Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

You told them WHAT?

Well, you remember when we talked on the phone, you said I should just tell the truth.

I told you to say that you had been lying to the police? (fingertips to forehead) Let me think. And the girl, what is she saying?

I'm pretty sure she's saying she was with me all night.

Raffaele, my child, I have ethical obligations here. I can't tell you what to say, but it would have been so much better if you hadn't changed your story.

Really? You know, I've been having a lot of trouble remembering things lately. I just can't seem to focus. Everything is so hazy. So much pressure. Now that I've had more time to think on it, though, it seems to me that she was with me all night.

(Sternly) Are you sure?

Absolutely.

Yes, it's all really easy from the safety of a warm, comfortable armchair, with no externalities and no threats. With no police officers telling you that they can prove that your memory is wrong, and also that your girlfriend must have lied to you when she corroborated your memory that she'd been with you all night. With the benefit of hindsight. With no repercussions. It's all really easy now, isn't it?

 

[Poppy1016]

Hi everyone. I am a new member here,although I read the posts here often. I must say the level of intelligence here regarding the case is astounding. I have read Candace Dempsey's book and blogs on both sides of the issue. In my mind AK and RS are at the very least not guilty by reasonable doubt. I will restrain from posting more until i get a better grasp of the site. Great job all. Keep up the good work.

 

[el buscador]

I've had a quick look on Google for "satanic" AND "kercher" and "satanic" AND "knox" and also "satanic" AND "mignini" restricting the dates to November 2007 without success. The time restriction function isn't great, but I'm struggling to find anything. My recollection of the story in the UK is that an orgy, or sexual encounter gone wrong was mentioned, but nothing about Satanism.

Here is a fairly typical article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece

At some point I have seen a written version of the story I heard on the news in early November 2007. I'll see if I can find it but it will be tomorrow before I can look. I think, here in the states, the Halloween satanic/ritualistic version of murder took hold of the imaginations of the news media.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi everyone. I am a new member here,although I read the posts here often. I must say the level of intelligence here regarding the case is astounding. I have read Candace Dempsey's book and blogs on both sides of the issue. In my mind AK and RS are at the very least not guilty by reasonable doubt. I will restrain from posting more until i get a better grasp of the site. Great job all. Keep up the good work.

Welcome Poppy!

Please don't find it intimidating to contribute - I'd say that most if not all of us here are very happy to see new posters, and we welcome all points of view and levels of knowledge. I look forward to engaging with you.

John

 

[shuttlt]

Why have you restricted the dates to just that one month?

Because it was claimed on the 6th or 7th of November this claim was already being made. I hoped it would be clearer where it originated if it was made so early and hence restricted the search. A year later the whole Satanic thing had been repeated and repeated. At least three of your four links just go back to the same quote from the defence lawyer in 2008 I linked to earlier. Clearly English as well as US media have used the word "Satanic" in relation to the case. What is their source is the question I am trying to get to the bottom of.

 

[shuttlt]

Here is one from a year after the murder, in which Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, claims the prosecution made a case for a Satanic ritual:

From The Sunday Times
October 19, 2008
Amanda Knox ‘stabbed Meredith Kercher to death in satanic ritual’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4968044.ece

It would be helpful if we had transcripts of the prosecutor's actual case.

Yes, I linked to the Maori quote a short while ago. That is the only halfway solid source I've seen. I'm going to try and find it in, the presumably original, Italian. If on the 6th or 7th of November 2007 the word "Satanic" was already in use I'd be very interested since it clearly pre-dates any confusion from people quoting mediums, Frank Sfarzo or anything else.

 

[shuttlt]

Why are you restricting the dates only to Nov 2007?

Read the post I was responding to and quoted in my post.

 

[Justinian2]

Do you mean he might have brought it with him? Hmmm (as RWVBWL would say).

I have always thought Rudy went in the front door, although I don't think it's impossible he went in through the window. Not with any high-end accessories, though.

A 2x4 with friction tape on either end and a handle in the middle would be a useful tool. Insert it into the window and put the friction tape against the inner sides. Then you could support yourself and easily raise the bar as you climbed. Even a 60 year old like myself could easily gain entry that way (I work out some).

It's possible no tool was needed for a 'yout' like Guede.

 

[shuttlt]

Have you read this?

This isn't just Preston, and it isn't just people who hate him, it's a part of his personality. Frank doesn't hate him, neither does Barbie Nadeau. That's three completely separate sources. Some people make the world more interesting for themselves by thinking in terms of secret societies going back to the ancient Egyptians--which the Freemasons become if you want them to badly enough. It's popular in some circles, ever read an Ian Fleming novel?

Yes, I have now read that perugiashock article. Clearly it is some sort of a source for some kind of mystical interest. It's couched in Franks hyperbolic language where one can't quite be sure what is based on fact and what is based on him floridly and imaginatively expanding upon his theme. Perhaps that's just his style rubbing me up the wrong way. The funny thing about that particular article is how strongly it evoked Mark Anthony's "...Brutus is an honourable man" speech.

