Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

Mark Covell

Well, everyone knows the Italian police are models of propriety, after all.

Just ask Mark Covell.

My God. What a horrific story. The more I learn about Italian justice the more I'm appalled. These cops are just like the pack in Perugia that Frank Sfarzo has described. This country clearly needs more oversight of its police, prosecution, forensics and even judges.

This is so disheartening, and I believe it will be the same in this case:

The second is that, seven years later, Covell and his fellow victims are still waiting for justice. On Monday, 15 police, prison guards and prison medics finally were convicted for their part in the violence - although it emerged yesterday that none of them would actually serve prison terms. In Italy, defendants don't go to jail until they have exhausted the appeals process; and in this case, the convictions and sentences will be wiped out by a statute of limitations next year.

I think Patrizia will keep her lab, the pack will continue on, Giobbi no problems his direction, Massei will judge again. As for Mignini? Since he is boldly shameless he is unlikey to suffer even from embarrassment for long. Perhaps a mark on each of their reputations.... but they will keep employment.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't take it as a given, simply because all Guede had was a cut on the finger.

In that case, we agree on a lot.

What I find ridiculous is Mignini's efforts to make this mark on her neck into an injury indicating guilt and imply that she was covering it up so investigators would not see it.

I just reread the passage. I'm inclined to agree with you that the text, as it stands, seems to indicate he is claiming she was seeking to conceal it. Whether this is him seeking to explain why the investigators appear not to have noticed it, yet other people did, or in order to imply guilt requires going beyond the text. He does afterall come out with the concealment stuff after being asked why the police didn't notice it. It's a pity the interviewer didn't ask a follow up question.

 

[Antony]

I'm sure you are right. There is very little, crazy or otherwise, that hasn't at some time been claimed about this case.

On the pro-guilt side, yes. The innocence claims are actually few and consistent: Amanda and Raffaele were at his flat; Rudy Guede committed the crime on his own; the police tried to solve the crime the easy way without looking at the evidence, and refused to modify their conclusions when the real evidence became available; then the court returned a "guilty" verdict on the basis of negative media coverage, rather than genuine evidence.

It certainly seems like a decent starting place.

Are you for real? It's this arse-first approach that leads to every miscarriage of justice: settle on your suspect(s) first, and then find the evidence to convict them. Meanwhile the real culprit watches the reports of arrests on television. It's tragic.

 

[spartacus]

cute, but seriously.... if she was involved, why does she have to have sustained signifant injuries?

Although not required, most forensic people will tell you that it is uncommon to be actually involved in violent murder without getting any bruises or cuts of any kind. Originally they had AK plunging the knife, although now Mignini has her hopping up and down at the door sill as she "orchestrates" the whole thing (his explanation for absence of AK DNA in murder room).

 

[shuttlt]

I'm sure you are right. There is very little, crazy or otherwise, that hasn't at some time been claimed about this case.

On the pro-guilt side, yes. The innocence claims are actually few and consistent:

If the PerugiaShock comments section ever comes back, I'm sure I can provide examples of pro-innocence claims that are both numerous and inconsistent.

Amanda and Raffaele were at his flat; Rudy Guede committed the crime on his own; the police tried to solve the crime the easy way without looking at the evidence, and refused to modify their conclusions when the real evidence became available; then the court returned a "guilty" verdict on the basis of negative media coverage, rather than genuine evidence.

I can construct a bunch of facts that the pro-guilt side has always stuck to... Amanda and Raffaele left his flat. Rudy couldn't have done it alone...

Both sides have a looney fringe.

Are you for real? It's this arse-first approach that leads to every miscarriage of justice: settle on your suspect(s) first, and then find the evidence to convict them. Meanwhile the real culprit watches the reports of arrests on television. It's tragic.

So you shouldn't check people's alibis and work out where every body was and when at an early stage in the investigation?

 

[shuttlt]

Although not required, most forensic people will tell you that it is uncommon to be actually involved in violent murder without getting any bruises or cuts of any kind.

Assuming that that's true, it surely depends on the circumstances of the murder. I imagine that when there are multiple assailants, not all of whom play an equally physically involved role, it would be more common. As was mentioned earlier, it's not as if Rudy was covered in marks, though of course they would have had more time to heal.

Originally they had AK plunging the knife, although now Mignini has her hopping up and down at the door sill as she "orchestrates" the whole thing (his explanation for absence of AK DNA in murder room).

Is there evidence to do more than speculate, given the assumption that Amanda was there?

