Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

And nobody blows the whistle? How much do you think just one of those involved would get from the Brit tabloids for spilling the beans?

No, this grand conspiracy by so many just doesn't wash.

Then they'd have to admit they did something wrong, something they may go to jail for, who willingly puts their neck in a noose? As long as they can tell themselves they did it for the 'greater good'--to capture a violent murderess and her accomplice, then it becomes easier to rationalize. I don't believe any of them did this on purpose I think misunderstandings and mistakes caused them to think Amanda was complicit with Patrick in the murder, and they believed it and they took the gloves off with her. That's where this all started, when they took Amanda into that backroom and put the screws to her all night long to produce those worthless statements. They screwed up, and they don't want to pay the price for it or admit to it.

By the time Rudy was captured and Patrick released, they thought they still had evidence on Amanda and Raffaele, the 'murder knife,' the bloody shoe prints of Rudy's they still had misattributed to Raffaele, they even had a smeared print in the murder room they still thought might be Amanda's at that point. Thus why not blame the arrest of Patrick on Amanda? The paparazzi and tabloids had gone hog-wild with the story, they'd created a monster, they'd believe anything at that point about Amanda, the cops might have believed some of it too, it was all for the 'greater good,'--why should they have to admit to any mistakes in the capture of these two monstrous sociopaths they read about every day?

 

[pilot padron]

How many people that have spoke up against Mignini are charged with slander? Do you honestly believe all of them lied? Heck from what I hear, Mignini is willing to help wth slander cases against people on US soil exercising their right to free speach. You also base this logic on the fact that guilty police officers would admit to the press that they committed crimes.

1)"Do you honestly believe all of them lied?"

After having done some very cursory research into the political and revenge based motivations for the Prosecutor being convicted, many from both parties in Italy have described these simply sinister motivations as the sole reason for the charges against Prosecutor Mignini, and they are totally unjustified.
My answer is not only yes, but *absolutely* yes

Please do also recall:
A) that this is the same Italian judicial system that your dearest drumbeat talking point constantly ridicules and derides as totally and completely incompetent..so which is it now, Chris ?)

B) Your other drummed to death talking point is that no one in Italy can be guilty of anything until all Appeals are complete.. You do remember that one, don't you ?
Again, which is it, Chris ?

2)"Heck from what I hear, Mignini is willing to help wth (sp) slander cases against people on US soil exercising their right to free speach. (sp)"

Again, a very small expenditure of time and effort for some very elementary research would enlighten you that people on US soil have the right to free speech, but that in no way gives them the right to commit the crime of slander against others.

PS:
Heartfelt apologies to Lowe if he considers my rebuttal argument above to Chris C as just yet another....
"cherry-pick of the least rational things said by the most emotionally committed pro-innocence posters"

 

[JREF2010]

The key seems to be that the prosecutors were not expecting their evidence to be questioned so vigorously.

This is a scary comment really. Does it imply this is the Perugia standard competence level, and that its usually ok, and usually nobody says anything or disputes it?

They didnt even have the circles on the tennis shoes right! Wasn't it some Aunt or cousin did the real detective work?

The computer hardrives ruined and the repair of the hardrives refused!

I'm not going to post the complete list.....

but its a scary thought this was the usual way they do things in Perugia.

 

[Fuji]

The only proof that we are waiting for is the independent technical review that can tell the court that the conclusions that the defense reached are accurate.

Yes, and until this review has been performed, it is inaccurate to refer to your assertion regarding this purported evidence as "proof".

I choose to believe the defense. If you choose to side with the proven liars, that is your choice.

Agreed. If one chooses to side with proven liars, then the defense is definitely the way to go.

 

[Fuji]

Well now, here's a pdf with an official Italian Republic letterhead.

http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/norme/varie/sentribperugia_281004.pdf

Guess whose name is on page one of the document?

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann.

What was that again about me being more careful with my "corrections"? A short, simple apology would be fine. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and don't believe everything you read in the papers

Right, my bad - because it's reasonable to assume that the Telegraph, the Guardian, ABC, and CNN are all misspelling a guy's name in exactly the same way.

At least your spell-checking prowess has led us all to a deeper and fuller understanding of all the manifest intricacies of the Kercher murder case, and for that I thank you.