My criticisms are that the source is anonymous. We don't know what the case was, or have any context to make a judgement. For all that, I don't dismiss it out of hand.

One further point. You say that they are completely separate sources. Are they? Clearly Frank is aware in 2009 when he wrote that article of the statements made by Maori. I was interested in finding early uses of the word "satanic" to try and get to a time where it wasn't already a meme doing the rounds.

I've never read an Ian Flemming novel, I prefer my spies in the Graham Greene, le Carré style. I've read Kipling, so I'm somewhat acquainted with the whole builders of the pyramids, masonic connection.

 

[billyryan]

No, that has been reserved for later. The first order of business is the DNA re-tests, which includes a review of the methods used to obtain them. Also new witnesses will be introduced to refute Curatolo's claim that he saw Raffaele and Amanda on the night of November first.

It has been speculated that if the DNA evidence is thrown out, and Curatolo discredited, that there simply isn't reason to go on, being as there will be no trace of them at the site whatsoever, and nothing to break their alibi.

At the same time Maresca was saying that the final conviction of Rudy Guede will doom Amanda and Raffaele as he was convicted under the assumption that he had accomplices. Others say that the motivations report on that trial must be issued first to see what determinations of that nature were actually considered by the Supreme Court.



http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/12/dna-study-admitted-for-knox-and.html

There is only one reason why Curatolo lied about seeing Amanda and Raffaele in the car park close to the basketball court watching the cottage on the night of November1 2007,and that is somebody payed him money to do so.His evidence cannot be explained away by saying he remembered the wrong night because Amanda and Raffaele did not spend any of the nights prior to this in the car park watching the cottage either
The defence lawyers probably by now know who payed Curatola to lie,and probably have a very good idea who payed the person who payed him.When the disco owners give evidence that their discos were closed on November1 and the bus drivers say they were nowhere near the car park on the night that Meredith died,their will be only one thing of interest to the court why he lied.


In late January or February a defence lawyer is going to say "Mr Curatola my client has spent over three years in prison this would not have happened only for the lies you told to judge after gudge and it was accepted by the court each time as reliable evidence,but thankfully today your evidence is seen for the lies it is,Mr Curatola I put it to you that you lied to the court in the trial of first instance and on ten other occasions in pre trial hearings because you were paid to do so, would you now tell the court who paid you and how much"


Who knows what Curatola might then say I for one do not believe he has much honour,there is somebody conected to the prosecution with an awful lot to loose if the truth is forced out of Curatola,I would not be surprised if Curatola is one way or another prevented from ever appearing in the witness box again

 

[LondonJohn]

There is only one reason why Curatolo lied about seeing Amanda and Raffaele in the car park close to the basketball court watching the cottage on the night of November1 2007,and that is somebody payed him money to do so.His evidence cannot be explained away by saying he remembered the wrong night because Amanda and Raffaele did not spend any of the nights prior to this in the car park watching the cottage either
The defence lawyers probably by now know who payed Curatola to lie,and probably have a very good idea who payed the person who payed him.When the disco owners give evidence that their discos were closed on November1 and the bus drivers say they were nowhere near the car park on the night that Meredith died,their will be only one thing of interest to the court why he lied.


In late January or February a defence lawyer is going to say "Mr Curatola my client has spent over three years in prison this would not have happened only for the lies you told to judge after gudge and it was accepted by the court each time as reliable evidence,but thankfully today your evidence is seen for the lies it is,Mr Curatola I put it to you that you lied to the court in the trial of first instance and on ten other occasions in pre trial hearings because you were paid to do so, would you now tell the court who paid you and how much"


Who knows what Curatola might then say I for one do not believe he has much honour,there is somebody conected to the prosecution with an awful lot to loose if the truth is forced out of Curatola,I would not be surprised if Curatola is one way or another prevented from ever appearing in the witness box again

I think this is a far-fetched suggestion. I also think that there's a far more logical reason for Curatolo to have "misremembered" in favour of the prosecution: police and city authorities are, as a rule, not terrifically well-disposed towards homeless people. Their inclination is often to get them of the street and out of the way - after all, they are (to many people) a very visible illustration of poverty and a malfunctioning society.

I imagine therefore that Sr Curatolo was very familiar with the Perugia police. I imagine that he was very well aware, after having lived on the streets for some ten years, of the importance of keeping on the right side of the police. He might well have had some previous direct experience of how much the police and other authorities could make his life very difficult if they so chose.

