room equally participating physically to the same action.
Second, you assume that Rudy knows something about "physical evidence" aginst him. He actually knows only of a fingerprint against him. He has no idea of much of the evidence against others - and he doesn't even know for example that a window had been broken - just as he has little idea of the evidence against himself.
Third, the scene he describs is not consistent with one single murderer: it is a scenario consistent with the physical traces of two males, the intruder and himself. Plus Amanda who stole money from Merediths drawer.

He didn't know yet of the non miraculous finding of nailing evidence like the DNA of Sollecito and the luminol bare footprints.

 

[Dan O.]

justice is not between one individual and society, surely not only that. It is so in the common law US system. In Italy, justice is something partly private: it is between two families. The Kerchers must have justice, not the rest of society. The culprits have to owe them their belongings and must comply to their terms.

WOW. What happened to all that talk about leaving the Kerchers out of the debate? Is this the real reason that the prosecution turned their focus on Amanda and Raffaele? Are the Kerchers backing this prosecution because otherwise, if it's just Rudy, the Kerchers get nothing?

And before you start attacking me because I am attacking the Kerchers, it was Machiavelli that brought them into the discussion.

 

[Malkmus]

If Rudy knew Meredith to have been murdered by three people, why didn't he make up a story with three unknown people instead of a single unknown person?

Great point

 

[Brooktrout]

Here's one:

"Giuliano Mignini claimed the gruesome murder was carried out after student Raffaele Sollecito, one of the suspects in the case, acted out a dark fantasy stemming from his manga collection.

The prosecutor made specific reference to a comic found in Sollecito's possession called The Last Vampire, that featured scenes of a naked female body slashed with a sword."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...trates-Animation-Fans/Article/200810415127665

Wow. The Last Vampire? Is that seriously what all the fuss was about? Zillions of people own that. It's mainstream.

 

[Brooktrout]

Article in the Independent

Check it out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-obsessed-with-amanda-knoxs-fate-2124415.html

I sense a subtle shift in Barbie's messaging. Abandon ship!

 

[Mary_H]

Check it out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-obsessed-with-amanda-knoxs-fate-2124415.html

I sense a subtle shift in Barbie's messaging. Abandon ship!

I agree.

 

[Mary_H]

Your "if" is a wrong axiom. First you introduce an arbitrary concept of three people murdering Meredith as if there were actually three people in the room equally participating physically to the same action.

It isn't arbitrary if that's what happened, in which case Rudy would know it happened. Rudy's story should match the prosecutor's or the prosecutor should have a good reason why not. I don't think fearing retaliation from Amanda and Raffaele is a good reason. What could they do besides accuse him of being at the crime scene, where he had already placed himself?

Second, you assume that Rudy knows something about "physical evidence" aginst him. He actually knows only of a fingerprint against him. He has no idea of much of the evidence against others - and he doesn't even know for example that a window had been broken - just as he has little idea of the evidence against himself.

If Rudy knew so little about what was left at the crime scene, why did he not just say he arrived after the murder, found the door open, tried to save Meredith, felt ill, went to the bathroom and then ran away? He knew he had to say something about the two of them having arranged a date because he knew he had left evidence of the sexual attack there, although he was probably thinking of the untested semen deposit rather than subtler bits of DNA in her body.

Third, the scene he describs is not consistent with one single murderer: it is a scenario consistent with the physical traces of two males, the intruder and himself. Plus Amanda who stole money from Merediths drawer.

Are you saying that because he described a scene consistent with two men, and evidence against two men was found, it turned out his description was accurate?

How about this -- he described a scene consistent with two men, so someone later made sure evidence of two men was found, in order to match up with Rudy's story?

He didn't know yet of the non miraculous finding of nailing evidence like the DNA of Sollecito and the luminol bare footprints.

All that says is that his lawyers waited until the prosecution claimed to have secured forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele before they had Rudy accuse them specifically. It would look bad for him to have accused them by name, only to have the police find no evidence against them.

 

[Mary_H]

Maybe you mean you possess the truth? And you don't need to make arguments?

Just one thing to say about proof: not all human rational thinking is coincident with mathematical science. Even a doctor on a diagnosis may be not able to demonstrate (mathematically) his conclusion: however you may have no chance to have a demonstration, you may loose your time if you do, while instead you have to take a decision anyway, based on available rational knowledge.
On the otehr hand, the concept of proof in law is not coincident with definitions of proof that you may have in mathematics. Justice is not math and science, a proof can consist in something non repeateble or not subject to known methodic tests.

If we can establish probable guilt or probable innocence with math and science, but we choose not to, then what are we using instead to reach our decision?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your "if" is a wrong axiom. First you introduce an arbitrary concept of three people murdering Meredith as if there were actually three people in the room equally participating physically to the same action.

