Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I agree.

We'll never know what Holmes' argument for his innocence might have been, as he died over 20 years ago without ever speaking about it. Unlike all three defendants in the Kercher case.

Well then, there was absolutely no reason to think Holmes innocent. He was at the scene of the murder or shortly thereafter, and without a plausible alibi, he's guilty.

Assume that Meredith's blood and DNA were on the double DNA knife and that the DNA was there in sufficient quality and quantity to be valid.

The court still wouldn't know when the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know how the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know where the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know who was holding the handle when the DNA got on the knife - if anyone.
The court still wouldn't know how the knife got to Raffaele's kitchen.
The court still wouldn't know how the knife got from Raffaele's kitchen to Meredith's flat.

To make all those assumptions only proves that the court that tried Amanda and Raffaele isn't qualified to be a court. I certainly wouldn't want to pay taxes to support that.

The court didn't have to make those assumptions in the Holmes case and they still found him innocent.

 

[Kaosium]

<snip>


8) Notwithstanding the length of the foregoing, I do not like to type. Ergo I'm not going to give you something akin to the Court's 400+ page ratio. I wish I had the time to go over the case point by point, but I've been off with the flu and I really do have to get back at it tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I'm leaning toward a theory of the case based on the idea that this crime began as a post-Halloween "rape prank" that ran amok under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

I think Amanda and Raffaele set out to "prank" Meredith and brought the big knife with them as a prop.

En route, they happened across Rudy and thought he'd add to the 'scare factor'.

Rudy was quick to agree because he was eager to please Amanda (per the testimony of the boys who lived in the cottage below, Rudy was, by all accounts, hot for Amanda in particular).

Amanda certainly knew Rudy well enough to ask him to join in a little post-Halloween prank on Meredith (per the evidence discussed above).

I think poor Meredith reacted violently to the prank, in a small space filled with 3 "pranksters", all of whom were not only high on drugs but brandishing knives. As a result, she was seriously injured and screamed out.

The intoxicated pranksters panicked when they saw the damage they'd done to Meredith. Her screams would bring the police - They ended her screams.

The 'conspiracy' was formed in an instant.

It was self-preservation. It's been self-preservation ever since.

This theory accounts for, inter alia:

-the transport of the big, bad, shiny knife from Sollecito's place;
-the fact none of the 3 accused had a history of physical violence; &
-the fact that none of them appear to have had a motive for murder (until the victim had been harmed grievously in the course of the prank and started to scream, that is).


This theory is also a nice fit with what's known about the ages, personalities, interests, and (low) maturity levels of the 3 accused.

Note also that, in contrast to YOUR theory, Kevin, it doesn't involve ignoring the evidence adduced at trial (in particular the testimony of Amanda and Giorgio), or fantasies about what is shown in the autopsy video (which no one outside of the courtroom, including you, has seen).

Let the bashing commence, bearing in mind that's it’s merely my opinion and subject to change in the face of cogent, evidence-based argument offered in a civil manner.

That's an interesting read, it makes better sense than some I've heard, but it falls down on the evidence. As in there is none, and there's evidence missing if what you theorize actually occurred. For one thing no trace above contamination level of Raffaele at the scene, and absolutely nothing of Amanda, and no smearing of footprints or other evidence of a clean-up in the murder room leaves reasonable doubt they were ever there. In the face of the plethora of evidence of Rudy Guede, it becomes quite plausible they were never there.

Imagining of a spur of the moment conspiracy with no physical evidence to support it hardly cracks the foundation of reasonable doubt. If this, why not Alessi's scenario, or even Rudy's? You're alleging that two people managed to murder a woman while leaving no trace of themselves there or getting any evidence on them such as cuts, scrapes, blood etc. With evidence precluding a clean-up, that again suggests reasonable doubt at the very least it unfolded how you suppose.

I don't think the 'murder knife' will survive the review, and even if that is Meredith's DNA the least most likely way it got there was through her being stabbed by it. There would be blood evidence on the knife near impossible to remove, and whoever wielded it would leave evidence at the scene.

 

[Fuji]

Well then, there was absolutely no reason to think Holmes innocent. He was at the scene of the murder or shortly thereafter, and without a plausible alibi, he's guilty.

Assume that Meredith's blood and DNA were on the double DNA knife and that the DNA was there in sufficient quality and quality to be valid.

The court still wouldn't know when the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know how the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know where the DNA got on the knife.
The court still wouldn't know who was holding the handle when the DNA got on the knife - if anyone.
The court still wouldn't know how the knife got to Raffaele's kitchen.
The court still wouldn't know how the knife got from Raffaele's kitchen to Meredith's flat.

