Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Onofarar]

When a family member's advice is needed about a serious situation there is no inappropriate hour.

Absolutely correct. Our law school student 22 year old still calls us in the middle of the night for reasons must less serious than AK's call to her mother. AND we are in the same time zone!

 

[Onofarar]

Odd, is it not, that Amanda, during her interminable examination at trial relative to her series of compromising declarations, nowhere claims the police falsely represented to her that they had a witness, photographic evidence, a bloody footprint or any other such evidence placing her at the scene. And Raf, in his plaints of "psychological torture" (stripping and cuffing), mentions nothing along these lines, not even that they told him they had enough to "nail" Amanda. "But what if they ..." just doesn't find support in the record.

Pretty hard to find anything at trial from RS he didn't testify.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Don't fool yourself, the prosecution still has to prove guilt in the 2nd trial. Judge all but confirmed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt at this time. He did this by making them prove the dna results were correct. Plus all the other things that will get tested if the DNA results come back the same. If they test the stain and it comes back semen and not sollecito's, Knox and Sollecito will walk. Plus Rudy could walk if its not his.

There will be no way to determine the 'age' of the stain

 

[Onofarar]

The defense has to prove the prosecution for wrong, thats their job.
Until now they were not able to do this.
Now I think it is the best to wait and see which results are coming from the appeal.

It appears Mr. Columbo did not discuss the finer points of his job with the missus when he was at home. The defense's job IS NOT to prove anything. It is only in Perry Mason novels and TV shows that the defense proves someone other than the defendant committed the crime or even that the prosecution's case is flawed. The concept of reasonable doubt which Mr. Columbo apparently did not explain is still eluding you. The defense has only to establish reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Yes this means guilty persons occasionally go free - OJ Simpson being the poster child of this result. Better the occasional freed guilty person than the travesty we have here of two innocent people jailed.

 

[Onofarar]

See, to me this is actually more indicative of a total lack of conspiracy or pre-interview planning by Knox and Sollecito (which surely one would have expected from such cunning and manipulative murderers......).

It seems entirely likely to me that the following chain of events happened:

1) Sollecito and Knox were both comfortable in the knowledge that they'd been at Sollecito's apartment all evening/night on 1st November.

2) In Sollecito's police interrogation on the late evening of 5th November, he repeated this to the police.

3) The police then told him that they "knew" that Knox had actually left his apartment that night - they told him they had conclusive evidence (CCTV, phone calls/texts) to prove that she was not with Sollecito all night.

4) Sollecito had no reason to doubt the police's "certainty" - evidently backed up with hard evidence - that Knox had left his apartment that night.

5) He therefore had to start to doubt his own recollection of events, and - more specifically - he had to start to doubt Knox's veracity, since she'd told him she was in his apartment all night, but the police now told him they were sure that she'd left his apartment.

6) Sollecito's upbringing, coupled with the fact that he'd only known Knox for six days, meant that he momentarily chose - in the psychological pressure of a police interrogation - to believe the police over Knox. He therefore told the police that yes, Knox must have left his apartment that night.

7) Within a day or so, Sollecito realised that upon reflection his memory hadn't failed him: Knox had been with him all night, and the police must have been incorrect.

8) And that's the version that he's stuck to ever since.


PS A belated happy Christmas/holidays to all (of all denominations and viewpoints!). I hope everyone had a safe, peaceful time with those they love and care for.

With regard to your last point (#8) - there have been many unflattering comments about Raffaelle and how his actions were naive, stupid, drug induced etc. But one thing you have to admire him for is his support of what AK did and where she was as he knew it before Nov 5th and to which he returned shortly after Nov 6th.
Had he just thrown Amanda to the "wolves" and agreed with the police she had left the cottage that night he would be a free man today and would be firmly esconed in the parthenon of "superwitnesses" with Toto, Mr. Q and Nara C.

 

[TomCH]

I believe that was what was done in the 1st trial, "Guilty as Charged" - now it is up to the defence to try and prove their innocents during this appeal.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. It is again up to the prosecution to prove their case.

But, no worry, they will!

 

[Onofarar]

I believe that was what was done in the 1st trial, "Guilty as Charged" - now it is up to the defence to try and prove their innocents during this appeal.