 

[Fuji]

Be a sport and give us some options then - there can't be that many, can there?

Quite probably with a rock thrown from inside with the room, as hypothesized by Massei, or perhaps with a rock held and used as a club against the window, or perhaps with a well-placed elbow. I honestly don't know and won't pretend to have such knowledge.

At the same time, maybe you might explain why the scene in and outside Filomena's room is actively inconsistent with a real break-in.

Off the top of my head:

- Ground undisturbed under the window
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall
- Broken glass all along windowsill
- Absence of broken glass under window
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry)
- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room

 

[Fuji]

"Deluded" is your word, not mine. And it's been clear for a long time which side of the argument is in error. The fact that despite flooding the latest page of the forum with posts, you haven't provided the slightest evidence of the fictitious "staging" other than further assertions, rather shows which side that might be.

See my last post to LondonJohn.

As for "finding out in a few weeks' time", you place too much credence in the statements of Italian courts. The ruling of the Hellmann court won't change the facts of the case any more than the original verdict did - although after the reports of the latest hearing it's looking more hopeful that he will base his findings on facts rather than the media hysteria that guided the first trial.

This is nonsense. My original references to "delusion" and "finding out in a few weeks' time" were in specific response to a Knox supporter who opined that Knox and Sollecito would unquestionably win their appeal. The only possible arbiter of this particular sub-debate is Hellman's court.

 

[Fuji]

Thus it is reasonable to note that in no way does 'proving' the break-in was staged automatically indict Raffaele and/or Amanda.

It most certainly does, at least with respect to Knox. In the real world, crime scene staging is only done by insiders.

So, in your formulation, how does Guede gain entrance to the cottage? Why does he rape and murder Kercher (remember - you can't use the "I was surprised by a resident during my burglary so I raped and murdered the resident" explanation, which is already tendentious as is)? Why does he go to such lengths to simulate a burglary, while leaving other obvious signs of his presence?

Unless you were hypothesizing someone else to do this crime scene staging besides Guede, Knox, and/or Sollecito. If so, I'd love to hear that theory...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

list of lies

Agreed. If one chooses to side with proven liars, then the defense is definitely the way to go.

Fuji,

Charlie Wilkes provided a list of ILEs lies back in August (to which malkmus added), and the Harry Potter book was added within a couple of pages of the citation above, IIRC. Do you dispute this list? If so, would you provide citations? If you don't dispute the list, would you explain why you are still throwing your lot in with the liars?

 

[Fuji]

So after all this brilliant reasoning and crime scene staging, he somehow forgets to flush the toilet and wipe up his bloody prints from the murder scene, and leaves his DNA on Meredith's body?

NOBODY staged a break in. Full stop.

I agree entirely with your first paragraph. As to your second paragraph, if you changed "NOBODY" to "Not Rudy Guede", as is logically implied by your first paragraph, then I would be in full agreement with that as well.

 

[Fuji]

Maybe you could bridge your point of view with first a quote of what Sollecito said and how it implicates him with staging the crime.

Sollecito's alibi was that he was with Knox. Knox was found guilty in the first trial of staging a crime scene. Therefore, Sollecito is also complicit of crime scene staging as well (and was found guilty of such in the first trial).

I suppose that Sollectio's defense could argue now that their client was actually NOT with Knox on the night of the murder. But that path also its own pitfalls...

 

[Fuji]

One thing at a time.

Exactly. If the appellate defense cannot succeed in establishing reasonable doubt that the break-in was simulated, then the convictions will be upheld, DNA or no DNA.

 

[Fuji]

I guess if you was speaking directly to the person it's a matter of courtesy. However, I have not bothered to find out what the correct spelling of Hellmann's name is. Regardless if I spell it Helmann, Helman, Hellman, Hellmann does it really matter? If you are posting on this forum and don't know who he is, then that person should probably read more. If you do know who he is, whats the big deal?

I agree. However, for at least one poster here, it is a "big deal", for reasons unknown.

 

[Fuji]

Are you equating "guilty of a crime" with "actually committed the crime"? If so, you're entering a philosophical minefield. In a civilised criminal justice system, a person is only "guilty" of a crime if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.

