Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I used to have a French picnic knife, and it was much smaller than Raffaele's kitchen knife. It had a folding blade, much more practical for picnics.

I'll forgive them if they leave the knife at home, as long as they remember the wine.

And a corkscrew.

 

[Mary_H]

I used to have a French picnic knife, and it was much smaller than Raffaele's kitchen knife. It had a folding blade, much more practical for picnics.

Oh, well, if it's practicality you want -- some people prepare the picnic meal before leaving the house.

 

[Alt+F4]

Doesn't it bother you that the judges, or Mignini for that matter, couldn't decide on one theory?

They do have one theory - all three, together, committed the murder.

 

[Mary_H]

They do have one theory - all three, together, committed the murder.

That sums it up perfectly. "We don't care how they did it, we just know they did it."

 

[Alt+F4]

That sums it up perfectly. "We don't care how they did it, we just know they did it."

The prosecution's theory was that all three together committed the murder. That's the case they presented. The jury agreed. You make it seem like there was no trial and the defense didn't get the opportunity to present any evidence.

 

[christianahannah]

How would Sollecito (or anyone, for that matter) be able to grab the hook of the clasp while the bra was still being worn. The hooks are covered by material. All the evidence suggests that whoever removed the bra tried to simply pull it apart by grabbing the material either side of the clasp area. The bending of the hook supports this. And, as Charlie has mentioned, it may well be that the material near the clasp actually tore free, rather than being cut free. If so, this lends even more weight to the theory that someone pulled very hard on the rear material near to the shoulder straps (making the hook bend), but that the material ripped before the hooks failed.

Anyhow, regardless of whether the bra tore apart or was cut apart, there's no reason why anyone would have been placing their fingers onto the hooks themselves. If they had indeed bothered to lift up the flap of material to expose the hooks, they would have seen how the hooks engaged, and would have removed the bra in the conventional way - by pushing the two sides together to disengage the hooks. The very fact that the bra was instead either ripped or cut open strongly indicates that whoever removed it never got as far as examining the hooks.

Well actually, there is a little part of the hooks exposed when fastened (this is true with all of my bras), it is the rounded (top) part of the hooks. The bra material doesn't completely cover over the hooks. You don't have to place your fingers into the hooks themsleves and there really isn't any flap to lift up. The hooks are on the very edge/end of the clasp.

As far as tearing or ripping of the clasp by force, the stitches around the clasp on my bras are so tight I can't imagine anyone being able to rip that piece of material free.

There is the possibility that Meredith's bra was structured differently than mine, but even so, I think the police/forensic scientist would be able to tell the difference between a cut and a tear.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have caught....in the wind....a reprise of the nonsense about Knox and her mother being at fault for not contacting the police - either via the prison (Knox) or *ahem* via hotel receptionists (her mother) - to let them know that Lumumba was in fact innocent.

Unfortunately, those who blithely make this criticism completely fail to understand one rather important thing: if Knox had nothing to do with the crime, then how could she possibly know whether Lumumba had had anything to do with it or not? It's not as if she was actually with Lumumba during the time surrounding the murder. And even though she knew from the texts exchange that he was working in Le Chic that night, they all took place before 9pm, so she couldn't possibly know whether he'd left his bar for an hour or so, during which time he'd committed the murder.

I believe that the police told her that they "knew" Lumumba was involved, and that they also "knew" that Knox had met up with him that night (remember De Felice's unintentionally-revealing comment in the press conference?). It's therefore completely reasonable to think that Knox might have thought that the police had some concrete evidence against Lumumba, which they weren't sharing with her. It's therefore also reasonable that Knox might have concluded that the police were wrong about her involvement in the murder, but that they might be right about Lumumba's involvement.

When you throw into the mix the strong suggestion that the police (and the interpreter!) managed to convince Knox that she'd forced herself to forget the trauma of that night (which they told her was not uncommon in such circumstances), she would undoubtedly have still been extremely confused in her own mind as to what was real and what was imagined. She was therefore in no position whatsoever to tell the police that Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder - since not only could she not be sure about his non-involvement if she hadn't been involved herself, but she also clearly doubted her own mind over the whole issue of what actually happened.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The prosecution's theory was that all three together committed the murder. That's the case they presented. The jury agreed. You make it seem like there was no trial and the defense didn't get the opportunity to present any evidence.

Hi, Alt+F4. You, on the other hand make it sound like there were absolutely no controversy as to the investigators and prosecution conduct or the quality of the evidence.

You cannot construct even a single hypothetical scenario that would accommodate the findings on which the jury agreed. Neither can Massei.
Doesn't it concern you a tiniest bit?

 

[pilot padron]

That sums it up perfectly. "We don't care how they did it, we just know they did it."

Uhhhhh, Mary, may I observe...

Unlike USA trials, Judge Massei 'cared enough' to spend 3 months writing 427 pages to tell you and the rest of the world precisely how and why the Jurors unanimously concluded that 'they did it'.

Fully cognizant of how much of the current 'arguing' here has been reduced to only 'innocenters' offering 'atta boys' to each other, never the less, your argument above is unusually not only inaccurate and disrespectful, but absolutely illogical.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hi, Alt+F4. You, on the other hand make it sound like there were absolutely no controversy as to the investigators and prosecution conduct or the quality of the evidence.