Hmm ... I think not. Many here have stated that this appeal level is a trial de novo - already the chief judge has ordered an independent review of cetain DNA evidence. Curatolo will be re-examined on the stand. IIRC - Other reviews may be done and testimonies taken - the judge has reserved decision on this. The standard of reasonable doubt applies here the appeals court could overturn the original verdict based on its view of the level of reasonable doubt - no need to "prove" innocence is required.
BTW - IF this case goes to the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court) the most likely technicality to be applied to overturn guilty verdicts will be ... ta da! - misapplication of the principle of reasonable doubt.

 

[LondonJohn]

When referring to me as a "guilter" I am assuming that you are using the locally popular definition of that term, i.e. "Anyone who is not utterly convinced of Knox and Sollecito's total innocence or complicity, and who does not willfully refuse to so much as contemplate anything that might suggest otherwise."

If so then I must admit to falling within that group. Otherwise you might need to find some narrower brushes to paint with.

Why do you think that this is what's meant by the term "guilter"? I don't know if it means that to some people here, but to me it means no more and no less than "a person who believes that the guilty verdicts for Knox and Sollecito are the correct verdicts" - and therefore by extension "a person who believes that Knox and Sollecito definitely committed these crimes, and that the prosecution met its burden of proof in this regard in the first trial".

After all, by your definition, I would be a guilter: I'm not utterly convinced of their total innocence or complicity, but I am pretty confident that they should not have been convicted of any crime. There's a large and important difference. May I refer you once again to the concept of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof?

 

[Justinian2]

Summary of my posts:

What my arguments and posts here have shown:
1.) A twenty year old of average strength could have gained the position of the lawyer in the photo, taken a brick sized rock out of his backpack, smashed it through the window, opened the window, climbed one step higher, with the aid of the open shutter, lifted his free leg to the sill, slid in to his crotch, and then climbed into the window. The glass distribution would be similar to what was found.
2.) Blood is hard to remove. One has to soak clothes in cold water and bleach overnight and then wash normally the next day. One has to not only know this technique, but has to have time to do this. The police did not the next day find any soaking clothes. Hence it is unlikely the accused did the crime and had time to clean up.
3.) There is tremendous variation in the ToD calculation from temperature readings taken as late as those of MK. The police could NOT have placed an accurate ToD from the temperature calculations (+/- several hours)
4.) One cannot scream when scared to death – the articulation is low and hoarse. One also cannot scream with MK’s throat wounds. That MK made an audible ‘scream’ is unlikely.
5.) None of the killers profiled in a recent study of 36 killers funded by the DOJ had a happy childhood and a stable relationship with others as Amanda and Raffaele did.
6.) Forensic labs have been notoriously bad before. The lab used for DNA analysis in the killing of MK could certainly have been sufficiently incompetent to produce mistakes such as the noted ‘evidence’.
7.) One molecule of DNA weighs 6 trillionths of a gram – about the amount of DNA material allegedly found on the double DNA knife.
8.) Police have tested to have personality traits similar to criminals. Furthermore, people tend to follow the instructions of others higher up in their hierarchy. Italian slander laws make it virtually impossible to blame the police. Therefore, police mischief is very possible.

These are the results of my posts and the replies to those posts. The conclusions of others are invited.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hmm ... I think not. Many here have stated that this appeal level is a trial de novo - already the chief judge has ordered an independent review of cetain DNA evidence. Curatolo will be re-examined on the stand. IIRC - Other reviews may be done and testimonies taken - the judge has reserved decision on this. The standard of reasonable doubt applies here the appeals court could overturn the original verdict based on its view of the level of reasonable doubt - no need to "prove" innocence is required.
BTW - IF this case goes to the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court) the most likely technicality to be applied to overturn guilty verdicts will be ... ta da! - misapplication of the principle of reasonable doubt.

There is no doubt that the appeals court applied this principle in ordering the new testing and testimony regarding Curatolo.

The jury wrote in its motivation: "Respect for the rule laid down in Article 533 (imposition of sentence only if the accused is guilty of the offense complained of beyond a reasonable doubt) does not fully share the Court's decisions d 'Assizes of the first degree .... "

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhjdWJCno4l7lTj4aPx5pXMah_ir1g

 

[quadraginta]

Why do you think that this is what's meant by the term "guilter"? I don't know if it means that to some people here, but to me it means no more and no less than "a person who believes that the guilty verdicts for Knox and Sollecito are the correct verdicts" - and therefore by extension "a person who believes that Knox and Sollecito definitely committed these crimes, and that the prosecution met its burden of proof in this regard in the first trial".

