Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

Dan O. cited the page number in the Italian original, not the PMF translation. For those that don't have access to the original, the numbers in square brackets in the PMF translation are the page numbers at the bottom of the page of the original version.

This is an English-speaking forum. The overwhelming majority of references to Massei in this thread have been to the English translation. Citations are routinely made to page numbers with the implicit, unstated understanding that those references are to the English translation. If Dan O. didn't want me to correct him, he should have either referred to the correct English page number, or else noted that he was referring to the original Italian pagination.

In a thread where myopic pedants routinely correct mine and others' spelling and punctuation mistakes, I'll be damned if you or others expect me to not comment upon apparent errors of a much more substantial nature.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

From the link you provided you wrote, "What many of Amanda Knox's most fervent supporters refuse to recognize about this case is that if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder." This is a very intriguing point. However, its converse is at least as strong. If the scene were not staged, then it is quite unlikely that Knox or Sollecito were involved. That is why the failure of ILE to produce a reconstruction of the glass being broken is so critical to my thinking. Without its being done, I am more than 50% confident that the burglary was not staged; therefore, I am more than 50% confident that the two are innocent. MOO.

I'm sorry, but this is simplistic nonsense (your bolded statement).

You do not challenge my assertion ("if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder"), because presumably you realize that any attempt to do so by reference to academic literature or expert opinion would be fruitless.

Instead, you attempt a sleight-of-hand by reference to the piece of intellectual wankery demonstrated in your citation, whose essence can be expressed as: "Knox and Sollecito were a priori extremely unlikely to have murdered Meredith. Because staging is in fact a very strong inidcator of guilt, it also is extremely unlikely to have occurred. The prosecution therefore has a very high burden of proof which they have not met to my [the original author's] satisfaction. Ergo, they are innocent." Complete bollocks.

(I do, however, agree with this portion of your citation:

"Of their 427-page report, Massei and Cristiani devote approximately 20 pages (mainly pp. 27-49) to their argument that the burglary was staged by Knox and Sollecito rather than being the work of known burglar Rudy Guede (including a strange section devoted to the refuting the hypothesis that the burglary was staged by Guede). But think about it: if they were really able to demonstrate this, they would scarcely have needed to bother writing the remaining 400-odd pages of the report! For, if it is granted that Knox and Sollecito staged the burglary, then, in the absence of any other explanation for the staging (like November 1 being Annual Stage-Burglary Day for some group to which Knox or Sollecito belonged) it easily follows with conviction-level confidence that they were involved in a conspiracy that resulted in the death of Meredith Kercher. You would hardly need to bother with DNA, luminol, or the cell phone traffic of the various "protagonists"."

As I have said here and elsewhere, for me, the strongest indicator of guilt is the staging. In the absence of nigh unimpeachable exculpatory evidence to the contrary, if the staging actually occurred, it would be sufficient on its own to be confident of the pair's guilt. Your own citation is in agreement with me on this point.)

 

[Fuji]

No, it wasn't meant to be cute, but maybe I could have expressed myself more effectively.

You wrote that the absence of defensive wounds is hardly exculpatory. If the arresting officer uses that approach, then nothing is exculpatory. The victim died of a gunshot wound and you don't have residue on your hands? That doesn't mean you didn't do it! The victim was raped and you're not a man? You still might be guilty!

Your logic favors intuition over evidence.

Nonsense. In your second example, assuming you are referring to a rape with an element of penile penetration, then those without male genitalia would not even be possible of committing such a crime. However, your first example is more illustrative. It would in fact be quite logical to conclude that the absence of residue powder would not necessarily indicate that your putative suspect did not commit the murder. He might very well have worn gloves, or wrapped his hand in a towel, or thoroughly cleaned his hands before apprehension, etc. Surely you can see this.

"Absence of evidence" is quite often just that - merely an absence of evidence - from which it does not necessarily follow that this constitutes "evidence of absence".

 

[Fuji]

There is no evidence of this attention.

Incorrect.

From p. 50, Massei:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli."

Unless you're claiming that Ms. Brocci was committing perjury...

 

[Fuji]

Are you sure that they were entered? Cause Massei suggests they were not

I'm reasonably certain that they were entered. Logical inference suggests that they were.

 

[babycondor]

1) The retraction was a *self written statement* signed by Knox
2) The retraction itself included some 'untrue events'.
But, you knew that did you not ??

The retraction made reference to said "untrue events" in an attempt to cast doubt on her "recollection" of them.

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.

"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers."

"In my mind I saw Patrik [sic] in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But these things seem unreal to me".
"All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."

 

[Fuji]

It's interesting that when Massei comes to the topic of the "ground below" he not only references no photo number at all, he doesn't even mention any photograph without number. Why is it Fuji?

It's interesting that you discount sworn testimony as to the condition of the ground below Filomena's window, which has not to my knowledge been challenged at any point by defense counsel. Why is that Katody?