 

[spartacus]

Assuming that that's true, it surely depends on the circumstances of the murder. I imagine that when there are multiple assailants, not all of whom play an equally physically involved role, it would be more common. As was mentioned earlier, it's not as if Rudy was covered in marks, though of course they would have had more time to heal.


Is there evidence to do more than speculate, given the assumption that Amanda was there?

No, no evidence for the "role in the sex game turned murder" at all. No dna, blood, footprints of AK, nothing. That didn't stop Mignini from recreating the scene and reading a dramatic speech AK read as she plunged the dagger into the victim's neck.

At this point only the low copy dna on the knife (no evidence it was at the murder scene) that is logically impossible as a murder weapon as no blood or bleach was found (so how did that blood simply dissapear?)

Those of us who think she is innocent do not find it surprising, of course, that there was no evidence that she was there.

 

[RandyN]

Imagine what would happen to every one of them if one of them did break ranks? If one of them steps forward all of them could and probably would face jail time. Wasn't there a case in Italy were a suspect accidentially fell down the stairs and then hung his own dead body?

Actually I think the case you are refering to involves a suspect during questioning who the police claim went over to a window, opened it (it was winter) and then accidently fell out...killing himself.

 

[RandyN]

This is new on me. There used to be complaints that she was a police interpreter - almost too official. Is there some claim that something underhanded was done in the choice of interpreter?

Dont know her status but she is included with 4 police officers, for a total of 5 officials who claim to be slandered by AK.

 

[Kaosium]

If the court exonerates them I will accept it. I hope you will have the same reaction if it goes the other way. Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.

That would also be the case if the evidence suggests they didn't do it. The only way one is able to maintain the view that either is equally possible is through ignorance or indecision. That's because there's only two (basic) possibilities in this instance: either Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, or they were not. The available evidence in the case either supports the contention that they were involved, or it suggests the police made a mistake through circumstance, incompetence or design. If you think on the last sentence, that is going to be the case in every instance in which someone is prosecuted who is actually innocent, thus is hardly specific to this case.

There is much more evidence--physical and otherwise--to suggest that Raffaele and Amanda are totally innocent than there is that they are guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You can see that reflected in the debate, as there's one side which doesn't want to talk about the evidence at all because discussion of it eventually reveals to the rational that it is probably either irrelevant (the 'lies' of Raffaele and Amanda, the DNA mixes in the bathroom) or actually points to a disingenuous prosecution (luminol footprints, 'staged' break-in, the three main witness testimonies) or total incompetence and perhaps even slight of hand. (DNA 'evidence')

Would you like to hear a cool story, bro?

Chalk this one up to Kaosium's ( ) twisted sense of humor, apropos of nothing...

Imagine there was a group of highly intelligent and creative people who were following this case who, for whatever reason, came to the absolute (or virtually so) conclusion that Amanda Knox and Raffale Sollecito were definitely involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, as the facts came out, they eventually realized that the police had botched just about everything, especially the evidence collection at the scene which was done by blundering arrogant incompetents who destroyed what evidence 'should' have existed. With dismay they note that Massei is unable to make a convincing case to the discriminating reader who really knows the case, or important areas of expertise relevant to it.

However they feel they know that Amanda and Raffaele are still guilty, but also that it's not quite possible to argue it rationally being as the evidence that 'should' be there isn't because of the bungling policework, compounded by an eccentric prosecutor who made a sensationalistic case far past his evidence which can't really be defended either. As there's people noticing the holes in the case and bleating all over everywhere that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, there must be some way to stem this tide, they might think. There's rhetorical tricks and political strategies that can be employed to dispute and discredit these obnoxious 'groupies' who're so narrowly focused on things like the 'evidence', and they know that people can be fooled with such methods, as they've seen it happen themselves in courtrooms and in politics.

Dirty tricks to be certain, but those who can't 'see' that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty despite the lack of evidence must be otherwise motivated anyway. What kind of obsessive nutter would wade through 400 pages of translated Italian, peruse all those crime scene photos, and read all those articles and books to find the holes in the case like they did? That was different of course, they wanted justice for Meredith. These groupies must all be delusional mother hens, perverts, bleeding hearts, and suckers for a story of a girl in peril.

So what could they do? Certainly avoid as much actual discussion of the evidence as possible, merely serve to obfuscate it and 'discredit' those who've noticed it doesn't add up to much. A little disinformation here and there might not hurt either, 'bloody footprints' sound damning as hell, and if these damned groupies are discredited enough who the hell is going to listen to them anyway?