After all, by your definition, I would be a guilter: I'm not utterly convinced of their total innocence or complicity, but I am pretty confident that they should not have been convicted of any crime. There's a large and important difference. May I refer you once again to the concept of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof?

Sure. Refer away, if it makes you feel better.

Since you are such a relative newcomer to these threads (having only been here since May) I'll grant that you may not have been around for all of the many extensive discussions on the topic of reasonable doubt as contrasted with actual innocence, otherwise I expect that you wouldn't make comments like that. Although I'm pretty sure it's gone around several times since you joined here. Especially since (IIRC) your very earliest posts here addressed that particular issue.

"Guilter" has been generally used by most self-described "innocenti" here to refer to nearly anyone who fails to agree lock, stock, and barrel with every hare-brained rationalization used to explain away anything that appears to be inconvenient to the defense case. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that those people who are willing to use the term at all, and who use it in a noticeably pejorative fashion have a personal definition which is very close to the one I offered.

If that isn't the meaning which you personally attach to it then that's just dandy. Be sure you make the distinction clear if you should choose to use the term yourself, though, because if you don't then there is apt to be some confusion.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hi all...trying to catch up here. Has the appeals court made a determination on the Naruto claim and the statments of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello? Thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure. Refer away, if it makes you feel better.

Since you are such a relative newcomer to these threads (having only been here since May) I'll grant that you may not have been around for all of the many extensive discussions on the topic of reasonable doubt as contrasted with actual innocence, otherwise I expect that you wouldn't make comments like that. Although I'm pretty sure it's gone around several times since you joined here. Especially since (IIRC) your very earliest posts here addressed that particular issue.

"Guilter" has been generally used by most self-described "innocenti" here to refer to nearly anyone who fails to agree lock, stock, and barrel with every hare-brained rationalization used to explain away anything that appears to be inconvenient to the defense case. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that those people who are willing to use the term at all, and who use it in a noticeably pejorative fashion have a personal definition which is very close to the one I offered.

If that isn't the meaning which you personally attach to it then that's just dandy. Be sure you make the distinction clear if you should choose to use the term yourself, though, because if you don't then there is apt to be some confusion.

So should I be described as a guilter then? Because from your definition (and, according to you, from the "generally accepted" definition), I most assuredly meet that description. Who knew that I was actually a guilter?!

And thanks for explaining to me why I was wrong to bring up the concepts of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof! I do appreciate being lectured on such matters by an "old-timer" such as you, just as I appreciate you sharing your assumed views on what the term "guilter" actually means.

By the way, what would be an appropriate term for people who believe that the convictions of Knox and Sollecito are correct and safe?

"Belief-in-guilt-ers"?

"Belief-in-the-validity-and-safety-of-Knox's-and-Sollecito's-guilt-ers"?

Or perhaps any suggestions of your own?

PS The correct Italian term is "innocentisti", just FYI. And also FYI, I'm not a member of the innocentisti. I'm a "not-guilter".

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi all...trying to catch up here. Has the appeals court made a determination on the Naruto claim and the statments of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello? Thanks.

The court doesn't sit again until well into the New Year (22nd January IIRC).

 

[Alt+F4]

By the way, what would be an appropriate term for people who believe that the convictions of Knox and Sollecito are correct and safe?

Why is any term needed at all?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why is any term needed at all?

It's not "needed" at all. But it's useful to have an acceptable shorthand, instead of having to write something such as "those who believe that the guilty verdicts against Knox and Sollecito are correct and safe" every time. I had thought that the term "guilter" achieved that end, but Quadraginta now tells me that I'm wrong, and that in fact the term "guilter" is offensive and pejorative.

So I'm wondering whether there's an acceptable alternative, that's all.

 

[Matthew Best]

"Guilter" has been generally used by most self-described "innocenti" here to refer to nearly anyone who fails to agree lock, stock, and barrel with every hare-brained rationalization used to explain away anything that appears to be inconvenient to the defense case.

No, it hasn't.

 

[Matthew Best]

When referring to me as a "guilter" I am assuming that you are using the locally popular definition of that term, i.e. "Anyone who is not utterly convinced of Knox and Sollecito's total innocence or complicity, and who does not willfully refuse to so much as contemplate anything that might suggest otherwise."

You are saying that the local definition of "guilter" is anyone who hasn't made up their mind about the case, and this definition would thus exclude anyone who is convinced of guilt. This is ludicrous on its face.