 

[Fuji]

Grote was essentially hired as a hitman: he was apparently promised a car and "cool clothes" in return for participating in the murder. I'm talking about people who group together to kill primarily for the thrill of killing (AKA, as Stilicho so graciously keep reiterating: "vicious sex killers"). It's an entirely different dynamic, and one which requires each participant to have a deep-seated familiarity with the twisted moral code of every other participant.

Only the three murderers know what their intentions were. You have no basis on which to assert that theirs was an "entirely different dynamic". In the Heimann case, we have a good idea of the dynamic because the murderers told us so. This is not the case for Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, who all to this date deny any involvement in Meredith's murder.

At any rate, your basic argument is mistaken. Many murders are committed by groups of people who did not know each other well (or sometimes, not at all) prior to the murder.

 

[Fuji]

No, it does represent a fundamental distinction in the finding of fact, in exactly the same way as Knox's/Sollecito's trials may find that the murder was not a group crime and that the break-in was likely real. You are engaging in special pleading.

Not going to happen. Not in a controversial, highly publicized trial in 2011. There is no way that the Italian judiciary will produce dual contradictory final verdicts. "Meredith was killed by one/more-than-one person who broke in/didn't break in to the cottage." Yeah, right.

I am not referring here to any legal principle, so you can save your breath asking me for that. I am referring to the way the real world actually works. Knox and Sollecito's only hope is to persuade Hellmann that someone else other than them let Guede into the cottage and simulated the break-in, which is why you see the desparate tactics of introducing "I know who did it" letters from murderers and gangsters into evidence.

 

[Fuji]

PS Is it possible that you might respond to others' posts a little sooner? This post of Dan's was over 300 posts previous to your response: it makes things a little hard to follow.

I'll post whenever I damn well please. If you can't follow, too bad.

 

[Fuji]

Hey, Fuji (seeing as you've cropped up again, but "overlooked" this post of mine):

Any progress yet on the answers to the questions you posed elsewhere, but which relate directly to arguments on this thread?

1) Any news on the existence of detailed police photographs of the ground below Filomena's window? Any reference to such photos found anywhere?

2) Any esteemed legal (or paralegal) opinions on whether the findings of fact in Guede's trial process can be carried straight across as proven facts to the trials of Knox and Sollecito?

Looking forward to an update!

I haven't overlooked your questions. I have declined to answer them because:

1) A perusal of my last few dozen posts to others here more than clearly indicates an answer to your first question.

2) In regards to your second question, I don't care to answer because it represents a significant distortion of what I actually said:

"There is no way that the appellant lawyers would be able to successfully pursue any line of defense dependent upon a contradiction (i.e. Guede was alone and/or actually broke in) of a crucial finding (i.e. Guede was let in to the cottage by others) by the Cassation Court in Guede's final appeal."

 

[Fuji]

Why do you think that the timing of the murder is a trivial point on which the courts are free to disagree, but the number of attackers is a fundamental issue? That sounds like an arbitrary distinction you've just made up. Bearing in mind that the courts in Guede's trial decided on a time of death which makes Knox and Sollecito's participation in the murder very improbable, it seems like a crucial issue.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. The number of attackers and the method by which they entered the cottage are irreducible elements in the classification of the crimes presented by the dual scenarios: one is a B&E/murder, the other is a group murder. These are not the same crimes. The law, as well as basic logic, recognizes this. The Italian judiciary will not find that two mutually exclusive crimes occurred in this case simply because of the necessity of a dual-track prosecution.

Are you really suggesting that Hellmann ordering a review of the DNA evidence was completely pointless because the earlier courts in Guede's trial found it convincing? You might want to send him a memo!

Not at all.

What you're proposing is a sort of faith-based acceptance of the Supreme Court's endorsement of the multiple attacker theory, totally independently of the evidence it was based on. According to this position it doesn't matter what the in-depth testing ordered by Hellmann's court reveals; it has to be rejected in favour of an earlier Supreme Court statement based on outdated evidence. Obviously this is a ridiculous argument.

Yes, it is a ridiculous argument. Good thing I didn't make it.

 

[Alt+F4]

I am not referring here to any legal principle, so you can save your breath asking me for that. I am referring to the way the real world actually works. Knox and Sollecito's only hope is to persuade Hellmann that someone else other than them let Guede into the cottage and simulated the break-in, which is why you see the desparate tactics of introducing "I know who did it" letters from murderers and gangsters into evidence.

I think you're right. Note that neither the baby killer or the gangster has said that RG murdered Meredith alone. The baby killer said it was RG and another unknown man. The mafia guy said it was his brother and another unknown man. The other guy (if his statement is allowed by the court) said it was drug dealers (plural).

 

[platonov]

'change in terminology'

Still wrong

Obviously, we do not need to read an author's self published book or suffer another reminder here to know that many 'statements' were prepared and signed by various parties in this case.

As an evidently necessary reminder, the point was:
"Or that knox was stupid enough to write down an untrue version of events"


1) The retraction was a *self written statement* signed by Knox
2) The retraction itself included some 'untrue events'.
But, you knew that did you not ??

Did you spot the 'nice' change in terminology by BF ..

What most here refer to, for ease of identification*, as the (handwritten) 'gift' of the 6th using AK's own 'term' has suddenly been renamed a retraction.

