Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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.

I already told you to keep your condescension to yourself.

Again, I'm afraid that the condescension might be justifiable. If a person actually committed a crime, but cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (following a correctly-applied judicial process) to have committed that crime, then that person has not escaped justice. That person has been submitted to the proper judicial process, and justice has been properly applied.

However, if that person unlawfully intimidated prosecution witnesses, or police/prosecutorial incompetence/misconduct actively resulted in an acquittal, there might be a rationale in claiming that the person had "escaped justice". Do you see the difference?

 

[lane99]

...The only reason the "staging" idea was dreamt up was to explain away inconvenient evidence of Knox and Sollecito's innocence.

Indeed, the most likely reason the "evidence" presented for staging is so feeble is because it wasn't staged.

Certainly a crime scene with an apparent point of entry that seems at first glance unlikely or nigh well impossible, leaves only two reasonable possibilities:

1) in spite of first impressions, it IS the actual point of entry (example: Greg Parsons case in Canada)

2) entry was initially attempted through that point, but failed

People don't "stage" crime scenes through what would be seen as highly implausible entry points. It's why, for example, there aren't a lot of staged crime scenes which try to make it appear the perpetrator gained entry by climbing down the chimney.

 

[colonelhall]

London john. You can be as condescending as you like. I find it quite amusing.

Her's another poster who believes

"A person guilty of a crime who avoids legal punishment has "escaped justice".

As for your comments about misconduct, intimidation etc. I really do not see what it has to do with this case.

Lane 99 your idea that the point of entry wasn't staged, is quite fanciful, in my opinion. Especialy as you think the evidence presented was so "feeble" Surely, if it had been "feeble" the jury wouldn't have convicted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unconvincing

London john. You can be as condescending as you like. I find it quite amusing.

Her's another poster who believes

"A person guilty of a crime who avoids legal punishment has "escaped justice".

As for your comments about misconduct, intimidation etc. I really do not see what it has to do with this case.

Lane 99 your idea that the point of entry wasn't staged, is quite fanciful, in my opinion. Especialy as you think the evidence presented was so "feeble" Surely, if it had been "feeble" the jury wouldn't have convicted.

colonelhall,

Perhaps you would like to answer some of the questions several commenters have asked in the last few pages with respect to the break-in. Using the verdict as evidence in a thread which seeks to test the evidence behind the verdict is unconvincing.

 

[Antony]

Lane 99 your idea that the point of entry wasn't staged, is quite fanciful, in my opinion.

You calling it "fanciful" doesn't make it so. The reality is that every pretext for claiming the break-in was allegedly staged has been debunked on this forum.

Especialy as you think the evidence presented was so "feeble" Surely, if it had been "feeble" the jury wouldn't have convicted.

When reason fails, appeal to authority. It's an authority that is utterly discredited, which is why this forum exists. The Massei report demonstrates the lack of impartiality at the original trial.

 

[colonelhall]

Sorry Halides1 I have no intention of answering these questions. The issue has been discussed to death on these pages. There are people who have studied this case in far greater detail than I, who have made a convincing case in this respect.

 

[Chris C]

Sorry Halides1 I have no intention of answering these questions. The issue has been discussed to death on these pages. There are people who have studied this case in far greater detail than I, who have made a convincing case in this respect.

Well you did say this.

Lane 99 your idea that the point of entry wasn't staged, is quite fanciful, in my opinion.

Apparently your opinion is you believe someone else and therefore don't wish to discuss someone elses opinion on the case. Which makes one wonder why are you even posting here if you don't wish to discuss your opinion that has been formed on someone elses supposed convincing opinion. Your using a strawman defense.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not convincing

Sorry Halides1 I have no intention of answering these questions. The issue has been discussed to death on these pages. There are people who have studied this case in far greater detail than I, who have made a convincing case in this respect.

colonelhall,

If these people made what you consider to be a convincing case, then I fail to see why you should be unwilling to present it. What you and Fuji have said so far actually sets the pro-guilt position back, IMO.

 

[Chris C]

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"

Its called jurisdiction. We have an extradition treaty with our allys. Therefore if a crime is committed on a Country's soil it has to be tried in that Country's courts. The Knox's exercised their Right to Free Speech, granted to them by the First Amendment. If someone outside the US feels they violated some slander law in the US by exercising those rights, then United States courts hold jurisdiction.