The only sensible meaning that "guilter" can possibly have is "people who think that Knox & Sollecito are guilty".

 

[Kaosium]

Here it is translated--kinda!

I've managed to get a translation of the pages posted by Rose a few pages back. This is pages 8 and 10 (renumbered 7 & 9) of the Matteini report that deals with Raffaele's statements in the Questura, and some of Amanda's. Page nine (renumbered eight) just basically deals with the seizure of Raffaele's shoes, so this is what is relevant to Raffaele's interrogation and statements he made.

Not that it did me much good, as my mind has been reduced to a puddle of warm goo just trying to read it. This must be what Yoda on quaaludes would sound like. I tried to format it to ease comprehension, but if you notice these aren't actually paragraphs below, they're sentences. Is there some sort of cultural aversion to the lowly 'period' amongst Italian speakers?

I'm pretty sure this has been posted before on this thread, did anyone figure out for certain just what is being said here? From what I get out of it, at 10:40 PM of the interrogation on November 5th, Raffaele must have been confronted with the police's mistaken assumption that Amanda couldn't have been there, having been caught on the CCTV camera at her place, so Raffaele's story becomes that Amanda left around 8:30 to 9:00 PM to go to 'Le Chic' to meet friends.

Then it gets weird, but I get the vague impression he thinks she might have been gone two hours and then came home when they slept until 10:00 AM the next morning. In this version he receives a phone call from his dad. Then there's something about him justifying it on assumptions made by Knox being the reason he'd previously reported things that weren't 'true.'

Then it gets really weird. This must be Amanda's part, though they refer to her as a 'he' throughout, which must be that curious quality of google-translated Italian. I don't know what they could be referring to happening on November 6th at 8:30 PM, is this the date of another statement of hers? Is it just a typo and should be November first? I'm guessing the latter, as it then goes into the text message sent by Patrick on the first, and they end up on the basketball courts and then back in the apartment where Patrick has sex with Meredith and something about 'threatened to kill Patrick' and she doesn't hear Meredith scream, as "spaventatasi had my ears, imagining what might have happened." Spaventatasi? They just made that word up! It sounds like pasta. She's not sure if Raffaele is with her, and she wakes up next to him in bed.

Then I guess this is Raffaele's 'recantation,' he says they're together all night, though he can't be sure if she went out, and in this version he's not sure if he talked with his dad at 11:00, or if he just said that to establish his whereabouts in previous versions. Let me guess, the Perugian police misread the phone records again and forced him to say that?

At any rate he seems to think he had trouble communicating with the Perugian police due to accent, and 'influence from the girl' about what she said to the postal police.

Amanda on the 6th is saying that Raffaele was with her all night in the course of 'previous declarations' and then something about having smoked hash with Patrick in the afternoon and being confused as she didn't often partake of it?












(page 8 - renumbered 7)

On November 5, 2007 at 22:40 was again heard Sollecito Rafaele which changed his version of events saying that the evening of the first of November. after Meredith had left the house, he had spoken with Amanda Knox until 18.00 when both had left the apartment I went to the center, at approximately 20.30 - 21.00 at Knox had left saying she would go at the Le Chic pub to meet the friends while the same was back in his home, which had received until 23.00 call from the father on the user setting, which was held on the computer to alter two hours making a reed that the girl was probably towards the back one, then together we were awakened at 10.00 am when Amanda had left home to return to the path of Pregola, I therefore repeat what has been previously declared and justified his conduct on this Knox had been the assumption that convinced him to report the circumstances to be untrue.

For its part, Amanda Knox on 6 November, at 20.30, while he was at the home of Dunning Rafael, received a message on your phone from that sent to Patrick, owner of the pub Le Chic, where she was working, with which the predicted warned that evening the premises would remain closed and therefore should not have run, the same answered that they would be seen later, then left the house saying he was going to urge the work while at the contract he brought at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana; here Patrick met with whom he went away in the apartment do not remember if Pergola where Meredith was already present or if the same had come shortly after, adding however that, despite the recollections confused when he took the afternoon hashsish, Patrick so secluded Meredith, which fell in love, in the bedroom where they had sex, which remember if it had been previously threatened but that was to kill Patrick; stated that in those moments that he could not quantify heard Meredith scream so much that spaventatasi had my ears, imagining what might have happened.

