Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

Here is what we have on his previous burglaries:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5981643&postcount=18

Thank you, non results of non investigation; reminds me of an announcement on Southern Railways “the train is delayed for an indeterminate reason for an indeterminate amount of time”.

Clearly Guede had form (previous history) for burglary and it strange he was never charged. However, my curiosity really is the SC’s conclusion of how he gained access, as you said there is a translation in the pipe line.

 

[zeb]

RoseMontague.
This is what puzzel me too, it's like Amanda and this so called doctor asking for a list of sexual partners.
As Amanda was in a single cell and has not been charged, the police would have vidio cameras and a sign in book just make sure to cover themsleves.
As being a womans jail, I would be sure to say that the doctors would be a women and in the life of me I cannot see a male asking for a list of a woman sexual history, in a womans jail.
It seems to me that all the things that has pointed to Amanda innocent has.
1 Got lost
2 Not recorded
3 Or just went a walkies
4 Or burned as in the computers hard drives
5 Bad dna testing.
Also I would like to bring in the Mobil phones, it seems to me that Amandas or raffaele dna was not on these phones or the prosscution would have used this against Amanda and Raffaele.
This case is made up in so many ifs and buts, and zero proof.

 

[Kaosium]

Thank you, non results of non investigation; reminds me of an announcement on Southern Railways “the train is delayed for an indeterminate reason for an indeterminate amount of time”.

Clearly Guede had form (previous history) for burglary and it strange he was never charged. However, my curiosity really is the SC’s conclusion of how he gained access, as you said there is a translation in the pipe line.

That's a good question, as one of the things we have read is that Rudy's 'relationship' with Meredith was not accepted by the court, thus the idea he was on a 'date' must not have been either. Ever wonder about the odds that after so 'brilliantly deducing' the break-in must have been staged, that police in Perugia would find the evidence at the site all matched a guy with a history of breaking into second-story windows?

You could always put the report through 'gobble-translate.' I was reminded somewhat recently that Rose read a good deal of the Massei Report through that method before it had been translated by PMF, which in some jurisdictions constitutes 'attempted suicide through aggravated brain hemorrhage.'

 

[christianahannah]

As a someone elsewhere pointed out recently, Barbie Nadeau said the positive HIV test was the result of police "psychological trickery" and that one of the "detectives close to the case" leaked the diary to Nick Pisa who broke the story (page 27-28 Angel Face).

I think the story was not reported on widely in the English media until June 2008 by the Daily Mail. I believe this was after the prosecution turned in their case file/investigation. Shortly thereafter, Frank from Perugia-Shock published the page from Amanda's diary.

Interesting stories surrounding the diary - who knows whether they are factual or not.

 

[christianahannah]

I wonder why they didn't provide the tape, then.

I think that even if a tape were made it could not be viewed in court against the accused even with their consent. I am trying to find that reference in the criminal code, but so far haven't located it.

 

[Kaosium]

I think the story was not reported on widely in the English media until June 2008 by the Daily Mail. I believe this was after the prosecution turned in their case file/investigation. Shortly thereafter, Frank from Perugia-Shock published the page from Amanda's diary.

Interesting stories surrounding the diary - who knows whether they are factual or not.

Well, we know police leaked conversations between Amanda and her mother, or are there people who believe the family 'leaked' those too so they could further humiliate their child?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think the story was not reported on widely in the English media until June 2008 by the Daily Mail. I believe this was after the prosecution turned in their case file/investigation. Shortly thereafter, Frank from Perugia-Shock published the page from Amanda's diary.

Interesting stories surrounding the diary - who knows whether they are factual or not.

Barbie knew about it by January 2008.

After that, she goes on to list all the young men she has had sex with since coming to Italy, including one man she met on the train to Perugia. In that entry—part of which was redacted before her lawyers released it—she notes when her partners used condoms and writes about her fear of contracting AIDS.​

Interestingly, she withholds the reason of Amanda's fear. Her careful wording make it sound like that fear of AIDS came just from the reflection about the partners and condoms.
Very dishonest, Nadeau.