All you have to do is think back to Natalee Holloway's parents, who filed a wrongful death civil suit against Joran van der Sloot. It was ruled that the Kingdom of the Netherlands courts held jurisdiction.

 

[Chris C]

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 ?

So you believe all the people that Mignini charged with slander lied?

Now if its the cops you want to speak about. You claim one of them would have blown the whistle by now. Yet everyone knows that anyone that blows the whistle would need hard evidence. If not, they would face slander charges, such as the interrogation tapes. Anyone thats guilty of the crime would not admit to it and would charge those with slander that accused them. This is how Italy works. Is it right? No. If you ask me if Knox is guilty of slander. Well by Italian standards she is. In italy its not about right or wrong. Its about whether you can prove it. That kind of slander system favors the guilty and victimizes the innocent.

 

[colonelhall]

I pop in here from time to time, but see nothing new presented by the usual bunch of Knox supporters. I am somewhat aggrieved by the hostile reception afforded to those who have an opposing and more convincing view of the case. I sometimes feel that there is a "bully-boy" tactic being employed. Whatever. You may wonder why I am posting here, but I owe neither you halides or any of the others an explanation. As for Fuji setting back the pro-guilt position. I think not. I think that you all could learn something fro the likes of Fuji, Coulsdon, Pilot and the others. If nothing else then how to conduct yourselves civilly on an internet forum.

I thank you, and good night!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

That's an excellent point, Danceme. If the evidence were manufactured, whether on the items or "on paper," it is reasonable to expect that the prosecutors would have gone to much greater lengths to produce evidence that was not so paltry.

The key seems to be that the prosecutors were not expecting their evidence to be questioned so vigorously. It's not that they didn't frame Amanda and Raffaele, it's that they did a really terrible job of it. They simply took advantage of opportunities, instead of formulating strategies.

Mary_H!!

It's so nice to see your flowers again!

I totally agree with you: the evidence was manufactured on-the-fly, as the various needs arose which is why it is so far from solid. What is so intersting about it is its ability to pass muster with a group of internet... shall we say... sick twists.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H!!

It's so nice to see your flowers again!

I totally agree with you: the evidence was manufactured on-the-fly, as the various needs arose which is why it is so far from solid. What is so intersting about it is its ability to pass muster with a group of internet... shall we say... sick twists.

Thank you, PDiGirolamo!

 

[Draca]

Highly Disorganized Crime Scene / Crime of Passion

- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room

In regards to why 'nothing' was stolen from the cottage if Rudy Guede was there to rob the cottage I would introduce the terms 'Highly Disorganized crime scene' and 'Crime of Passion'. It explains why Rudy Guede's original goal of burglary was deserted and he grabbed some cash and fled leaving other valuables behind.

“Disorganized crime scene characteristics include a spontaneous crime, knowledge of victim or location, sudden violence to victim, minimal use of restraints, depersonalization of victim, minimal conversation, random and sloppy crime scene, post mortem sex, weapon and evidence present and body left in view and not removed from crime scene.” -- Geographic profiling –Pg. 71, By D. Kim Rossmo

"From examination of the crime scene in Meredith’s room, it should have been obvious to any experienced or trained investigator that the rape and killing of Meredith Kercher was likely what is known as a “crime of passion.” These crimes are unplanned, opportunistic crimes that usually occur spontaneously." -- Steve Moore.

The attack on Meredith Kercher was a resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident. It was an opportunistic crime that occurred suddenly. “Some of the hallmarks of these crimes are Highly Disorganized crime scenes, where little, if any attempt has been made to conceal evidence or hide one’s identity. No planning is evident.” Rudy Guede left behind a palm print, shoe prints and DNA. The crime scene was a literal bloody mess. There was little attempt to hide his identity or clean up the crime scene.

Once a burglar is caught in the act, or if he decides that the opportunity of rape has presented itself, the burglary is really over for all intents and purposes. He either flees, or commits the rape and flees. Burglars know that the longer they spend in a location, the greater their chance of being caught.

Rudy Guede likely left the cottage and was on his way toward the garden within an hour after the murder. He fled the country within a few days. After killing someone, even if he COULD sell items, he knew he wouldn't have time, and any contact with that evidence would be devastating evidence against him. He grabbed what was useful and in reach. He went through Meredith's purse and stole money, phones, keys and left the country.