To make all those assumptions only proves that the court that tried Amanda and Raffaele isn't qualified to be a court. I certainly wouldn't want to pay taxes to support that.

The court didn't have to make those assumptions in the Holmes case and they still found him innocent.

I am not discussing the knife. Your original argument was about Guede's handprint - not evidence against Knox or Sollecito. You originally said:

"That is my idea of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - a bloody palm print."

I in turn responded by presenting a high-profile case (the first in US history in which video evidence was presented at trial) where a defendant's bloody palmprint at the crime scene was in fact insuffucient evidence to obtain a murder conviction.

In fact, in Holmes's case, he had an extensive documented criminal history, was a long-time associate of the victims, and subsequently expressed great contempt for the victims. None of these elements applied to Guede. Yet he was convicted, while Holmes was acquitted.

Holmes's lawyer advanced the theory that Holmes was brutally coerced into facilitating the murders, although, as previously stated, Holmes himself said nothing. By contrast, Guede, as you noted earlier, placed himself at the scene of the crime - during its commission - by his own statements.

The larger point to be drawn from such comparisons is to demonstrate that even the most incriminating piece of evidence can be insufficient to establish guilt on its own. It is rather the totality of the evidence which must do so. (In addition, I would also argue that Holmes's representation was also evidently far more competent than Guede's.)

 

[LondonJohn]

In the second story, about Peter Tobin, it says the knife was found in the former home of the suspect, and that it had up to 19 matches for the victim's DNA. The murder was committed in 1991, but the trial was taking place in 2008. For that much DNA to have remained on the knife for that long, the knife must have been hidden. That is different from putting it in the kitchen drawer.

Tobin's knife was indeed found in his former house, and it was indeed hidden - amongst the heat insulation material in his attic. Funnily enough, there was a TV programme about him on in the UK the other day (police think he may have committed many more murders than those he's been convicted of), and it showed TV footage of the recovery of the knife.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it a good time to once again remind you that you have no way of knowing whether a single item of clothing or shoe had gone missing from either of them?

Is it a good time to remind you that Knox arrived in Perugia with only the belongings she could carry? Therefore, apart from what she might have bought while she was in Perugia (and I'd suggest that she wouldn't have bought many new clothes/shoes in Perugia, since she was going back the the USA the following summer with the same restriction on luggage), she would only have had a very limited selection of clothing and footwear.

And while you're correct in saying that it would be impossible to PROVE that none of her clothes/shoes were missing after the murder, it wouldn't have been hard to interview her housemates and look at photographs of Knox while in Perugia, and to then cross-match that testimony/evidence to a post-arrest inventory of Knox's clothes/shoes. For all we know, the police went through this process (a competent police force would have done so, but......), yet found no evidence that there was any missing clothing or footwear.

 

[Justinian2]

I am not discussing the knife. Your original argument was about Guede's handprint - not evidence against Knox or Sollecito. You originally said:

"That is my idea of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - a bloody palm print."

I in turn responded by presenting a high-profile case (the first in US history in which video evidence was presented at trial) where a defendant's bloody palmprint at the crime scene was in fact insuffucient evidence to obtain a murder conviction.

In fact, in Holmes's case, he had an extensive documented criminal history, was a long-time associate of the victims, and subsequently expressed great contempt for the victims. None of these elements applied to Guede. Yet he was convicted, while Holmes was acquitted.

Holmes's lawyer advanced the theory that Holmes was brutally coerced into facilitating the murders, although, as previously stated, Holmes himself said nothing. By contrast, Guede, as you noted earlier, placed himself at the scene of the crime - during its commission - by his own statements.

The larger point to be drawn from such comparisons is to demonstrate that even the most incriminating piece of evidence can be insufficient to establish guilt on its own. It is rather the totality of the evidence which must do so. (In addition, I would also argue that Holmes's representation was also evidently far more competent than Guede's.)

The word totality isn't correct. It isn't the amount of trivial and or irrelevant 'evidence' that matters in a competent trial. It isn't the number of cartwheels that matters or the number of lies that were told. What matters is that the evidence is solid and supports the prosecution's hypothesis without any holes. A bloody handprint puts the accused at the scene of the murder when or shortly after it happened. It doesn't tell what happened at the crucial moment.

Amanda and Raffael weren't even proven to be at the scene of the murder when it happened or even in the murder room. The amount of evidence associated with the proof of staging doesn't matter if the break-in wasn't staged or if the proof isn't valid. It isn't the totality of the evidence that matters. The only thing that matters is the absence of holes in the prosecution's case. In this case the prosecution has more unpatched holes than a seive. The jury just got numbed to the fact that the case had an infinite number of holes and wanted to go home for Christmas.