TBH Italian media had that diaries since November 2007 and none of them revealed that authorities distressed Amanda in such egregious way. To me it looks like it was a big no-no to show Perugian officials in a bad light - risk of being cut off from the source of leaks and maybe even being slapped with callunia charge?

 

[christianahannah]

Barbie knew about it by January 2008.

After that, she goes on to list all the young men she has had sex with since coming to Italy, including one man she met on the train to Perugia. In that entry—part of which was redacted before her lawyers released it—she notes when her partners used condoms and writes about her fear of contracting AIDS.​

Interestingly, she withholds the reason of Amanda's fear. Her careful wording make it sound like that fear of AIDS came just from the reflection about the partners and condoms.
Very dishonest, Nadeau.

TBH Italian media had that diaries since November 2007 and none of them revealed that authorities distressed Amanda in such egregious way. To me it looks like it was a big no-no to show Perugian officials in a bad light - risk of being cut off from the source of leaks and maybe even being slapped with callunia charge?

Yes, the diary and other writings were confiscated in November 2007, however, they didn't appear to cause the media frenzy as they did during the summer 2008.

I do not have the date for the Corriere book but until the summer 2008 were not the information about the diary just partial and at times redacted leaks
and not the whole 80 pages?

 

[RoseMontague]

You could always put the report through 'gobble-translate.' I was reminded somewhat recently that Rose read a good deal of the Massei Report through that method before it had been translated by PMF, which in some jurisdictions constitutes 'attempted suicide through aggravated brain hemorrhage.'

Massei was easy compared to the Mignini Motivation (convicted for abuse of office). That one is almost unreadable by gobble (dygook).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am sorry that you are uncomfortable with the facts

What possible reason would you have to "surmise" that changing the word "approach" to "leave" of these news sources would validate Dempsey story, except for showing that you were reaching for straws in backing up the claim?



It is not true to say that I ignored the camera man or Bertoldi as sources, when I did. Both these sources were at the Questura on the outskirts of town so they were not witness to what might have happened in Perugia itself.

odeed,

Your reply is short on facts. In post #17336, you merely asked what Elio Bertoldi’s attendance at the press conference had to do with the detour the police took through the old town of Perugia. There is nothing in what you said to discount Bertoldi as a source. I clicked on the link you provided under “cameraman” and found nothing that was pertinent to the question of why the cameraman should not be trusted. Therefore, nothing you have written suggests that these two are not credible sources. Your present message makes an unsupported claim with respect to the whereabouts of the cameraman and Mr. Bertoldi. Do you have sources, or were you in Perugia at the time?

Now on to the issue of why I said that I surmised that the word “approach” should be changed to “leave” in one of the news accounts. At first you left the word “surmise” out of your quotation from my message # 17193. When called on that, you claimed that I was reaching for straws, but the actual explanation is much different. At the time I did not believe that the police would celebrate twice, once on bringing Patrick in, and once when pulling away from the police station with the three suspects. However, I am more willing now than before to acknowledge this possibility. If you had asked me for my reasons instead of making incorrect assumptions, we would not need to spend time disentangling your thinking.

But the most serious problem in this discussion is the fact that you are using double standards. Have you ever asked Ms. Nadeau or Ms. Vogt for their sources? We have documented a number of Ms. Nadeau’s errors here, and perhaps we should do the same for Ms. Vogt. Or do you only ask for sources when the facts make you uncomfortable?

Moreover, I asked you once for your version of events. In message 16078 you wrote, ““Yes, I believe the that Dempsey's story of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba being paraded/driven around Perugia on the 6th November to be false.” However, you have yet to provide even one scintilla of evidence to back up that claim. I have given you a source for the story of the detour through the old town, Candace Dempsey. When you seemed to find this source insufficient, I brought up the cameraman and Elio Bertoldi, and you gave specious arguments in reply. If you cannot provide a source for your claim that the police did not take a detour through the old town, then the only honorable course for you is to make a retraction and a long-overdue apology to Ms. Dempsey.