They have the 400 page Massei Report on their side and the jury's decision, point to that as much as possible, it's a convincing argument to many people. Zero in on the most articulate and dedicated supporters and raise doubts about them so people won't believe them, maybe see if some of them can be intimidated. Plus some of them are real jackasses in their minds anyway and have it coming! Call those who question the police methods 'conspiracy theorists' as that's a damning indictment on that never-ending JREF thread which perhaps they can try to close down, or get it removed to the conspiracy theory section where it damn well belongs! If they are annoying enough in this subtle process, they might provoke some heated reactions which would just serve to make them look like meanies! Remember, teacher always catches the one who hits back, and some of them are real easy to irk.

The best part of this strategy is no one could ever figure out, and if they did who'd believe them? They'd sound like a delusional nutcase! They could just erase the thread hidden in the bowels of a huge website, (as some of their own stalwarts wouldn't approve of such discussion and they couldn't have the groupies listening in) where the limited luminaries discussed their doubts on the case and the policework, and no one would ever know. As long as people think there's two sides and they can convince them the groupies suck, then they'll 'win.' Most people naturally assume those arrested are guilty anyway, and these two have already been convicted, even more damning! At any rate, something must be done to stop that disingenuous PR campaign, even if they have to descend to the groupies level! Even if they discredit themselves in the process they can muddy the waters enough no sane person would want to enter into the debate!

Here marks the end of that delusional conspiracy-minded thinking, I'm just having fun, nothing like that could ever happen of course.

Incidentally, and totally unrelated to the above, just my disturbed mind flitting from topic to topic like it often does, the license of chaos, does anyone know if the Wayback Machine or something similar could show how a certain messageboard looked circa July 10th, 2010? The whole thing of course, not just the most populated thread(s)...

 

[RandyN]

It really does all depend on whether Alessi’s testimony is credible and what the others testify to, also let’s not forget the prosecutions questioning of the witnesses. In addition, whether Aviello testimony complements or contradicts Alessi and others, for varying reasons Guede, Alessi and Aviello all in my opinion have credibility issues.

Yes and thats exactly why Guede needs to stand before the court ,AK, and RS to explain why he accuses the defendants of this crime. They were denied the right to cross examine him in his own trial where he alleges that they are the guilty parties. Now in fairness they should get to question RG verasity.

 

[shuttlt]

Dont know her status but she is included with 4 police officers, for a total of 5 officials who claim to be slandered by AK.

Is she listed as an "official"? It seem like an odd choice of words to use to describe her, particularly in the context of my asking Chris C why she was "non official". What are you trying to convey by describing her as an "official"? Same question to Chris C. for "non official".

 

[Antony]

If the PerugiaShock comments section ever comes back, I'm sure I can provide examples of pro-innocence claims that are both numerous and inconsistent.

Possibly. There are "pro-innocence" posters who put everything down to supposed "anti-americanism". That doesn't alter the fact-based innocence arguments, which can be summed up by my last post.

I can construct a bunch of facts that the pro-guilt side has always stuck to... Amanda and Raffaele left his flat. Rudy couldn't have done it alone...

Really? It seems to me that even the official prosecution can't stay consistent in its account of the case. And nobody on JREF is willing to answer Kevin Lowe's question: what was the sequence of events allegedly involving Amanda and Raffaele, that even matches the known facts?

Both sides have a looney fringe.

True ... the difference is that the pro-guilt looney fringe makes up the mainstream of their whole faction.

So you shouldn't check people's alibis and work out where every body was and when at an early stage in the investigation?

Possibly - but not as starting point of building any kind of case. That has to be solid evidence - going by the mere absence of an alibi is the kind of lazy investigation that leads to all kinds of injustice.

 

[Justinian2]

What kind of alibi can someone that stayed home all night easily come up with? It would be easy if you know in advance that you are going to need one to arrange some circumstance to show you were in a location incompatible with being at the crime scene. Even after the fact, one could for instance go out dancing so as to be seen in public and lend credence to the idea that they were dancing all night. But if you are just at home and no visitors happen to stop by, too bad.

Being at home with the family is the normal alibi. Were someone to have an alibi, like being at a party, perhaps that should be suspicious.

If Amanda had traveled home during the holiday to visit her parents, now that would be the perfect alibi.

Strange that two innocent people had to be imprisoned and charged in order to eliminate the alibi. That's like killing someone just because they're a witness. Mignini is as cold as a hired assassin.