There were multiple holes for each piece of evidence introduced by the prosection. Each piece of evidence they introduced would put more holes in their case then it plugged.

 

[LondonJohn]

2) You then claimed Amanda met Rudy "once at most": Amanda's own testimony destroys your claim, as does the testimony of Giorgio Cocciaretto.

Sorry, was that the testimony of Giorgio Cocciaretto, or the testimony of Marco Marzan? Because I'm certain that you previously stated that it was Marco Marzan who gave this testimony. Maybe we should check with someone who's actually read the Massei ratio correctly, eh...?

Oh, and as has been pointed out to you several times now, Cocciaretto's testimony actually only mentions one time when he saw Knox, Meredith and Guede together at the boys' house.

7) My take on the cross-exam of Knox was simply this: from the POV of a common law lawyer, the cross was EXTREMELY limited/ brief/ restrained/ easy on the accused. There are dozens more leading questions on the point (smoking dope with Rudy) that could have been fired at Knox (without running afoul of your so-called "maxim") to nail her down into an even more ridiculous position.

No. Your "take" on the cross-exam of Knox was that she had been deliberately evasive and obstructive, and that she had not given proper answers to the questions put by Carlo Pacelli. May I take the opportunity to remind you of your original post, which was unequivocal in its attack on Knox (without a peep about the imprecision and vagueness of Pacelli's questions (my emphasis):

Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

You now curiously appear to be misrepresenting your original position on this issue. Why is that?

Still, you know what they say: in dubio pro reo.......

 

[Fuji]

And while you're correct in saying that it would be impossible to PROVE that none of her clothes/shoes were missing after the murder

Exactly. Therefore, the value of the related claim being advanced ("That the police were unable to establish that any items of clothing were missing from Knox or Sollecito is a point that argues in favor of their innocence.") is worthless.

I also notice that you completely fail to mention Sollecito in your response, perhaps because conclusively establishing the extent of his clothing inventory would be even more prolematic than doing so for Knox, as he is an Italian native.

 

[Fuji]

It isn't the number of cartwheels that matters or the number of lies that were told.

I don't think this would be true for any criminal investigation, let alone one for murder.

 

[Dan O.]

403, by the way, is a page number referring to Massei and Cristiani's original Italian document. (The passage in question is on pp. 402-403.)

If the students would turn to page 2 of their translated Massei report and begin reading after where it says "Version 1.0"...


This is a beef I have previously expressed about the translated report. I primarily use the original documentation and my own translation which use the original page numbers. Referring to a passage using the page numbers invented by PMF makes it more difficult to find that passage in the original text. Thankfully, the translation preserved those original page numbers by boldly bracketing them. We should all use the original "Massei" numbers as references and not something that was invented for a single translation and will change in the next version when they translate the two missing pages.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. Therefore, the value of the related claim being advanced ("That the police were unable to establish that any items of clothing were missing from Knox or Sollecito is a point that argues in favor of their innocence.") is worthless.

I also notice that you completely fail to mention Sollecito in your response, perhaps because conclusively establishing the extent of his clothing inventory would be even more prolematic than doing so for Knox, as he is an Italian native.

Yes - that is indeed one of the reasons why I exclude Sollecito - the other being that he lived alone. Knox lived with two Italian girls who might well have noticed her clothing, since they probably saw her on a daily basis.

And of course while it can't be proved that none of Knox's clothing/footwear was missing after the murder, it would have been potentally possible to prove if some WAS missing. If the police had found any photos from September/October 2007 of Knox wearing clothes or shoes that were missing after 2nd November, and/or if Filomena or Laura could remember certain clothing/footwear that they'd seen Knox wearing clothes/shoes that were no longer there, this would be pretty strong evidence that Knox had disposed of items after the murder (particularly if Knox had previously denied disposing of any clothes/shoes for any reason).

One can only conclude that the "crack" Perugia police carried out this sort of investigation (even though they fried computer hard drives on which photos were stored.....), but couldn't identify any clothing or footwear of Knox's that was missing. Well, you'd think that the Perugia police would have carried out this sort of investigation, but.......

 

[Fuji]

Yes - that is indeed one of the reasons why I exclude Sollecito - the other being that he lived alone. Knox lived with two Italian girls who might well have noticed her clothing, since they probably saw her on a daily basis.