 

[komponisto]

Clearly Guede had form (previous history) for burglary and it strange he was never charged. However, my curiosity really is the SC’s conclusion of how he gained access

In rejecting Guede's appeal, they accept the reconstruction of the lower courts (remember that they were not tasked with coming to an independent understanding of the facts, and were only evaluating Guede's legal grounds for appeal).

 

[komponisto]

Cassazione on how Guede got in

To amplify my previous comment, here is what Giordano et al. say on p.10 of the report:

Ad avviso dei giudici di merito, secondo la versione più credibile dei fatti, proprio per la presenza di chiare tracce riconducibili alla Xnox [sic] ed al Sollecito in casa, i due insieme a Guede sarebbero entrati in casa dove si sarebbe verificata una escalation di violenza, ai fini sessualii, sulla povera Meredith, dopo sarebbe stato posto in essere il tentativo ad opera della Xnox [sic] de di Sollecito, gli unici interessati a farlo, volto a simulare un furto, quindi una violenza carnale, consumata o tentata, ed ancora, in progressione parossistica, l'omicidio da parte del fantomatico ladro. Sarebbe stato interesse della Knox e del Sollecito di cancellare le eventuali tracce della loro presenza. Sulla loro presenza nella scena del delitto, poi, i giudici di merito, sia pure incidentalmente, sembrano non avere dubbi.

In the opinion of the trial judges [giudici di merito], according to the most credible version of the facts -- simply because of the presence of clear traces attributable to Knox and Sollecito in the house -- the two entered the house together with Guede; there, an escalation of sexually-motivated violence occurred against poor Meredith. Afterward, the attempt was made by Knox and Sollecito -- the only ones with reason to do so -- to create the impression of a break-in, and thus of attempted or consummated carnal violence, and then, in paroxysmal progression, murder, on the part of the imaginary burglar. It would have been in the interest of Knox and Sollecito to remove any traces of their presence. Though it is purely incidental [for our purposes], the trial judges do not seem to have any doubts about their presence at the crime scene.

 

[zeb]

The only feeling I got is that Amanda and raffaele are telling the truth.
When you have as the police do, tape recordings, vidio tapes, you would like to confirm your case, this in my mind would bring a plus to your case.
This case was made of buts and ifs.
And to tell the truth there is no real case agaisnt Amanda or Raffaele, this should have never went to court.
But it did that is the big question.
Why?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

To amplify my previous comment, here is what Giordano et al. say on p.10 of the report:

In the opinion of the trial judges [giudici di merito], according to the most credible version of the facts -- simply because of the presence of clear traces attributable to Knox and Sollecito in the house -- the two entered the house together with Guede; there, an escalation of sexually-motivated violence occurred against poor Meredith. Afterward, the attempt was made by Knox and Sollecito -- the only ones with reason to do so -- to create the impression of a break-in, and thus of attempted or consummated carnal violence, and then, in paroxysmal progression, murder, on the part of the imaginary burglar. It would have been in the interest of Knox and Sollecito to remove any traces of their presence. Though it is purely incidental [for our purposes], the trial judges do not seem to have any doubts about their presence at the crime scene.

Okay so without making any judgements of Raffaele and Amanda’s innocence or guilt the SC appear to be stating they see nothing wrong in a legal sense with the conclusions of the lower courts, which was Raffaele, Amanda and Guede entered the cottage together, is that a fair summary?

 

[komponisto]

Okay so without making any judgements of Raffaele and Amanda’s innocence or guilt the SC appear to be stating they see nothing wrong in a legal sense with the conclusions of the lower courts, which was Raffaele, Amanda and Guede entered the cottage together, is that a fair summary?