 

[shuttlt]

There is much more evidence--physical and otherwise--to suggest that Raffaele and Amanda are totally innocent than there is that they are guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You can see that reflected in the debate, as there's one side which doesn't want to talk about the evidence at all because discussion of it eventually reveals to the rational that it is probably either irrelevant (the 'lies' of Raffaele and Amanda, the DNA mixes in the bathroom) or actually points to a disingenuous prosecution (luminol footprints, 'staged' break-in, the three main witness testimonies) or total incompetence and perhaps even slight of hand. (DNA 'evidence')

This was discussed up thread for a year. What more is there to say about the prints, and whether or not someone could climb in through the window? Would there be any point in anybody arguing any of it again except for the sake of being pig headed and refusing to tolerate other people taking a different view of things?

 

[shuttlt]

Possibly. There are "pro-innocence" posters who put everything down to supposed "anti-americanism".

There's certainly a lot of that. Another poster kept going on and on about how it wouldn't have happened if Meredith's friends had wallked her to the door and it was inexcusable not to have done this. That got kind of unpleasant as well. Hopefully a troll.

That doesn't alter the fact-based innocence arguments, which can be summed up by my last post.

Granted. One can't tar everyone with the brush of the fringe nutters.

Really? It seems to me that even the official prosecution can't stay consistent in its account of the case. And nobody on JREF is willing to answer Kevin Lowe's question: what was the sequence of events allegedly involving Amanda and Raffaele, that even matches the known facts?

It really depends on what facts you chose to build your nugget of consistency around. In any case, one would really expect the defence to be more consistent anyway, since their clients can in fact tell them what happened. The prosecution have to figure it out for themselves.

True ... the difference is that the pro-guilt looney fringe makes up the mainstream of their whole faction.

I disagree. Looneys aren't a problem because by and large it is immediately obvious to anyone that they are a looney. It's not as if a passing stranger would have thought the anonymous posters at PerugiaShock were in a reasonable state of mind. Having said that, given the cognitive dissonance between the innocent and guilty camps, it may well be that one or other is actually made up of a bunch of assorted personality dissorders and various hangers on who have been group-thinked along in their wake. Naturally you think it's the other guys, but then again, you would, wouldn't you.

Possibly - but not as starting point of building any kind of case. That has to be solid evidence - going by the mere absence of an alibi is the kind of lazy investigation that leads to all kinds of injustice.

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but for sure, one would hope that there would be more than simply a lack of an alibi. I don't see a problem, in the absence of other leads, for that to be the basis of further investigation and/or more detailed questioning.

 

[RoseMontague]

This was discussed up thread for a year. What more is there to say about the prints, and whether or not someone could climb in through the window? Would there be any point in anybody arguing any of it again except for the sake of being pig headed and refusing to tolerate other people taking a different view of things?

There has been a lot of information on the break in that has come out since a year ago. I think Hendry does a good job in pointing out some things.

On the bathmat print we have had 6 different posters try their hand at playing with photoshop and other tools trying to convince people of their views and actually some pretty good information can be found in that debate on a couple of forums.

I enjoy the discussion and many times I learn something I did not know or see an opinion or perspective on something I have not seen before. Those that are willing to listen to other opinions, to learn new things, or to change their minds about things are still around.

 

[lane99]

Actually, Curatolo's testimony never was direct evidence...

I agree with most of your post. For brevity's sake, I used the term loosely, assuming the readers would understand the homeless guy's testimony was "direct evidence" of his having seen them at a particular moment. Which, if true, could then be considered, circumstantially, to go to the question of guilt or innocence on the specific charge(s).

Happily for me, there are posters such as yourself- who get it- to balance out those such as "Quadra-something or other" (pardon my memory) who appear to be in a perpetual state of confusion and seemingly never miss an opportunity to how out of their depth they are when discussing matters of this.

 

[theRealBob]

the clasp was stored in liquid and no one with knowledge of dna storage disagrees that it should have been stored in dry conditions and would be able to last for years. No there is not more dna to be tested on the bra clasp. Stefanoni destroyed the bra clasp (put it in liquid and it rusted). Yes it looks like they are claiming they have all the evidence.

There's no doubt the prosecution is terrified of the bra-clasp.
And are being as dishonest and deceitful as they usually are....

 

[yeti101]

There's no doubt the prosecution is terrified of the bra-clasp.
And are being as dishonest and deceitful as they usually are....

do you think they destroyed it on purpose?