So his decision to assist the police and prosecutors by acting as one of their witnesses might easily be construed as a case of "I scratch your back, you scratch mine". In other words, Curatolo might well reason that helping the police and authorities in the Kercher prosecutions might well result in him being treated benevolently by the police and authorities in his day-to-day life on the street. I believe that this is what most likely prompted his appearance as a witness in this case - whether via an explicit or implicit agreement with the Perugia police.

Now, if only we can wrap up these final Australian wickets and retain the Ashes, I can actually get to bed at something approaching a normal time!

 

[shuttlt]

I admit I was having some fun with you, shuttlt, because your post seemed to validate Chris's claim quite inadvertently. Maybe I shouldn't have been so subtle.

OK. Peace and hugs all round.

Bloggers aren't the ones who introduced the word "Satanic." It was reported in all the news media from the very beginning. Given that so much of the information about the case was provided by the police and the prosecution, who is to say the press didn't receive that word straight from the horse's mouth?

I don't suppose I could trouble you for a link. I am genuinely trying and it would be helpful to my understanding of the whole "Satanic" meme to get such an early reference.

I doubt Raffaele ever thought of the murder as ritualistic. We have it on record (the Micheli report) that Mignini did.

I'm not sure that anybody denies that Mignini believed there were some ritualistic elements. It's some distance from that to saying that it was a Satanic ritual.

Speaking of gratuitously introducing terminology, how is repeating that Mignini suspected a Satanic ritual was behind the murders analogous to calling Amanda a whore?

Oh, I was certainly deliberately gratuitously introducing terminology and in no way would actually describe her in those terms. It seemed to me though that if one were to attribute the claim to Mignini that it was a Satanic ritual based purely on the fact that he is Catholic and hence must necessarily regard the murderers as being inspired by an actual entity called Satan and thereby any ritualistic elements are Satanic rituals, then one might similarly say that from many Biblical perspectives Knox is a whore. Perhaps it's a bit of an awkward fit if she isn't religious herself. If Raffaele is a Catholic (presumably some of the defence lawyers are in any case) the statement about Knox could be put to him. Does that make some kind of sense? Attributing statements to people that have objective connotations (like "satanic ritual") to people based purely on their religious affiliation and what you decide they must then necessarily believe seems to me silly. Particularly when most of the people reading the comments won't be thinking of the term with respect to what ever bit of Catholic dogma you are working from.

My mother is a Catholic and certainly doesn't believe that Satan is abroad getting people to do bad things in day to day life, certainly not in an literal way. Come to think of it, she originally trained as an anthropologist and, while I've heard her use the word "ritual", I can't remember her ever having described a ritual as being satanic, despite her Catholicism. Perhaps she's a bad Catholic.

 

[LondonJohn]

I note with interest that one of the latest "revisions" to be taking place in other places on the internet favoured by those-who-believe-Knox-and Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted is along the lines of "Oh, OK, there might not have been any actual DISCO buses on the night of 1st November 2007, but for sure there were other (city) buses, and it must have been these buses that Curatolo was referring to. No biggie!".

But the problem here is this: Curatolo specifically and explicitly referred to the disco buses. There's no chance whatsoever that he wouldn't have known the difference. He'd lived in that square for some ten years, and would be intimately acquainted with the difference between city buses and the special disco buses. In addition, of course, city buses running between 11-12pm would typically carry a smattering of passengers of all types, whereas the disco buses would typically be crammed full of somewhat loud young people (often in large groups) who would be dressed in "going out" gear. There's simply no way that Curatolo could confuse the two types of bus, let alone the differing types of passenger they would attract.

Curatolo was either honestly mistaken, or he was lying. There's no third option.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I have now read that perugiashock article. Clearly it is some sort of a source for some kind of mystical interest. It's couched in Franks hyperbolic language where one can't quite be sure what is based on fact and what is based on him floridly and imaginatively expanding upon his theme. Perhaps that's just his style rubbing me up the wrong way. The funny thing about that particular article is how strongly it evoked Mark Anthony's "...Brutus is an honourable man" speech.

My criticisms are that the source is anonymous. We don't know what the case was, or have any context to make a judgement. For all that, I don't dismiss it out of hand.

One further point. You say that they are completely separate sources. Are they? Clearly Frank is aware in 2009 when he wrote that article of the statements made by Maori. I was interested in finding early uses of the word "satanic" to try and get to a time where it wasn't already a meme doing the rounds.

I've never read an Ian Flemming novel, I prefer my spies in the Graham Greene, le Carré style. I've read Kipling, so I'm somewhat acquainted with the whole builders of the pyramids, masonic connection.

I remember looking about 6 months or so ago and not finding much if anything in the time near the beginning of this case. I prefer the route Fiona has pointed to on this one. In my opinion Mignini has said, implied, or done plenty of other things deserving of criticism.