Why cant AK's own words be allowed to stand - must her fans twist everything she says.They are worse than those horrible Italians cops and prosecutors.

Next up, the selective quotations from said 'gift'.

*& Waits for flood of posts correcting me & explaining that the 'gift' is referred to as a 'memoriale' [sp?] in court.

 

[Alt+F4]

His appeals are not exhausted. He can appeal again at any time if evidence warrants an appeal. If the Murder Weapon gets tossed as evidence which was used in Guede's trial. Then he has grounds for an appeal because now the murder weapon used against Guede isn't the murder weapon used in part to convict him. Thus his conviction has a major flaw in it.

Where, might I ask, are you getting your information from? It's my understanding that under the Italian legal system their is no further appeal after the Supreme Court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wishes

Hardly. I'm not here to convince anyone to do anything. However, I find it dispiriting that Rolfe would publicly take such a position without having read the report.

Fuji,

I wish Rolfe would read the Massei report also. RoseMontague and I both found that our doubts about the soundness of the decision grew as our exposure to Massei increased.

 

[platonov]

coincidence of 'misunderstandings'

Fuji,

I wish Rolfe would read the Massei report also. RoseMontague and I both found that our doubts about the soundness of the decision grew as our exposure to Massei increased.

Not just you and RM.

Almost all those convinced of innocence who post here have made that identical claim.
Its practically a 'trope' at this stage.

On closer inspection it turns out that many appear to have confused the Massei report with the cretinous (or mendacious) 'summaries' on 'Science Spheres' or the like.... or else the coincidence of 'misunderstandings' would startle Randi

 

[LondonJohn]

Incorrect.

From p. 50, Massei:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli."

Unless you're claiming that Ms. Brocci was committing perjury...

You don't seem to have read the rest of the sentence that you bolded. The "particular attention" mentioned in Massei was apparently only paid to the wall. Not to the ground underneath the window. And Katody was clearly discussing the ground. Oops.

 

[Kaosium]

You have found the very weak underpinning of the 'hopeful cheerleaders' argument that 'half the cases heard in Italian Courts are overturned', and their erroneous implication that therefore the probability of an Appeal favorable to them is 40-50%.

If there was ever a case of distorting statistics, that is it.

The 40-50% (about half) is in itself a true statement, and this is oft quoted from the premier source of factual resource materiel about the case, TJMK.

However since:
1) The statistic includes *all cases* most of which are not as serious as murder, and most of which do not require as lengthy a discovery process nor as lengthy lower Court process.
2) The statistic makes no distinction between unanimous lower court guilty verdicts, and those less than unanimous, or even some that were so 'non unanimous' to require the judge to be a 'tie breaker'.

Common sense dictates that in no way could it be therefore concluded (and now used as a 'cheer') that 40-50% of the *unanimous verdicts in murder cases* are overturned, so Knox and Sollecito before any Appeals starts, have a 40-50% chance of winning .

So don't taunt us, Pilot, what is it?

Does that incorporate cases where the DNA 'evidence' received a thorough re-evaluation after being denied in the first trial and the experts had to ask for more time after five months of time to study it because the DNA expert from the first trial won't cough up all the information needed?

Does it take into account cases where the press that was building a bonfire to roast the defendants like marshmallows now speaks of an injustice and a 'collapsing house of cards despite the fact some eight defamation charges have been filed on them?'

How does it relate to cases where it can be shown that the police destroyed exculpatory evidence that has since been at least partially recovered and would suggest an alibi?

Does it include cases where the 'evidence' includes items that stink so bad the bunnies and kittens who were joyously dancing around the gallows singing 'hang 'em high!' when the first verdict was announced now scatter like cockroaches and try to change the subject when the 'evidence' is discussed?

Does it include cases where the appeals judge appeared to throw the Motivations Report from the trial of the first instance into the dumpster saying 'all we know is the victim is dead' and many of the people who read it laugh at it?

Would it be taking into account cases where it seems the police lied through their teeth during the 'investigation' and then told stories in court about the arrest that are so absurd even the vengeance-minded bunnies and kittens go silent and scurry away when the interrogation is brought up because they know the cops lied too?

Would it take into account the fact that the crime as prosecuted in the original trial is virtually unknown to students of criminal behavior and that two veterans of a top police institution have spoken out and flew to Italy to help the defense or are actively campaigning for the release of the innocents being persecuted?

I'm sick of typing, Pilot, why don't you help me out? What other factors outside it was a murder trial should be taken into account when trying to determine the cases most relevant to this one?

 

[Draca]

Incorrect.

From p. 50, Massei:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli."

Unless you're claiming that Ms. Brocci was committing perjury...

Yes, I noticed Gioia Brocci also paid close attention as she helped wrap a mop with paper found in the closet.

She was again very observent as she used both sides of a collection swab in the bathroom.

She was also paying close attention to collection of evidence in MK's bedroom - where they decided to leave half of her clothing lying on the ground.


Do you suppose she may have been as diligent collecting 'photo graphic evidence' of the outside wall and ground as she was collecting 'physical evidence' in MK's room?