"Arbitrarily"? That was the Massei theory, it's what the prosecution told the court and it's what they were convicted for.

If three people weren't in the room equally participating then their conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

You seem to want to play a game where innocenters have to prove beyond all doubt that Amanda and Sollecito could not possibly have been involved in any way with Meredith's murder, which is almost exactly the opposite of how the justice system actually works. If you don't have a specific story that makes them all simultaneously guilty of murder that you can show is true beyond reasonable doubt, you don't have a case.

Second, you assume that Rudy knows something about "physical evidence" aginst him. He actually knows only of a fingerprint against him. He has no idea of much of the evidence against others - and he doesn't even know for example that a window had been broken - just as he has little idea of the evidence against himself.

No. This is completely wrong.

I only assume that Rudy knows that if three people are involved in a struggle to the death in a confined space (which I remind you is the Massei story and is what Amanda and Raffaele were convicted of) then they will leave evidence showing three people did it, and that Rudy knows that if only one person does it then they will leave evidence showing one person did it.

When he made his statement, Rudy thought that the evidence in the murder room would show that one person murdered Meredith.

Third, the scene he describs is not consistent with one single murderer: it is a scenario consistent with the physical traces of two males, the intruder and himself. Plus Amanda who stole money from Merediths drawer.

This is not a relevant response. If Rudy knew that investigators would likely find evidence that he and two others were present then his initial story would have included two other people.

He didn't know yet of the non miraculous finding of nailing evidence like the DNA of Sollecito and the luminol bare footprints.

This too is irrelevant. (Also we have already whacked these moles. The luminol footprints are evidence of nothing, and the bra hook DNA trace does not meet minimal standards for properly collected forensic evidence).

 

[Mary_H]

Wow. The Last Vampire? Is that seriously what all the fuss was about? Zillions of people own that. It's mainstream.

There was a big controversy about manga in Italy as a result of some pronouncements by a psychologist named Vera Slepoj. One blogger wrote:

Italian media just love Vera Slepoj. A famed psychologist who built a career by demonizing videogames, attacking them, trivializing them, without even bothering to playing them. Not an easy task, and yet, Vera Slepoj made it big. Every time a controversial game comes out, the major media outlets publish her opinions, which are invariable vitriolic (interestingly enough, they never change, I mean, if ain't broken, don't fix it - and she definitely does not want to fix it).

mbf.blogs.com/mbf/2004/week45/

In 1997, Slepoj was taken seriously when she proclaimed that Sailor Moon might interfere with boys' sexual development:

* In Italy the anime was blamed by some psychologists and parents' associations because of its violent scenes and sexual references which, in their opinion, made it unfit for a young audience. In 1997 the psychologist Vera Slepoj declared that the last season would seriously compromise children's sexual identity, because of the Three Lights' sex change when they transformed into Sailor Senshi. Because of this, there were a number of changes which altered the storyline and affected the popularity of the series, one of which was that the Sailor Starlights were the twin sisters of the Three Lights. This change, however, did not occur until episode 188.

http://www.wikimoon.org/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon_in_Italy

In the Italian dub of Sailor Moon Sailor Stars, the Starlights' sex switching was not present. Instead the Sailor Starlights were said to be the twin sisters of the Three Lights. This explanation was added to the Italian dub after Vera Slepoj, a psychologist, claimed that Sailor Moon made young boys become homosexual.[4]

http://wikimoon.org/index.php?title=Sailor_Starlights

Interestingly, Vera Slepoj was scheduled to testify in the original trial:

Vera Slepoj : A psychologist who was supposed to testify at the trial on Amanda's character. Her testimony was requested by Patrick Lumumba and his lawyer Pacelli, but refused by the court.

http://maxlamontagne.blogspot.com/

 

[Mary_H]

More on Vera

This is an excerpt from an interview in Il Giornale with Vera Slepoj dated two weeks after the murder. Slepoj is comparing the case of Alberto Stasi to the Perugia case:

Il Giornale, 15 November 2007

"....Young people who commit these crimes live in a world-infantile narcissistic released by reality and its ethical and moral codes. Are attracted to by strong emotions such as drugs, alcohol, sex and extreme violence that act as antidepressants to a mismatch similar to schizophrenia. Being more connected to their internal drives to the reality that, paradoxically, the place makes little difference, survive in their delirium."

"....If we go back to Perugia. The most desperate seems Lumumba, the African ...I believe it. Compared to a western culture more and more sick, the foreigner comes from a life in which values such as family, spirituality and the opinion of the community still have a deep meaning. Who does not respect them is a traitor."

Original article is in Italian:

www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=220620&START
=0&2col=

It's odd that she seemed to assume Patrick was guilty at first, but then was going to appear as an expert for him at trial.