Not to get too off topic but I have always wondered how people that have such a strong faith in God and believe in his daily presence in our lives can pretty much ignore the existence of Satan or doubt that there are those that chose to follow an evil path. To me, it seems they are ignoring half of what their faith is based on. My own views would probably be considered a bit of paganism and I have no doubt that on this particular forum the majority have a lot of doubt about the existence of God or Satan or some similar name for a higher being of good or evil. Blessed be to all you atheists and agnosticators reading this.

ETA. Read some of Preston's fiction works and you will find plenty of mysticism and conflict between active forces of good and evil. A few of his books I have read are almost a decent read.

 

[shuttlt]

I believe he told the court something along the lines of:

“was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en. A sexual and sacrificial rite ... In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”

Well, well... I take it you only just found this, rather than having it in your pocket the whole time? Clearly this is the specific quote that Mignini denies having made in the email. Interesting! On the face of it this is by far the best evidence of him talking about Satanic rituals I've seen. I certainly won't quibble about the use of the word Satanic in the context of the quote you cite. I'm off to dig out the original Il Tempo article that seems to be the source for this.

 

[shuttlt]

Many thanks once again, Fiona, for all your hard work.

I remember that post. Fiona is one of the greats.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, today (well yesterday now, my time) - 28th December - would have been Meredith's 25th birthday. (Not, by the way, her 24th birthday, as some people who are supposedly devoted to preserving her memory seem to believe: she was born on 28th December 1985).

PS: Ashes test finally wrapped up now, so it's time for bed......

 

[shuttlt]

Not to get too off topic but I have always wondered how people that have such a strong faith in God and believe in his daily presence in our lives can pretty much ignore the existence of Satan or doubt that there are those that chose to follow an evil path. To me, it seems they are ignoring half of what their faith is based on. My own views would probably be considered a bit of paganism and I have no doubt that on this particular forum the majority have a lot of doubt about the existence of God or Satan or some similar name for a higher being of good or evil. Blessed be to all you atheists and agnosticators reading this.

If you haven't already been there, I recommend the Religion and Philosophy Forum. The problem of pain has been being worked on for centuries and there are a lot of interesting things to be said on it. By no means everyone on that forum are atheists.

The simplest answer to your question would be to say that people are perfectly capable of believing in mutually contradictory things. More complicated answers take in such interesting topics as freewill and whether it isn't mutually contradictory with a world in which nothing bad happened.

You should start a thread over there if you are interested.

ETA. Read some of Preston's fiction works and you will find plenty of mysticism and conflict between active forces of good and evil. A few of his books I have read are almost a decent read.

I wish that I could. I'm posting here to avoid reading a stack of textbooks.

 

[Justinian2]

Most of this thread, as far as I recall is made up of arguing over and over the actual evidence of the case rather than rumors like her high school prank, or Mignini's obsession with Satanism.

I would say 40% - not most. Some of the suspended posters have virtually never honestly argued over the actual evidence. It has gotten better. Still, I believe the skeleton of the case is what ties Guede to Amanda and Raffaele. That skeleton is entirely missing. I haven't heard any arguments that have any merit for having the three collude.

Furthermore, there is not evidence not a joke that gives any indication that this is pre-meditated 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or even manslaughter.

Nonsense. On this forum people make claims and then have to back them up. It doesn't matter if you are on the side of the prosecution, or the defense. If you claim that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, you must offer proof. if you claim that Mignini is in the thrall of Satanic visions, prove it. For myself I claim that this case is open to many interpretations.

We've argued the concept that the FOAKers have to 'prove' Amanda and Raffaele's innocence over and over with the same conclusion: The concept is innocent until proven guilty which means it is up to the guilters to prove guilt. Furthermore, the finding of the Italian court does not constitute proof in the scientific sense.

You’ve been a dynamite antagonist, but you’re slippery.

 

[nopoirot]

Actually, Mary, I'm not at all surprised that the issue of Raffaele's admissions has not loomed large on this board. It confirms a predisposition to ignore or gloss over some very problematic aspects of the case. Amanda's alleged accomplice, her lover, tells the police that, contrary to what the two of them have been saying for days, she went to Le Chic the night in question. On what line of reasoning does this not go directly to the issue of where Amanda was that night, and what she was up to? It destroys her alibi and credibility. You can point to Raffaele's repudiation of his admissions, which plays right into the question "Was he lying when he said this, or lying when he said that?" In the absence of persuasive evidence that the admissions were involuntary, the jury will go with them. I have heard no such evidence--only speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking. This sort of thing is not admissible in any court I've ever heard of. Now, if there's reason to believe that the prosecution, in Amanda's case, can't point to Raf's admissions, please enlighten me.

Sorry to seem flippant to you, LondonJohn, but when you've heard dozens of complaints of coercion and maltreatment, they tend to lose their emotive impact. Now, far be it from me to propose that the evidence here will support a murder conviction, but I suspect most people will not be content to let the matter rest there. Has a great injustice been done here? Maybe so, maybe no. I can't get excited about it.