Reported still not sure if it was also Sollecito Rafaele but the next morning you was found sleeping at the home of her boyfriend in her bed: then confirmed the statements already made regarding the course of events from 10.00 in the morning, when it was wake up, until the Postal Police.



(page 10 - renumbered 9)

It follows that the statements made in time by Amanda Knox, as a person informed of the facts can be used both against Rafael that urge against Diya
Lumunda and in turn urge Rafaele statements can be used in against Amanda Knox.

Clarify this point you can see that urge Rafael, at the hearing validation
claimed to have spent the whole night between the 1st and 2nd November with Knox Amnada (sic) having made back into their home at approximately 20:00 to 20:30, to have dinner with the girl, having realized when messages on the mobile phone of the girl, he knew from that that that evening was to go to work at the pub Le Chic, as she was communicated through a text message sent to his mobile phone and they then go to sleep together to wake up the next morning around 10:00 am when Amanda left the house for
Returning to Via della Pergola to take a shower, always during the same statements added, indeed, could not remember if Knox was out or not, but insisted nevertheless not have left home had he stayed at the computer, much to receiving a phone call from parent to 23.00, phone call soon after stated that he did not remember whether he had specifically received or whether he had reported receiving it, to corroborate the circumstances relevant to his stay at home.

As you can see the reminder again gave a different version than the dates
previously, on the conduct held by Knox on the night of 1 and 2 November,
attributing responsibility for such behavior to the influence exerted on it by
girl as a result of statements made by this immediacy to the police post
intervened on the spot, even for his difficulty to speak and understand Italian, like on the other hand indicated that he would urge the same.
Amanda Knox meanwhile, on 6 November, while in the course of previous declarations reported that Sollecito avec spent the entire night with her.

claimed to not remember if I call This was the night between 1 and 2 November at the apartment on Via Pergola, along with Patrick had taken hashish in the afternoon and having so remember not confused be used to make use of these substances, but confirmed that the reminder was definitely with her morning after having woken up at 10.00 on his bed.

 

[quadraginta]

So should I be described as a guilter then? Because from your definition (and, according to you, from the "generally accepted" definition), I most assuredly meet that description. Who knew that I was actually a guilter?!

I don't know what you should be described as, LJ. I was responding to Justinian's application of the term to me, and I am willing to let his posting record stand for itself when exercising my expectations of his meaning. Since it is not a term I employ in a descriptive fashion about others in this thread, I don't expect that you should have any issues about how I might mean it where you are concerned.

After all, my own complaint with Justinian was the same that you are making here. I do not accept his classification as applied to me.

And thanks for explaining to me why I was wrong to bring up the concepts of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof! I do appreciate being lectured on such matters by an "old-timer" such as you, just as I appreciate you sharing your assumed views on what the term "guilter" actually means.

You're more than welcome, although I don't understand why you assumed I implied you were "wrong". I was merely expressing surprise that you felt it to be needful to bring that particular topic to my attention. After all, you wouldn't expect me to assume you were being patronizing, repetitive, and pedantic, would you?

By the way, what would be an appropriate term for people who believe that the convictions of Knox and Sollecito are correct and safe?

I have no idea, nor do I see a pressing need for one. Why is such a label useful in these discussions? It only serves to increase polarization in an already over-polarized environment.

"Belief-in-guilt-ers"?

"Belief-in-the-validity-and-safety-of-Knox's-and-Sollecito's-guilt-ers"?

Or perhaps any suggestions of your own?

I suggest that it is not useful to the discussion to try and pigeonhole people into convenient, pre-defined groups, especially when the intent (by some posters, at least) is to use those pigeonholes in an intentionally derogatory and dismissive manner.

PS The correct Italian term is "innocentisti", just FYI. And also FYI, I'm not a member of the innocentisti. I'm a "not-guilter".

Mea culpa, ... , etc. I'll try to do better. Since I don't normally use that term either I'm not particularly adept with it.

Early on in these threads I was roundly chastised by some who were finding fault with the Knox/Sollecito verdict for employing the expression "Knox advocates" to refer to some of those posters who were defending her. I was a bit surprised, since I thought that to be a relatively innocuous and pragmatic description.

Some of them are now among the proud, self-proclaimed "innocentisti". My, how things change.

You may go ahead and call yourself anything you like. I certainly won't object. If you decide to find fault with the labels someone else applies to you I could easily be the first to come to your defense. Just give me a holler.