Not quite. (Saying that would be tantamount to ruling on Amanda and Raffaele's case.) A better summary would be that Guede's challenges to the lower court ruling have no legal merit. (And since Guede did not dispute Amanda and Raffaele's presence -- quite the contrary! -- this is in no sense a ruling on the soundness of that conclusion.)

(The passage I quoted earlier says, in effect: "Don't bother going on to us about the presence of Amanda and Raffaele, Mr. Guede, because the lower courts fully accepted their involvement and still found you guilty.")

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, the diary and other writings were confiscated in November 2007, however, they didn't appear to cause the media frenzy as they did during the summer 2008.

I do not have the date for the Corriere book but until the summer 2008 were not the information about the diary just partial and at times redacted leaks
and not the whole 80 pages?

From the first report of this diary, it looks like the entire thing was available to the reporters immediately but maybe they didn't have a chance to read and translate the whole thing before press time.
2007-11-30 Repubblica (google translation)

ROME - There are fifty pages with lines, written mostly in English with some concession to an Italian ungrammatical. Amanda Knox has the entitled "My Prison."​

One theory put forward was that the prosecutors placed the diary in the case file where any journalist in Perugia following this case would be able to access it but may not be able to photocopy the whole thing.

The first mention that Amanda is keeping the diary in prison appears to be on Nov. 10th. In the Repubblica:

"It seems that I need to pass on paper that has the heart," said the chaplain of the women's prison in Perugia, Don Saul Scarabattoli.​

In the same article we also find:

"Under review by the squad also the diary of Amanda, a camera and the laptop the girl."​

Is this diary the same spiderman notebook started in August 2007 and continued in prison? If the authorities already have this diary then what is Amanda writing on? I think the chaplan answers in the interview here:

Amanda is writing a diary?
"Do not call it just a diary, are sheets. Several sheets ...».
Has read them?
"No, I made them read and I did not dare to ask him, things are intimate and personal. If you want it will spontaneously. "​

By December, CBS is saying that this diary "seized from Knox's prison" is 125 pages.


This clearly needs more research but it appears to me that Amanda wrote the first 7 page diary on unlined paper and then another 50 pages on lined paper that were confiscated on November 29th. At some point, Amanda gets her earlier diary back from the police and continues writing there before this one is again seized.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not quite. (Saying that would be tantamount to ruling on Amanda and Raffaele's case.) A better summary would be that Guede's challenges to the lower court ruling have no legal merit. (And since Guede did not dispute Amanda and Raffaele's presence -- quite the contrary! – this is in no sense a ruling on the soundness of that conclusion.)

Surely the legality of conclusion was what the SC ruled on?

 

[RoseMontague]

Not quite. (Saying that would be tantamount to ruling on Amanda and Raffaele's case.) A better summary would be that Guede's challenges to the lower court ruling have no legal merit. (And since Guede did not dispute Amanda and Raffaele's presence -- quite the contrary! -- this is in no sense a ruling on the soundness of that conclusion.)

Surely the legality of conclusion was what the SC ruled on?

It seems very important to you that the Supreme Court somehow confirmed the lower courts reasoning regarding Raffaele rather than just ruling on the legal issues regarding Guede. It seems to me that the SC went out of their way to say just the opposite.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I would say I place importance on trying to understand the nuances of the Italian judicial system, so I tend to ask questions, seems an reasonable approach, I can certainly understand why a judge is member of an Italian jury.

It seems to me that the SC went out of their way to say just the opposite.

How did you arrive at the above conclusion?

 

[RoseMontague]

It seems very important to you that the Supreme Court somehow confirmed the lower courts reasoning regarding Raffaele rather than just ruling on the legal issues regarding Guede. It seems to me that the SC went out of their way to say just the opposite.

I would say I place importance on trying to understand the nuances of the Italian judicial system, so I tend to ask questions, seems an reasonable approach, I can certainly understand why a judge is member of an Italian jury.

How do you arrive at the above conclusion?

I would love to have someone like Machiavelli still here to give us some insight on this but my conclusion from the early reports and later quotes is accurate on this from all I have been able to determine.