Of course there was controversy. Criminal trials are by design adversarial. The prosecution presents their case, the defense presents their case, the jury deliberates the evidence and renders a verdict. In what criminal prosecution hasn't there been controversy?

You cannot construct even a single hypothetical scenario that would accommodate the findings on which the jury agreed. Neither can Massei. Doesn't it concern you a tiniest bit?

I have. I don't agree with all of Massei opinions/rational but it's not my opinion that matters.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well actually, there is a little part of the hooks exposed when fastened (this is true with all of my bras), it is the rounded (top) part of the hooks. The bra material doesn't completely cover over the hooks. You don't have to place your fingers into the hooks themsleves and there really isn't any flap to lift up. The hooks are on the very edge/end of the clasp.

As far as tearing or ripping of the clasp by force, the stitches around the clasp on my bras are so tight I can't imagine anyone being able to rip that piece of material free.

There is the possibility that Meredith's bra was structured differently than mine, but even so, I think the police/forensic scientist would be able to tell the difference between a cut and a tear.

But none of the hook is properly exposed when the bra is fastened - one still has to displace the overhanging material to access even the very small area of the hook (where the rounded part attaches to the bra) that is even touchable. With Meredith's bra, it looks as though the hooks were pulled outwards from their proper position owing to the pulling pressure. I'm guessing that the swab which collected Sollecito's DNA wasn't localised to one particular part of the hook, which is a shame.

I do think it's interesting that the photos of the bra show quite clearly that the clasp piece was removed at a seam area, and that the detachment was perfectly parallel to the seam stitches. Like you, I would hope that the forensics team would be able to tell between a tear and a cut, but prior experience leads me to be unable to place blind trust in the forensics teams in this case. These close-up photos of the clasp certainly make it look as if it might have given way at the seam where the clasp area attaches to the main back of the bra:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendryclasp.html

 

[LondonJohn]

Uhhhhh, Mary, may I observe...

Unlike USA trials, Judge Massei 'cared enough' to spend 3 months writing 427 pages to tell you and the rest of the world precisely how and why the Jurors unanimously concluded that 'they did it'.

Fully cognizant of how much of the current 'arguing' here has been reduced to only 'innocenters' offering 'atta boys' to each other, never the less, your argument above is unusually not only inaccurate and disrespectful, but absolutely illogical.

Massei had no choice. He was bound by law to write the sentencing report. And he made a right hash of it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Massei had no choice. He was bound by law to write the sentencing report. And he made a right hash of it.

Massei actually obeyed a law? I thought he was above all law. Who would have thunk it!

 

[LondonJohn]

Massei actually obeys the law? I thought he was above all law. Who would have thunk it!

As so often, you've completely missed the point. "Pilot Padron" had written that Massei had cared enough to write the report. I was pointing out that whether he cared about writing the report or not was immaterial - he HAD to write it.

 

[Alt+F4]

As so often, you've completely missed the point. "Pilot Padron" had written that Massei had cared enough to write the report. I was pointing out that whether he cared about writing the report or not was immaterial - he HAD to write it.

Why did he HAVE to write it? Who was forcing him to?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why did he HAVE to write it? Who was forcing him to?

What?

The Italian judicial codes were obliging him to. You really ought to stop now....

ETA If Massei had neglected to write the report within the specified time limit after the sentencing, the sentences would have been rendered invalid.

 

[Kaosium]

Massei actually obeyed a law? I thought he was above all law. Who would have thunk it!

Massei isn't the diabolical madman, that's Mignini. Massei is Igor.

Names that start with 'M' and end in 'I' are far too prevalent in this case, I can understand the confusion.

 

[pilot padron]

Massei had no choice. He was bound by law to write the sentencing report. And he made a right hash of it.

Uhhhh ???

He *had* to write 427 pages and *take 3 months of careful construction* to produce it ??

Really ???

Per chance would not a one page 2 or 3 paragraph uncaring effort satisfy the Italian law that you seem now so suddenly and uncharacteristically impressed with ?

Who, as you suggest 'should really stop now' ??

 

[Alt+F4]

Massei isn't the diabolical madman, that's Mignini. Massei is Igor.

Names that start with 'M' and end in 'I' are far too prevalent in this case, I can understand the confusion.

You're right, I did confuse who the "diabolical madman" is. The majority of Italian names end in a vowel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Uhhhh ???

He *had* to write 427 pages and *take 3 months of careful construction* to produce it ??

Really ???

Per chance would not a one page 2 or 3 paragraph uncaring effort satisfy the Italian law that you seem now so suddenly and uncharacteristically impressed with ?

Where did I say I was impressed with the law? I just pointed out that it's the law. And judges in criminal cases tend to follow their own laws and regulations. Otherwise they lose their jobs.

And no, a one-pager would not have sufficed, as you well know. The sentencing report is supposed to set out the entire reasoning behind the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed. The sad irony in this case, of course, is that Massei's effort was mostly nothing more than a rehash of the evidence discussed in court, with very little of the report actually dedicated to the purpose for which it was designed - explaining WHY the court accepted certain pieces of evidence, discarded others, and came to the decisions that it reached.