And of course while it can't be proved that none of Knox's clothing/footwear was missing after the murder, it would have been potentally possible to prove if some WAS missing. If the police had found any photos from September/October 2007 of Knox wearing clothes or shoes that were missing after 2nd November, and/or if Filomena or Laura could remember certain clothing/footwear that they'd seen Knox wearing clothes/shoes that were no longer there, this would be pretty strong evidence that Knox had disposed of items after the murder (particularly if Knox had previously denied disposing of any clothes/shoes for any reason).

Agreed. In other words, the clothing inventory issue is one that can only hurt, not help, Knox and Sollecito. Which makes me wonder why Kevin_Lowe continues to assert to the contrary...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The bloody palmprint proved Holmes was at the scene of the murder.

That would have have established guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. However, the rest of the story is important. He could have said that he found the bodies and tried to help, thus getting bloody. Sounds like the Guede story, doesn't it?

That's a misconception that the authorities conveyed to the media, but Holmes had good lawyers who made sure the jury understood the facts. It was a left hand print, but it was not made with blood, and Holmes was on the premises many times before the murders.

The victims in that case were mixed up with all kinds of unsavory people who might have killed them. But it could well be that Holmes had something to do with it, i.e., he may have gotten the killer(s) through the gate and the front door.

 

[Fuji]

That's a misconception that the authorities conveyed to the media, but Holmes had good lawyers who made sure the jury understood the facts. It was a left hand print, but it was not made with blood, and Holmes was on the premises many times before the murders.

The victims in that case were mixed up with all kinds of unsavory people who might have killed them. But it could well be that Holmes had something to do with it, i.e., he may have gotten the killer(s) through the gate and the front door.

From everything I've read on the case, it was indeed a bloody handprint, but I am willing to concede that I am not intimately familiar with all the details of the murders. I would also note that Sharon Holmes recounted to the LA Times that Holmes came to her house the night of the murders covered in blood that was not his own.

If you have more details on the Wonderland case, please feel free to PM me with your information (I think we're already getting a bit off-topic here as it is.)

 

[loverofzion]

Justice and punishment are not synonyms.

I presume you're refering to a just finding of guilt or innocence rather than the incarceration of anybody that might have, from your perspective, a possibility of guilt. A possibility of guilt of 10% is enough for you to incarcerate two people for the best part of their lives.

Your type of 'justice' (that includes the incarceration of some of the innocent) creates terrorists and suicide bombers.

Can you please explain to the mathematically challenged by what calculations you arrived at the 10% figure?

 

[loverofzion]

1) My (working) theory doesn't require that the UW rape prank rumor prove true (although further investigation of that rumor and the people who would have been involved in such a thing would be interesting, no?).

Indeed, just Google the term "rape prank" and you'll see that some young people today are engaged in this sort of hazing, and many more are at least aware of it.

2) I think it WAS their intention to merely scare Meredith without hurting her, but by brandishing the knives while intoxicated, they created a risk of harm if Meredith reacted violently. That risk was realized.

3) Rudy WAS a creep, and although Amanda knew him superficially, she did not know him well enough to judge his character. By including Rudy in the "prank", Amanda took on an 'accomplice' that was, clearly, not like other boys she'd known at UW. In the process, Amanda put Meredith at risk in a way that Amanda was too immature and/or high to foresee.

Recall that Rudy was, apparently, known to 'bother' girls in clubs - literally touching them without consent, etc.. I think the language barrier may also have created a situation whereby Rudy did not fully understand what Amanda was intending.

I think it was Rudy that took the "prank" to a level Amanda had not anticipated, a level that left the DNA trace you mention. Meredith's response to this assault was, understandably, to put up an enraged/ frightened struggle that, in a confined space filled with knives brandished by intoxicated 'pranksters', resulted in grievous bodily harm.

4) The extent of this harm was severe. Something they'd not intended but could not now simply sweep away. Meredith was screaming. They're high, possibly even paranoid from the cannabis. They can't think straight. Blind panic - They silence Meredith. All 3 act in (what their drug-addled brains perceive to be) self-preservation.

Rudy holds Meredith still for the stabbers. All 3 equally culpable. None of the 3 in a position to rat out the other 2 by claiming a lesser role. The conspiracy of silence is formed in an instant and plays out as we've seen it, with cracks developing at various stages. And the games continue.

Well put.
I would add that they were intoxicated on some stronger combination of drugs and alcohol than just cannibas.
Cannibas doesn't turn one into violent, out of control killers.
Nor does it cause memory lapses of entire evenngs.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

1) My (working) theory doesn't require that the UW rape prank rumor prove true (although further investigation of that rumor and the people who would have been involved in such a thing would be interesting, no?).

Indeed, just Google the term "rape prank" and you'll see that some young people today are engaged in this sort of hazing, and many more are at least aware of it.