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html
Highly disorganized crime scene, crime of passion

 

[Mary_H]

Indeed, the most likely reason the "evidence" presented for staging is so feeble is because it wasn't staged.

Certainly a crime scene with an apparent point of entry that seems at first glance unlikely or nigh well impossible, leaves only two reasonable possibilities:

1) in spite of first impressions, it IS the actual point of entry (example: Greg Parsons case in Canada)

2) entry was initially attempted through that point, but failed

People don't "stage" crime scenes through what would be seen as highly implausible entry points. It's why, for example, there aren't a lot of staged crime scenes which try to make it appear the perpetrator gained entry by climbing down the chimney.

I agree. The broken window essentially has nothing to do with the murder. My belief has always been that Rudy threw a rock through the window (before OR after the murder) but went in through the front door. There is not enough evidence to prove that Rudy climbed in the window, nor that Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in. Filomena's room probably had clothes on the floor before the glass was broken, then she messed it up some more when searching for stuff to take with her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an invitation to join the debate

I pop in here from time to time, but see nothing new presented by the usual bunch of Knox supporters. I am somewhat aggrieved by the hostile reception afforded to those who have an opposing and more convincing view of the case. I sometimes feel that there is a "bully-boy" tactic being employed. Whatever. You may wonder why I am posting here, but I owe neither you halides or any of the others an explanation. As for Fuji setting back the pro-guilt position. I think not. I think that you all could learn something fro the likes of Fuji, Coulsdon, Pilot and the others. If nothing else then how to conduct yourselves civilly on an internet forum.

I thank you, and good night!

colonelhall,

There is nothing hostile or bullying about anyone's asking you or Fuji to support your views with evidence and/or logical argumentation. Your use of the phrase "more convincing view" above is hardly a model of how to exchange ideas in a civil and cordial manner. The reason I said that you and Fuji have set back the pro-guilt position is that you are not engaging our arguments. Instead you are handwaving them away. Would a previously impartial observer find such arguments convicing? I strongly doubt it. However, should you change your mind and decide to engage your opposition in a dialog in which all views are examined and all commenters are treated with respect, I would welcome your participation.

[highlighing mine]

 

[CoulsdonUK]

colonelhall,

There is nothing hostile or bullying about anyone's asking you or Fuji to support your views with evidence and/or logical argumentation. Your use of the phrase "more convincing view" above is hardly a model of how to exchange ideas in a civil and cordial manner. The reason I said that you and Fuji have set back the pro-guilt position is that you are not engaging our arguments. Instead you are handwaving them away. Would a previously impartial observer find such arguments convicing? I strongly doubt it. However, should you change your mind and decide to engage your opposition in a dialog in which all views are examined and all commenters are treated with respect, I would welcome your participation.

[highlighing mine]

Halides1

I asked a question yesterday which hasn't really been addressed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7070305&postcount=6440

 

[Chris_Halkides]

undisciplined

Halides1

I asked a question yesterday which hasn't really been addressed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7070305&postcount=6440

CoulsdonUK,

Katody Matrass replied to your question. I suspect that the answer to your question is that no one has been disciplined. I certainly have not heard of anyone’s being disciplined. Taking the answer of no one as a given (meaning, let us assume it is true), what do you conclude from it?

 

[Antony]

Halides1

I asked a question yesterday which hasn't really been addressed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7070305&postcount=6440

It was addressed by Katody_Matrass at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7070497#post7070497

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Halides1

Katody Matrass did everything but answer what were simple questions, as I am sure you realise.

I conclude that people of like mind put forward assertions which then transform into hard facts in some people’s minds. Raffaele and Amanda are part of a legal process which may or may not end in their release; some of their supporters would strangely argue that they are innocent until their release or confirmation of their sentence, yet Mignini is “guilty”, so people are expected to accept Raffaele and Amanda’s possible innocence but not Mignini!

To repeat the questions which were directed to Antony and are to be honest fairly straight forward:

1:

Has police misconduct and or misdeeds been raised in either defence submissions or are you expressing an opinion?

2:

Has any police officer or forensic officer been disciplined in connection to (with) the investigation or trial?

Please point out where questions 1 or 2 where addressed?