I quite succintly stated: 'A person guilty of a crime who avoids legal punishment has "escaped justice".'

Allow me to rephrase that for your edification:

'A person who actually committed a crime and who subsequently avoids legal punishment for said crime has "escaped justice".'

No "minefield" required or extant, other than perhaps your sophistic contortions.

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. It's a good system: you should read about it a bit.

I already told you to keep your condescension to yourself.

 

[Morse]

Off the top of my head:

- Ground undisturbed under the window
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall
- Broken glass all along windowsill
- Absence of broken glass under window
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry)
- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room

I really have to love the double standard here.

No evidence Rudy climbed through the window: "It's impossible for him to have entered this way, and the break-in MUST have been staged!"

No evidence of Amanda and Sollecito in the murder room: "A pair of stoned college kids are able to erase all traces of themselves in a few hours without leaving any sign of a cleanup, and unlike some of the 'experts', they are able to perfectly determine which traces are theirs and which are Rudy's."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fenced in

Quite probably with a rock thrown from inside with the room, as hypothesized by Massei, or perhaps with a rock held and used as a club against the window, or perhaps with a well-placed elbow. I honestly don't know and won't pretend to have such knowledge.



Off the top of my head:

- Ground undisturbed under the window
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall
- Broken glass all along windowsill
- Absence of broken glass under window
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry)
- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room

Fuji,

I only have time to discuss a few of your points, but here goes. Rudi needed money for rent (and perhaps for drugs). He also was not good (or not lucky) at fencing stolen items, if his experience with respect to his trip to Milan is any indication. That is why he took money and not other items. As for the absence of DNA, that rests upon several factors, including what Guede was wearing, how much time he spent there, and how much of the room was sampled for DNA. The supposed broken glass on top of items is heavily disputed, as I am sure you are aware. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

people who throw stones

Quite probably with a rock thrown from inside with the room, as hypothesized by Massei, or perhaps with a rock held and used as a club against the window, or perhaps with a well-placed elbow. I honestly don't know and won't pretend to have such knowledge.

Fuji,

How do these possibilities square with Pasquali's results?

 

[Antony]

Agreed. If one chooses to side with proven liars, then the defense is definitely the way to go.

The tone of your post suggests you believe the "proven liars" to be Knox and Sollecito. You are wrong: the Perugia police are proven independently to have lied repeatedly, while the allegation of lying against Knox and Sollecito depends upon the word of the Perugia police.

Therefore Knox and Sollecito cannot be regarded as having lied - the allegation is just one of the lies told about them.

Off the top of my head:

- Ground undisturbed under the window
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall
- Broken glass all along windowsill
- Absence of broken glass under window
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry)
- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room

Your reasons are all either untrue or of no account:

- Ground undisturbed under the window: of no account;
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall: untrue;
- Broken glass all along windowsill: not sure about this, but it doesn't preclude entry through the window;
- Absence of broken glass under window: never verified by investigators;
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room: of no account;
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room: of no account, but whitewash from the wall was found in Filomena's room;
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry): untrue;
- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room: of no account, since there is clear evidence that Guede was interrupted during his burglary by Meredith arriving home;
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room; of no account, since glass shards were found both under and on top of the scattered clothes.

Fuji, you are completely misinformed. The fact is that the police never investigated whether the break-in was genuine or not. The only reason the "staging" idea was dreamt up was to explain away inconvenient evidence of Knox and Sollecito's innocence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. If the appellate defense cannot succeed in establishing reasonable doubt that the break-in was simulated, then the convictions will be upheld, DNA or no DNA.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, you have little grasp of the "de novo" nature of Italian appeal trials. Second, there is absolutely not a causal link between a staged break-in and Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. Even if it were proven that this was a staging (for which, in any case, I believe there is ample doubt), this cannot in and of itself convict Knox and Sollecito of the crime of sexually-aggravated murder. End of.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree. However, for at least one poster here, it is a "big deal", for reasons unknown.

Ahahaha. I pointed it out almost offhand, then you picked up the ball and insisted that my correction was wrong, on the basis that the mighty Nick Pisa had spelled the name in a certain way. I think I know who made the "big deal" out of it.

At least Hellmann might get his name spelled correctly more often now, eh Fiji?