2) I think it WAS their intention to merely scare Meredith without hurting her, but by brandishing the knives while intoxicated, they created a risk of harm if Meredith reacted violently. That risk was realized.

3) Rudy WAS a creep, and although Amanda knew him superficially, she did not know him well enough to judge his character. By including Rudy in the "prank", Amanda took on an 'accomplice' that was, clearly, not like other boys she'd known at UW. In the process, Amanda put Meredith at risk in a way that Amanda was too immature and/or high to foresee.

Recall that Rudy was, apparently, known to 'bother' girls in clubs - literally touching them without consent, etc.. I think the language barrier may also have created a situation whereby Rudy did not fully understand what Amanda was intending.

I think it was Rudy that took the "prank" to a level Amanda had not anticipated, a level that left the DNA trace you mention. Meredith's response to this assault was, understandably, to put up an enraged/ frightened struggle that, in a confined space filled with knives brandished by intoxicated 'pranksters', resulted in grievous bodily harm.

4) The extent of this harm was severe. Something they'd not intended but could not now simply sweep away. Meredith was screaming. They're high, possibly even paranoid from the cannabis. They can't think straight. Blind panic - They silence Meredith. All 3 act in (what their drug-addled brains perceive to be) self-preservation.

Rudy holds Meredith still for the stabbers. All 3 equally culpable. None of the 3 in a position to rat out the other 2 by claiming a lesser role. The conspiracy of silence is formed in an instant and plays out as we've seen it, with cracks developing at various stages. And the games continue.

Nobody has presented any evidence that Amanda or Raffaele consumed any alcohol that night, or any intoxicants other than cannabis.

What you are suggesting might take place in the context of a group of people who are partying and get a wild idea. But it's pretty far-fetched to imagine that Amanda and Raffaele would break off a quiet evening to go out and do something like that, and recruit Guede along the way. And even if they did, they wouldn't brandish knives. And even if they brandished knives, they wouldn't end up inflicting several minor stab wounds and cuts by accident.

It's obvious what really did happen. The attacker grabbed Meredith when both were standing next to the bed. He positioned himself behind her with a knife in his right hand, and he jabbed her, enough to draw blood but not a mortal wound. It may be that he was demanding her money. She broke free and moved diagonally across the room. A scuffle ensued next to her window, during which more blood was shed. Then he threw her to the floor and inflicted the mortal wound. He then dragged her a few feet to get her into a more open area where he removed her pants and assaulted her sexually.

 

[loverofzion]

Is it a good time to remind you that Knox arrived in Perugia with only the belongings she could carry? Therefore, apart from what she might have bought while she was in Perugia (and I'd suggest that she wouldn't have bought many new clothes/shoes in Perugia, since she was going back the the USA the following summer with the same restriction on luggage), she would only have had a very limited selection of clothing and footwear.

And while you're correct in saying that it would be impossible to PROVE that none of her clothes/shoes were missing after the murder, it wouldn't have been hard to interview her housemates and look at photographs of Knox while in Perugia, and to then cross-match that testimony/evidence to a post-arrest inventory of Knox's clothes/shoes. For all we know, the police went through this process (a competent police force would have done so, but......), yet found no evidence that there was any missing clothing or footwear.

It has never been reported that the police confirmed that no items of her clothes/shoes went missing.
This would have been an impossible task o ascertain from interviewing her housemates or looking at photographs of her in Perugia.
This would hardly cover every t shirt nor let us know which jeans or sneakers might've taken a walk, would it.
You must see how silly that sounds.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

nevermind

It has never been reported that the police confirmed that no items of her clothes/shoes went missing.
This would have been an impossible task o ascertain from interviewing her housemates or looking at photographs of her in Perugia.
This would hardly cover every t shirt nor let us know which jeans or sneakers might've taken a walk, would it.
You must see how silly that sounds.

loverofzion,

Yes it does sound silly. Imagine the odds of finding an empty shoebox with the the model number of the sneaker and actually matching it with, say, some bloody shoeprints...Oh wait, nevermind.

Knox did not bring many street clothes with her, preferring to bring some hiking apparel or equipment, IIRC. The police did insinuate that one of Knox's sweatshirts was missing when it was actually in the flat.

 

[babycondor]

The Massei report reminds me of the structure of 'Mein Kampf' in that it starts out with a plausible 'Poor little Hitler' section and proceeds to the later section which finds an entire race unworthy because Adolf remembered that some had body odor.

It reminds me of a Blake Edwards farce, as in: Peter Sellers, Inspector Clouseau, "The Pink Panther."